Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,701
Corsi said:
Isn't it just as big of a story if King says "I called every GM in the league and none would go on the record with me regarding Michael Sam."  But, then of course, King would kind of be biting the hand that feeds him and he would never do that.
 
Bingo.
 
 
Another thing, why go to these sources granting them anonymity up front?  Why not, you know, ask them to comment on record first?  Wouldn't that be much more interesting for his readers? 

 
 
 
Its not just that its interesting, it's how "journalism" works.  While anonymity is certainly "in the toolbox," as someone said, it should be a tool of last resort in critical situations.  If absolutely none of 32 would talk to him, OK, then its a choice he has to make. But: 1) he didn;t try to tak to 32 of them; and 2) it sure sounds like he offered it to them first before they asked. That's not even Journalism 101; thats Journalism 100.
 
I think that in all likelihood demanding on-record comments probably just yields a bunch of PC, disingenuous platitudes.  The more interesting story here is what do NFL executives really think, not what do they think people want to hear.
 
 
Getting them on the record serves another purpose, though. It gets them on the record.  And if the story is,"NFL execs dont want to talk about what they think," then that's the story you write. Not the one you want to write. 
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,381
To further your last on-the-record point, his logic on "well, we'll just get PC responses if they're on the record" makes no sense at all if you're actually a journalist looking to uncover the "truth." 
 
Say a GM answers on the record with, "Oh, it certainly won't affect my thinking. I'm all about evaluating talent." And then that GM takes what everyone else has pegged as an inferior D-lineman instead of Sam. Now you've got a story: GM said it was just about talent, then takes less talented player!
 
Why wouldn't you want that? 
 
Basically his logic is: "If I asked them to comment on the record, they'd all just lie."
 
Why wouldn't a real journalist want the opportunity to catch high-level executives in a huge industry (at least in terms of mainstream attention) in a lie!?! 
 
Well, we all know the answer - PK isn't actually a journalist. But, it's still sort of baffling that he's be so open about that. 
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,682
I was thinking about this last night and my rant was completely misguided. What King should have done, and this was sort of suggested in other posts in this thread, is to interview as many front office personnel as he can. He would say, I want your on-the-record and off-the-record comments and wrote something about that. I think it would have been a powerful piece not only on the NFL, but how people react to different, boundary-pushing, potentially culturally changing events that happen.
 
The big story is that Sam is gay, we get that and I think that we all understand that people say one thing publicly, but mean something else privately. I'm sure no one was shocked by this "bombshell". But the bigger story is why, so you juxtapose the NFL's public face with what you hear from behind the scenes and ask some more questions. And if the NFL gets pissed, fuck them. You're Peter King, your job isn't to "protect the shield", it's to inform your readers with honesty. Push back on morons who say, "Durrr can't do it now, but in ten years, I can totally see it!" Yeah, why? Why in ten years? Why isn't the NFL or MLB or which ever league not ready for gay people right now? This is 1947.
 
And if he wanted to save face and sources, the whole thing could have been done anonymously and King could have wrapped the whole thing in a nice, neat bow if he wanted to. But King is like my six-year-old, she wants to finish her homework as fast as she can so she can be the first one done no matter if it's right or wrong. King just wanted to be the big-dick swinging "NFL insider" that pukes a whole bunch of quotes on the page without any thought behind it just so he can be the first one to do it.
 
"I got it first!", who cares if it means nothing.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,194
Rotten Apple
Yeah, that was excellent.
 

You grant anonymity to get information or to understand background and context. You don't let a source trash someone anonymously.
I'm sure King will read this piece and take a long look in the mirror, take a deep breath and make sweeping changes to his lazy, garbage ways said no one.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,381
This should shame PK into quitting:

While King was assuming, the following NFL executives commented on the record on Sunday night and the days following: New York Giants owners John Mara and Steve Tisch, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, Denver Broncos football operations executive vice president John Elway, Green Bay Packers head coach Mike McCarthy, Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf, Baltimore Ravens president Dick Cass, Detroit Lions president Tom Lewand, Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam, and Chicago Bears general manager Phil Emery. (I may have missed someone.) They praised Sam's decision to come out. They said they would evaluate him on football merits alone. They said their organizations would have no problem hiring an openly gay player.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,943
Those guys can say whatever they want. It is all cheap talk until draft day. You can't catch a gm in a lie either on this as there is way too much plausible deniability. "Player x was higher on our board even though kipper had him lower"

One other thing, the GMs that don't draft Sam even if he is bpa on their board might not be bigots, they might just think they have a lot of bigots on their squad or their fan base. That is akin to statistical discrimination.

I'd rather know what these guys say off the record
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
6,190
luckiestman said:
Those guys can say whatever they want. It is all cheap talk until draft day. You can't catch a gm in a lie either on this as there is way too much plausible deniability. "Player x was higher on our board even though kipper had him lower"

One other thing, the GMs that don't draft Sam even if he is bpa on their board might not be bigots, they might just think they have a lot of bigots on their squad or their fan base. That is akin to statistical discrimination.

I'd rather know what these guys say off the record
 
Why? Because all of these guys just have to be totally backwards when it comes to social issues?
 
That seems to me to be cynical at least, and dangerously close to being retrograde itself. I understand football has a lot of problems when it comes to social issues, but if a bunch of college kids were able to play a full season without outing or Michael Sam, why is it so hard to believe a bunch of grown men can't do the same?
 
I don't want to argue that there won't be players and management in the NFL that will act like cowards or bigots about the whole thing -- Peter King and his 'sources' are prime examples -- but the NFL (and America for that matter) has accepted things it was 'uncomfortable' with in the past, and will do it again. And I think it'll happen this very season.
 
Forgive me for being a bit aggressive if all you meant to say was "some of these GMs might just be covering their asses" -- because that very well may be true. But just try to keep in mind a lot of these folks released statements voluntarily supporting Michael Sam.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
luckiestman said:
Those guys can say whatever they want. It is all cheap talk until draft day. You can't catch a gm in a lie either on this as there is way too much plausible deniability. "Player x was higher on our board even though kipper had him lower"

One other thing, the GMs that don't draft Sam even if he is bpa on their board might not be bigots, they might just think they have a lot of bigots on their squad or their fan base. That is akin to statistical discrimination.

I'd rather know what these guys say off the record
 
That's not really the point.  The point is that Peter King could have gotten comments on the record if he wanted, or tried, to.  Instead he gives a forum to people who only speak on anonyminity to protect...what?  Their team's bigotry?
 
For the record, it's not all "just talk until draft day."  Teams and respected personnel coming out and saying supportive things A) sends a message to their respective teams that they don't deal in bigotry and stupid bullshit; and B) at least shifts the discussion in the right direction, which is "Why do teams care so much if he's gay if he can play?", instead of languishing in the inane and retrograde quagmire of "Is the NFL ready for a gay player?" type discussions which give tacit acceptance to the repugnant answer of "Maybe not." 
 
And you're wrong that the comments place no incentive on those teams to live up to their word.  If Sam is generally rated as a 4th round pick, and he's still available in round 6 because none of those teams took him in rounds 4 or 5, then those teams, and the NFL in general, will have another P.R. nightmare on its hands.  All the "Well, uh, we needed to take another backup OL there" justifications in the world won't cover up the inevitable conclusion that the guy was black-balled.   I don't see the incentive, beyond doing the right thing, to come out and praise Sam for his decision at this time (with the exception of Zigi Wilf, who has a clear incentive to use this as an opportunity to white-wash his own team's problems).  Sure, it makes your team (and yourself) look more forward thinking, but with so many teams not doing anything, there would be no harm in just sitting back and saying "We are too busy with our own draft preparation to address one prospect.  Good luck to him."  
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,701
luckiestman said:
Those guys can say whatever they want. It is all cheap talk until draft day. You can't catch a gm in a lie either on this as there is way too much plausible deniability. "Player x was higher on our board even though kipper had him lower"

One other thing, the GMs that don't draft Sam even if he is bpa on their board might not be bigots, they might just think they have a lot of bigots on their squad or their fan base. That is akin to statistical discrimination.

I'd rather know what these guys say off the record
 
How do you know that "these guys" are even GMs, or football executives? Or even real people? You dont. You just *trust* that such an esteemed "journalist" as Peter "don't worry, you dont have to go on the record with me" King is telling you the truth?  I wonder if King had to tell SI editors who "these guys" were?  Its just ass-backwards.
 
Peter King's credo, "They'll all lie to me, so I'll let them go off the record."
 
This is how you do it in a column that ALWAYS mixes fact with opinion anyway:
 
" My staff and I callled all 32 teams. The GMs, coaches and owners that would talk on the record -- Kraft, Belichick, Elway, Tisch, etc -- all said Sam would be a football-only decision. (insert quotes here)  Some went further and echoed Goddell's lofty statement.   The dozen or so that would only speak off the record, I suspect, had different views. They have my phone number if they want to go on the record."
 
King might as well go work for the Weekly World News.  Then he can dress up like Kate Mara and pretend that Frank Underwood is his secret source about Elvis's true wherabouts.
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
joe dokes said:
 
Then he can dress up like Kate Mara and pretend that Frank Underwood is his secret source about Elvis's true wherabouts.
 
Great.  You just ruined Kate Mara for me.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
6,190
joe dokes said:
 
How do you know that "these guys" are even GMs, or football executives? Or even real people? You dont. You just *trust* that such an esteemed "journalist" as Peter "don't worry, you dont have to go on the record with me" King is telling you the truth?  I wonder if King had to tell SI editors who "these guys" were?  Its just ass-backwards.
 
Here's the actual list of Peter King's bros, from Deadspin: http://deadspin.com/how-sports-illustrated-botched-the-michael-sam-story-1521621764?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
At first glance, the sources are an impressive bunch. "Executives and coaches" implies high-level responsibility. And eight is a lot, right? But take a closer look. The six cited in the piece are identified as "an NFL player personnel assistant," "a veteran NFL scout," "one scout," "a scout," "one former NFL general manager," and "an NFL assistant coach."
 
 
Really the cream of the crop here. The former NFL general manager could've answered the questions from the Bahamas as far as we know.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,686
Peabody, MA
To be fair, that's not the list of Peter King's sources. Those are the sources for Thamel and Evans. King's was 3 GMs, which is in some way worse.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,803
I's really something that Deadspin now makes SI look not ready for prime time. This paragraph, I think, is the key:
 
Moreover, by offering anonymity, King, Thamel, and Evans were actually encouraging their sources to talk smack about Sam. That is, they were encouraging them to think of this as a horrifically complicated situation—that the presence of a gay player on an NFL team is so deeply fraught they couldn't possibly be expected to affix their names to an opinion about it. The notion that Sam could fall in the draft because teams worry about the unknown isn't controversial at all. It's true, even understandable. But if both reporter and source were convinced that anything but a politically correct opinion would be pilloried, and therefore anonymity was essential for any conversation to occur, that set some pretty low expectations for the thought capacity of NFL executives. It also ensured SI would get what it was looking for: people who believe that Michael Sam in an NFL uniform is impossibly problematic.
 
 
The story wasn't, "What do NFL types think about this?" but rather, "Some NFL types think the NFL is not ready for this." The very design of their approach--their "research" and "investigations"--demonstrate that they had a predetermined outcome in mind and they went about the story to accomplish that end. That's not journalism.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
6,190
PBDWake said:
To be fair, that's not the list of Peter King's sources. Those are the sources for Thamel and Evans. King's was 3 GMs, which is in some way worse.
 
Thanks for correcting me!
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,701
Reverend said:
I's really something that Deadspin now makes SI look not ready for prime time. This paragraph, I think, is the key:
 
 
The story wasn't, "What do NFL types think about this?" but rather, "Some NFL types think the NFL is not ready for this." The very design of their approach--their "research" and "investigations"--demonstrate that they had a predetermined outcome in mind and they went about the story to accomplish that end. That's not journalism.
 
Yes. I've been trying  -- and failing -- to say something like that.  If King KNEW  as he said he did -- that the negative comments would only come from those to whom he promised anonymity up front, and then he went ahead and did it, that isnt reporting.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,686
Peabody, MA
joe dokes said:
 
Yes. I've been trying  -- and failing -- to say something like that.  If King KNEW  as he said he did -- that the negative comments would only come from those to whom he promised anonymity up front, and then he went ahead and did it, that isnt reporting.
Moreover, the reason I think 3 GMs is a problem is that aside from being a small sample size, you had to know that King's rapport with these guys probably gave him some idea of what these guys were going to say going in. 
 

Trlicek's Whip

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2009
5,607
New York City
Reverend said:
I's really something that Deadspin now makes SI look not ready for prime time. This paragraph, I think, is the key:
 
 
The story wasn't, "What do NFL types think about this?" but rather, "Some NFL types think the NFL is not ready for this." The very design of their approach--their "research" and "investigations"--demonstrate that they had a predetermined outcome in mind and they went about the story to accomplish that end. That's not journalism.
 
Agreed. This is the way that the sports world is covered by the media both in print and on television. SI is being SI here.
 
You figure out the mythical or apocryphal narratives & storylines in advance and hype them and fatten them up and massage them until the event. Then you strike the talking points like hot steel on the anvil every five seconds during the event. Like "Peyton's Legacy" for the Super Bowl, or "The Curse" pre-2004 in Boston. And pre- and post-game interviews aren't questions, just declarative statements like "tell us about the touchdown to Welker" that supply the quotes that buttress the writers' already etched-in-stone theses. 
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,194
Rotten Apple
Trlicek's Whip said:
You figure out the mythical or apocryphal narratives & storylines in advance and hype them and fatten them up and massage them until the event. Then you strike the talking points like hot steel on the anvil every five seconds during the event. Like "Peyton's Legacy" for the Super Bowl, or "The Curse" pre-2004 in Boston. And pre- and post-game interviews aren't questions, just declarative statements like "tell us about the touchdown to Welker" that supply the quotes that buttress the writers' already etched-in-stone theses. 
Amen to that.
It's why ESPN looks and sounds like FOX News the past few years. Sportscenter ditched the highlights and went to a topic-based format with talking heads to feed the pre-baked narratives. Judging by the high ratings of both channels, it's been a very successful approach.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,943
joe dokes said:
 
How do you know that "these guys" are even GMs, or football executives? Or even real people? You dont. You just *trust* that such an esteemed "journalist" as Peter "don't worry, you dont have to go on the record with me" King is telling you the truth?  I wonder if King had to tell SI editors who "these guys" were?  Its just ass-backwards.
 
Peter King's credo, "They'll all lie to me, so I'll let them go off the record."
 
This is how you do it in a column that ALWAYS mixes fact with opinion anyway:
 
" My staff and I callled all 32 teams. The GMs, coaches and owners that would talk on the record -- Kraft, Belichick, Elway, Tisch, etc -- all said Sam would be a football-only decision. (insert quotes here)  Some went further and echoed Goddell's lofty statement.   The dozen or so that would only speak off the record, I suspect, had different views. They have my phone number if they want to go on the record."
 
King might as well go work for the Weekly World News.  Then he can dress up like Kate Mara and pretend that Frank Underwood is his secret source about Elvis's true wherabouts.
"These guys" was the deadspin list supporting Sam. It costs nothing to say you "support" Sam. 
 
You wouldn't have to be a bigot to give a "no comment" you would have to be a stupid bigot to give a "no comment". Much easier to just go on the record and lie with some generic statement.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,694
luckiestman said:
"These guys" was the deadspin list supporting Sam. It costs nothing to say you "support" Sam. 
 
You wouldn't have to be a bigot to give a "no comment" you would have to be a stupid bigot to give a "no comment". Much easier to just go on the record and lie with some generic statement.
I see no reason to think they are lying.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,943
pappymojo said:
I see no reason to think they are lying.
 
That's great, I hope they aren't. My only point is that the dominant strategy, if you are in fact a bigot, is to lie. So if bigots and non-bigots would both give the same answer on the record what is to be learned from the on the record statements?
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,943
drleather2001 said:
 
And you're wrong that the comments place no incentive on those teams to live up to their word.  If Sam is generally rated as a 4th round pick, and he's still available in round 6 because none of those teams took him in rounds 4 or 5, then those teams, and the NFL in general, will have another P.R. nightmare on its hands.  All the "Well, uh, we needed to take another backup OL there" justifications in the world won't cover up the inevitable conclusion that the guy was black-balled.   I don't see the incentive, beyond doing the right thing, to come out and praise Sam for his decision at this time (with the exception of Zigi Wilf, who has a clear incentive to use this as an opportunity to white-wash his own team's problems).  Sure, it makes your team (and yourself) look more forward thinking, but with so many teams not doing anything, there would be no harm in just sitting back and saying "We are too busy with our own draft preparation to address one prospect.  Good luck to him."  
 
Yeah, that's doubtful unless all 'on the record' comments are from bigots telling lies. 
 
All you need is one non bigot GM to exist and to draft Sam. That frees all others to act as if they aren't bigots. 
 
I truly hope that the NY Jets draft Sam if they think he is the best guy to get to Brady. I hope all the GMs feel that way, I hope the players care about winning. None of my hopes matter when it comes to analyzing this notion that asking guys what they think when society demands a certain answer "on the record" is informative of anything. I hope all GMs support Sam on the record for some message to society or whatever, but that doesn't for a minute make me feel like I know anything about how this announcement affected their draft board. 
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,381
luckiestman said:
 
That's great, I hope they aren't. My only point is that the dominant strategy, if you are in fact a bigot, is to lie. So if bigots and non-bigots would both give the same answer on the record what is to be learned from the on the record statements?
 
What?
 
Bigots don't lie all the time. You talk to them, and they betray their true feelings. These are GMs, not professional actors. That's what reporters do. They ask questions that get people to tell you what you want to know, sometimes without the subject even knowing they're revealing something.
 
Do they refer to Sam as a "homo" or "queer"? Do they project their true feelings onto a supposed "they" and talk about how "they're going to be hesitant to draft him"? Do they say "no comment," which is really a comment in and of itself? Are they clipped in their response? Do they seem nervous? Do they become defensive and aggressive?
 
I'm not saying PK should be up to the quality of the best investigative reporters in the business, but when you call someone up and say, "hey, tell me what you think, and, don't worry, I won't say who said what," you ask people to indulge in their most base speculation, since they know there's no reason to worry about what they're saying being held up to scrutiny. 
 
It's not like being homophobic in the U.S. results in instant scorn. Politicians introduce constitutional amendments against gay marriage because it helps their re-election chances. Like football fans are amongst the most progressive people out there? How do you know if you could get a GM to get on the record saying he wouldn't draft him unless
you ask?

Edit: A state legislature just voted to make it explicitly legal to deny gays service: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/12/4817862/kansas-house-approves-response.html

But no way does an NFL GM say something homophobic on the record? Okay.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,701
luckiestman said:
 
That's great, I hope they aren't. My only point is that the dominant strategy, if you are in fact a bigot, is to lie. So if bigots and non-bigots would both give the same answer on the record what is to be learned from the on the record statements?
 
For one thing, you learn who is making the comment.
 
I'm not saying PK should be up to the quality of the best investigative reporters in the business, but when you call someone up and say, "hey, tell me what you think, and, don't worry, I won't say who said what," you ask people to indulge in their most base speculation, since they know there's no reason to worry about what they're saying being held up to scrutiny. 
 
 
Its not about "lying" or "telling the truth."  Anonymity -- whether here or in response to a Peter King question -- makes it a shitload easier to be thoughtless (literally "without thought", not selfish)  and unaccountable.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,803
drleather2001 said:
 
Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me
We know, via Jay Glazer, that Dolphin tackle Jonathan Martin, in response to a table full of teammates leaving when he went to sit down last Monday, threw his tray down in the Miami cafeteria and left the building in anger. Now you’ll know the rest of the story: The meal he threw down was spaghetti.
 
I am legitimately not sure what King's take is here.  I get the feeling that he's taking the side of Incognito, albeit in an oblique way.  If I had to guess, King's thoughts on the matter could be summed up thusly:
 
"So, let me get this straight, a professional football player gets a little razzed, a little teased, a little "hazed" (if you want to call it that), and instead of taking his licks and earning his spot like every other player, he goes to the press and makes a big stink.  You know, I remember when football players were football players, men were men, and this sort of thing would never happen.  This is ridiculous."
 
On a deeper level, I am certain that Peter King subconsciously sides with Martin, and with socially-santioned bullying, because I am confident that he is a weak man who thinks that, by approving of such behavior, he is more of a "real man" or whatever.  You know the type; tough-guy-by-association.  
 
But even putting all that aside:  King doesn't take a stance on this.  In a previous section, here's what he says:
 
When something like the Jonathan Martin story happens—a perfectly normal football player cracks under some pressure, walks out on his team, then has his representatives forward charges of what they claim document harassment—the first instinct is to blame someone. But I don’t think there’s a single person or entity at fault.
 
 
Basically, King says, "Shit happens."  He then focuses exclusively on the "Pay for my trip to Vegas" angle, as if this whole thing boils down to money.   It doesn't. 
Incognito is a fucking asshole.  Why is this so hard for King to say? 
 
 
The matter is now in the investigative hands of the league and the team. It’s hard to imagine Martin coming back to play in Miami; the tension in the locker room will be palpable, because some Dolphins will see Martin as a rat for going outside the family to air his grievances. That seems grossly unfair, obviously, if the harassment he is alleging is true. But it’s a way of life in the NFL.
 
Ah, so...that's ok?  Because it's a way of life in the NFL? 
 
"That SEEMS unfair...But it's the NFL!" 
 
Is it, or is it not, unfair? 
 
I guess what I'm saying is:  for a guy who has strong opinions from everything from coffee to beer to airlines to hotel pillows to Amtrak quiet cars, King seems awfully meek on this issue that seems pretty cut and dried to me: Incognito was an asshole.  There.
 
For a guy who has no problem letting Riley Cooper off the hook, nay no problem giving Riley Cooper credit, for being a racist asshole, King sure is slow to come out in Martin's defense.
 
He's a fucking phony.


 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,803
mascho said:
Yeah, and PK is now all over Twitter crushing Incognito and Pouncey.  
 
Back then, he probably thought he was protecting the shield. Now that it seems likely that the Sheriff is gonna go the other way, so too does King.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,701
This was in an a good MMQB piece by Bedard about watching Sam on tape:
 
On Monday morning, my boss, Peter King, called with an edict: “Don’t talk to any scouts or general managers. Just find as much tape as you can on Michael Sam, watch it and write what you think.”
 
 
Only PK gets to talk to scouts and GMs about Michael Sam. (OK maybe I'm reading too much there....)
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,455
Southwestern CT
joe dokes said:
This was in an a good MMQB piece by Bedard about watching Sam on tape:
 
 
Only PK gets to talk to scouts and GMs about Michael Sam. (OK maybe I'm reading too much there....)
 
I don't think you are reading too much into it.
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
With all due respect to Bedard (I think he's great), why the hell should I respect his opinion more than someone who, you know, scouts football players for a living?
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
Corsi said:
With all due respect to Bedard (I think he's great), why the hell should I respect his opinion more than someone who, you know, scouts football players for a living?
 
Because unlike those scouts, he has no incentive to lie?
 
You're trading a certain degree of experience/knowledge for open access - sort of like when you read Zach Lowe or any other analyst.
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
Alcohol&Overcalls said:
 
Because unlike those scouts, he has no incentive to lie?
 
You're trading a certain degree of experience/knowledge for open access - sort of like when you read Zach Lowe or any other analyst.
 
That's fair.  What about talking to college scouts (those exist, right?)? 
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,820
right here
in his defense I think the point he was trying to get at was to not bias Bedard with others' opinion before he had one himself? Which might not be the worst thing in the world?
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
It's admittedly nitpicky.  I'm just surprised they didn't solicit any outside opinions.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,682
The Napkin said:
in his defense I think the point he was trying to get at was to not bias Bedard with others' opinion before he had one himself? Which might not be the worst thing in the world?
 
I agree. In fact, I think that this is one of PK's better ideas.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,218
Missoula, MT
I don't know, Bedard is a football writer.  He should have some opinion on Sam as a football player already.  The fact that King has told Bedard to only report on Sam as a football player tells me that King wants all the "juicy" quotes, from NFL team reps,  about Sam as a gay man to himself.  
 
At this point long before the draft, that is what everyone is gonna write about and King wants it all the SI reader eyeball clicks to himself. SEE, PEOPLE READ ME. 
 
Is there any doubt that King will use nothing but useless cliche and other people's work when writing about Sam just before and after the draft?
 
It will go something like this:
 
Sam is drafted anywhere:
 
"SEC D player of the year was obviously getting drafted. As SI's Greg Bedard notes... etc. etc."
 
If Sam is not drafted:
 
Sam, at 6'2 250 was too small to fit in any teams plans.  As one NFL scout noted back in February..."
 
None of it will be his own thinking.
 

mpx42

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
2,684
Seattle, WA
a. A fond farewell tour is my hope for Derek Jeter. And that, to him, would mean a 162-game season, playing well enough to lead the Yankees deep into the playoffs. 
 
So, Peter King, self-professed Red Sox fan, hopes to see Derek Jeter lead the Yankees deep into the playoffs?
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,080
The Granite State
The world does NOT need Peter King's take on USA vs. Russia hockey.  Seriously?
 
And what is with the fart fascination?  Why does this make it into a national column? 
 
Weird.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,833
Oregon
mpx42 said:
 
So, Peter King, self-professed Red Sox fan, hopes to see Derek Jeter lead the Yankees deep into the playoffs?
 
Well, Jeter lives in the same city as PK
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,381
"What was that about?"
 
Really, Pete? You're unclear about the goalie's role in the shootout? 
 
Also, he has no clue what he's talking about with the Icognito stuff.
 
First there's this:
 
“Martin believed that going to his coaches or other authority figures meant risking ostracism or even retaliation from his fellow linemen. At the same time, we strongly believe that if Martin had reported the harassment to a coach or front office executive (or even his agent), the team might have been able to address his issues before it was too late. There is no question that the better course of action would have been for Martin to report the abuse.” Absolutely.
 
 
What part of the first part did you not understand, Pete? He feared ostracism and retaliation. That's why he didn't go to the coach. But you, PK, who is terrified of even annoying a source, are going to sack up and "snitch" (I don't think he even uses that word right)? Bullshit. 
 
This is the exact same argument you hear in domestic violence cases all the time: "the better course of action would have been to call the police/reach out to family/blah, blah." Yeah, no shit. They didn't do that because they were terrified. OBVIOUSLY that's the better course of action. 
 
When has anyone ever said, "the right thing to do there was to just take the abuse and suffer"?
 
Further, the very next item is this:
 
 “We find that Head Coach Joe Philbin was not aware of the mistreatment of Martin, Player A or the Assistant Trainer. After interviewing Coach Philbin at length, we were impressed with his commitment to promoting integrity and accountability throughout the Dolphins organization—a point echoed by many players,” the report said. How can Philbin have been in that building 15 hours a day, at least, and not known anything?
 
 
Hmmmm. Maybe Martin, who actually works for the guy, sense he didn't really give a shit what happened in the locker room and wasn't all that confident he would actually do something. Just maybe? 
 
But he should have been an adult. Like PK would have been if he had been in the same situation. Obviously. 
 
Fuck you, Pete. 
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
I happen to be employed by the same organization as one of Peter's daughters. I just received a company-wide email that she received a promotion today, so expect a paragraph or two dedicated to that on Monday.
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
g. Beernerdness: Two selections from a weekend of fine beer-drinking in the fine city of Indianapolis. One: Osiris Pale Ale, by Sun King Brewing of Indianapolis. A delicious and perfectly hoppy pale ale served in a tall can. That beer needs to get to New York, and fast. Two: Rail Splitter IPA, of Triton Brewing, also of Indy. (Great craft beer town by the way. I’d be hospitalized if I tried them all.) Not many IPAs give off a citrus scent, but this one does. I really liked it.
 
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
Checking in at the downtown Marriott the other day for the combine, and a woman next to me was doing the same with another front-desk person. She asked the woman checking her in: “What is the scouting combine?” The Marriott attendant said it was the NFL bringing college players in for workouts and interviews with teams, and it comes to Indianapolis every February.
 
“I don’t get the name,” the Marriott guest said. “The combine … it’s a combination of something?”
 
 

Peter King, ladies and gentlemen.  What a smug fucking asshole.
 
The irony is that she was RIGHT!
 
There used to be three separate camps and they all "combined" sometime in the 80s and now we have a combination of all three camps into the annual NFL Scouting Combine that we have today.
 
So, instead, King makes fun of this lady for not understanding the name, but he doesn't even understand it himself.  And he was too lazy to do the two seconds of research necessary to educate his readers on the origins of the name.  
 
I hate this guy.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,194
Rotten Apple
Seems like King spends a good portion of his life eavesdropping on strangers and then tattling on them in public for his own satisfaction. Real grownup that King.
 

mandro ramtinez

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2006
1,612
Boston, MA
As a person who is paid to write what are supposed to be interesting columns, how could PK possibly think that banal story about the women's question was worthy of being printed?