Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
So...we know he was drinking on Friday night. And we know he "didn't see a lot" of an NFL Playoff Game on Saturday. There wouldn't be enough "tsk..tsks..." in the world if Peter King was writing about a player turning in a sub-par performance on Saturday after drinking on Friday night.
I assumed that he "didn't see a lot" of the Seattle-Carolina game because he had post-game stuff to do for NBC at Gillette. Strange that he would admit to not watching the game rather than, oh, I don't know, watching it on tape Sunday morning. No, wait, it's Peter King. It's not strange, it's "weird". And lazy. And unprofessional.
I didn't want to be the one to say it, but yeah that made me really uncomfortable.
He really has a knack for unintentionally (I hope) horrendous phrasing.
He really has a knack for unintentionally (I hope) horrendous phrasing.
Wait, who are these nefarious evildoers that are taking Aaron Rodgers for granted? He's one of the most decorated and highest paid athletes in the country. He's going to win his 2nd MVP award. He's generally acknowledged as the best player in the game. Nobody takes him for granted.
What a ridiculous strawman. You can write a column about Rodgers' great performance without having to set yourself up as the lone voice of reason struggling to have your [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]#strongtake [/SIZE]heard through the choruses of mediocrity.
Many paragraphs later we get this:
Ah, so the only one taking Aaron Rodgers for granted was King. He's just projecting his own flaws onto everyone else.
What a ridiculous strawman. You can write a column about Rodgers' great performance without having to set yourself up as the lone voice of reason struggling to have your [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]#strongtake [/SIZE]heard through the choruses of mediocrity.
Many paragraphs later we get this:
Ah, so the only one taking Aaron Rodgers for granted was King. He's just projecting his own flaws onto everyone else.
The whole premise of the column lead-in today is flat-out moronic.
Soooooo ... Because there are three relatively young guys all playing well (we'll allow, I guess, that 31 is "young" for King's purposes), then "we may be entering the golden era of new quarterbacks."
As in, the best era for new quarterbacks, like, ever.
Maybe we should take a peek at, say, the 2001 playoffs. In that season, we had:
Donovan McNabb, then 25
Tom Brady, then 25
Kurt Warner, then 30 (but a "young" 30, since he didn't get a chance to start while he was dicking around in the Arena league, and was 27 when he hit the league)
Any of those guys turn out good?
All three of them played in the Championship round, along with Kordell Stewart, who was 29. This year is in no way exceptional, historically.
Further, didn't we just come out of the Golden Era of New Quarterbacks? Didn't we just watch Manning, Brady, Rapistburger, Brees, even Manning 2, all basically come into the league together and dominate as a class of quarterbacks that broke every major passing record there is, multiple times?
Look at the 2006 playoffs (I'm basically picking at random from the last 10 years):
Peyton, 30
Romo, 26 (and a pro bowler that year)
Matt Hasselback, 31 (hey, he's thrown 200+ TDs)
Brady, 29
Pennington, 29 (Great TD-INT ratio, derailed by injury)
Eli, 25
Brees, 27
Rivers, 25
And the Championship round was Brady, Peyton, Brees, and Grossman.
In fact, if you look around the league, after Luck, Wilson, and Rodgers (I guess), who are the other young QBs that would join in on this Golden Era of New Quarterbacks?
Tannehill? Kaepernick? Alex Wilson? Cam Newton? The current crop of new QBs looks dreadful compared to past collections in the 2000s.
Does he really only remember the last year or two of football?
Soooooo ... Because there are three relatively young guys all playing well (we'll allow, I guess, that 31 is "young" for King's purposes), then "we may be entering the golden era of new quarterbacks."
As in, the best era for new quarterbacks, like, ever.
Maybe we should take a peek at, say, the 2001 playoffs. In that season, we had:
Donovan McNabb, then 25
Tom Brady, then 25
Kurt Warner, then 30 (but a "young" 30, since he didn't get a chance to start while he was dicking around in the Arena league, and was 27 when he hit the league)
Any of those guys turn out good?
All three of them played in the Championship round, along with Kordell Stewart, who was 29. This year is in no way exceptional, historically.
Further, didn't we just come out of the Golden Era of New Quarterbacks? Didn't we just watch Manning, Brady, Rapistburger, Brees, even Manning 2, all basically come into the league together and dominate as a class of quarterbacks that broke every major passing record there is, multiple times?
Look at the 2006 playoffs (I'm basically picking at random from the last 10 years):
Peyton, 30
Romo, 26 (and a pro bowler that year)
Matt Hasselback, 31 (hey, he's thrown 200+ TDs)
Brady, 29
Pennington, 29 (Great TD-INT ratio, derailed by injury)
Eli, 25
Brees, 27
Rivers, 25
And the Championship round was Brady, Peyton, Brees, and Grossman.
In fact, if you look around the league, after Luck, Wilson, and Rodgers (I guess), who are the other young QBs that would join in on this Golden Era of New Quarterbacks?
Tannehill? Kaepernick? Alex Wilson? Cam Newton? The current crop of new QBs looks dreadful compared to past collections in the 2000s.
Does he really only remember the last year or two of football?
Including Rodgers, who is 31, in his 10th year in the league, and has been in the playoffs six years in a row, in his class of "new" QBs shows how silly the idea was from the start.
We are now entering the golden era of the quarterbacks who are in an era that is partially this era and partially a later era. Maybe.
To be fair, I listen to a lot of National sports talk radio and when they talk about QBs, it usually starts with Peyton and ends with Brady. They don't talk about Aaron unless they are talking about GB.
I also can't believe he was using the word and instead of commas in the quotes JoeDokes posted.
I also can't believe he was using the word and instead of commas in the quotes JoeDokes posted.
I'll say that he's a good QB but he's had the benefit of an extremely (maybe historically but I'm pulling that out of my ass) great defense and a very strong running game/offensive line.
joe dokes said:
Yeah, I mostly agree, though I think debating who's better than whom is a big part of sports for many people. My issue is more with the overly simplistic idea that the QB always "leads" his team to wherever they go. It would be more accurate to say that the Seahawks defense has led them to two straight NFC championships and Russell Wilson has been a big part of their success, but that wouldn't be sticking it to those damn Wilson haters enough for King.
cromulence said:
Its Friday, so I'll try to slice the bologna even thinner.
I'm all for "who's better" arguments (Brady v. Manning; Bird v. Magic; 5 monkeys typing v.Peter King, etc). It's the "is [that guy] great, elite (the word of the year), etc.?" that I have no patience for.
joe dokes said:
The only thing worse for me is when people start discussing a player's "legacy" and how some game or play or FA decision is going to alter or strengthen it.
It's the argument against the mythical "they" all the time that drives me crazy. Why can't he just say, "Should Wilson manage to win two Super Bowls in his first three years, he'll be cemented for me in the top five quarterbacks in the league unless he goes 0-16 for the next three years straight"?
Why does it always have to be, "ho-ho! You know-nothings! I'm here to tell you why none of you know as much as I, PK, football expert"?
It's so tiresome and such a lazy rhetorical device.
Why does it always have to be, "ho-ho! You know-nothings! I'm here to tell you why none of you know as much as I, PK, football expert"?
It's so tiresome and such a lazy rhetorical device.
From today's AFC preview, regarding Adam Vinatieri:
"He will forever hold a position in Patriots’ lore for his 45-yard field goal through the snow that beat the Raiders in the 2001 playoffs, the Tuck Rule game that propelled the Patriots on their three-title run."
Uh…no he won't. He will *NEVER* be known for his 45-yard field goal through the snow that beat the Raiders in the 2001 playoffs, Peter, because that kick only TIED the game. The game winner in overtime was from 23 yards out.
Idiots may THINK they "know" Vinatieri for a 45-yarder that beat the Raiders in that game, but that's because they don't know any better.
"He will forever hold a position in Patriots’ lore for his 45-yard field goal through the snow that beat the Raiders in the 2001 playoffs, the Tuck Rule game that propelled the Patriots on their three-title run."
Uh…no he won't. He will *NEVER* be known for his 45-yard field goal through the snow that beat the Raiders in the 2001 playoffs, Peter, because that kick only TIED the game. The game winner in overtime was from 23 yards out.
Idiots may THINK they "know" Vinatieri for a 45-yarder that beat the Raiders in that game, but that's because they don't know any better.
Have to be honest: before the Ray Rice thing King was merely an irritant to me who passed on lazy crap he shoveled from the league.
Having protected a source who used him to besmirch a victim of domestic violence, I now think of him as a horrible human being.
Having protected a source who used him to besmirch a victim of domestic violence, I now think of him as a horrible human being.
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
A sibling of the "Why isn't anybody talking about X???" technique.
Van Everyman said:
Were you around for the Airplane-Blanket Incident or the Cheering at Graduation Complaint? The signs have been there.
There is no Rev said:
I'm still partial to bragging about being the first to tell someone (can't remember if it was a barista or what) that Robin Williams was dead.
That story is the shining example of his self entitlement and lack of self awareness. It's everything wrong with the man wrapped with a bow.coremiller said:
Ta na na, ta na na ...joe dokes said:
I'm partial to the service dog owned by someone that didn't even look disabled.
This spate of Peter King character flaws is like the bizarro Tumblr of "Chuck Norris Facts." Bravo!
GeorgeCostanza said:
The blanket-request-on-a-plane complaint was always my PK go-to... until I read the Spring Training foul ball yarn. It is his crowning douchievement.
JohntheBaptist said:
Not only do I love this turn of phrase, I think it's so good that we need to create a specific awards category for media hacks who have built up an outstanding record of douchievement. We'll call it the "Douchies" and Peter King can be the first honoree as the recipient of a lifetime douchievement award.
I may need to head to the nearest Starbucks to think this through ...
It's King's favorite kind of death, the kind he gets to tell EVERYBODY about firstCorsi said: