Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
Yeah, like a generation of sports fans who grew up watching bad things always happening to the Sox have completely disavowed all superstitions about their teams.
Every Pats fan I know dares not seriously talk about 19-0. Even the slightest laughing mention of 'This team could go undefeated!' is immediately followed up 'Of course, the Pats always have one inexplicable loss per season'.
Every Pats fan I know dares not seriously talk about 19-0. Even the slightest laughing mention of 'This team could go undefeated!' is immediately followed up 'Of course, the Pats always have one inexplicable loss per season'.
pappymojo said:
It's been pretty well covered on Comcast and the two sports radio stations. I chalk a lot of it up to looking for a story line last week in advance of a lackluster Jacksonville game followed by a very early bye week.
Most of it has had the caveat of "any given Sunday" and "long way to go" and "not the ultimate goal" and all that, but King isn't technically wrong here.
Neither is Dr Leather - it's just dumb.
ESPN, both Reiss and Sando, have 2007 undefeated feel columns up now. It's something the lazy media will talk about but not actual people, especially since it's only 3-0. It's like talking about a no hitter after only 2 innings or so, pretty pointless. But that's the current sports media landscape for you. Either that Pats are cheating villains or the greatest team ever assembled. Nothing reasonable in between gets clicks.
The media. Not people. I think most fans a) realize that it's September and b) still remember Superbowl 42.
I remember Super Bowl 42 like I remember Star Wars eps I-III, Rocky V, and Matrix reloaded and revolutions.SidelineCameras said:
And Guregian and CHB have their revenge tour crap. They are people in NE.ifmanis5 said:
Besides, who really gives a shit in this context about what the average fan believes? No one. It is pretty clear from context that PK is referring to people who have more than a casual connection to the NFL, as in people who cover professional football in NE.
Edit -- and as noted above, both Sando and Reiss with front page references to 2007 on ESPN.com.
You may not like PK and that is fine. But this is a dumbass issue to get worked up about.
Not worked up about it at all, just pointing out the obvious. There are no two and a half star reviews of the Pats. It's either zero or five and both will get you clicks.dcmissle said:
To add to the media speculating ahead, John Elway has already built a juggernaut D.
Congratulations John Elway!! Time to pack in the remaining 13 regular season games.
Poor media. Have to feed the beast, but come on give it a little more time.
Congratulations John Elway!! Time to pack in the remaining 13 regular season games.
Poor media. Have to feed the beast, but come on give it a little more time.
joe dokes said:
PK may be worth bringing in if only because of the unique role the media played in this whole thing.
I'm also picturing it going something like the episode of "The Office" when Ryan brings Michael Scott to speak to his business class for extra credit only to trash him while he's waiting outside.
Why do you say that? There have been many teachable moments to come out of this cluster so far, so why not build a course around it?This of course assumes that the class will focus on such aspects, so I could be off.E5 Yaz said:
Why do you reach this conclusion based on his invite to PK? The whole Deflategate affair was a media-driven "scandal." Why wouldn't you want one of the (for better or worse) most important members of the NFL media to speak to your class? That seems like substance to me. I'm assuming Mort would have turned down the invite, so PK's the next best thing.joe dokes said:
drleather2001 said:
It's funny because he actually will be covering the legal aspects as well. Certainly not to the level that a law school class would, of course, but it's not totally centered on the circus.
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/18/class-on-law-and-deflategate-gets-students-pumped-up/
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Just educating people on the idea that employers can't do whatever they want is sufficient for me to think this is a valid subject matter for a course.
I think a lot of people learned more about law and related social issues from this issue in the football forum this off-season than a lot of people get from many a 3 credit undergraduate course out there.
I can save PK the trip with one sentence: Everything RG tells you is a lie.
There, stay in Manhattan.
There, stay in Manhattan.
There is no Rev said:
Fully agree. There's been plenty of times where we all probably fell victim to an employer acting outside his rights.
The education is that employers can't do whatever they want -- if the employees have a union. That was my "teachable moment" from Deflategate. Without the union, the NFL could have suspended Brady for life and there's not much anyone could do about it.There is no Rev said:
Take a little initiative and dig a bit deeper, because you don't need a union to have rights as a worker. The laws may not be as iron clad, but many, many employers exploit their employees beyond what is allowed. As much of life and education, an important question to ask, when you learn anything, is "does this somehow apply to me and, if so, how? If not directly, is there something similar that does?"Gene Conleys Plane Ticket said:
Teaching college kids to be aware of their rights before they enter the workforce can lead to them avoiding a lot of bullshit later on whether they are Union or not. Overtime, unpaid wages, restrictions on personal days/vacation, unfair termination, denied leave, etc. There are dozens of things that everyday workers are exploited by with no knowledge of it. HR departments are only helpful if you know enough to open your mouth.
Gene Conleys Plane Ticket said:
Well, the substance of this post gets more into V&N territory than I would want to raise here, but yeah, that's good for a whole unit in a semester course, pro and con.
But as PP also points out, even "at will" employees often have more rights than people realize, which could be incorporated as well.
We've legalized society--people need a corresponding legal education. One of the most interesting things about modding those threads this off-season was people thanking me and others for providing some.
Gene Conleys Plane Ticket said:
I mean, maybe? But then again, wasn't the NFL's entire case, and much of the legal world's entire point, that the union bargained away Brady's rights? Which would imply that Brady had them, and the union took them away. I'm not saying that unions are the best, or the worst, but that seems like boiling a complex issue down to 5% of reality and making it the whole point.
Peter in fine punting form when it comes to thinking critically about Roger and his punishment administration. I mean this paragraph is utterly devoid of intelligence. Hey Peter why don't you lift a finger to try and get info ?
Reports this week seem to be that the NFL will not issue any suspension immediately for Sheldon Richardson, and will instead wait for the legal proceedings to play out before acting. While there is nothing unreasonable about that, it goes again to the seemingly arbitrary way in which the league hands out discipline. In this case, it doesn't really seem like the legal proceedings even matter—he is certainly going to serve a lengthy suspension regardless of the outcome. Is there any rhyme or reason to the way the Goodell Administration handles off-field issues? And how can the owners possibly allow this to go on?
—Brian, Boston
Sheldon Richardson’s offenses, on their face, seem outrageous. We in the media are not told about how such cases are investigated, but the new emphasis on vigilant investigations of things lead me to believe the league has looked into the case thoroughly. I just wish I knew what league investigators found out. Because as I say, on the surface, Richardson would appear to deserve more than four games. I just don’t know what happened when the league investigated it.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/10/06/miami-dolphins-nfl-coaching-search-mike-tannenbaum
Reports this week seem to be that the NFL will not issue any suspension immediately for Sheldon Richardson, and will instead wait for the legal proceedings to play out before acting. While there is nothing unreasonable about that, it goes again to the seemingly arbitrary way in which the league hands out discipline. In this case, it doesn't really seem like the legal proceedings even matter—he is certainly going to serve a lengthy suspension regardless of the outcome. Is there any rhyme or reason to the way the Goodell Administration handles off-field issues? And how can the owners possibly allow this to go on?
—Brian, Boston
Sheldon Richardson’s offenses, on their face, seem outrageous. We in the media are not told about how such cases are investigated, but the new emphasis on vigilant investigations of things lead me to believe the league has looked into the case thoroughly. I just wish I knew what league investigators found out. Because as I say, on the surface, Richardson would appear to deserve more than four games. I just don’t know what happened when the league investigated it.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/10/06/miami-dolphins-nfl-coaching-search-mike-tannenbaum
I just don't buy the "league has investigated thoroughly" line.
In criminal matters, active criminal investigative data held by law enforcement is typically off-limits to everyone not doing the investigation. So what is the NFL basing their "thorough investigation" on?
This constant peacock-ing by the league designed to give the appearance that they are somehow their own fiefdom, independent from the laws and rules of America at large, is so tiresome. Just cut the fucking crap. Want players and personnel to stop acting like they are above the law? Start at the top.
In criminal matters, active criminal investigative data held by law enforcement is typically off-limits to everyone not doing the investigation. So what is the NFL basing their "thorough investigation" on?
This constant peacock-ing by the league designed to give the appearance that they are somehow their own fiefdom, independent from the laws and rules of America at large, is so tiresome. Just cut the fucking crap. Want players and personnel to stop acting like they are above the law? Start at the top.
drleather2001 said:
Well, we saw the NFL got its hands on the Hardy investigation details, so who knows what they're privy to.
That's not always been my experience. I've conducted employee investigations that overlapped with a ongoing criminal matter, and got all sorts of goodies from the prosecutor's office. In other cases, not so much.drleather2001 said:
Aren't a bunch of NFL high ranking staffers ex-law enforcement? They hired them for the access. And when that doesn't work they probably just back up their dump truck of cash and buy whatever info they need. That's if they actually are interested in finding out things. As we saw with Ray Rice, sometimes they're not interested in knowing things they should know.
I suspect that the league's actions in such cases are determined in large part by the individual owners. If Woody Johnson thinks that an additional suspension on top of Richardson's existing four game suspension will adversely impact his team, he lets Goodell know. If Woody wants Richardson suspended, however, he lets Goodell be the bad guy to hand down the decision while Woody maintains a friendly relationship with the player. If the decision that Woody Johnson makes somehow blows up into a PR nightmare for the league, Goodell is the fall guy. Isn't that pretty much what happened with Ray Rice?
What is that shit.
We may laugh at Harbaugh's douchebaggery, or Andy Reid's clock management or Rex Ryan's rexitude, but that's about it. Peter King is here to tell us that some are "better men" than Philbin. Presumably, there are also some NFL coaches who are not "good men."