Did you read his piece today on Tim Tebow? That was the dumbest thing I've read about the NFL in years.
Grantland
- Thread starter Leather
- Start date
BTW, tangent, but just how involved was Simmons in the 30-for-30 thing? Did he literally create the whole plan and oversee it. Or did he suggest it and others ran with the idea?
My impression (which is formed from drips and drabs of references and allusions, rather than a good linkable source) is that he came up with the idea, and was a primary voice in the group that selected and recruited subject/director pairs. I do not think he was involved in the actual production of any individual piece (save as a talking head in the '04 Sox one), but pretty heavily involved in the series planning.
I'll admit, that it's quite possible that my tendency to come away annoyed by Bill Simmons might be coloring this a bit, but can somebody explain to me what role Simmons is actually playing over at Grantland?
I understand that he conceived of the idea, and probably played a large role in recruiting the staff and writers, and that his name helps with traffic, but beyond those initial contributions, what the hell is he doing? He writes a couple of mailbags, he makes NFL picks, he does running diaries and podcasts, but has in no way actually contributed any of the longform journalism that he preached Grantland would mark the return of. It seemed as though he was really in favor of making Grantland was a departure from short form type Deadspin sites, but all of his contributions have been, for lack of a better word, "bloggy". There have been some very good pieces on Grantland; not a single one of them has been by Simmons. I genuinely thought that he would "step up his game" in the new format, but he's literally just doing the exact same stuff he was doing before. The only difference seems to be that now, McSweeney's is publishing it.
I understand that he conceived of the idea, and probably played a large role in recruiting the staff and writers, and that his name helps with traffic, but beyond those initial contributions, what the hell is he doing? He writes a couple of mailbags, he makes NFL picks, he does running diaries and podcasts, but has in no way actually contributed any of the longform journalism that he preached Grantland would mark the return of. It seemed as though he was really in favor of making Grantland was a departure from short form type Deadspin sites, but all of his contributions have been, for lack of a better word, "bloggy". There have been some very good pieces on Grantland; not a single one of them has been by Simmons. I genuinely thought that he would "step up his game" in the new format, but he's literally just doing the exact same stuff he was doing before. The only difference seems to be that now, McSweeney's is publishing it.
Michael Schur's piece on the Sox was pretty good, but mostly it just reminded me that despite my love of Parks and Rec, part of me just really, really wishes he was still doing Fire Joe Morgan.
edit: This bit struck me as particularly representative of my feelings
""I'd like to briefly address the complete moron in the Red Sox organization who insinuated to a reporter that Terry Francona had a problem with prescription pills.
Dear Moron,
Congratulations! You have just (a) attacked the best and most popular manager your team has ever had while (b) displaying a complete lack of institutional loyalty, which (c) pretty much guarantees that no one in his right mind will want to manage your team now, and (d) turned everyone against each other causing (e) massive paranoia which will undoubtedly lead to (f) a thousand more stories about how dysfunctional your organization is, which will only intensify the ill effects of (b,c,d,e). You are the worst person in the world. Quit.
For future reference, you fucking moron, when the greatest manager in the history of your team leaves, under any you say the following: "He did a wonderful job for us, for many years, and we wish him only the best." You do not insinuate to a reporter that he had a drug problem or that he was distracted by a failing marriage. This is true whether or not he actually did have a drug problem, by the way. It's 100 percent irrelevant. You take the high road. Do I really need to explain this to you, you fucking moron?"
THIS. so much this.
edit: This bit struck me as particularly representative of my feelings
""I'd like to briefly address the complete moron in the Red Sox organization who insinuated to a reporter that Terry Francona had a problem with prescription pills.
Dear Moron,
Congratulations! You have just (a) attacked the best and most popular manager your team has ever had while (b) displaying a complete lack of institutional loyalty, which (c) pretty much guarantees that no one in his right mind will want to manage your team now, and (d) turned everyone against each other causing (e) massive paranoia which will undoubtedly lead to (f) a thousand more stories about how dysfunctional your organization is, which will only intensify the ill effects of (b,c,d,e). You are the worst person in the world. Quit.
For future reference, you fucking moron, when the greatest manager in the history of your team leaves, under any you say the following: "He did a wonderful job for us, for many years, and we wish him only the best." You do not insinuate to a reporter that he had a drug problem or that he was distracted by a failing marriage. This is true whether or not he actually did have a drug problem, by the way. It's 100 percent irrelevant. You take the high road. Do I really need to explain this to you, you fucking moron?"
THIS. so much this.
Yes. This was the most cathartic thing I've read since Crawford's failed dive on 9/28. I actually feel cleansed of some of my anger.
i thought he was in charge of hiring the "talent" and convincing them to climb aboard.
He's the architect behind the whole thing, just like he was for 30 for 30. Its his baby, and its success or failure will rest on his shoulders. Like 30 for 30 I think its a home run.
Simmons on the Globe article:
Is he insane? I am not happy about how things went down with Tito, or with Theo's imminent departure. But I am not ready to call for this ownership group to sell the team. All I have to do is look at the Mets and the Dodgers to see that there are worse things than having your team owned by people who are less than gracious to those who choose or are forced to leave the fold.
Of course it's stupid. It's Bill Fucking Simmons, Self-Proclaimed Super Fan. He's gotta be in touch with the people, y'know?
Not insane - just dumb.
Maybe he should talk to Jack-O about how Yankees fans hated Steinbrenner for the shit he pulled over the years. Oh, yeah, they didn't hate him - because the Yankees won.
Exactly. The Simmons rage around here has always struck me as odd. I'm not a huge fan of everything he writes either. But for a lot of you guys, it seems personal...which is a bit creepy.
Since there's a Bill Simmons thread, can we not get bogged down in this one?
Grantland is teaming up with McSweeney's (explains why Eggers is one of the consulting editors) to publish the Grantland Quarterly:
Grantland Quarterly
Grantland is teaming up with McSweeney's (explains why Eggers is one of the consulting editors) to publish the Grantland Quarterly:
I thought this was kind of a dumb idea, who is going to buy the $20 book when the majority of the content is already online? But they have a preview up, and it does look pretty at least, with the artwork and everything.
Grantland Quarterly
simmons is the editor-in-chief. What do you think an editor-in-chief does? He assigns stories, give a general feel/direction/vision for the site/magazine/whatever and has final say on what gets published and how it reads. I'm sure he doesn't edit Klosterman or some of the others but generally it is him who shapes what goes onto the site.
and he also ahs to handle the business end of things. I know he wants to end up montizing this at some point
and he also ahs to handle the business end of things. I know he wants to end up montizing this at some point
We're gonna find out over the next few years if the backbone of this franchise the last ten years was Epstein and Francona or Henry and Luccino. I'm betting it was the former.
Although with the payroll they have those lines could be blurred. But the two world series speak for themselves. And they speak loudly.
Why does it have to be either/or? Why does any future success Cherington and Manager TBA have discount Epstein and Francona's?
Because in sports talk, you must choose. Haven't you been taking John Dennis' lessons to heart?
Holy fucking shit JackO.
There are valid reasons to hate UConn - some of which he brings up. (Calhoun's a cranky old asshole, they've had some questionable clowns on the team, etc.) However, the examples he uses for these are completely ridiculous, particularly the bandwagon fans thing (which doesn't really make sense). The bit about Calhoun and the "not one dime" press conference would make a lot more sense if he gave context and explained that the "journalist" Calhoun got mad with isn't actually a journalist, but a rabble-rouser/"activist" named Ken Krayeske, who snuck into the press conference and has generally been known to make a jackass out of himself all over the place. (He's also known for not being able to comprehend the concept behind colleges putting money into athletic departments, or how the successful schools actually MAKE money off of athletics that then goes to other departments.)
It's lazy, at best. But then, JackO is a 300+ lb. career law clerk at the Connecticut Superior Court, so I assume laziness is second nature.
There are valid reasons to hate UConn - some of which he brings up. (Calhoun's a cranky old asshole, they've had some questionable clowns on the team, etc.) However, the examples he uses for these are completely ridiculous, particularly the bandwagon fans thing (which doesn't really make sense). The bit about Calhoun and the "not one dime" press conference would make a lot more sense if he gave context and explained that the "journalist" Calhoun got mad with isn't actually a journalist, but a rabble-rouser/"activist" named Ken Krayeske, who snuck into the press conference and has generally been known to make a jackass out of himself all over the place. (He's also known for not being able to comprehend the concept behind colleges putting money into athletic departments, or how the successful schools actually MAKE money off of athletics that then goes to other departments.)
It's lazy, at best. But then, JackO is a 300+ lb. career law clerk at the Connecticut Superior Court, so I assume laziness is second nature.
I'm assuming it's in the gamethread that Zooey Deschanel did a fantastic job with the national anthem last night.
Grantland disagrees:
http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/36064/did-zooey-deschanel-sing-the-least-inspired-national-anthem-ever
And most normal people disagree with Grantland as well --
Joe Posnanski:
Grantland disagrees:
http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/36064/did-zooey-deschanel-sing-the-least-inspired-national-anthem-ever
And most normal people disagree with Grantland as well --
Joe Posnanski:
Nick Kroll:
Bill Oram:
So what's your point?
I'm not trying to be a dick here, but are you trying to say that Grantland sucks because they didn't like Deschanel's rendition of the National Anthem?
I'm not trying to be a dick here, but are you trying to say that Grantland sucks because they didn't like Deschanel's rendition of the National Anthem?
Well, it seems like a personal vendetta against Zooey, for one. I think, and I don't disagree, that the main contention from GL is that Zooey is a "Fox Star With a TV Show" singing on a Fox broadcast. It was self-serving by Fox.
Let's have fun with the media and say that Grantland, an ABC/Disney property, was instructed to write that hit-piece on Fox/Newscorp.
Let's have fun with the media and say that Grantland, an ABC/Disney property, was instructed to write that hit-piece on Fox/Newscorp.
I didn't like the rendition of the anthem, either. I didn't write a column about it, but I don't have to fill 50,000 words a day.
The next worthwhile item Jay Caspian Kang contributes to Grantland will be his first.
He's got my vote as the worst writer currently being paid to write about sports on a national platform. He's an impoverished man's Simmons. Cheap snark, unfunny references, no access, no insight, no knowledge. I don't know how BSG can read Kang's stuff and think that it fits with what he's trying to do with Grantland.
He's got my vote as the worst writer currently being paid to write about sports on a national platform. He's an impoverished man's Simmons. Cheap snark, unfunny references, no access, no insight, no knowledge. I don't know how BSG can read Kang's stuff and think that it fits with what he's trying to do with Grantland.
Yea, what's so bad about the anthem? It was straight-forward, at an even tempo, and had no "look at me" flourishes.
I mean, if you don't like her voice, fine. But purely from a performance standpoint, it was really no-frills, which I tend to equate with being respectful.
I mean, if you don't like her voice, fine. But purely from a performance standpoint, it was really no-frills, which I tend to equate with being respectful.
Personally, I thought it was a well done version of the anthem (then again, I like She and Him). Not something that deserved the Grantland ripjob.
I agree that this is true of his off the cuff, blog type contributions. He's trying too hard, and its not very funny, IMO.
But his more "serious" pieces, the Ichiro piece from way back for example, was really good. He wrote a UNC bball preview that was also solid. I wish he would do more of that kind of focused writing.
Liked her voice, but the song . . . was . . . so . . . damn . . . slow . . . and . . . drawn . . . out . . . and . . . took . . . forever. And no frills is one thing (I agree, extra notes and changed lyrics have no place here), but although she has a fine voice, there was no excitement or soul or life or whatever you want to call it there.
The Anthem should take one minute. 60 seconds. See Rancourt, Rene. Anything longer than that IS "Look at me".
Anyone know how long she took?
If he were healthy enough to comment, I would imagine that Dr. Z, who cares about such things, would approve of Zooey Deschanel's performance of the national anthem last night.
And while I haven't read the Grantland piece yet, I'm sure you've hit on the real root of the problem. There wasn't any of the usual celebrity anthem singer diva excess for him to snark on.
Landing Billy Hunter for an hour? Not bad.
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/7491/b-s-report-billy-hunter
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/7491/b-s-report-billy-hunter
They have a lot of talented and big name writers, but their best hire has been Brian Philips, he just knocks everything out of the park, and not just his soccer articles:
On Tebow and religion:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7147740/tim-tebow-converter-passes
On Tebow and religion:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7147740/tim-tebow-converter-passes
As a Christian with left-wing politics, I don't fit neatly into either side of this fight; perhaps as a result, I'm not sure what I think of the Tim Tebow phenomenon.
The article, however, is excellent, and I think people on all sides of the issue will appreciate it. Thanks for the recommendation.
Anyone saying they didn't LOVE it ... OK, whatever, that's a personal preference. But how in the world could anyone HATE it? She performed it clean with no mistakes and only added a few slight pauses for effect. Are we so screwed up by modern media that anything that's not fast and loud and bad?!?!?!?!?
I agree, I think hating it is harsh. However, I think you're being a bit kind; there are a few things that bugged me about it. Too slow for one, but she also consistently dropped the words at the end of a line ("last gleaming", "gallantly streaming", etc.) - could be because she can't hit the low notes well, but either way, not great. It's mostly personal taste, but her voice just doesn't do a lot for me. It's pretty good, certainly not great.
Because music taste is subjective, everyone has their opinion, people don't like what other people like, blah, blah, blah.
JMOH, I get what you're saying. To repeat my point, I get not LOVING it because, you're right, taste is subjective. However I find little to no reason to HATE this. Sure, anyone is capable of having any opinion. Someone can hate Sully the pilot for his mustache, returning veterans for getting all the girls, and Mother Theresa for her taste in clothes. But someone needs to tell me what is hate-able about this performance of the National Anthem.
Apparently Kang has something against Zooey Deschanel:
Personally, I don't give a shit. The only (good) National Anthem singer I can remember is Whitney Houston before Super Bowl XXV.
Which is strange, I agree. But there are people on this board who don't like Vin Scully or ripped Scarlett Johansson's album months before it was released. It's the people, writers have different, crap-in-the-punchbowl opinions every day. If I had to guess Kang is commenting on both the manic pixie girl cult of Deschanel and FOX's stupid PR policy of getting stars of their newest shows out in front of the American public whenever and however they can. With the latter, perhaps Kang feels that someone else is more worthy to sing the National Anthem prior to one of the biggest sports events of the year.
Personally, I don't give a shit. The only (good) National Anthem singer I can remember is Whitney Houston before Super Bowl XXV.
Maybe neither of the writers know that she sings professionally as well, and just thought it was a 100% publicity stunt? Her being introduced as the star of New Girl probably didn't help
Her performance was missing something.
Specifically, my penis in her mouth as she mumbled the words to the Anthem around it.
Otherwise, it was OK.
Man, that was atrocious. Great voice, just hated the cadence and extra...stuff.
Here's the Whitney version, who just killed it.
Edit: Goosebumps. Let's fucking invade Iran now!
Again, that's, like your opinion, man.
Anyway, it was a lot easier for Houston to crush it, since she was lip-syncing: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/WinterConcert/story?id=6788924&page=1
Who knows how many takes she did in the studio in order to get it right.
The version I posted was from 1992 or some such, early 90s as they mention the troops returning from the Persian Gulf. Yeah, we were there again in 2009, but these are two separate Super Bowls.
And, Whitney Huston isn't Jennifer Hudson. That's just plain racist, dude.
Did you read the whole article at that link? Here's the key reason I think it was included as evidence of Whitney Houston lip-syncing:
