If I remember right, he actually thought he was being too favorable to the Jets initially and bumped the line even further to the Pats.Bill predicting the Pats @NYJ line at -9 was the highlight of the podcast for me.
Pretty sure he literally said that Pitts was the floor on guess the lines with Sal. But you know what -- saying that he'll come in as good as Kelce is also crazy; he's a rookie, rookies often struggle, and TE can be a particularly complex position to pick up (even Kelce took four years to be a thousand yard receiver).IIRC Bill didn't say that Kelce was Pitts floor. When he was talking to Schrager they were both mentioning how much hype Pitts was getting as a rookie TE (which is true, he was the #4 overall pick and a lot of people are very high on him) and Simmons posed the possibility that Pitts could be a great TE, and said "What if he just comes in, and he is like Travis Kelce already?" Which was basically saying that with the hype Pitts was getting, it's not crazy to think he could have a 1,100, 10TD season. That's different than Bill proclaiming or predicting that Pitts is now going to be as good as Kelce and giving a ton of analysis on why he thinks that.
He 100% said that Kelce was Pitts floor. Maybe it’s not what he meant but he definitely said it.Pretty sure he literally said that Pitts was the floor on guess the lines with Sal. But you know what -- saying that he'll come in as good as Kelce is also crazy; he's a rookie, rookies often struggle, and TE can be a particularly complex position to pick up (even Kelce took four years to be a thousand yard receiver).
Did you work with him (forgive me if you've told this story before)?I love to give Bill shit, because he was a difficult person to work with once upon a time. But his crazy NFL takes, and comparing one of the greatest actors from one of the greatest TV series of all-time to The OC, is precisely why he can be a blast to listen to.
Well, of course. You don’t want to be on a 17-game win streak going into the playoffs.You would be shocked to hear Simmons is more sure of his Pats to win the Super Bowl pick, despite the team being 0-1. Solid commitment to the bit.
That's almost as dumb as saying the Pats were guilty of filming the 1-12 Bengals to gain an advantage in 2019. Almost.Simmons with a phenomenal take today about the loss to the Saints. He basically said Belichick held back the playbook because he didn't want to show anything to Tampa Bay because he wants to beat them so badly.
Yes, absolutely, Belichick threw a game in Week 3 of the NFL season because he wants to keep his great plays for Week 4. That is an impressive display of playing possum.
I mean, he’s not wrong. That’s why he had Jonuu throw the game. You don’t pay him that much money to be bad, right? And giving Mac the Davis Carr treatment is classic misdirection.Simmons with a phenomenal take today about the loss to the Saints. He basically said Belichick held back the playbook because he didn't want to show anything to Tampa Bay because he wants to beat them so badly.
Yes, absolutely, Belichick threw a game in Week 3 of the NFL season because he wants to keep his great plays for Week 4. That is an impressive display of playing possum.
2 things about this:Simmons with a phenomenal take today about the loss to the Saints. He basically said Belichick held back the playbook because he didn't want to show anything to Tampa Bay because he wants to beat them so badly.
Yes, absolutely, Belichick threw a game in Week 3 of the NFL season because he wants to keep his great plays for Week 4. That is an impressive display of playing possum.
I like Schrager. I like House more but House is doing other pods.I think he makes some good points but you’re right that he is obviously not trying to burn bridges.I dont know the thought process that went into having peter schrager come back for a full season as the normal friday guest but:
+ All he does is giggle and agree/ass kiss Simmons
+ Go into these long non-answers just to bring up he has some personal contact with so and so team
+ and the best, never give a straight, decisive answer. All of his "analysis" is essentially "this team could win but they could also lose"
I wish they could audible to House
Scharger would be good in spurts like last year. Like TB/NE week, playoffs, etc.I dont know the thought process that went into having peter schrager come back for a full season as the normal friday guest but:
+ All he does is giggle and agree/ass kiss Simmons
+ Go into these long non-answers just to bring up he has some personal contact with so and so team
+ and the best, never give a straight, decisive answer. All of his "analysis" is essentially "this team could win but they could also lose"
I wish they could audible to House
Oh god the "i like it".Scharger would be good in spurts like last year. Like TB/NE week, playoffs, etc.
Your first point is spot on but I liked it last year when he wasn’t on every week. It made me think we all need a Schraeger in our life. No matter what Bill says, Shraeger says “ I like it.”
I was out on Schraeger when he couldn't even poke fun at Simmons after his 20 minute rant on why the Pats would face the Bucs in the Super Bowl. If your response to that is "I love it, I can see it" I honestly don't need your insight into anything.Oh god the "i like it".
Simmons works best when someone has no problem calling him on his bullshit.
The funniest part is Simmons seems to get this too - the last few weeks have been a lot of Simmons asking Schrager "why didn't you talk me out of [X]" and at one point I think Simmons literally said to him something along the lines of "if I suggest an idea and you don't agree with it, please tell me."I was out on Schraeger when he couldn't even poke fun at Simmons after his 20 minute rant on why the Pats would face the Bucs in the Super Bowl. If your response to that is "I love it, I can see it" I honestly don't need your insight into anything.
Only Ryan and Rusillo can give Simmons shit. And when they do, it's great content and Simmons never seems to take it personally.I stopped listening to the Schrager pods. I agree Simmons needs someone who is willing to call out his bullshit (like Russillo).
Simmons this morning admitting the Pats are a bad team was a real milestone.
Klosterman doesn't give Simmons "shit," per se, but he certainly asks the questions that make Bill the most uncomfortable of any of Bill's guests. He's not a regular guest so it's a different category but the Simmons/Klosterman pods are always must-listens for me largely for this reason. The last one, I think from this summer, was amazing in this respect.Only Ryan and Rusillo can give Simmons shit. And when they do, it's great content and Simmons never seems to take it personally.
Sal kind of can but he's been really deferential of late.(maybe it's the tens of millions?) Fennessy too, but Fennessy is a silent assassin, so even if he hits at Simmons, it's usually not perceived by Bill.
Definitely. But Chuck is on maybe twice a year. It would be awesome if they did one monthly. I really like Klosterman.Klosterman doesn't give Simmons "shit," per se, but he certainly asks the questions that make Bill the most uncomfortable of any of Bill's guests. He's not a regular guest so it's a different category but the Simmons/Klosterman pods are always must-listens for me largely for this reason. The last one, I think from this summer, was amazing in this respect.
Simmons isn't an idiot. He's a moron.Ah, time for another discussion about how all of Simmons' guests are graded on a scale of how much they disagree with Simmons on and show that he's an idiot.
Do you really think that? I’ve listened to a lot of Simmons and I’m not sure anyone can talk him out of his predetermined opinionsThe funniest part is Simmons seems to get this too - the last few weeks have been a lot of Simmons asking Schrager "why didn't you talk me out of [X]" and at one point I think Simmons literally said to him something along the lines of "if I suggest an idea and you don't agree with it, please tell me."
I think it's just a disconnect between Simmons, who wants to seriously do the best he can week-to-week, and Schrager, who kind of just thinks of this as fun discussion. It always has seemed a bit odd to me that for a segment specifically focused on gambling, Simmons' partner is a guy who unless I have missed it has no experience with or particular interest in football gambling.
“John O’Connell, Complex Litigation”.Question as a guy who doesn’t follow Simmons that closely:
Are all the guys Simmons used to always refer to as “My buddy Hench/House” who are now known on their own (with first names even) actually successful independent of Simmons? Or are they dudes he used to drink beer with in Boston who rode his coattails to LA?
Of all the weird things Simmons does, his whole "let's recast that character with someone more fuckable" crusade is the one that bothers me the most.I listened to the top 25 characters in Succession podcast with Bill and Joe House under the prestige TV pod. There were some baffling choices in his list (Shiv #12? Uncle Mo included at all?). However the worst Simmons-ism was him wanting to recast Sharon Stone over Holly Hunter for Rhea. I like Sharon Stone just fine but Holly Hunter playing a smart, sultry news exec is one of the best cast roles in an already incredibly cast show.
Edit: I should still say I loved the podcast. Joe House is hilarious and I’m a sucker for dumb pointless lists like this even with Bill’s weird takes
Simmons interviewed Sharon Stone this year. He obviously fell in love with her, because he basically wants to recast her in everything.Of all the weird things Simmons does, his whole "let's recast that character with someone more fuckable" crusade is the one that bothers me the most.
Again - great general manager, shitty player.
They should get rid of re-casting couch all together for Rewatchables. The name is gross, they already have the category that discusses people that actually almost got cast and they could roll it into that, and Bill always chooses (1) someone more fuckable for the main female role (2) a superstar for a character part that would be way beneath their status (3) Matt Damon.Of all the weird things Simmons does, his whole "let's recast that character with someone more fuckable" crusade is the one that bothers me the most.
Again - great general manager, shitty player.
Sharon Stone is great. I love seeing her pop up in stuff nowadays. But c'mon - Holly Hunter was fantastic in that role. I haven't seen ANY criticism of her performance from anyone else. Does Bill get into WHY he thinks Stone would've been a better fit for Rhea? He so often just says some nonsense like "I dunno. She didn't work for me." Okay, Bill - but WHY didn't she work for you?Simmons interviewed Sharon Stone this year. He obviously fell in love with her, because he basically wants to recast her in everything.
"Guys, hear me out, instead of Diana Rigg as Oleanna Tyrell, how about Sharon Stone? She's hotter, better body, and maybe we could see her boobs, too. Who's arguing with that?"
Agreed 100%.They should get rid of re-casting couch all together for Rewatchables. The name is gross, they already have the category that discusses people that actually almost got cast and they could roll it into that, and Bill always chooses (1) someone more fuckable for the main female role (2) a superstar for a character part that would be way beneath their status (3) Matt Damon.
Russillo saying that their dismissal of Trae Young and the Hawks during last year's over/under pod was played on an Atlanta radio station and used as fodder for weeks, and then House saying that he actually went on that radio station and defended them was really funny.
I liked it when they are mock-praising Simmons for pronouncing Goran Dragic's name correctly and Simmons kiddingly ascribes it to having gone to pronunciation camp. You can hear Rusillo murmur something like "tell that to Reggie Bullock" (Bill had referred to liking "Reggie BULL-ock" about 5 minutes earlier)That and them dogging Simmons about him repeatedly bringing up Zach Lowe were my two biggest laughs.
Simmons interviewed Sharon Stone this year. He obviously fell in love with her, because he basically wants to recast her in everything.
"Guys, hear me out, instead of Diana Rigg as Oleanna Tyrell, how about Sharon Stone? She's hotter, better body, and maybe we could see her boobs, too. Who's arguing with that?"
Rusillo is a genuinely funny dude. Dry when necessary, just outright hilarious when necessary.I liked it when they are mock-praising Simmons for pronouncing Goran Dragic's name correctly and Simmons kiddingly ascribes it to having gone to pronunciation camp. You can hear Rusillo murmur something like "tell that to Reggie Bullock" (Bill had referred to liking "Reggie BULL-ock" about 5 minutes earlier)
Yeah. Matt Damon. Or Leo. And for women it's always some blonde from 1985-1995.They should get rid of re-casting couch all together for Rewatchables. The name is gross, they already have the category that discusses people that actually almost got cast and they could roll it into that, and Bill always chooses (1) someone more fuckable for the main female role (2) a superstar for a character part that would be way beneath their status (3) Matt Damon.
Yeah. Matt Damon. Or Leo. And for women it's always some blonde from 1985-1995.
I cringe when he even comments on women's looks, generally, beyond "she looked great" or something. Like in the Cobra Rewatchables, he talks about the (recently departed) Markie Post as a replacement for Brigitte Nielsen, and part of his rationale is that she has/had a "great body", and it's just...eeesh. Just say "she'd be a better fit" and leave it to the audience to think for themselves if it would be or not. And while I don't know who he's talking about, there's a whole aside about whether some woman cop is attractive or not.
Just... you're a 52 year old married guy with kids commenting on the appearance of women 20-30 years your junior. Let it go, man.
If I can speak for another poster, you’re interpreting it wrong.Your view seems to be that we should all be in on the big lie where we pretend these roles (male and female) are cast independent of looks. Am I interpreting that wrong?