Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,121
Brooklyn
I agree for the most part, although this gem irritated me.
I mean, King has to be bored writing Brady's name so much and his disdain for the Patriots comes through quite often. He did give Anthony Smith his "goat of the week," but how was Brady's day (399 yards, 4 TD, 0 picks, 0 lost fumbles) worse than Collins day (224, 2, 0 int, 1 lost fumble).a

Sure, Collins exceeded the ZERO expectations that Washington had for him, but Brady did tear up the Pittsburgh defense which has only allowed something like 11 passing touchdowns all year before they gave up four in one game to Brady. That counts for something, right?
Quite a snub. I think we'll be looking back on the Week 14 Peter King Offensive Player of the Week years from now and wondering why, why was Todd Collins chosen over Tom Brady?

Brady has been picking apart defenses all season, who cares if he gave it to a guy who hadn't attempted a pass in 3 years, thrown a touchdown in 5, hadn't started in a decade, and was pressed into action after the team's starter went down? Do the Patriots constantly need praise, regardless of how meaningless it is? Does Todd Collins really need to put up a better line to get some praise in the form of a "Player of the Week" award that really means nothing?
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,968
I'm surprised that no one's brought up this quote from the NFL rankings part of today's column:

"1. New England (13-0). Has there ever been an easier path to 15-0? The next two foes, Jets and Dolphins, come to frigid Foxboro, a combined 3-23."

Is he being sarcastic? If not, does he mean an easier path from 13-0 to 15-0 or an easier path from 0-0 to 15-0. Unless it can be explained away by sarcasm, the former does not make sense, and he can't mean the latter because the Pats have weathered at least a moderately difficult schedule. Maybe it's just coffee nerdness.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,691
Oregon
I read today's column expecting at least one mea culpa about how he spent the week convincing himself that the Steelers would beat the Patriots, then predicting it.

Instead, a rather benign mid-column mention of how many people had thought this was the week and they were wrong, followed by a though bubble asking how the game might have been different had Troy Palumalu (sp?) had played.

Earth to King: Peter, when you set yourself up, have the decency to admit the mistake. And perhaps the Pats would have won by 10-14 pts instead of 21 if the Steelers were fully staffed on defense
 

SaladParmesan

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2006
597
Im pretty sure he's referring to the former, but I'm not sure where you are getting confused. We are 13-0. To get to 15-0, we must beat the Jets and Dolphins in consecutive weeks. They have combined for 3 wins, suggesting that neither team is very good. Thus, it should be easy to progress from 13-0 to 15-0, possibly the easiest path ever for a 13-0 team to become a 15-0 team.
 

HomeBrew1901

Has Season 1 of "Manimal" on Blu Ray
SoSH Member
Holy fuck, do you people complaining in this thread read what you are writing? Are you looking to be offended? Reading shit like this is like reading nyyfans, god forbid someone doesn't kneel at the alter of Belichick and gobble Brady's knob, he must be a Patriots hater?

Fuck, and people wonder why Pats fans are compared with Yankee fans.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,968
Im pretty sure he's referring to the former, but I'm not sure where you are getting confused. We are 13-0. To get to 15-0, we must beat the Jets and Dolphins in consecutive weeks. They have combined for 3 wins, suggesting that neither team is very good. Thus, it should be easy to progress from 13-0 to 15-0, possibly the easiest path ever for a 13-0 team to become a 15-0 team.
Maybe my problem is that I'm not recognizing that any team has been 13-0 and in position to go 15-0. (The '72 Dolphins topped out at 14-0.) Has there been one? If the Pats are the first, or even the second for that matter, the statement "has there ever been an easier path to 15-0" does not make sense.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,473
Maybe my problem is that I'm not recognizing that any team has been 13-0 and in position to go 15-0. (The '72 Dolphins topped out at 14-0.) Has there been one? If the Pats are the first, or even the second for that matter, the statement "has there ever been an easier path to 15-0" does not make sense.
Yes, at least three other teams IIRC.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,968
Finding this in an AP story on espn.com and posting it here took 30 seconds.
I searched. Honest. I gave up after about a minute, though, when I became distracted by an article about the '85 Bears.

But the exact answer to that question really has nothing to do with my point. King said "has any team ever had an easier path to 15-0?" He makes it sound like it happens all the time. That there has been a 13-0 team or two in the post-14 game schedule era doesn't make King's question any less odd.

Has there ever been a more beloved Japanese Red Sox pitcher than Daisuke Matsusaka?
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
15,005
Silver Spring, MD
Holy fuck, do you people complaining in this thread read what you are writing? Are you looking to be offended? Reading shit like this is like reading nyyfans, god forbid someone doesn't kneel at the alter of Belichick and gobble Brady's knob, he must be a Patriots hater?

Fuck, and people wonder why Pats fans are compared with Yankee fans.
Thank you.



Oh, BTW, no NFL team has ever been 15-0 at any point in a season. Peter King was clearly saying that the Pats have an easy road FROM THIS POINT to get to 15-0 because of the general ineptitude of their next two opponents.

I thought this week's column was pretty bland over all.
 

January

Banned
Jun 10, 2007
2,158
Arkham, Mass
I searched. Honest. I gave up after about a minute, though, when I became distracted by an article about the '85 Bears.

But the exact answer to that question really has nothing to do with my point. King said "has any team ever had an easier path to 15-0?" He makes it sound like it happens all the time. That there has been a 13-0 team or two in the post-14 game schedule era doesn't make King's question any less odd.

Has there ever been a more beloved Japanese Red Sox pitcher than Daisuke Matsusaka?
Hideo Nomo for about a year? Okajima after he the first Yankee series last year(yes, that was still awesome)? :c070:

It's a goofy stat, and a bit disingenuous (IIRC, didn't the Pats have a relatively tough path to 13-0?*). I call that a 'baseball stat', as it's one of those things announcers seem to throw out when games are slow. (Beckett has a 2.42 ERA following a doubleheader!) It so specific it doesn't mean anything, but sounds good. All it really tells you is that they have two easy games comming up. Although Miami could be a weird type of trap game.



*They turn out to be in the middle; I think were considered to have a more difficult hard season going in, but then the Chargers turned out to suck, and I think they may be making their opponents look bad a bit.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,473
I searched. Honest. I gave up after about a minute, though, when I became distracted by an article about the '85 Bears.

But the exact answer to that question really has nothing to do with my point. King said "has any team ever had an easier path to 15-0?" He makes it sound like it happens all the time. That there has been a 13-0 team or two in the post-14 game schedule era doesn't make King's question any less odd.

Has there ever been a more beloved Japanese Red Sox pitcher than Daisuke Matsusaka?
That's not what he said; he is trying to say the Pats next two opponents are really bad and thus, they are exceptionally likely to go from 13-0 to 15-0.

If you take the time to look up the schedules of the other teams who reached 13-0 and show that, in fact, their roads were as easy or easier...that's a reasonable point to try and make if you can do so.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
In today's "Things I liked..." list, he wrote:
does anybody understand what he's trying to say? I'm just curious, I really can't even guess.
<a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/12/16/week15/index.html?eref=T1" target="_blank">
This weeks column link</a>
I wasn't sure...but I think he's talking about the handshakes/hugs post-game.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,594
Portland, ME
In today's "Things I liked..." list, he wrote:
does anybody understand what he's trying to say? I'm just curious, I really can't even guess.
<a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/12/16/week15/index.html?eref=T1" target="_blank">
This weeks column link</a>
Any chance he forgot an extra "s" and meant "exists"?
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
7,021
Pasadena, CA
I like how he goes out of his way twice to mention his cell phone chats with players, and then includes the bit about his sanctimonious airport buddy. Hey Pete, maybe those people were on the cell phone with Drew Brees!
 

ChinaCat2

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
352
I sort of thought he was talking about the handshakes, or the way everyone left, and yet I still really have no idea what he meant.

I also wondered if he meant "Class exists", but that still leaves me going huh??

I like Peter King well enough. But sometimes he leaves me baffled.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,121
Brooklyn
Are people being daft on purpose? I mean, I understand that King has had some head-scratchers in the last, I don't know, few years, but do people's minds stop working when they read something like "class exits" and not realize he's referring to the end of the game and how the handshakes, goodbyes, and "exits" had no drama whatsoever? It's almost like people go out of their way to pile on people like King, and end up looking bad themselves doing so.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,912
Deep inside Muppet Labs
King:

• In Oakland, the Colts led 21-14 with the ball at their 35 on fourth down, with the play clock five seconds ahead of the game clock, both ticking down and Peyton Manning at the line of scrimmage ... With the play clock at :05, the game clock was at :10, so it was clear the Colts were going to have to snap the ball one more time. You're thinking: He's not going to snap this, is he? Isn't the play to take the delay call, then have Hunter Smith punt the ball, or take the ball, run around and kill the clock, or run through the back of the end zone for a safety? But no. Manning, without showing any stress or looking any different than he does before any snap, took the ball, waited a second or two, then fired an arcing pass deep for Reggie Wayne. Incomplete. Clock killed. Game over.

Now for Reich's e-mail:

"PK: Here is my take on what the Colts did on the last play. I wonder if it has ever been done before? I kind of doubt it. But even if it has [and I doubt it has]-- I loved the way they did it. They didn't need to call a timeout to discuss -- there was never any doubt what they were doing. They broke the huddle with complete confidence in what they were doing. I guarantee you that no one but Peyton Manning pulls it off like that manner...

Couldn't have written it better myself. To Manning, it was a no-brainer, just another play in another game, unnoticed by every fan and most in the media. I asked five peers between Sunday night and this morning about it, and they didn't know. It won't go on his Hall of Fame reel, but it's just another example of how a thinking quarterback gives you another dimension in a thinking man's game.
The Patriots did this very thing against Tennessee in the 2003 playoff game. Had the ball on their own 20 yard line, 4th down and 10 to go, 4 seconds left. Instead of a punt, Brady took the snap and deliberately overthrew Branch who was running a long sideline route. Clock killed. Game over.

Yet Peter (and his e-mailer) acts like this is some new genius play that's never been done before. Disappointing to hear from him. I'm pretty surprised he doesn't remember it, particularly because it happened in a prime time playoff game and was carried out by the eventual Super Bowl winner.
 
I was actually sort of mad about today's MMQB. Looks like he's trying to pull Pioli away from the Pats. He said that he's an unknown front office guy and that he'd probably have to move away from Belichick to have his football knowledge recognized.

He's either really REALLY dumb(nobody shops for the groceries of a team that's been contending for 7 years now, taking home 3 superbowls mostly on the strength of player aquisition without being noticed) or playing dumb to break up the Patriots. Either way I don't like it.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,691
Oregon
I was actually sort of mad about today's MMQB. Looks like he's trying to pull Pioli away from the Pats. He said that he's an unknown front office guy and that he'd probably have to move away from Belichick to have his football knowledge recognized.

He's either really REALLY dumb(nobody shops for the groceries of a team that's been contending for 7 years now, taking home 3 superbowls mostly on the strength of player aquisition without being noticed) or playing dumb to break up the Patriots. Either way I don't like it.

Well, it's not as though he has to introduce Parcells to Pioli
 

Zupcic Fan

loves 8 inch long meat
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2001
2,708
Norwalk, Connecticut
SJH: a bit of an overreaction, perhaps. I suppose if you want, you can blame Peter King for not remembering that play, but I think we can give the guy who wrote the letter a bit of slack. He saw this smart move and didn't remember that somebody else had done it in 2003! Come on.

Of course, the concept of sitting down and writing Peter King a letter about it probably opens the guy up for all the criticism you give him.

But I do get the feeling reading this thread and the Mike and the Mad Dog thread and pretty much all the media threads that there is a growing number of people around here (not you SJH) who just sit around, wait until they hear one of these guys get some stat wrong, or not remember some event from 7 years ago, or whatever, and then start in with the "What an idiot!!!!" posts.

Certainly with Mike and Chris, at least, I'm always amazed by how much they do remember, and can easily understand why some of these facts slip their mind at times.
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
7,021
Pasadena, CA
SJH: a bit of an overreaction, perhaps. I suppose if you want, you can blame Peter King for not remembering that play, but I think we can give the guy who wrote the letter a bit of slack. He saw this smart move and didn't remember that somebody else had done it in 2003! Come on.
I certainly understand what you're saying - I didn't remember it either. But I appreciate SJH posting that.

The guy who wrote the letter was former QB Frank Reich, and I don't expect him to know everything either. But the whole basis of his email (and King giving up half his column to printing it) is his confidence that this genius play has never been done before. He went out of his way twice to say he doubted it ever happened before. Plus he says, "I loved the way they did it. They didn't need to call a timeout to discuss -- there was never any doubt what they were doing. They broke the huddle with complete confidence in what they were doing. I guarantee you that no one but Peyton Manning pulls it off like that manner.

Anyway, I didn't think the play was all that impressive no matter who did it.


EDIT - Just found the gamelog, doesn't look like Brady called a TO before his final incompletion, though they did have a 5 yard penalty (delay of game?) before it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?g...17&period=4
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
SJH: a bit of an overreaction, perhaps. I suppose if you want, you can blame Peter King for not remembering that play, but I think we can give the guy who wrote the letter a bit of slack. He saw this smart move and didn't remember that somebody else had done it in 2003! Come on.
SJH can, of course, answer for himself if he chooses, but I liked SJH's post not so much for what he wrote but his general thrust.

Peter King is given to silly overgeneralizations about players he likes or respects. He wrote before the season started that one of the reasons why he was picking the Colts to repeat was Manning's "Jeterian" lack of complacency. He picked the Steelers to beat the Pats earlier this year, in part, because of Hines Ward's extraordinary "will to win." Now it's true that picking the Colts and Steelers in both instances was justifiable, but those reasons, and gushing over a smart but not unprecedented decision like the one SJH pointed out, seems a bit juvenile to me.

I don't doubt that Peyton Manning is not complacent and that Hines Ward has a great desire to win, but are those really meaningful points points of distinction? Did anyone else seriously believe that a point in the Steelers' favor over the Pats was that Ward really really really wants to win? And his recent assertion that Pioli will never get the credit he deserves if he is working with Belichick was similarly simplistic. Serious football fans appreciate well that Pioli has played and continues to play a pivotal role in the Pats' success. Pioli's name is brought up in articles disecting the Pats and by TV commentators with frequency. And more to the point, is it really believable that Parcells' shadow would be smaller than Belichick's? Yes, if Pioli gets a job like Parcells' gig in Miami, he will be identified as the sole decision maker for whoever is lucky enough to hire him, but it's not as if he would be moving from intern to a CEO position in terms of public perception of his organizational role.

It's easy, as you say, to nitpick, but King's penchant for over the top, conclusory writing about the players he respects the most leaves him pretty wide open for criticism, in my view.
 

Zupcic Fan

loves 8 inch long meat
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2001
2,708
Norwalk, Connecticut
Theo, I don't disagree with you because I certainly don't know as much as you do about Peter King, but my point was that to me at least it's not at all unusual for these guys to forget stuff like that play, certainly in the case of Mike and Chris, who get bombarded with stuff daily about every single sport----of course they're going to forget stuff---and every time they give any kind of fact incorrectly, the posts fly all over this place about how dumb they are.

So if the criticism of Peter King is that he makes ridiculous conclusions based upon vague stuff like blood and guts and will to win, I have no problem with the criticism. But if he praised Manning for making a very smart play, implied that it was rare for a quarterback to do that, and didn't remember that the Pats did it 4 years ago, my response is big deal. That wouldn't lessen him in my eyes one iota. In fact, if the only thing we can use to contradict it is a play from 2003, then the prasie was perhaps warranted (although, quite frankly, if didn't seem like such a big deal to me by either the Pats or by Manning, since a handoff would have probably ended the game unless a once in a lifetime play like the Joe Picarcek one occurred.)
 
Feb 28, 2003
17,253
someday
So if the criticism of Peter King is that he makes ridiculous conclusions based upon vague stuff like blood and guts and will to win, I have no problem with the criticism. But if he praised Manning for making a very smart play, implied that it was rare for a quarterback to do that, and didn't remember that the Pats did it 4 years ago, my response is big deal. That wouldn't lessen him in my eyes one iota.
I would assume that the point people are making is not that Peter King is an idiot for making a mistake, but that his framing it in terms like he did makes easy for people to pick it apart. If you're going to use a phrase like "I guarantee you that no one but Peyton Manning" you should be pretty damn sure that's the case. If you are not sure don't "guarantee" anything. He writes for a living. The meaning and context of words should be vitally important to him.
 

Zupcic Fan

loves 8 inch long meat
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2001
2,708
Norwalk, Connecticut
I agree: But the way I read the quotes in this thread, it was Frank Reich who used the word guarantee, not Peter King.
It looks to me that it was the original letter to Peter King that was being quoted there.

So I guess if you want, you can criticize Peter King for not correcting the guy, but my read is that Peter King agreed with Reich's contention that it was a smart play, really likes to praise Manning, didn't remember the play from 2003, and just went with the contents of this ex quarterback's letter. No big deal to me.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,912
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Zup, others have made the points I was making in my original post so there's no need for me to repeat them here.

I understand what you're getting at Zup: it looks like one nitpick in a very long column on football. Frankly, when I first read it I was unsure about commenting on it here because I thought I could be overreacting. But the confidence with which he wrote it combined with the opportunity to praise a very good player for pulling it off and saying no one else would do that pushed me to post.

I guess my point with that particular paragraph and with King in general is that he does stuff like this all the time: he makes a lazy generalization and doesn't do the proper homework to put it in a proper frame of reference.

Even if it's Reich that used the "guarantee" phrase, King is supposed to be the expert here. If he takes Reich's word for it, that no one but Peyton would ever be smart enough to make that play, and runs it in his widely read national football column, he has to make damn sure it's correct. You say it's no big deal, and it's probably not, but King's job is to get this shit right.

I mean, this may sound like obscure stuff (and probably why King didn't bother making sure), but it took me 5 seconds to remember the end of the Pats-Titans playoff game after reading King's bit. King is supposed to be the most well-connected football writer in the country, but he whiffed on this.
 

Zupcic Fan

loves 8 inch long meat
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2001
2,708
Norwalk, Connecticut
Fair enough SJH: I think I probably was reacting more to the quantity of that kind of criticism of my boys Mike and Chris than I was to Peter King specifically, who might be guilty of that all the time for all I know.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,605
I mean, this may sound like obscure stuff (and probably why King didn't bother making sure), but it took me 5 seconds to remember the end of the Pats-Titans playoff game after reading King's bit. King is supposed to be the most well-connected football writer in the country, but he whiffed on this.
When I was, I dunno, maybe 9, I remember either myself or a friend asking why a QB didn't do that to run out the end of the clock. I don't remember if it was me or the other kid, whose identity I similarly do not remember. Y'know, it might not have even been a football game, but a basketball game, where the question was why a player didn't just throw the ball really high in the air so nobody could foul and change the possession. I may not have even been 9 when it came up.

So there's two ways of looking at my point: 1) I'm unable to remember, so it's tough to blame others for not remembering the past; 2) We're talking about something that a 9 year old figured out.

All told, I don't like King's approach because he bought into an approach that was unnecessary to make the point. Mannings is a very good quarterback. Is it useful to nitpick every mistake a guy ever makes? No. But I think the problem here is making every good play into something historical.

The irony here is that just as the internet makes it easier to research these things, it increases the speed at which people are expected to get stories out, making it that much less likely that the research will be done.
 

BuntSingle

New Member
Jul 19, 2005
6
I have to say, I really liked PK's account of the Pats-Giants game. (Link.) Not just because it's so warm and fuzzy about Brady, the Pats, the perfect season and so on.
(Well, maybe partly.)
But more because King really captured the spirit of the game, IMO.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,656
King did a good job this week, though the travel story was his just desserts. For years he's been crabbing about people talking on their cells while in public, now we find that he does it too (though in a whisper -- sure Pete). And two weeks ago somone told him to STFU and he doesn't understand why she's pissed.

Pete, read your columns, buddy.
 

Carmine Hose

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2001
5,046
Dorchester, MA
Pete went out of his way to appluad the Pats and Giants for playing all out with nothing at stake for the Giants at all, yet didn't seem to concerned that the Colts hosed the Browns by not doing the same.
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
4,027
Florida
Pete went out of his way to appluad the Pats and Giants for playing all out with nothing at stake for the Giants at all, yet didn't seem to concerned that the Colts hosed the Browns by not doing the same.
Thank you for pointing this out!!! I was soooo angry last night on behalf of Browns fans everywhere-Dungy doesn't even call a timeout to try for one more play at the end?? And no one calls him out on this?? Grrrrr.....
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
44,233
Here
Pete went out of his way to appluad the Pats and Giants for playing all out with nothing at stake for the Giants at all, yet didn't seem to concerned that the Colts hosed the Browns by not doing the same.
This isn't a nitpick on King, in particular, but with the general sentiment I have seen over the last week or two. On the one hand, it is clear that winning the Super Bowl is more important than going undefeated (which is true). On the other hand, it is ok for a team with nothing to play for to lay down to allow a team to make it into the playoffs, but seemingly unacceptable to lay down and allow a team to go 16-0. If the end goal is to win the Super Bowl, then it seems pretty clear that getting into the playoffs is more important than going undefeated. So, why is it ok for Dallas and Indy to sit players but not the Giants? I assume that if 3 Dallas or Indy starters got injured, there would be an uproar. It's not something that bothers me terribly, but just a bit of a head scratcher. Seems like a glaring inconsistency.
 
This isn't a nitpick on King, in particular, but with the general sentiment I have seen over the last week or two. On the one hand, it is clear that winning the Super Bowl is more important than going undefeated (which is true). On the other hand, it is ok for a team with nothing to play for to lay down to allow a team to make it into the playoffs, but seemingly unacceptable to lay down and allow a team to go 16-0. If the end goal is to win the Super Bowl, then it seems pretty clear that getting into the playoffs is more important than going undefeated. So, why is it ok for Dallas and Indy to sit players but not the Giants? I assume that if 3 Dallas or Indy starters got injured, there would be an uproar. It's not something that bothers me terribly, but just a bit of a head scratcher. Seems like a glaring inconsistency.
I did not get the feeling that the media/general fan opinion felt the Giants could not rest their starters for the playoffs.

By removing the starters from the game, Dungy made a conservative and understandable decision (the decision-making at the end of the game is a different matter). Tom Coughlin was in a similar situation yet decided to play 100%. Peter King is commending him for that, even though either decision would have been ok. That's how I read it.
 

JKelley34

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,368
CT
c. Chad Johnson, by the way, sounds like a man who wants out. Wouldn't be surprised -- nor would several of my NBC peers -- if Bill Parcells, who is not afraid of bigmouths, deals his first pick in the third round to Cincinnati for Johnson.
Wait, this is all it would take to get Chad Johnson? I mean, shit, the Pats have an extra 3rd round pick from the Raiders. Package that and a 6th and re-sign Moss and see if you can actually find a way to score more than this season.

I think King is a little off on this one.
 

Zupcic Fan

loves 8 inch long meat
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2001
2,708
Norwalk, Connecticut
I don't see anything hypocritical here with the reaction to the Giants and Colts. It's exactly the way I reacted.
It seems to me that it's fine to praise the Giants for the way they played that last game while at the same time completely understanding why the Colts chose to do what they did, something they earned the right to do.

Neither the Giants nor the Colts had any obligation to anyone but themselves---and you can make the argument (and I understand the counter argument) that the Giants, even with the injuries, helped their playoff chances because of the boost it might give them, and especially Eli, while the Colts also helped their chances by resting players.

The Colts didn't in any way need the same kind of mental boost that the Giants needed before the playoffs. Anything they did against Tennessee was not going to either help or hurt the outlook they will need against the Pats up the road.
It's not the same thing with the Giants.

It's not the obligation of any reporter to look at every single situation in exactly the same way.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,656
If anyone heard Mike and Mike this morning, King was on and began taking Randy Moss to task for not "respecting" breaking Jerry Rice's record. Some background: when asked about breaking the record, Moss said something about it not being a big deal and that he was glad to do it to shut the media up. Rice got his panties in a bunch during an XM interview and went on and on about how the younger generation doesn't care, blah, blah.

While explaining this, King said that he sees Rice's point and that the younger NFL players don't care, and that makes guys like Rice and Emmit Smith angry. In the very next breath he said that Brett Favre didn't care about breaking Dan Marino's record either, but that's ok because he's a "winner" who doesn't care about breaking records.

This might be more of a pro-Moss bias on my part than a pro-Pats thing, but how is Randy Moss a bad guy in this example and Brett Favre is a good guy? The question is obviously rhetorical as I know of King's man crush of Favre, but give me a break.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
What is disgraceful about that is King makes no mention of Moss' lack of class, or whatever, in his MMQB column. Meaning, he saw nothing wrong with it until Jerry Rice, a man who just might be somewhat biased in his assessment of Moss' achievement, changed his mind by making some subjective comments about Moss.

With all due respect to Jerry Rice (and I'm not even going to dignify the blatant transparency of his Favre comments), I think its yet another sign that King gets too close with "his" guys. When he chooses the championing of dubiously football-related causes raised by former players over reporting on substantive strories regarding current players, well, he's not getting his priorities straight. That's a job for NY Post writers, not a guy who is SI's flagship columnist.

EDIT: If King felt it was noteworthy, he should have tried to get Moss to comment back on it. I gather he didn't, meaning this is just gossip.
 

gtg807y

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 31, 2006
3,172
Atlanta, GA
Bengals.com web czar Geoff Hobson had a great line the other night: Could Barack Obama in 2008 be Jack Kennedy in 1960? He might be right. Everyone says Obama's not experienced enough, or this country will never elect a black man president. Fifty years ago, Kennedy was a neophyte, and he was Roman Catholic. Hobson might be right.
I thought that was a pretty old, easy parallel to draw, but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe it's just news to Peter. And it's Jack Kennedy, thank you very much. Those guys were tight. Just Jack, Bobby, Ken O'Donnell, Pierre Salinger, Arthur Schlesinger, Lloyd Bentsen, and Peter King. The best and the brightest.

Edit: One more nitpick.

I did, however, care about the New Year's Day hockey game in Buffalo. Fantastic visuals, fun event, tremendous game capped by the best player in hockey scoring the winning goal in the last round of a shootout, with 71,000 riveted fans in the stadium. This was the best new sports-event idea I've seen in years, and I don't say that because I draw a paycheck from NBC.
It's not that new.

That's getting a little picky on my part, but it did take me all of 30 seconds to find that out.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,091
New York City
Edit: One more nitpick.
It's not that new.

That's getting a little picky on my part, but it did take me all of 30 seconds to find that out.
Very nitpicky, but your point is made, I guess. Nobody has ever heard of the Heritage Classic, and it was in Canada, and it was 4 years ago, and not during a snowstorm, so I'm thinking that game really didn't count.

Now *that* people, is a stunningly strong rebuttal.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
WTF:

h. Guttiest big-game player this weekend? Hines Ward. Hands down. Reminds me of Michael Irvin, with the chip on his shoulder, the jabbering to try to get into the heads of defenders, and the borderline offensive interference he gets away with. I love watching him play.
Talking shit, whining, and bending the rules makes you a good player?

Jesus...Hines Ward is a very good player because he's big, athletic, and makes good plays. His relative "grittiness" or "gutsyness" and all that shit is pure crap.

How King can print this sort of stuff without knowing how dumb it sounds amazes me.

also:

g. I have no explanation for this, other than the suspicions that all the resting by the Bucs in recent weeks had some effect on their second-half staying power. They just didn't put the front-seven pressure on Eli Manning in the last 40 minutes that they put on him in the first 20.
I have no explanation for this, other than the suspicions [sic] that had the Bucs won, you'd be talking about how the Giants made a big mistake in playing the Patriots hard. This makes no sense: the players were rested, so they got worn out?