Jaime L Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Kind of shocking to hear you say that since Ive hated him for quite a long time and I know we've discussed your being a fan of his. He was great early (2001-2004ish). The most interesting person writing about sports by far. Funny and interesting. He's still occasionally funny (but his perspective is too biased to be sharp), and he hasn't been interesting for years (no new ideas). And he's lost something tangible along the way. There's a kind of simple joy that's missing. Seriously, they should just give you and I a column and we'd come up with some far more creative bullshit than Simmons. YW I'll send a series of increasingly threatening emails to ESPN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 He was great early (2001-2004ish). The most interesting person writing about sports by far. Funny and interesting. He's still occasionally funny (but his perspective is too biased to be sharp), and he hasn't been interesting for years (no new ideas). And he's lost something tangible along the way. There's a kind of simple joy that's missing. I'll send a series of increasingly threatening emails to ESPN. i think you've nailed it on the head. i agree completely. It's like he is always either whining about the sox or pats, or he's telling you how funny one of his old columns was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Jaime L, you need to change your picture. I keep thinking you're some cute-ass chick until I remind myself that you're some hard-drinking dude sports-fanatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzlebane Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Right. Because chicks who look like that put pictures of themselves in their avatars on fantasy book message boards. If Jaime were a her, "her" PM box would literally explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Time for Wolves Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 I keeping mistakenly think Jaime L. is a girl too. That avatar is misleading. So it's probably a good thing the poster is not his avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add-on Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Pssssh, whatever. Her or him, i'd fuck...them??? Yeah I like that. I'd fuck them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Wolf Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 When keeping it real, goes wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlot Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Came in here for some NFL discussion. Found out to my surprise that Alexis Bledel is not posting regularly here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 The Lions are going to literally be murdered at the hands of the Giants. Please. This is a literature board in essence. I know it's been a long time, but C'mon. You don't truly believe Eli Manning is going to stab John Kitna to death do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlot Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Please. This is a literature board in essence. I know it's been a long time, but C'mon. You don't truly believe Eli Manning is going to stab John Kitna to death do you? Would make the game more interesting to watch though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Would make the game more interesting to watch though. Won't argue with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 kal: Watched the video again, and I now agree- you are 100% incorrect. Hobbs is looking at the ball PRIOR to contact. Its uncanny. At 34 seconds they are moving at each other, at 35 seconds, NO CONTACT and Hobbs' head is swinging around to the ball, at 36 seconds Hobbs is looking for the ball and contact is made. I have now watched the video frame by frame 3 times and I am amazed you think this was PI. Further, its amazing that the ref decided that this was PI and could differenciate between the contact and the head, and that what Wayne did (tackling Hobbs) was not PI. In other words, I think it was a BS call, the ref saw the contact of both Wayne and Hobbs going down and threw the flag at that point. Congradualtions. But hey, because I like Simmons, I am wrong. I see the logic there. And this has never answered my question- what would the call have bene had the actions been swapped? Right- gotcha. Simmons is what Simmons haas always been- a loud, obnoxious sports fan. And as far as how he would be sickened by himself.... ah... you mean the book he wrote, the hit colom he has, the podcast he does, the magazine article he writes, the spot on TV he has and the buckets of money he is making for his wife and two chidlren? Yeah, I'm sure he'd be really "sickened." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeu Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Simmons is what Simmons haas always been- a loud, obnoxious sports fan. Nope, he wasn't always like this. And as far as how he would be sickened by himself.... ah... you mean the book he wrote, the hit colom he has, the podcast he does, the magazine article he writes, the spot on TV he has and the buckets of money he is making for his wife and two chidlren? Yeah, I'm sure he'd be really "sickened." You don't make sense here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Maybe it's because I root for the Red Sox (yes my sports loyalties make no sense unless you know me very well) but I think his columns on them aren't nearly as bad as the Patriots ones; same way as when he's writing on the Celtics, who I certainly don't like, it isn't so bad. With both those teams it seems like he's usually just writing about the team. What he's reactions are to their wins and losses, talking with his dad, whatever. Just the average guy's take on sports, with some pop culture thrown in, and that's what made him interesting in my mind. I don't recall him writing about the injustice of it when one of those teams loses, just what they were doing wrong. When the Red Sox were down 3-1 in the ALCS, he wasn't bitching out the refs, or the Indians, or MLB, he was writing about what the Red Sox did wrong in his mind. With the Patriots it's totally different. The Patriots never do wrong, it's always the fault of the NFL, or the other teams brought this one themselves, oh yeah and fuck Peyton Manning. Every single NFL column brings new justifications for the Pats, and why it's so unfair everyone is out to get them. Even when the Pats win a tight, close, exciting game like last week, he whines; about the refs and bad calls. The calls weren't that bad, and the Pats still won! It's not like they were cheated out of victory, they just didn't get a blowout against their hated rivals; and like a spoiled child he's upset that he didn't get his wish, for the Pats to go 19-0 against the spread. I'm not saying TMQ is any better, if anything Easterbrook is even more unreadable. I'm just saying that I much prefer DJ Gallo, who manages to be funny while keeping his preferences to himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 Rock, I don't see how you can look at the 35 second mark and say that Hobbs doesn't contact Wayne before looking back. But whatever. Just don't be a ref, okay? Contact is made well before his head swings around. If I had some graphics skills I'd show this as proof in a gif or something. Really, it's just not unclear in any way. And this has never answered my question- what would the call have bene had the actions been swapped? Right- gotcha.I did answer the question. If Wayne runs into Hobbs without playing the ball while Hobbs is playing the ball, that'd be offensive PI. If they get the call wrong it's wrong. The thing you're missing is that the first PI is the one that counts. If you push off and then I come back and interfere with your ability to catch the ball, you can't get simultaneous PI calls. The first person that does it is the penalty. Once Wayne was interfered with his tackling didn't matter. Please. This is a literature board in essence. I know it's been a long time, but C'mon. You don't truly believe Eli Manning is going to stab John Kitna to death do you?Nah. Now, Osi - he's the stabbing kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkostar Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Nah. Now, Osi - he's the stabbing kind. <Insert Lawrence Taylor joke here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 Okay, let's try this. Here's a paused screen from that videoclip. At 35 seconds, Hobbs has made contact with Wayne but is clearly not looking for the ball.. Also at this time, Wayne is clearly looking for the ball and playing the ball. I don't know how much more plain this can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Bandito Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 They need to change pass interference into a 15 yard penalty. It is too borderline. Tom Brady's opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Bandito Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 I don't know how much more plain this can be. You are not going to convince or change anyone's mind. Give it up. People have their opinons. The penalty is wrong and not applied evenly. Even worse than holding and blocks in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 They need to change pass interference into a 15 yard penalty. It is too borderline.I agree. Or I think they need to have two levels of PI - incidental and blatant. Having 50 yard penalties for that sort of thing is not right. But as the rule is written and enforced, that's DPI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.