Ryan: Simmons 'too emotionally involved' in his takedown of Ainge

681164.jpg

Ryan: Simmons 'too emotionally involved' in his takedown of Ainge

Celtics Nation -- indeed, New England Sports Nation -- is still buzzing over Bill Simmons' takedown of Danny Ainge (and Glenn Ordway, and Kevin McHale, and Tommy Heinsohn, and many others) on grantland.com Thursday.

The Boston Globe's Bob Ryan is friendly with Simmons; he even announced his retirement on Simmons' podcast a few weeks back. And he made clear that "I do not wish to get into a public hissing contest with a man, against whom I could not possibly win due to his enormous following. Okay?"

But on Uno's Sports Tonight Thursday, Ryan took issue with Simmons for one fundamental reason:

"Here's . . . the difference between what Bill Simmons does, and who he is, and what reporters for media outlets do. Though he's bombarding us with a tremendous amount of data, at core, he's emotional. He is a Celtic fan. Self-proclaimed, there's no ambiguity, he never denies it. He's writing from the standpoint of a jilted-lover fan. An angry fan who, in my opinion, is unrealistically greedy."

And he's unrealistically greedy . . . because?

"This is the fifth year of a three-year plan," said Ryan, referring to the fact that the Paul PierceKevin GarnettRay Allen core was supposed to have a three-year run when it was assembled in 2007-08. "We've already gotten one extra year that produced . . . a playoff run in 2010-11.

"And the third year, two years ago, came within 94 seconds, four possessions . . . of winning the championship, okay? Ninety-four seconds. Are we having this conversation if those 94 seconds had been altered to a degree that the Celtics could have won that game? The answer is no."

Ryan admits that many of Simmons' points about bad trades and botched signings are legitimate -- though "he omits the Brandon Bass trade for Glen Davis, which I think was a good one. . . and Mickael Pietrus is a good signing, contingent on health, I grant you that" -- but doesn't want to hear the complaints about passing over certain players in the draft.

"There's a million of those stories," said Ryan. "Those things happen all the time. We can site that for every team. For every guy who went in the second round or late in the first, all these teams passed them in every draft, in every sport, every year . . . You can play that game with everybody! That's not a fair game!"

Ryan's conclusion?

"It's a vicious attack that is very humorous . . . Simmons works hard at this stuff. But . . . it's still written from the viewpoint of somebody who is too emotionally involved, in my opinion."

Curran: Can we swear off the stupid questions?

Curran: Can we swear off the stupid questions?

FOXBORO  -- To think there’d be no further questions about the Tom Brady-Jimmy Garoppolo dynamic when Brady’s four-game suspension ends would be moronic.

Bill Belichick won’t like them. He’s destined to give them the verbal Heisman. But there are aspects to the story which demand further interrogation.

So there’s those questions. And then there’s baiting for the sake of baiting, which is what happened Friday morning.

A reporter asked Belichick, “You said Tom will start when he’s eligible. Can you think of an occasion when you named a Week 5 starter in July?”

“Yeah, I don’t know,” Belichick said.

“What happens if Jimmy plays better?”

“Look, I told you what’s gonna happen,” Belichick answered.

Pressing on, the reporter began, “So there’s no, there’s, there’s . . . ”

At that point, with Belichick reacting like he’d come open a month-old-corpse and muttering, “Jesus Christ," the reporter cut himself off.

I’ve been trying to steer clear of the media ombudsman business. But this stuff makes it hard. The first question was obtuse in the extreme. I don’t even know how that gets formulated.
This is not a Brady-Bledsoe scenario.

You have the best quarterback of his generation who – 17 months ago – took down what was supposed to be one of the great defenses in NFL history in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl. A guy who got smashed all over the field in Denver at the age of 38 and still almost pulled out a win last January.

When that guy’s cleared to play, you sprint him onto the field regardless of the circumstances.

“If Jimmy plays better . . . ”? Better than what? Better than 11 touchdowns, no picks, 116-for-160 and 1,547 yards, which is what Brady did in the first four games last season? Better than Brady played in Denver while getting his head caved in every other play?

I understand that sometimes you have to ask the dumb question to get something on the record, but this was not that. This seemed like someone who really thought he was onto something. Was going to paint Belichick into an uncomfortable corner and hang him with his own words.

Sorry, counselor.

Now, you and I can sit on the front stoop and wonder what happens if Garoppolo plays ridiculously well then Brady comes back and spends four weeks playing like he’s never been on a field before and is clearly an impediment to the team’s success.

Won’t happen. But we can talk about it.

Asking Belichick if he’s gonna go with the hot hand when two days prior he told you what he was going to do is asking for a JC response.

Belichick probably figured that stating Brady was the Week 5 starter before he was asked was the best way to defuse idle speculation. “We’ll see . . . ” or “We always do what’s best for the football team . . . ” would have ignited a thousand hours of conversation about the budding quarterback controversy in New England.

Belichick now knows that the speculation and scenario spinning is coming anyway. JC may hear his name muttered a few more times from the podium between now and October.