20 bases? I think that's pulled out of King's ample ass. Is there really going to be 20 times (almost once a week) where Manny gets a double instead of a triple, or a single instead of a double. I say no. let's keep track.
RUNNING TOTAL: 0
Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
RUNNING TOTAL: 0
Maybe not, but King's been grinding this axe about Manny for years now, and while his lack of "hustle" may indeed someday bite the team in the ass in a critical manner, I think that being a huge contributor to two WS championship teams gets him some slack.
I thought this was pretty classic King from yesterday:
I love the part about people who don't play the game policing it, and also the racial overtone comment. Uh, didn't Herm Edwards play in the NFL? And I may be wrong, but he's not an old white guy, either. I think PK just wants to keep in good with his buddy Polamalu.
I have images of Peter King spewing his triple-decaf-pineapple-mocha all over himself in ecstasy as Manny eased into 3rd base today.
A Ramirez triple is how you play the game right.
A Ramirez triple is how you play the game right.
As an aside - couldn't watch the ceremony live here in NY, but saw some NESN clips, and it appeared Manny ran out to get his when everyone else walked. I thought it was an amusing Manny-ism.
I don't think that Peter King has ever seen an early episode of "The Office".
Seriously, he wants a dumber Michael Scott?
Thing is, most real life women in Pam's position (receptionist at a small company in a small, backwater, city) wouldn't quit. Or slug their boss. Part of what makes The Office somewhat believable (especially in the British version) is that the characters are all pretty average people in mediocre jobs with pretty lousy career prospects. Jesus, what else is Pam going to do? She's not exactly a rocket scientist.
Well, she made a bit of an effort, but she was rebuffed when it turned out she has none of the basic skills required for an entry level job as a graphic designer.
I think that he said that he's seen the British version of "The Office" and liked it. I can't understand how a guy that's reasonably intelligent can't understand the overall psychology that runs behind the characters of the American show. Pam is a beat-down, secretary that works ten miles from where she graduated high school. Having her stand up and punch (PUNCH?) Michael in the nose would run so counter to her character that it would completely destroy the show's dynamics.
Pam was with Roy for years, she obviously can do better than being a secretary and she recently started believing that she was attractive. Of course Pam isn't self respecting, that's her fucking character. That's the joke--the audience sees/knows more about these characters than the characters actually do. That is why this is a good show and not "Laverne and Shirley" or "Three's Company".
Peter King is so fucking thick some times.
Pam was with Roy for years, she obviously can do better than being a secretary and she recently started believing that she was attractive. Of course Pam isn't self respecting, that's her fucking character. That's the joke--the audience sees/knows more about these characters than the characters actually do. That is why this is a good show and not "Laverne and Shirley" or "Three's Company".
Peter King is so fucking thick some times.
Excerpt of the MMQB from yesterday:
The answer is - of course they are. That's their job. Journalists aren't asking questions because they give a shit about the person they're talking to. They're asking to get a reaction. If a player gives an answer they don't like, because he's been coached or it's obviously a prepared response, they ask the same question again a different way. They'll continue to do so until they get the answer they want to print or they think their victim is going to stick to his story.
I enjoy his stuff. It's not great writing but the football stories are usually interesting. It's just that he plays the 'innocent press' card too many times. And it's frustrating because I'm sure he knows what he's doing. In the four million interviews he's done over the course of his distinguished career I imagine he's done it himself quite a bit.
I guess I wonder why I continue to read Peter King.
Emphasis mine.
The answer is - of course they are. That's their job. Journalists aren't asking questions because they give a shit about the person they're talking to. They're asking to get a reaction. If a player gives an answer they don't like, because he's been coached or it's obviously a prepared response, they ask the same question again a different way. They'll continue to do so until they get the answer they want to print or they think their victim is going to stick to his story.
I enjoy his stuff. It's not great writing but the football stories are usually interesting. It's just that he plays the 'innocent press' card too many times. And it's frustrating because I'm sure he knows what he's doing. In the four million interviews he's done over the course of his distinguished career I imagine he's done it himself quite a bit.
I guess I wonder why I continue to read Peter King.
Well, for the next 4 weeks there is no PK to read, so I guess that's good.
I'm looking forward to the day he doesn't start every single answer to a mailbag question with "Great question" or "I am so glad you weighed in".
Yea, but this kind of gets to the heart of Peter King: he's a great football writer that doesn't know dick about anything else in the world. I believe his naivete when he says he believes the media wants to "get to know the guy" they are interviewing. Peter King very obviously got to where he is today because players feel that he is a guy they can trust. Shit, that's his forte. The problem is that he can't recognize bullshit when he sees it. His love affair for Favre, who's image is obviously contrived, as well as Romo's "Awe shucks" and Jeter's ("He's the best player I ever saw") images, plus and his scorn toward Belichick when it turned out the Patriots' own "Team First/Good Citizens" image was proven to be a sham (heavily reinforced and sustained by the media, I might add) speak to this point.
Peter King wants to believe people. He wants to see the good side of everything, but has a hard time recognizing that not everything works out that way.
"Oh, gee, gosh, movies are so violent! Why can't we have more movies like Tootsie!"
Peter King wants to believe people. He wants to see the good side of everything, but has a hard time recognizing that not everything works out that way.
"Oh, gee, gosh, movies are so violent! Why can't we have more movies like Tootsie!"
The strange thing about this week's column is that he seemed to be very lenient on Peters about his years of drug abuse, but wanted Nick Kaczur bounced from the Patriots. I don't think that I'm looking at this through Pats colored glasses (I may, though I don't think that I am) but I think that this example of hypocrisy gets to the heart of Peter King's column and meshes nicely with Leather's point.
Peters apologized about his drug abuse and married a girl that he met in rehab (I think it was his third or fourth time in rehab) and I think that King believes that he's going to be on the straight and narrow. Kaczur hasn't said anything about his drug arrest, so he must not be repentant and should be punished harshly.
Also, I find it strange that King mentions Peters' brother Christian in passing, but doesn't get into the whole thing about how he smacked his girlfriend around, which caused him (a high draft pick) to get released by the Pats before ever playing a practice squad down. The story to me, is that this family has something wrong with them if they're into heavy drug abuse, prostitution and domestic abuse. As a reporter, shouldn't you play that angle up instead of the "Aww shucks, he's cured!" b.s. angle?
Peters apologized about his drug abuse and married a girl that he met in rehab (I think it was his third or fourth time in rehab) and I think that King believes that he's going to be on the straight and narrow. Kaczur hasn't said anything about his drug arrest, so he must not be repentant and should be punished harshly.
Also, I find it strange that King mentions Peters' brother Christian in passing, but doesn't get into the whole thing about how he smacked his girlfriend around, which caused him (a high draft pick) to get released by the Pats before ever playing a practice squad down. The story to me, is that this family has something wrong with them if they're into heavy drug abuse, prostitution and domestic abuse. As a reporter, shouldn't you play that angle up instead of the "Aww shucks, he's cured!" b.s. angle?
Peter's special time with Favre
In this week's columnm Peter makes us all see Brett Favre as the good guy pushed into a corner here.
In this week's columnm Peter makes us all see Brett Favre as the good guy pushed into a corner here.
I haven't read King in years because I don't usually read CNNSI, but are you really surprised at this? Seriously, no one washes Brett's balls better or more often than King.
Jesus what amistake it was to read that.
And this quote from Favre:
And let me edit this for you:
I love how King makes no bones about making threats. "Ted: You'll be SOOOOOORRRRRYYYYYY!"
And this quote from Favre:
Is self-serving bullshit.
And let me edit this for you:
This should read:
Wonder how much he charges Brett for his PR "expertise"?
This was my favorite:
So, until Saturday, you were sure the Vikes would get whacked, but now that Brett has told you otherwise, everything is ok, and they have done nothing wrong? That is some hard-hitting journalism right there.
Of course I'm not surprised; King doesn't wash Favre's balls, he tongues them.
He already does probably 60% of these in any given week. In fact, most people would say that either Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Tedy Brushi, or Tony Romo have earned the "Good Guy Of The Week" award 6 years running.
And christ, "Hobby of the Week"...God help us.
"You know, when I was a kid, I knew a guy who collected stamps/made model trains/launched model rockets/collected sea shells/collected bottle caps/ate hotdogs/played with little boys penises. I always found him fascinating!"
Blech.
And christ, "Hobby of the Week"...God help us.
"You know, when I was a kid, I knew a guy who collected stamps/made model trains/launched model rockets/collected sea shells/collected bottle caps/ate hotdogs/played with little boys penises. I always found him fascinating!"
Blech.
If I had one question to ask Peter King, I'd ask this: why is Manny Ramirez an asshole and Brett Favre is a victim?
I would ask him- why did you eat Norm from Cheers and then take his human form?
Because Latin people are lazy, and Southern Boys have pickin' and ploughin' and haulin' and...sweatin'...and ridin'...and (oh god) wrestlin'...and pumpin'...and fuckin'...in their veins.
I feel dirty after reading this...
Anyway, I'm sure he and Manny can work out their differences in a few steamy text messages.
Man, I love Peter King loving Brett Favre. "I know what you guys are thinking, Jake Delhomme had an awful game, but the worst playoff performance is still Favre's 6 pick game against the Rams. Well, not so fast. I know for a fact that those interceptions were not Favres fault, he was forced to be a gunslinger (please ignore the 2 first half picks that were returned for a TD and to the 4-yard line, respectively). So, Delhomme was far worse that Favre ever could have been. Remember, hes a gritty gamer. I don't want anyone bringing up Brett. He was having a tough year and it wasn't his fault."
Raaaasslin'....the word is raaaaaaasslin'.......
(Credit: Mildred, from the Love Doctors)
Kissing Suzy Kolber does a weekly, FJM-style deconstruction of King's columns each Monday. They're fantastic. Today's hasn't been posted yet, but here's last week's.
That KSK deconstruction is pretty funny, if a bit unfocused. What they get balls-on correct is pointing out that King may be the most well-connected guy covering the NFL since Will McDonough, yet he does absolutely nothing with that power. I never read King and get any insider viewpoints or real knowledge; it's always Favre ballwashing and travel troubles.
It's too hot in airplanes these days and what's the deal with Uggs? I guess they named the boot after what you say when you see the price tag!
Am I right, guys? Huh? Women and shoes ...
Am I right, guys? Huh? Women and shoes ...
You just never gets the sense that Peter King knows a lot about football. Right? He never breaks stuff down that can't be seen from reading the stat sheet (unlike Dr. Z, for example). There's so little breakdown of actual game moments apart from what he saw on TV.
1) The Vince Young stuff was pretty good, but he didn't have any quotes from anyone on the Titans about it.
2) I had no rooting interest on Sunday, have hated the Chargers for a few years now, and even I was infuriated by one call in particular (not to get all TMQ):
(PIT 35 - SD 17) San Diego Chargers at 04:05 left, 4th quarter
1-10-SD24 (4:05) (Shotgun) P.Rivers pass incomplete short right to V.Jackson. Coverage #20 McFadden, #94 Timmons.
2-10-SD24 (4:01) (Shotgun) P.Rivers pass incomplete deep left to V.Jackson.
3-10-SD24 (3:55) (Shotgun) P.Rivers sacked at SD 17 for -7 yards (J.Harrison)
4-17-SD17 (3:23) (Punt formation) M.Scifres punts 52 yards to PIT 31, Center-D.Binn, fair catch by M.Moore.
I mean, Norv, you're down by 18 points with 3 minutes and 23 seconds left in a playoff game with 2 timeouts. Really? Call in the punting unit? That was a disgrace, and I wish he'd called Turner out on it.
1) The Vince Young stuff was pretty good, but he didn't have any quotes from anyone on the Titans about it.
2) I had no rooting interest on Sunday, have hated the Chargers for a few years now, and even I was infuriated by one call in particular (not to get all TMQ):
(PIT 35 - SD 17) San Diego Chargers at 04:05 left, 4th quarter
1-10-SD24 (4:05) (Shotgun) P.Rivers pass incomplete short right to V.Jackson. Coverage #20 McFadden, #94 Timmons.
2-10-SD24 (4:01) (Shotgun) P.Rivers pass incomplete deep left to V.Jackson.
3-10-SD24 (3:55) (Shotgun) P.Rivers sacked at SD 17 for -7 yards (J.Harrison)
4-17-SD17 (3:23) (Punt formation) M.Scifres punts 52 yards to PIT 31, Center-D.Binn, fair catch by M.Moore.
I mean, Norv, you're down by 18 points with 3 minutes and 23 seconds left in a playoff game with 2 timeouts. Really? Call in the punting unit? That was a disgrace, and I wish he'd called Turner out on it.
Because why have the subtle references to the gladiatorial nature of football when you can require people to be think even less?
I talked to Julius Caesar last night and he said "Look, the Roman Numerals are a tradition"
We can only hope that Peter King isn't defying orders from the NFL and SI and crossing his own journalistic Rubicon.
I'd be interested to see who the "senators" are who take part in his eventual assassination. Though it's pretty obvious who would play the role of Brutus... and he'd give the inside report to Jay Glazer.
You're the moderator, do something about... oh I see what you did there.
Pete opines that this was the best SB he's ever seen.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...uperbowl/4.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...uperbowl/4.html
Really? So, I guess he was out of town last year?
Every other year, lately, it's become fashionable to declare that SB the "best ever."
Rams-Titans, Pats-Rams, Pats-Car, Pats-Eagles (maybe not so much), Pats-Giants, and Cards-Steelers have all had this designation in the weeks following the game.
I think, however, that in the end it's the games where the likable underdog wins, or comes heartbreakingly close to winning, that end up standing the test of time. Rams-Titans, Pats-Rams, and Pats-Giants all deserve consideration. The others were just exciting games.
I just wish sports writers (who should fucking KNOW this stuff) would be more self aware and a little more analytical before saying, after every other SB, that "Holy Shit! That was the best ever!"
Peter King, you fucking whore.
Rams-Titans, Pats-Rams, Pats-Car, Pats-Eagles (maybe not so much), Pats-Giants, and Cards-Steelers have all had this designation in the weeks following the game.
I think, however, that in the end it's the games where the likable underdog wins, or comes heartbreakingly close to winning, that end up standing the test of time. Rams-Titans, Pats-Rams, and Pats-Giants all deserve consideration. The others were just exciting games.
I just wish sports writers (who should fucking KNOW this stuff) would be more self aware and a little more analytical before saying, after every other SB, that "Holy Shit! That was the best ever!"
Peter King, you fucking whore.
Titans-Rams is getting more and more neglected as time goes on, but that's understandable.
I mean, that damn game was ONE yard from OT.
I mean, that damn game was ONE yard from OT.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ.../22/mmqb/3.html
No they don't, sorry Peter. And these are the pictures they use to demonstrate their similarities:
Unreal. Andy Rooney is the only major-media personality who's nearly as batshit as Peter King, and Rooney didn't really go off the deep end until he was in his 80s. What's King's excuse??http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ.../22/mmqb/3.html
No they don't, sorry Peter. And these are the pictures they use to demonstrate their similarities:
