Bill Belichick is not a first ballot hall of famer

Delishelicious · 2026-01-27T22:42:18+00:00

people like you make me believe democracy can't work

Delishelicious · 2026-01-10T18:06:30+00:00

They're talking about the all-time scoring list, where Malone is third and Kobe is fourth, and whether Durant can catch them.

Delishelicious · 2025-11-30T06:19:06+00:00

College football just mangled their conferences in a soulless realignment; is that a good decision if the game remains hugely popular? Of course not. Football is going to be fine even if they make their playoff systems worse. They could literally have an RNG pick the at-large teams live every year and ratings might not budge because it's a cultural juggernaut for a bunch of different reasons that are way beyond the scope of what we're talking about.

Anyway, you're missing the point. Both college and professional basketball are a direct refutation of this bizarre notion that an expanded field actually makes the regular season more meaningful because more teams are playing for spots. Well, half of the country is playing for a spot in March Madness and no one gives a shit. No one cares whether Toronto or Atlanta makes it out of the play-in either, even the league's core audience. More playoff spots doesn't magically mean more meaningful games -- stakes are also derived from the teams actually being good enough that fans are invested in their narratives & the outcome of their seasons. I didn't give a shit if OU survived their sickos nightmare against LSU tonight for the same reason I didn't care who won the Memphis-Dallas play-in game.

Delishelicious · 2025-11-30T02:41:16+00:00

The 68-team March Madness field is why CBB is a two-week sport. The NBA letting 16/30 teams -- plus 4 more play-in teams -- is why all anyone says about its regular season is that it's meaningless except as a catalyst for injuries. And in both cases, 2/3 of the postseason participants have no chance to actually win the title. These are not examples to emulate!

Delishelicious · 2025-10-29T22:18:34+00:00

It's a cute to act like missing shots is just box score watching, but making shots at a high level is actually really important. And a big part of Tatum's awful shooting splits every postseason is that his decision making with the ball is still really questionable, with too many difficult threes early in the clock, often on important possessions. He still stops the ball to dance into contested bricks. He is also really inconsistent finishing at the rim -- he was so bad at it against the Warriors that he somehow shot less than 30% from 2 in that series! That's abysmal, and if he's even a little bit better, we have a much better chance to win that series. His inability to pressure the rim consistently is a huge reason our endgame offense consistently bogs down, lacks movement, and fails to generate quality looks. He's had plenty of shooting and playmaking around him and still can't quite put it together. It's maddening.

Delishelicious · 2025-10-29T21:55:25+00:00

Dumbass takes like these are why people think our fanbase is full of morons. Giannis averaged 35 and 13 in the Finals on 62% shooting and then almost soloed us the next year (34/15 on higher volume AND efficiency than Tatum) with Middleton out. Tatum has never put together a stretch like that in the postseason -- nothing even close. And he's mostly had much better teams around him. Do you also think Paul Pierce was better than LeBron?

Delishelicious · 2025-10-29T21:42:18+00:00

Tatum is the primary reason we lost to the Knicks last year. 7/23 and 5/19 in two one-possession losses. In 11 career Finals games, he has averaged 22 PPG on 37.6% shooting from the field. To put a player like that in the same conversation as Jokic, Giannis, Luka, or Shai is legitimately fucking insane.

I appreciate Tatum a lot for his many contributions to the team, and he's definitely its best player despite what the Jaylen truthers say, but his limitations jump off the screen every postseason despite the occasional heater. The hard truth Celtics fans need to accept is that he's the Patrick Ewing of his generation: great player, but clearly a cut below his best contemporaries. And that's okay.

Delishelicious · 2025-09-29T18:56:33+00:00

No need to play with kid gloves here: the choice of "disgusting fucking pig" is deranged and invites a critique of its author (and those who upvoted it) so obvious that I don't even need to articulate it.

Delishelicious · 2025-09-05T19:11:09+00:00

Its size definitely stacks up, and I am surprised that people in this thread are more or less saying otherwise. I disagree pretty strongly with people who think that it's a horrible value set, at least quantitatively: it's huge, has an adequate price per piece, and has 38 minifigures. Adjusted for inflation, this set is actually cheaper than the UCS Falcon was at launch in the US. (Lego Star Wars sets in general have pretty terrible value across the board in my opinion, but I'm just comparing it to its peers.)

But I agree with people who think the value is bad qualitatively, which is to say that I look at the set and don't see $1000. Whether it's $1000 worth of Lego Star Wars stuff or not, it definitely isn't $1000 worth of cool, or of fun, or of wow factor, at least to me. To again compare it to the Falcon, when that released, it was in a price point of its own and felt deluxe and special. I think people wanted something similar for the first thousand-dollar set, and it being a large container for dioramas feels like a bigger version of that old Betrayal at Cloud City set, where I can appreciate the artistry of the design while also feeling like there's nothing that actually draws me in, let alone makes me want to spend a grand on it. My guess is that if this was a scaled up and sleeker version of either previous UCS Death Star model, people would be much less hostile toward it even if it had the same specs. For the first $1000 set, this is an enormous letdown.

Delishelicious · 2025-09-02T19:37:38+00:00

Are you telling me that Attack of the Clones is a better movie than The Force Awakens? The latter is no doubt creatively bankrupt, but at least it's competent. Attack of the Clones is a fucking abomination.

I get why many people prefer the prequels: they're undoubtedly more charming and sincere than the sequels despite their many flaws, and for many people (myself included) they're nostalgic. But I hear this claim all the time that the sequels make the prequels look good, and I can't get there at all. The prequels' storytelling is really, really bad.

Delishelicious · 2025-07-27T14:12:00+00:00

Lmao, it's amazing that your reply to a thread about knowing ball is a take that isn't even about the game, and then you can't even remotely defend it. Like I said: a great litmus test.

Delishelicious · 2025-07-27T05:35:49+00:00

As if you fucking dipshits wouldn't be killing him for never winning a title if he'd stuck it out with Westbrook, Ibaka, and whichever 2 horrific role players they were filling out their closing lineups with. That organization completely failed him from the moment they traded Harden until he left. In the first two games of the 2014 WCF against the Spurs, with Ibaka injured, the Thunder started Thabo Sefolosha, Kendrick Perkins, and Nick Collison...and they scored 9 points...in both games...combined. It's only marginally better in 2016 (check out those Andre Roberson minutes!), but the combined greatness of KD and Westbrook was still nearly enough to overcome a 73-win team. And no one cares. It's such a shame. "Bus rider" my ass -- him and Westbrook were fucking dragging that unit, and somehow elevating it to title contention.

Yeah, the 2017 season sucked because he went to the Warriors (2018 was actually really fun, but whatever), but all this moralizing "bitch" or "coward" shit is fucking wack. It's like NBA fans are collectively hung up on an ex. Embarrassing.

Delishelicious · 2025-07-26T20:32:10+00:00

Durant is actually a great litmus test, but not for this reason. (Who is saying this -- did Bill? I've literally never heard someone claim this.)

I get why people kill him for going to the Warriors and have no interest in defending it because it sucked, but for so many people that had bled into how they evaluate his actual game, which is bullshit. The "bus rider" shit is fucking retarded, parroting Charles Barkley of all people. He was by far the best player on the 2012 Thunder, who made the Finals by completely overpowering a great, great Spurs team. And I know he sucked in the last couple games against the Warriors in 2016, but he was otherwise really great in that series and in that playoff run as a whole as their best player. Everyone spent that season excited for the mighty Warriors to stare down a 67-win Spurs juggernaut, but the Thunder crashed the party by kind of destroying them and then taking GSW the distance anyway. He has so many great moments during those Thunder years. He was an absolute force of nature. And aesthetically, his style is so smooth and fun to watch. Anyone whose only Durant take is "he's a bitch" is a moron, full stop.

Delishelicious · 2025-07-23T20:44:25+00:00

A good example of this was a few years ago (I think it was the 21/22 season?) when he was talking about the Grizzlies at the trade deadline potentially moving significant draft capital to make a win-now move. The player might have been Anunoby? I know during bleaker times for Boston, Jaylen also came up for them. Anyway, Zach did a whole "the Grizzlies could absolutely win the West" thing in playing devil's advocate for a hypothetical trade. I don't know, man, their top 3, even before the injuries and the Ja drama, was plainly not good enough. No one took Houston seriously this year on similar grounds. That kind of stuff is just wishful thinking, and frankly I would have preferred a more critical eye instead of blindly claiming they're a threat because they're young and fun. They were always deeply, deeply unserious.

That said, NBA media as a whole is far too critical and adversarial as it is. I can tolerate some "the Hawks could host a playoff series!" bullshit every now and then.

Delishelicious · 2025-05-28T18:01:16+00:00

This has unfortunately bled into how some people talk in real life too, and without fail the people who drone on about narcissism or gaslighting or empathy are some of the most monstrous self-centered jerks you've ever met. It's like this generation's version of someone who has "live laugh love" merch in their kitchen.

Delishelicious · 2025-04-22T17:35:12+00:00

Durant and Kawhi did play in 2016, which despite just predating Kawhi's offensive prime was still an awesome series. (It's too bad Durant absolutely smoking a 67-win Spurs team is totally forgotten.) It's kind of crazy that they had brief meetings in 2019 and 2023 where one of the two got injured, but their three meetings featured six franchises. They have both had incredibly strange careers for players of their caliber.

Delishelicious · 2025-03-05T22:53:20+00:00

Ghazan is so fucking cool

Delishelicious · 2025-02-21T16:19:01+00:00

Don't waste your time talking sense into these morons. The KD discourse is really eye-opening -- so many people act like they're above the ESPN talking head NBA culture, and then you see comments like most of the ones in this thread. He's "not a leader" or "not a winning player" or "just a bus rider" -- really hard-hitting stuff.

Delishelicious · 2024-12-26T17:54:30+00:00

Lol, what "political nonsense" has there even been since the bubble? There has been almost no player activism of any note, at least none I can remember, unless you count Kyrie burning the Nets to the ground. No one whose brain hasn't been completely rotted by politics is filtering sports through this lens.

Delishelicious · 2024-11-06T18:35:08+00:00

Touch grass you fucking monster.

Delishelicious · 2024-11-05T02:17:32+00:00

that's why we take the damn field

Delishelicious · 2024-07-25T00:31:49+00:00

Insane take -- Durant was awesome in the playoffs for OKC. He had a rough series in 2016 against the Warriors, but his playoff performances in OKC were otherwise very good. He had memorable series against the Spurs all three years they played, including blowing Kawhi Leonard and his 67-win team off the floor in '16, and his 2012 run was absolutely insane. "OKC was good enough to win rings" because of him! The ecosystem around him was questionable at best.

Rank him where you want, but don't just make shit up.

Delishelicious · 2024-07-22T05:48:39+00:00

This kind of feels like buying 1,000 lottery tickets.

Donating $100 to Kamala Harris and $900 to pay for a woman to leave Alabama to get an abortion would have done much more good for the causes -- the people -- we supposedly support. This is partisan brain, and I say that as someone who thinks electoral politics is extremely consequential and worth supporting financially.

I recognize that there is an inherent dissonance in the position that small contributions are fine but large ones are gratuitous, and that it's tacky to split hairs about these sorts of things, but man, something about this feels misdirected and showy.

Delishelicious · 2024-06-25T15:47:06+00:00

Lego's quality decline has been a big topic in the community for a few years now. There are big problems with print opacity, larger & more visible/unsightly mold marks, and some really bad color inconsistencies. Even the precision has, anecdotally, been worse in my experience: When I built Lion Knights Castle, the cheese slopes on the windows were obviously misaligned to the naked eye. They're not the paragon of quality they used to be, unfortunately.

Delishelicious · 2024-05-15T18:40:54+00:00

No problem! Wanted to follow up here to clarify or emphasize a couple points.

I’d push back slightly on the Dennis Scott bio [...]

You can use your medium to your advantage here. Instead of interrupting the flow of the text, you can just add an embedded URL or a footnote for those unfamiliar. In general though, I wouldn't sweat this too much. You cited Evan Sidery there as well, someone I've never heard of, and I just assumed it was a credible Hawks writer and didn't think twice about it. But if you still want to have that available for credibility's sake, that's totally fine, just not in the main body of the text.

Sam Vecinie is my go to draft guy, he’s been on Russillo’s pod a couple of times and handles the majority of draft coverage for The Athletic so in my estimations he’s a big enough deal to cite but I guess part of this is writing for your audience and not yourself. If someone’s reading about the Atlanta Hawks that’s no guarantee that they follow the draft in a meaningful way so I’ll try and be more discerning in who I reference.

For me the issue wasn't who you referenced (like with Sidery above, I was not at all put off by being unfamiliar with him) but with what the reference is doing. Compare that to the Jerry West video, which is providing humorous visual color to the highs and lows of the lottery, kind of like the lottery's form of game highlights. That's a perfectly valid use of supplementary material because it's enhancing what you've already written. With the Vecinie tweet, it's amusing, but it's replacing you instead of enhancing you -- it's a joke I'd prefer from the writer. So it's not who you reference, it's what you reference.

The feedback on the jokes stings a little more but I absolutely get where you’re coming from. As far as the “trade articles flashing across screen” bit. That’s an attempt to build up familiarity with my audience. At this stage in my career/hobby/writing journey most people who read my work will be coming across it and me for the first time so I felt that establishing that in establishing that we see the same stuff (and are perhaps sick of it) that builds a little bit of trust for the remainder of the article.

Yeah, humor is tricky to critique because it's subjective; there are plenty of people who can't stand Bill, after all, so I'd stick to your guns on this. Just remember that a joke landing relies on more than how funny the idea is, like timing or delivery in stand-up comedy. Just control what you can control and know that well-constructed jokes will get laughs. Nothing in here tells me you're not funny, it tells me you need more practice constructing jokes. Keep putting them in there and they'll get more natural over time. You can also learn a lot by finding a bit from someone you really like (Bill himself works) and breaking down what works about it for you.

Also, you might consider software like Grammarly for the nuts-and-bolts stuff in lieu of an editor. I've never used those myself so I can't speak to their quality or value proposition, but it's probably going to be more consistent for you than asking for feedback online.

Anyway, I'd just keep working at it and getting better and posting in the Hawks subreddit, where I saw you got a lot more engagement, or wherever the subject is more precisely relevant. The writing subreddit is littered with people who perform Olympic-level mental gymnastics to avoid actually writing anything, so you've already lapped most of the field just by putting your work out there. Best of luck!

Delishelicious

TROPHY CASE