Bill Simmons can suck it...

I just wrote this email to Simmons concerning Seattles "tough" stadium...



First of all, let me start off by saying that I am a huge Redskins fan, so this will obviously be biased.



I'm not writing to argue with your picks. The Seahawks are the top seed and my Skins have been playing at a high level for over a month now (we'll still show everyone something nice tomorrow though). But I do have a problem with something you wrote in your reasons for picking Seattle to cover. Did I read you correctly when I saw that you said Seattle has one of the toughest stadiums to play in? Are you kidding me? Granted, any road playoff game has got to be tough on the visiting team. And yes, the constant rain may be a factor, but I don't think that is what you meant when you made this ridiculous statement.



Just think of where the Skins have played this year and compare them to Qwest Field.

1.) Philly - Notorious for their fans and their crappy field (I know it’s a new stadium but that field looked terrible the last time we played them). This is the same place that booed/threw snowballs at Santa. That's a home field advantage.

2.) Dallas (on the MNF game that saw the triplets get inducted into the ring of honor) - The only place that hates Washington more is Paris or Hell (although I hear hell has wonderful locker rooms). The fans are always frenzied when the Skins are in town.

3.) New York - Granted, the Panthers just ruined this place for awhile. Any field that more than likely has a dead union boss in one of the end zones has got to be a tough place to play. This is also the same stadium (true, for a different team) that had to recently ban alcohol for a game.

4.) Tampa - The Skins have played here twice this year and come out with a victory TWICE (Alstott's elbow was down). On the radio this past Monday I heard that those running the stadium passed out white towels and basically instructed the fans to wave them whenever the Skins had the ball. Is this the student section at Cameron or an NFL stadium?

5.) Kansas City - From what I understand Arrowhead is widely regarded as one of the toughest places to play in the NFL. The Skins lost here too, but it was a close game that came down to the last quarter.

6.) Denver - This game was played in near freezing rain, and again the Skins got screwed out of a win because of the freakin' Tuck Rule (even though the ref said "the quarterback tucked the ball, so it is an incomplete pass and not a fumble into the end zone") which was an incorrect call.



The other two stadiums the Redskins played at this year were not that tough as far as venues are concerned: St. Louis and Arizona. Maybe the NFC West just doesn't have tough stadiums, who knows?



Let's also not forget where the Skins play their home games: FedEx Field, the largest and loudest stadium in the NFL. Away coaches are always saying how hard it is to get plays called when 90,000 people are screaming like idiots. Even when the Redskins have the ball it’s hard to get it quiet in that place (my eardrums are still pounding from the last game I went to). I know playing on the road is completely different than playing at home, but I think this Redskins team is used to playing in hostel environments.



To say that Seattle has one of the toughest stadiums to play in has got to be a joke. You're a funny guy Bill, I just didn't think you were this funny.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060113
SEAHAWKS (-9.5) over Redskins
Rule No. 10 of the Manifesto applies here: "Only pick an underdog or a road team if you're convinced it has a chance to win the game outright."

Four reasons why the Redskins seem cooked to me ...

1. After they grabbed that two-touchdown lead in Tampa, Joe Gibbs clearly shifted into "I'm not taking another chance" mode. He doesn't trust their offense. It's obvious. There's a reason Washington's best drive on Saturday was 10 plays for 40 yards -- for the entire second half, they were playing not to lose.

2. There's a difference between "a little banged up" and "laboring and suffering" ... and Clinton Portis was laboring and suffering with that bum shoulder last weekend. He looked miserable. Don't see that one getting better in a week.

3. Six straight must-win games for the Skins ... that adds up after awhile, doesn't it? Let's say that Edell Shepherd hangs onto that game-tying touchdown pass in Tampa (and I'm not sure how he dropped it) with three minutes to play. Did anyone think the Skins had enough left in the tank to win that game? Now they have to fly cross-country and play in one of the toughest stadiums in the league? Against a well-rested team that puts up 30 points a game at home?

4. Let's say the Skins fall behind by double-digits in this one. Have you seen anything from their offense lately to make you even remotely think they could come back? There's always one blowout in Round 2. Always. And this looks like the one.

The Pick: Seahawks 30, Washington 6

I dont see anything that he says is wrong,everything he says is the absolute truth,the only thing i disagree with him on is the final score

I dont see anything that he says is wrong,everything he says is the absolute truth,the only thing i disagree with him on is the final score

Yea most of the stuff he says is legit, except #3(haha yea its another number 3). I hate when people complain about the what if's, and he does not give enough credit to our tough schedule. That being said, the score also pisses me off, 30-6? wtf

I dont see anything that he says is wrong,everything he says is the absolute truth,the only thing i disagree with him on is the final score

His argument number 1 is actually a good thing for the skins. So the offense went conservative in the last game after a 14-0 lead. That means that the offense is quite capable of putting up points and running up yards when we're not conservative.

hesscl34 - It was Theismann, Williams and Rypien. Williams took over for Schroder during the year they won the Super Bowl

htown - you're absolutely right, he hasn't said anything that isn't true. however, the one thing Mr. Simmons has done is underestimated Coach Gibbs and Coach Williams to prepare their team for war.

while the odds of continuting a winning streak lessens each week, there were 2 teams who got 9+ wins in a row this year (Hawks, Colts), while not add another to that list.

I love reading Simmons but his picks suck. They are all bias to his home team The Pats.... He completely contradicts himself by picking SEA and the reasons he picked the Pats...

"But even beyond that, isn't this just Basic Gambling 101? Here's the first rule you learn as a gambler, whether you're betting on sports, blackjack, craps or whatever: Never bet against a streak. It's the dumbest move you can make. And considering Belichick and Brady are 10-0 in the playoffs ... don't they need to lose one first before anyone starts throwing money against them?"

Hey Bill Skins are on a streak of 7-0, Sea hasn't wont a playoff game sense 1984. Do those not count as streaks?

I agree with all his points but #3. Sadly, this guy has a pretty good track record with this manifesto and I believe he picked the skins over Tampa last week.

While even if the skins lose I feel it will be a close game, our offense MUST produce tomorrow.

He was 2-2 last week, he picked the Skins and Pats, but had the Giants and Bengals on sunday.

For the season he was right around the .500 mark, that's nothing special.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060106

Maybe Im thinking of someone else that was at about .800. Saw it on ESPN.

Maybe Im thinking of someone else that was at about .800. Saw it on ESPN.

If there is someone alive who is .800 against the spread over the course of a season, and has picked at least 50 games, I would worship the ground he walked on. It's pretty much impossible.

Maybe you saw .800 in picking games straight up, which would still be remarkable. But there's no way someone was .800 against the spread.