He really is down on the NFL playing next season.
Because of his connections, that concerns me. A lot.
Because of his connections, that concerns me. A lot.
Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
I feel better about there being football next season, because Peter king is so down on it.
Consider, though, that King has a tendency to report what people want him to report, because he is gullible. If he's reporting that it's unlikely that there's not going to be a season, that doesn't mean he's simply synthesizing some information that he's dug up; it means someone wants him to believe that there will be no 2011. 99% chance that this message is coming from the owners, who have been saying the same thing for months.
The upshot is: King's opinion means nothing. He's great at reporting facts, quotes, and stories, but not at coming to his own conclusions based on those observations. Just look at his handling of all things Favre.
I feel like he's made reference to a BCS joke with regard to the Patriots multiple times before.
While I agree with you and think that maybe the owners are using him as a mouthpiece (ala Gammons), aside from Favre, I wouldn't say that King is completely stupid. He may be dopey in his off-football opinions and has zero clue as to how to relate to his readers, but like Gammons he is the most connected guy in his sport, so his opinions do mean something.
Quoting a tired stale quip from a New York journalist from AOL Fanhouse on the Patriots is pretty pathetic, esp on the first page. This is a case where conventional idiot wisdom continues repeating itself, and King, who's the children's lit writer equivalent for the NFL, is the perfect meatball courier.
Pitt is up 31-3 against the dead-from-the-neck-up Browns. Third quarter, Roethlisberger comes out passing; Pitt runs, what, seven pass plays? Maybe eight? They end up scoring on a trick play! Randel-El passes to to Hines Ward, TD! 7:24 left in the quarter. The next series, Leftwich is behind center.
In the Atl-Car game, Matt Ryan is still in at QB, with the Falcons up 24-3, until only 2 min are left in the third quarter, and he's still throwing a few passes. End result, TD Atl, and it's now 31-3 against the sorriest team in the league.
Moral? This is what teams do, even ones with potent rushing attacks such as ATL and Pitt. At some point in the third quarter, you call it a day...but not before.
Wow, I didn't even notice that!
Anyway, he apologized for that mindfuckingly stupid "Arian Nation" comment after another mental giant called him on it:
Hey, the guy's never heard of a keg stand. Perhaps he's never been acquainted with the idea of an Aryan Nation either. Apparently, living in Starbucks keeps you quite cloistered.
In today's column, King dealt with the calls for him to step down from the Hall of Fame selection committee.
I like most of what King had to say today. There's absolutely no reason for him to step down from that committee. The process is fair and as King argues this is a case where increased transparency would actually hurt the integrity of the process.
I disagree slightly with King on the volume of candidates. The football HOF is too small. There are roughly as many players in the football hall of fame as in the baseball hall of fame, but of course there are over twice as many players in a football game. Guys like Willie Roaf and Dermontti Dawson have a legitimate case as one of the three best ever at their positions. That should make them easy first-ballot inductees, and if that results in their being 10 or 12 inductees in a given year, so be it.
I disagree slightly with King on the volume of candidates. The football HOF is too small. There are roughly as many players in the football hall of fame as in the baseball hall of fame, but of course there are over twice as many players in a football game. Guys like Willie Roaf and Dermontti Dawson have a legitimate case as one of the three best ever at their positions. That should make them easy first-ballot inductees, and if that results in their being 10 or 12 inductees in a given year, so be it.
Today's Peter King Nugget of Nowledge
edit: I suck at quotes.
I'm not sure how he misses this, especially since the Pats beat the Steelers in the first one he is counting for the Steelers, but the Pats have been to five (5) as well. I found myself wondering why he can't count.
edit: I suck at quotes.
"I found myself wondering why Team A is consistently good. I settled on consistency."
Nice.
EDIT: also, just noticed:
Fucking Coffee comes from the Peruvian Andes.
"• LIBERTY MUTUAL OR GEICO? "Why not add to your column on section called "Get A Grip Moment"? Watching Tom Brady sob because he was only drafted 166th and then, after the Pats picked him, to exclaim that he wouldn't have to become an insurance salesman, falls into the "I Have Lost Touch With The Real World" category. He owes insurance salespeople everywhere an apology. One of his early endearing qualities was the sense he was a genuine, well-grounded person. Guess he has been spending too much time with stars."
--Rich Church, Fairfield, Conn. First of all, Brady was picked 199th in 2000. If you're Brady, and you got drafted by the Montreal Expos out of high school, and you had college teams chasing you to be a major-college quarterback, and you play at a high level for a Big 10 team, you're going to be pretty disappointed if you end up selling insurance and not playing a sport professionally. Maybe he owes all insurance salesmen an apology, but I'm sure you can see where the guy was coming from."
I dont know if its more ridiculous that Rich believes Brady owes an apology for that comment or the King aknowledge this absurd thought and didnt do any follow up to find out Brady's dad sold insurance.
--Rich Church, Fairfield, Conn. First of all, Brady was picked 199th in 2000. If you're Brady, and you got drafted by the Montreal Expos out of high school, and you had college teams chasing you to be a major-college quarterback, and you play at a high level for a Big 10 team, you're going to be pretty disappointed if you end up selling insurance and not playing a sport professionally. Maybe he owes all insurance salesmen an apology, but I'm sure you can see where the guy was coming from."
I dont know if its more ridiculous that Rich believes Brady owes an apology for that comment or the King aknowledge this absurd thought and didnt do any follow up to find out Brady's dad sold insurance.
Also, I mean, "insurance salesman" is sort of a cliche for "Plan B" generally, but especially for athletes (if I'm not mistaken).
I agree that it would have come across as more affable if he had said "And nothing against the great insurance salesmen out there, like my Dad, but...that was NOT for me!" But, come on.
Every time a father asks their underachieving/troubled kid some version of the cliched rhetorical question "Are you going to join the Army? Because I don't know who else will take you!" Does that father owe all the veterans he meets in the street an apology?
Come on.
I agree that it would have come across as more affable if he had said "And nothing against the great insurance salesmen out there, like my Dad, but...that was NOT for me!" But, come on.
Every time a father asks their underachieving/troubled kid some version of the cliched rhetorical question "Are you going to join the Army? Because I don't know who else will take you!" Does that father owe all the veterans he meets in the street an apology?
Come on.
Good for Newton. King called him out before the draft saying the Newton cared more about being an entertainer than a football player without any really shreds of evidence. The next week King tried to back peddle, but did so halfheartedly.
Peter King is becoming unreadable.
I didn't want to bump this thread back when he filed his first post-vacation article, but...the guy didn't know Hitler was from Austria. Unless I'm crazy, everyone with a high school education knows that. I can't have been the only one who found that "thing I learned recently" (or however he titled it) mindblowing.
It's more gobsmacking than that:
"Vienna. So many parks, so little time. Parks and beer. That is one underrated city. Our last night there, we went to see an orchestra dressed in period costume and playing Mozart's greatest hits. Amazing how many of those pieces are recognizable.
Weird Mozart fact: He lived to be 35 (only!) and never lived longer than two-and-a-half years at any address. Weird Austria fact: Adolf Hitler was born there. Never knew that."
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/07/24/labor/index.html#ixzz1Tt4fjGWi
Who knew Mozart has lots of recognizable music? Who knew he died young? Who knew Vienna has beer?
The best part was his complaining of the pushy Europeans. He was just pissed off that he wasn't recognized and his fat ass wasn't kissed as much as it is here in the United States.
And I really don't think that he understood that "Scoozy" (or however he spelled it) is Italian for "Excuse Me".
And I really don't think that he understood that "Scoozy" (or however he spelled it) is Italian for "Excuse Me".
I guess he never saw "EuroTrip"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1onEGG7HWJk&feature=player_embedded
No.
The son of a bitch can't help but get carried away. Richard Seymour says hello, Peter.
Stunning.
And, if all that wasn't enough, may I present Peter King, constitutional scholar:
lol boo hoo
Honestly, I'm for a fair and reasonable amount of gun control. I probably err on the liberal side of the debate. However, what the (stupid) Peter Kings of the world don't seem to process when something like this happens? These are criminals. They are willing to murder to make a point. I'm willing to bet that most of those guns were not purchased legally, and if they were, so what, exactly? Do you think the type of people that would committ the sort of heinous crimes that these people have done would hesitate to illegally acquire a gun? If there's one thing people should learn from the drug trade about guns, it's that the federal government outlawing something, or making it obscenely difficult to acquire legally, will not stop people determined to get them, even if they need to illegally. So while I think tighter regulations COULD stop SOME gun crimes, this is likely a situation where it would not have made an ounce of difference.
Aside from the wisdom of his opinion, I found it hilarious that he needed to preemptively act butthurt from all the anticipated emails.
It's because he knows it's something dumb to say. We "need to do something tangible about gun violence"? How vague is that? Of course we all WANT to do something about gun violence. If there was a way to radically slash the amount of gun violence in this country with the ease he implies, any reasonable person would. But that's like saying we "need to do something tangible about the economy". Of course we do. But the whole second amendment thing implies he believes the issue is in the legal sale of guns in the US. Personally? I think the far bigger issue is with the illegal arms trade.
Just a guess but I bet he wanted to say something specific like 'we need increased gun control' but his editors who realize that there are many readers of his who disagree with his opinion wouldnt let him write something so specific and really alienate readers, they just let him do it a little.
Kudos for the guy sticking to his guns and trying to use his column to do something about this, but while I dont mind reading through his work with the troops, I really dont enjoy reading his soapbox stances even when I agree because I read his articles for the football stuff.
First, interesting phrasing you chose. Second, I don't appreciate SI.com's senior football writer using column inches to whine that "someone should do something". He's got a powerful perch from which to actually HELP, if he were so inclined. He could have put out the names of lobbying groups or victim's rights organizations or what have you. He could have done SOMETHING. He does something for the USO & troops - he uses his column to raise awareness and aid for several charitable or advocacy organizations.
I won't read another Peter King article because of his complete hypocrisy as regards Brett Favre. That note in today's column is shitty, shitty reporting and I really came to this thread to make a "clean off your chin Peter" joke. But fuck that. If Peter King is going to WHINE and then pull a Maude Flanders, I'm not reading and I'm not bothering to give a crap anymore. He should be better and it sucks that he's not.
For the 4,524th time: there are the following types of people who play fantasy football:
1) The people who play because they don't like football but like to gamble;
2) The people who play because they do like football and also like to gamble;
3) The people who play because they like football a lot.
Categories 2 and 3 will always, always, root for their home team first, unless their home team hopelessly sucks.
Category 1 wouldn't otherwise be watching.
There is nothing bad about fantasy football, and it does not corrupt sports fandom. This is like saying baseball cards were "bad" for baseball/baseball fandom, because they were effectively the same thing (a player's card is worth more if he does well, so you root for the guys you have rookie cards of to do well, regardless if they are on "your" team or not).
Any player or coach who makes a public comment about the "annoying" fantasy fans is either a moron, has no sense of humor, or is just trying to passive-aggressively deflect attention from a shortcoming.
Finally: what is the fundamental difference, when you get right down to it, with rooting for a player so you can brag to your friends that "your" home-town team won, and rooting for a player so you can brag to your friends that your fantasy team won? Really, what's the difference? The only difference is that players feel like they are under an even bigger microscope, because every time they don't perform it is quantified and registered by millions more people than ever used to give a shit. Peter King, it's not "interesting" that Arian Foster doesn't like fantasy football, the fucking reason is obvious: it's human nature to not want your failings publicized.
Since PK correctly predicted a Packers-Steelers Super Bowl last season (blind squirrel :: nut, as PK :: picks?) figured I'd post his SI picks for 2011.
(Note: I found these on what I believe to be a freely available SI-affiliated site, which is why I'm posting them in their entirety. I wouldn't have done so otherwise, but will take them down if I was mistaken)
1. Predict teams to be really bad, i.e. win less than 6 games
2. Defy the safety of conventional wisdom
As a general point, I can't stand predictions that basically account for no surprises. Other than the Lions (the sexy pick of just about everyone) he goes with conventional wisdom across the board.
Thoughts?
(Note: I found these on what I believe to be a freely available SI-affiliated site, which is why I'm posting them in their entirety. I wouldn't have done so otherwise, but will take them down if I was mistaken)
To a degree I think his hands are tied -- King's contacts through the league (in front offices and locker rooms) are both his stock-in-trade and the most relevant asset he has. Therefore, it's probably hard for him to:
1. Predict teams to be really bad, i.e. win less than 6 games
2. Defy the safety of conventional wisdom
As a general point, I can't stand predictions that basically account for no surprises. Other than the Lions (the sexy pick of just about everyone) he goes with conventional wisdom across the board.
Thoughts?
I've paid no attention to football since last season ended, but are the Chargers really capable of running through the AFC? Is Norv turner still their coach?
I dunno. Like dynomite said, it's a pretty conservative slate.
I guess the one that stands out to me are the Bills. I don't see how they'll improve.
As a Pats homer, I'd also like to see some reasoning why he thinks they'll flunk in the postseason, given that he picked them to win the Superbowl 8 months ago.
I guess the one that stands out to me are the Bills. I don't see how they'll improve.
As a Pats homer, I'd also like to see some reasoning why he thinks they'll flunk in the postseason, given that he picked them to win the Superbowl 8 months ago.
He tweeted that he picked them to lose in the playoffs because they hadn't addressed their two main needs, wide receiver and pass rush.
Seriously.
Yea. Thanks, but no thanks, Peter. We don't want you. You're from Jersey: root for the Mets if you want.
Peter King: Moral Compass = a close second
Agree about his pink hat-ness. It's so annoying to read him and Pete Abe try to out-douche each other on Twitter
<br /><br /><br />
I unfollowed them both long ago - I can get the same info they provide from others. Unfortunately, people I follow occasionally rt them.
He was actually born in Springfield, MA then later moved to Connecticut where he went to high school about an hour and fifteen minutes outside of Boston.
I did not know that. Still...
Including him in 9/11 memorial crap would have just rubbed the family's face in it.
Peter should really, really, avoid making political statements.
It's not a good point. It's a complete misunderstanding of what Pat Tillman likely would have wanted, and what his family likely currently wants. From what I've read (mostly from Jon Krakauer's book) Pat Tillman pointedly refused to allow either the NFL or the government to use him in propaganda efforts during his life. He also repeatedly wrote to his wife, and stated to his brother, that he was disillusioned with how the country responded in light of 9/11. Finally, his family has repeatedly expressed its anger with how Tillman ended up being used as propaganda. He absolutely believed in defending America, but hated all the assorted hoopla that came with it, and died thinking the hoopla part of the equation was the ends, and not the means, of the 9/11 response.
Including him in 9/11 memorial crap would have just rubbed the family's face in it.
Peter should really, really, avoid making political statements.