I was obviously kidding, but I mean, who's interviewing whom there? King looks like he's in a freaking barcalounger.
Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
You know who he reminds me of? The corrupt politicians in mob movies (e.g. "The Godfather II", "Casino") that come after the mobsters for money.
At first it's all:
"Hey, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours! Right? Now come on, give me a payoff/inside information, I'll give you some polical cover/softball questions, and we can go enjoy your daughter's wedding/lunch buffet"
Then someone resists, and the tone changes to:
"I don't know if you know who I am, but you probably don't want to cross me. I have friends/10,000 twitter followers. And I was here before you, and I'll be here when you're gone. So you better not fire my cousin/tell someone my article was incorrect".
And then finally:
"Has Ace Rothstein ever filed a gaming license?/Has Bill Belichick ever won a Superbowl without a great defense?"
This is to say: I hope someone puts Brett Favre's head in King's bed.
At first it's all:
"Hey, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours! Right? Now come on, give me a payoff/inside information, I'll give you some polical cover/softball questions, and we can go enjoy your daughter's wedding/lunch buffet"
Then someone resists, and the tone changes to:
"I don't know if you know who I am, but you probably don't want to cross me. I have friends/10,000 twitter followers. And I was here before you, and I'll be here when you're gone. So you better not fire my cousin/tell someone my article was incorrect".
And then finally:
"Has Ace Rothstein ever filed a gaming license?/Has Bill Belichick ever won a Superbowl without a great defense?"
This is to say: I hope someone puts Brett Favre's head in King's bed.
He has to sit like that on account of his fanny pack, which holds his aforementioned velcro wallet and purloined hotel toiletries.
Someone called out Peter King on twitter for his vapid update about Andrew Luck. King's retort was as unsurprising as it was detestable. A true man of the people.
“@SI_PeterKing: Asked Andrew Luck Friday what's surprised him about this camp. Pause. "Not much, really,'' he said. "Can't really think of anything.''”
“@SI_PeterKing: RT @Rubenwduran: And they *pay* you for these nuggets? ... Handsomely, yes.”
“@SI_PeterKing: Asked Andrew Luck Friday what's surprised him about this camp. Pause. "Not much, really,'' he said. "Can't really think of anything.''”
“@SI_PeterKing: RT @Rubenwduran: And they *pay* you for these nuggets? ... Handsomely, yes.”
It's a doozie this week. I'll leave the particulars for Dr Leather, but I'll post this, because it really needs no commentary.
Today's column strikes me as a standard effort by America's most self-involved sports columnist. But I have to admit that when I first saw that picture, I was positive there was going to be an offensive OJ Simpson joke coming...
Edit: Was going to resist a deeper comment, but I'll just throw a teaser out there. The bit about Springsteen at Fenway - giving the quote, giving the lyrics, telling about the fan reaction, providing the most simplistic explanatory context possible and then, for anyone brain-damaged enough to not get it, explain Springsteen's comments: "Thus, the good-hearted apology" - is one of the more significant facepalm moments I've ever experienced.
Edit: Was going to resist a deeper comment, but I'll just throw a teaser out there. The bit about Springsteen at Fenway - giving the quote, giving the lyrics, telling about the fan reaction, providing the most simplistic explanatory context possible and then, for anyone brain-damaged enough to not get it, explain Springsteen's comments: "Thus, the good-hearted apology" - is one of the more significant facepalm moments I've ever experienced.
1) Please, Please, Please, let Andrew Luck be a bust.
2) 11 possessions, 2 interceptions? That averages out to about 2 INTs per game. 32 Interceptions would be, well, a lot. The scoring drives are nice, sure, let's not start sucking each other's lattes just yet.
3) I think one national game, to give everyone a look at Luck, is 100% fair, and possibly even generous to the Colts. They were the worst team in the league last year.
A bargaining chip's worth is not related to its physical size.
Ok, again, I get that the replacement refs kind of suck, but this reveals the impossible damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't position they are in vis a vis King. If they had rushed to judgment and avoided the [commercial] break, King would have bitched that they are endangering player safety by missing the call (and really, has King complained about breaks in football before? Ever? This is like complaining about intentional walks in baseball, it's just something fans deal with, and, I'm confident in saying, most fans would prefer refs take some extra time to figure out what happened. I mean, for shit's sake, whenever a *real* ref fucks up a call and has to overturn it due to instant replay, it takes about 5 minutes. And that's after they fucked something up!). Oh, and King never whether the call was correct or not (I'm assuming it was).
Peter King: sports writer, travel memoir-ist, barista, food critic, brewmaster, supreme court critic, constitutional law scholar, humorist, long-distance runner....(drum roll)....LABOR RELATIONS MEDIATOR!
Oh, but what about that manhole sized bargaining chip, King?
Oh goody.
What an uncomfortably phrased first sentence. "Uncomfortable for him"? Wouldn't "He never looks uncomfortable" be better? or "Nothing he encounters has made him uncomfortable"? Odd.
Oh. And, um, 10 hours really isn't a long time to study for a final exam. Unless you studied sports medicine or some shit like King no doubt did. 10 hours? Seriously?
"What's been difficult for you?" is King's favorite softball. It's like the "What's your biggest weakness?" cliche that people sometimes get asked in interviews. It begs for the respondent to recite a line of rehearsed bullshit. And, of course, Luck doesn't even answer the fucking question. He says, paraphrasing, "This shit is easier than Stanford. Stanford, now that was kind of hard."
That's um...that's the opposite of what you were looking for, King.
And then he gives some line about how protections are hard. I guess it's a decent answer, but it does seem eerily reminiscent of the "Let's just say we had problems with protection" line from Manning a few years back.
Ok, fuck off. You can't say this without at least hinting that it wasn't all "luck". The Colts did not try at all last year. They knew exactly what they were doing. This isn't like they had the 8th pick and Luck somehow fell to them. No, once Manning was out for the year, this became the plan. And fuck you, King, for not risking your precious access to Luck, which you are clearly using to build up Luck, so that you can get into his good graces and continue to have puffy non-quotes from him for the next decade, by pointing out the obviously semi-shady shit that the Colts pulled to make sure they drafted him.
And fuck Indianapolis, boring ass hick backwater town.
No QB controversies? NO QB CONTROVERSIES? Were you in a fucking coma this past winter? Let me summarize 90% of pre-draft NFL coverage:
WHEN THEY DRAFT LUCK, WHAT THE FUCK WILL THE COLTS DO WITH MANNING? CAN THEY COEXIST?!?!?!
Yea, and then we get the typical "smart white boy" shit that King always lays on at the end of a good, long, ballwashing session. "See, you can't blame ME for liking him. This is a good, wholesome, kid!"
TBC
"Even though the Colts will no doubt be terrible this year, I just love Andrew Luck. Don't you?"
Ah, so when you say you were going to try to avoid all Packer connections, you actually mean you...sought them out for comedic effect! I know this because I've been to Green Bay, and like 95% of the streets are not, in fact, related to the Packers. There are actual people who live there, and have real jobs (they don't just tailgate all year), and if I were them, I'd be pretty tired of vaguely-pejorative bullshit like this.
Yep. Pretty tired of bullshit like this.
Well, jesus, man, that's the fucking team property. What are they going to name it after, a cheese company? What's the problem with this?
King! You comedic genius you! Taking a stereotype to absurd lengths! Hah!
Next: King asks the question we've all been wondering: why are dames so touchy about how they look?
I don't even know what to say. First of all, I'm not wild about that song. A little history: it was written on the fly for the series of shows that closed the old Giants Stadium back in 2008. As such, it was played early in the sets for about five concerts to honor the occasion. Naturally, there is some metaphorical language in there that begs comparisons between the fate of the stadium and the fate of the fans that visited it over the years, and the fate of Springsteen himself. In fact, that line King quoted is (I think) the only one that makes a direct reference to the actual stadium. The theme is, you know, we have our glories, then we get old, and shit happens, but you just gotta deal with it and things will get better. Not exactly profound. Like I said, I'm not a big fan of it, but it's not as awful as the line King quotes out of context makes it sound (and which makes me believe the metaphorical aspects of the song is completely lost on King).
That being said: I have no idea why King felt the need to put that comment there. It plainly obvious what Bruce was "apologizing" for, and everyone and their brother from Kamchatka to Oslo knows that people in Boston don't like New York things. It's a fucking cliche. This is like King explaining the entire premise behind "My Cousin Vinny" thusly: "See, people from the south don't really like people from the north. They call them 'Yankees'. In fact, they fought a war over it once."
So, why did he include it? I submit he did it because he wanted to rub the superbowl loss in the face of New England somehow, and this was the opportunity he was waiting for.
Oh Jesus Christ. What kind of lame ass is King that he's just NOW discovering Bruce Springsteen? I mean, King is smack-dab in the demographic range that makes up probably 70% of Springsteen's fans. This would be like my father, who's 67, turning to me one day and saying "You know, I just discovered this band called The Rolling Stones. That Mick Jagger can really own a stage."
EDIT: I now realize that he saw Springsteen in 1976 (or claims to, anyway), so he didn't really just discover him. So I retract that (although, I have a feeling that he wasn't ever really a *fan* except when it became convenient to say so, like today).
Something tells me that King either a) hasn't been to many Springsteen shows, or b) doesn't pay attention while he's there.
I say this because, if he was any kind of fan at all, he'd have caught at least one show in the past 10 years where Bruce has played "Rosalita."
In 2003, "Rosy" was played at ALL TEN Giants Stadium shows and all 3 Shea Stadium shows. And all but the Shea shows were during the summer, King's off-period. So if he had desired, he could have attended any number of shows that summer and seen Rosalita.
In 2005, it was played twice at the Meadowlands, and twice in Newark.
In 2006, Rosy was played once at MSG, and three times at the PNC Bank Center in NJ.
In 2007, it was played twice at MSG, and three times at the Meadowlands, NJ.
In 2008, Rosy was played at all three Giants Stadium shows.
In 2009, Rosy was played at MSG 4 times, and at Giants Stadium 5 times.
In 2011, it was played at the only MSG stop of the tour that year.
In 2012 (TBC!), it's been played twice at MSG and twice at the Meadowlands.
It has also been played probably twenty times between Boston and Philly shows, which King could have attended if he had wanted to.
Meaning: King is full of shit when he says "Oh, Haven't heard that in awhile!" like he's some sort of hard core fan.
And I'm sure that was a completely sober, well-thought out, opinion. No offense to the Gillette crowd, because I heard it was a great show, but come on. Best ever? Better than the 1978 tour? Better than The Bottom Line shows prior to Born To Run's release?
King is such a dope if he honestly believes that the Gillette show was "the greatest [one] ever".
Wait, the part time nfl referees are demanding a pension better than the one that full time employees get? On top of the great pay they get for that actual time they spend working? No wonder the nfl is balking at this...
And with PK lobbying for the referee's union every week it's starting to get embarrassing. His particular criticism this week was so hypocritical. I know several times in the past he's advocated referee's take the time to meet and get the call right. And now when the subs do it he criticizes them. He's coming across as a shill for the referee's union at this point.
EDIT: I think King is full of shit about that 1976 show he claims to have seen. For one, it strikes me as odd that someone who doesn't seem to go to many shows, or have knowledge that "Rosalita" is now a common song to hear, would remember the exact date of a show he saw 35 years ago. I'm guessing he remembers Springsteen playing at the University of Ohio, but he didn't actually go. So he looked up the date online and tossed it in there in an off-hand way "Oh, you know, the April Fool's show back in, um, Athens, OH."
Why wouldn't he just say "In 1976 at my alma mater, Ohio"?
But that's fine, whatever. But what's strangest to me is that this is the description of the show on thekillingfloor.com, which is the most thorough database of Springsteen setlists on the web:
And King says nary a word about the experience leading up to the show or how he got such a good location.
If he was at that concert, I'll eat my fucking hat.
EDIT: and for a guy who saw Springsteen in 1976, in that kind of environment, to not challenge his friend on any 2012 (or any 1984-present) show being "the greatest" is simply unbelievable. He doesn't even make the comparison! King is a braggart of the first degree; if he was at that show in 1976, he'd still be fucking writing about it and telling us how awesome it was.
He is a LIAR. He was NOT at that show.
Why wouldn't he just say "In 1976 at my alma mater, Ohio"?
But that's fine, whatever. But what's strangest to me is that this is the description of the show on thekillingfloor.com, which is the most thorough database of Springsteen setlists on the web:
Now, King says that he was "four rows" from Clarence. Which would mean he got a spot approximately eight feet from the stage, and about 12 feet from Springsteen himself. At a show where there was nearly a RIOT. A show where people lined up three hours in advance to get a good location, and there was a mad rush for non-reserved seats.
And King says nary a word about the experience leading up to the show or how he got such a good location.
If he was at that concert, I'll eat my fucking hat.
EDIT: and for a guy who saw Springsteen in 1976, in that kind of environment, to not challenge his friend on any 2012 (or any 1984-present) show being "the greatest" is simply unbelievable. He doesn't even make the comparison! King is a braggart of the first degree; if he was at that show in 1976, he'd still be fucking writing about it and telling us how awesome it was.
He is a LIAR. He was NOT at that show.
Complaining about cafeteria food by quoting one of the most oft-quoted movies of all time is all that is needed to qualify for Tweet of the Week?
I haven't followed the situation, but isn't the NFL asking the officials to become full time employees? Forcing many (some?) of them to give up other lucrative jobs?
Full time NFL employees, most of whom could reasonably be considered management or management-track, are non-unionized and had no say when the league decided to convert their retirement plan to defined-contribution.
What the referees are actually demanding is a continuation of the defined-benefit pension plan they've always had.
The fact that many companies are transitioning from defined-benefit to defined-contribution doesn't mean that a labor union with significant leverage should simply accept this without a fight. While King has supported the officials in some respects the way he paints the pension issue is nothing but regurgitation of Park Avenue spin.
Not much to add, you have said it all. I just wanted to say again that I'm admiring your work in this thread. Very entertaining. Not quite Fire Joe Morgan territory yet, but close.
As bad as King's MEQB can be, his actual SI writing isn't much better.
In his scouting report for the Miami Dolphins in the current issue, he was hugely impressed with David Garrard and thought he'd be the clear #1 QB. Good thing he put up with all the hassle of annoying travel oddities and mediocre coffee to really nail the Dolphins QB situation.
In his scouting report for the Miami Dolphins in the current issue, he was hugely impressed with David Garrard and thought he'd be the clear #1 QB. Good thing he put up with all the hassle of annoying travel oddities and mediocre coffee to really nail the Dolphins QB situation.
Oh I don't really aspire to anything. The FJM guys were (at least in one case) professional comedy writers. I could never be as funny as them, and I'm really not trying to be.
I just like to complain, and maybe point out some bullshit.
As I mentioned earlier, I wasn't going to include any commentary about King other than the observation about my expectation upon seeing the photo.
Then I read the two notes about Springsteen and was so astounded at how perfectly they represented the "Tao of King" that I had to include the teaser comment just to make sure you were on the case.
You have not disappointed.
I'm serious. I think that's a bald-faced lie.
It would be like someone saying:
"Oh, yea, I'm a big fan of the Beatles. Caught a McCartney show last week. Played "Hey Jude." Haven't heard that in awhile. I've been going to see him since he played the Cavern Club in the early '60s. My buddy saw him another night and said he'd never seen a better McCartney show."
Or (probably a better comparison):
"So, I freely admit, I'm a huge U2 fan. Saw them at Gillette the other day. Wow. They played "Sunday Bloody Sunday", hadn't heard that one in awhile. First time I saw them was in a 100-person club on the Boy tour, in 1981. My buddy thinks the Gillette show was the best one he's seen."
It's just not fucking possible to throw that little chestnut in there without developing it unless you:
A) have a much bigger taste for subtlety than King does;
B) have a much smaller ego than King, and can resist the temptation to brag about seeing what was, honestly, probably one of the 10 most highly acclaimed rock tours in history (the fucking Born to Run Tour? There are esteemed rock critics who swear that that tour produced some of the best rock concerts ever performed.) especially if you consider that he's claiming he's a big fan; OR
C) Didn't actually go, and don't want to develop the story too much to make it easy for someone to spot some incriminating bullshit. Frankly, even his line "I stood 4 feet from Clarence!" is a little dubious given that the show had seating (which led, in part, to the mad rush described above). And even if you literally stand for a concert, you don't say "Oh, man, I had a great standing location!" You say "I had great seats! I sat four rows from Clarence!" King, however, seems to indicate that it was a general-admission, unseated, affair, which is not accurate.
It's bullshit.
It would be like someone saying:
"Oh, yea, I'm a big fan of the Beatles. Caught a McCartney show last week. Played "Hey Jude." Haven't heard that in awhile. I've been going to see him since he played the Cavern Club in the early '60s. My buddy saw him another night and said he'd never seen a better McCartney show."
Or (probably a better comparison):
"So, I freely admit, I'm a huge U2 fan. Saw them at Gillette the other day. Wow. They played "Sunday Bloody Sunday", hadn't heard that one in awhile. First time I saw them was in a 100-person club on the Boy tour, in 1981. My buddy thinks the Gillette show was the best one he's seen."
It's just not fucking possible to throw that little chestnut in there without developing it unless you:
A) have a much bigger taste for subtlety than King does;
B) have a much smaller ego than King, and can resist the temptation to brag about seeing what was, honestly, probably one of the 10 most highly acclaimed rock tours in history (the fucking Born to Run Tour? There are esteemed rock critics who swear that that tour produced some of the best rock concerts ever performed.) especially if you consider that he's claiming he's a big fan; OR
C) Didn't actually go, and don't want to develop the story too much to make it easy for someone to spot some incriminating bullshit. Frankly, even his line "I stood 4 feet from Clarence!" is a little dubious given that the show had seating (which led, in part, to the mad rush described above). And even if you literally stand for a concert, you don't say "Oh, man, I had a great standing location!" You say "I had great seats! I sat four rows from Clarence!" King, however, seems to indicate that it was a general-admission, unseated, affair, which is not accurate.
It's bullshit.
King was also at the Sex Pistol's Screen on the Green gig. No big whup. He actually preferred the Filthy Lucre tour.
From what I can gather, King would have almost certainly been a freshman at the time of that show, no? He wouldn't turn 19 until June 10, 1976. Pretty bold young whippersnapper to brave the bum's rush and wind up only four rows from the stage...
if you look at a map; it's not like he traveled that far: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tony+Canadeo+Run&safe=active&ie=UTF-8&ei=cHoyUJW0L-f66QGczoHADA&ved=0CFIQ_AUoAg The way he phrases it sounds like there are Packer themed streets all around downtown Green Bay. In reality, he only went right, right, turn around, left, turnaround, right. He should have hit Bart Starr Road or Reggie White Way while he was at it as he mentioned, considering they were just a block away.
That's a story.
I have no real interest in defending King, but back before I stopped reading his stuff I remember his description of that 1976 show in terms fully consistent with your linked description.
Here
He is fat and self centered (if that adds to the plausibility).
God, I love the Internet. Where all the answers will eventually be revealed. Dr. Leather laid low! (Although it does resemble that description almost too much...)
EDIT:
I know I'll sound like a crackpot, but I think he might still be full of shit.
One: his description does sound awfully similar to the one I posted. It's a little uncanny.
Two: In today's column, he says he was in the 4th row. In the previous one, he says 3rd row.
Three: The big one, to me, is that he says:
1. Thunder Road
2. She's the One
3. Born to Run
4. Backstreets
5. Jungleland.
6. Rosalita
7. Detroit Melody.
So, that would appear to back him up.
However, the person who submitted that admits it's a "partial setlist", meaning, those are just songs he happened to remember hearing that night. But here's the big thing:
At every show that tour for which a full setlist exists (which is the majority of the shows), "Jungleland" is played at the end of the regular set, right before "Rosalita": it's ALWAYS the 11th, 12th or 13th song played, and ALWAYS the second-to-last song before the end of the main set.
At NO SHOW on that tour (EDIT: or for the next four years, at least) did he play "Jungleland", the song King swears to remember best, anywhere close in the set to where King says he played it.
I submit that he googled that show, found the website, and made it up. I mean, why would he specify the number of songs that went by before Jungleland was played, and then clearly have it wrong, unless he's copping the info from somewhere else? Like, say, a website that also has a description of the show that (omigosh) is exactly like King's recollections!?
He's lying.
I know I'll sound like a crackpot, but I think he might still be full of shit.
One: his description does sound awfully similar to the one I posted. It's a little uncanny.
Two: In today's column, he says he was in the 4th row. In the previous one, he says 3rd row.
Three: The big one, to me, is that he says:
Now, the setlist given for that date on thekillingfloor.com has this:
1. Thunder Road
2. She's the One
3. Born to Run
4. Backstreets
5. Jungleland.
6. Rosalita
7. Detroit Melody.
So, that would appear to back him up.
However, the person who submitted that admits it's a "partial setlist", meaning, those are just songs he happened to remember hearing that night. But here's the big thing:
At every show that tour for which a full setlist exists (which is the majority of the shows), "Jungleland" is played at the end of the regular set, right before "Rosalita": it's ALWAYS the 11th, 12th or 13th song played, and ALWAYS the second-to-last song before the end of the main set.
At NO SHOW on that tour (EDIT: or for the next four years, at least) did he play "Jungleland", the song King swears to remember best, anywhere close in the set to where King says he played it.
I submit that he googled that show, found the website, and made it up. I mean, why would he specify the number of songs that went by before Jungleland was played, and then clearly have it wrong, unless he's copping the info from somewhere else? Like, say, a website that also has a description of the show that (omigosh) is exactly like King's recollections!?
He's lying.
Here is Dr Leather once again, posting on the internet without the facts to back up his comments. Where is his journalistic integrity?
this post brought to you by Evo Shield.
I am sure he was at the Springsteen show in 1976. He has always been way ahead of the curve on culture, just look at how he was into microbrews and $8 lattes way before everyone else.
He needs to stick to the football. I dont give a shit about cute team nicknames, beer, coffee, his mancrush on Springsteen, or anyone elses tweets, quotes, facebook postings, or instagram photos. I just dont care. He gets the resources and access that other writers can only dream about, from two major media players, and does nothing with them beyond the plainly superficial. Such a waste. No follow up, no digging deeper, no looking to make a story better. I'm no defender of his (even on football stuff, after his absurd position on Darren Sproles), but every now and then he comes up with something interesting/new. He has a couple of items this week, but as ususal, does nothing with them.
Interesting Fact #1-The Rams have hired someone to manage Janoris Jenkins' child support obligations. He thinks it is a good thing, to the point of saying "I dont know how a team could get a player to concentrate on football better by managing a difficult situation... ." I agree. But how about calling all of those GMs and front office guys that you always brag about knowing, and seeing if other teams do this. And if not, why not? Teams invest tens of millions of dollars into high draft picks year after year-isnt it worth it to pay someone 100k a year to make sure their child support is taken care of, medical insurance for the kids paid, etc.
Interesting Fact #2-The KC Chiefs penalty situation. Some good commentary about how bad they were with penalties last year, but it took me all of sixty seconds to determine that on a penalties-per-game basis, Cleveland was among the most penalized teams in the league Romeo's last two years there, after being among the least penalized teams during his first two years. So what is he going to do differently? Did he get away from attention to detail in practice during the last two years in Cleveland?
Interesting Fact #3-Tom House (who caught Hank Aaron's 715th career home run) runs a throwing camp for NFL quarterbacks. I had no idea, and hadnt heard that Brady went to this. But there is so much more there-he says Brady and Smith (who will play each other this year) were both there, as were Cassel and Palmer, who will play each other twice. How does this work? How does BB (given his penchant for secrecy) feel about Brady going to something like this where other teams' players are present? How does House handle having quarterbacks who compete against each other there at the same time?
He is dropping these things just to show that he knows them, without any real analysis or follow up, and that is just wasteful.
He needs to stick to the football. I dont give a shit about cute team nicknames, beer, coffee, his mancrush on Springsteen, or anyone elses tweets, quotes, facebook postings, or instagram photos. I just dont care. He gets the resources and access that other writers can only dream about, from two major media players, and does nothing with them beyond the plainly superficial. Such a waste. No follow up, no digging deeper, no looking to make a story better. I'm no defender of his (even on football stuff, after his absurd position on Darren Sproles), but every now and then he comes up with something interesting/new. He has a couple of items this week, but as ususal, does nothing with them.
Interesting Fact #1-The Rams have hired someone to manage Janoris Jenkins' child support obligations. He thinks it is a good thing, to the point of saying "I dont know how a team could get a player to concentrate on football better by managing a difficult situation... ." I agree. But how about calling all of those GMs and front office guys that you always brag about knowing, and seeing if other teams do this. And if not, why not? Teams invest tens of millions of dollars into high draft picks year after year-isnt it worth it to pay someone 100k a year to make sure their child support is taken care of, medical insurance for the kids paid, etc.
Interesting Fact #2-The KC Chiefs penalty situation. Some good commentary about how bad they were with penalties last year, but it took me all of sixty seconds to determine that on a penalties-per-game basis, Cleveland was among the most penalized teams in the league Romeo's last two years there, after being among the least penalized teams during his first two years. So what is he going to do differently? Did he get away from attention to detail in practice during the last two years in Cleveland?
Interesting Fact #3-Tom House (who caught Hank Aaron's 715th career home run) runs a throwing camp for NFL quarterbacks. I had no idea, and hadnt heard that Brady went to this. But there is so much more there-he says Brady and Smith (who will play each other this year) were both there, as were Cassel and Palmer, who will play each other twice. How does this work? How does BB (given his penchant for secrecy) feel about Brady going to something like this where other teams' players are present? How does House handle having quarterbacks who compete against each other there at the same time?
He is dropping these things just to show that he knows them, without any real analysis or follow up, and that is just wasteful.
You're right. You do sound like a crackpot. But it is still entertaining.
Edit: I think it is more likely that he has a poor recollection of the event because he doesn't really care all that much about Springsteen but wants to be the cool guy and show how he has been there since the beginning and shit like that. That would fit King more than outright lying.
Depending on who's paying the bills you'd think that this could be a cap violation--getting an accountant/personal assistant is compensation to the player, plain and simple.
This is a tough one. If King went to Ohio U, there is a chance he happened upon that concert just by being close to the venue. College kids do random stuff. But he's also full of shit and wants to sound cool and maybe he realized his proximity in 1976 gave him a chance to make something up. Where is a Springsteen Zapruder film when you need it?
He says he waited outside the venue from about 3:00 PM on. For a 7:30 show.
I could be wrong (and in fact, probably am), but PK just does not strike me as the kind of guy to do that.
That being said, he would have been a much different person back then, and perhaps was not yet a total asshole.
I could be wrong (and in fact, probably am), but PK just does not strike me as the kind of guy to do that.
That being said, he would have been a much different person back then, and perhaps was not yet a total asshole.
That is definitely the case. Whatever he is today, he couldn't have been as douchey when he was a kid.
Poor Peter throwing a little tantrum on Twitter.
Peter King ‏@SI_PeterKing
Appreciate you never calling me for comment, Deadspin. Real professional:
On this story about his overuse of the Evoshield thing on Deadspin
http://deadspin.com/5935095?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
But you know. Really unprofessional. Much in the same way he gave Sean Pamphilon an outlet for comment when pronouncing judgment on it not being right for him for releasing the Saints documentary.
Peter King ‏
Appreciate you never calling me for comment, Deadspin. Real professional:
On this story about his overuse of the Evoshield thing on Deadspin
http://deadspin.com/5935095?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
But you know. Really unprofessional. Much in the same way he gave Sean Pamphilon an outlet for comment when pronouncing judgment on it not being right for him for releasing the Saints documentary.
Hey hey, Peter King is a perfect model of professionalism.
I'm curious though. Other than him being the victim, how is this any different than him throwing that poor hotel clerk under the bus in his column? Surely he didn't call her to get her comment. But he felt like she failed in her job, so he trashed her in a prominent column on a high traffic national web site.
I'm curious though. Other than him being the victim, how is this any different than him throwing that poor hotel clerk under the bus in his column? Surely he didn't call her to get her comment. But he felt like she failed in her job, so he trashed her in a prominent column on a high traffic national web site.
King calling Deadspin unprofessional is like Carlson trying to take Stewart to task for not taking politics seriously. I'm not sure he gets exactly what that site stands for.
I can't wait to see the tantrum he throws over the lack of 360-degree reporting from The Onion.
I can't wait to see the tantrum he throws over the lack of 360-degree reporting from The Onion.
Ah, so when you say you were going to try to avoid all Packer connections, you actually mean you...sought them out for comedic effect!
I didn't read the article, so maybe I'm missing something, but isn't what I bolded above from King saying he was trying to find all the Packer connotations, not avoid them?
Yeah. The route he described isn't even 5 miles either according to MapQuest. It's 4.38. The Cambria Suites is the only hotel I see on Tony Canadeo Run. From there it'd be 0.33 miles to Lombardi Avenue, then his "two miles or so" down Holmgren Way, then backtracking 1.86 miles up to Brett Favre Pass, and 0.19 miles to return to the hotel.
Even if he ran the super fun bonus he saved for a future trip - to Bart Starr Drive and back to the hotel - that'd only add another 0.38 miles for a total of 4.76.
He words this as if his mileage is a Herculean accomplishment and he's a remarkable person for running on a Sunday morning.
"This is the way my Sunday morning in the White Mountain National Forest started: with a climb. A place called Mount Washington. I wanted to see if I could drive up the Mount Washington Auto Road..."
For a runner who cares enough to phrase it like this, 4.38 isn't 5 fucking miles. With him, it's also likely that he ran even less. His wording of "two miles or so" assuredly would've been "well beyond two miles" had he actually gone that far.
Or, Peter, you could've just said "... ran two miles or so south down Holmgren Way and then backtracked to the hotel" instead of naming the same streets a second time in the same shit-eating sentence. Ah, but then you'd miss the opportunity to pen another one of your redundant, interminable sentences that looks like diarrhea with words. You're also likely worried your readers won't grasp how wondrous it is that a handful of streets near Lambeau Field are named after Packer legends without you mentioning them at least twice.
Oh, and he wrote "curled around Brett Favre" twice.
