Also this isn’t his dumbest Celtics / Davis trade take. This time last year he was saying he didn’t think the Celtics needed Davis. He’s at least backtracked from that. It is good to hear that Simmons finally sees that Jaylen Brown is not going to be the next Paul George. The whole “Conpare their stats from their first 3 seasons! They’re very sumiliar” takes were getting old.
That would be more insufferable. True. Then again, he has Tatum. The guy who Bill wouldn’t trade to acquire—who he thinks—the second best power forward of all time, Anthony Davis.
I like Bill. The great thing about being a rich guy who owns a company is that people don't tell you when you are being full of shit. The downside is that you become increasingly full of shit. I assume a large part of it is that I'm 10 years older than when Simmons and Gladwell first had pods that I found interesting. The last couple years, it was clear they were discussing interesting articles they read that they only 25% remember. But from that they were extrapolating hard truths about sports and culture.
I love Bill. His columns and pods have entertained me for 14 years. He definitely has takes that are out there and no one calls him on it. I love the Rewatcheables pod the best probably because Sean Fennessy isn’t afraid to call him out for a shit take.
The hilarious part of this is his usual take is "you never ever trade a superstar who is unquestionably the best player in a trade."
even earlier in the pod when Stein points out the Dallas 1st rounder going to ATL could end up good for the Hawks he scoffed and said "Any time you can get a player who you know could be the best player on a title team, I don't care about picks or assets or any of that"
Bill saying all superhero movies are garbage except Black Panther was peak pandering woke Bill. Is there any doubt he's likely overcompensating for being racist when he was younger?
is that pandering to a black audience or peak bill simmons sucking up to "his" celebrities in michael b jordan?
I think he's pandering to his millennial staff more than anybody, that Ringer office is an echo chamber
Can’t replace a great QB so that always gets the nod for draft priority. That said, Barkley has 160 rushing yards in the first half against the Skins.
Barkley is a stud. But so was Zeke in his rookie year. Doesn't mean Zeke or Barkley should be the #1 pick over a QB.
Correct. Especially if the QB is a franchise guy. I think at this point someone can still make the premature argument. However it would be shortsighted.
Running backs just aren't inherently valuable in today's NFL. The leading rushers from Super Bowl winners this decade: LeGarrette Blount - 766 yards LeGarrette Blount - 1,161 yards Ronnie Hillman - 863 yards Jonas Gray - 412 yards Marshawn Lynch - 1,257 yards Ray Rice - 1,143 yards Ahmad Bradshaw - 659 yards Brandon Jackson - 703 yards The only elite RB in that group was Marshawn Lynch
Barkley is pretty valuable. the Giants just need to find a qb this year or next (easier said than done).
Ya there are probably only 5-6 RBs in the league with his true RB/WR ability. For the sake of argument, Drew Brees is still more important than Kamara, but you’re gonna win a lot more easily with AK, but Mark ingraham could just as easily be an above average back who helps his team win a super bowl.
Has he said if he's seen any of the other superhero movies? I remember a few years ago he said he hadn't seen any Marvel movies.
no time for superhero movies when you're too busy watching serious cinema like the Fast and the Furious franchise
right now at least, i do think barkley over darnold is a defensible take. it was less defensible in the moment, but darnold hasn't show much outside of the opener against detroit. and drafting a mediocre qb is worse than not drafting one at all and i don't really agree with running backs not being valuable. the success teams have had without great running backs proves they aren't necessary, but i think you'd have a hard time making the case that the rams are the same team without gurley, or that the saints lose nothing if you take away kamara/ingram.
the Rams are definitely not the same without Gurley, but Gurley had an awesome rookie year and the team still sucked due to bad coaching/QB play
Taking him first over Darnold in the moment is the giants trusting their scouting of Darnold. Barkley seems more of a sure fire guy who will help you win games. You take that over what you feel is a bigger gamble just because you need a QB. Locker and EJ Manuel are two recent examples I think of where I don’t believe how a team ever thought they were franchise QBs, but they needed one so they had to hope.
Is there a reason Rosen is never mentioned in this discussion (not just in this thread, but in general)? I realize he hasn't been great in Arizona but he was also available. I can understand not loving Darnold, but I think there was enough to like about Rosen to take a chance on over a running back.
Probably east coast bias. He’s not playing great and it’s arizona. Also, remember he was “too smart” to draft, pfft
I liked Black Panther but I didn't think it was so much better than the rest to call every other super hero movie "garbage" That's hot take city
My favorite take on Josh Rosen was basically that he we couldn't know whether he "loved football" or not because he family isn't poor
I could be way off base, but I wonder if Bill is mad about Philly Special and all of the attention it got
Bills willful mispronounciation of words and names drives me nuts on The Firm episode of the rewatchables he calls John Grisham, “John Grissom,” and he says the word Bicycling as “Bice-ling,” it drives me nuts.
Release date of the last 4 Rewatchables movies: 1993 1993 1976 1993 Really playing to your audience there, guys.
Sure. But originally the Rewatchables was fun because it was a good mix in both their selection of movies and hosts. Now it's all the same type of movie with Bill, Sean and Chris -- who both suck. Like anything else in the Bill Simmons Content Universe, Rewatchables has devolved into an avenue for Bill to talk about and to himself.