Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
Unfortunately, King has a point here and that Wally B. is trying too hard to be clever. I happen to agree with King that the hot dog eating contest is disgusting (though I won't get on my soapbox about it because ultimately it's all pretty harmless), but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you can't have opinions on beer, coffee or other food.
Eh, 60 hotdogs is what? $15 or $20? It's not like those exact hot dogs are being yanked out of shelters for the contest and poor kids are doing without. He reaches that threshold by Wednesday with his expensive coffee.
In short, both Wally and Peter should shut up.
In short, both Wally and Peter should shut up.
Well, King did make a usage error that would get the red pen on a high school English paper. That's a pretty embarrassing mistake for a professional writer.HomeBrew1901 said:
Why does instagram exist? Do you truly want to see everyone's selfies and what they are eating/doing at the moment?JayMags71 said:
All of this may not matter anymore and, well, that's the way it goes. It doesn't sit right with me though.
http://uproxx.com/ksk/2015/07/smell-ya-later-forever-ksk/
http://uproxx.com/ksk/2015/07/smell-ya-later-forever-ksk/
Silence from Peter on the whole NFL emails from yesterday. Thought he'd at least have a tweet reacting to the NFL letting one their franchises twist in the wind.
Yeah but he was starting to get a little better and coming towards the Patriot's side, so I figured he might keep coming and comment on all of this.
grsharky7 said:
Ha, ha, ha. You're cute.
You don't split Skyline Chili with someone then leave them in their time of need. Goodell for life.
I really hope you're not holding your breath waiting for Peter King to issue some hard-hitting criticism of Roger Goodell's management of this situation. You're better off wishing for something more realistic, like finding a diamond mine in your back yard.
I think he might offer a strong-for-him criticism, but I think he has to be gleeful that the letters give him a non-Goodell target in Pash. If he goes after anyone, it'll be him, not the Sheriff.
I agree. My guess is that King mohht connect RGs lack of awareness of the situation with his unawareness of the Rice video being available, and issue a general and bland "what's going on at the NFL offices?" comment.
Of course it will be nonsense.
Of course it will be nonsense.
Worm turning???? Peter talks about the emails in MMQB this morning saying good for the Patriots releasing the emails. Also talks about how influential people in the league are really fed up with this whole thing and want it done. Peter is a major mouth piece and he is starting to call out this process, progress.
I would say worm turning is a little strong. Peter raised some issues, talked to some of his typical anonymous sources and lobbed a few soft grenades ESPN's way. Worm turning would be him using his high league sources to get to the bottom of stuff but that's too big of an ask in this case. Pete, like everyone else involved, just wants this all 'to go away.' That's a far cry from a search for truth or saying out loud what this has been all along- a power trip witch hunt fueled by revenge, paranoia and incompetence.
Not that everyone here doesn't already know this, but it's always good when a national writer says stuff like this:
"Officials used two gauges at halftime of the AFC Championship Game to measure air pressure in 11 New England footballs and four Indianapolis footballs. On page 113 of the Wells report, Wells says that the Patriots footballs would have been justified to have measured between 11.32 psi and 11.52 psi at halftime. The average of one gauge for the 11 balls was 11.49 psi, on the upper range of what the balls should have measured. The average of the other gauge was 11.11 psi, clearly lower than what the balls should have measured. Average all 22 readings, and you get 11.30 … two-one-hundredths lower than what the Ideal Gas Law would have allowed for balls that started the day at 12.5 psi. It is crazy to me, and just wrong, that the NFL issued a historic sanction when the inflation level of the football is so close to what science says it should be."
"Officials used two gauges at halftime of the AFC Championship Game to measure air pressure in 11 New England footballs and four Indianapolis footballs. On page 113 of the Wells report, Wells says that the Patriots footballs would have been justified to have measured between 11.32 psi and 11.52 psi at halftime. The average of one gauge for the 11 balls was 11.49 psi, on the upper range of what the balls should have measured. The average of the other gauge was 11.11 psi, clearly lower than what the balls should have measured. Average all 22 readings, and you get 11.30 … two-one-hundredths lower than what the Ideal Gas Law would have allowed for balls that started the day at 12.5 psi. It is crazy to me, and just wrong, that the NFL issued a historic sanction when the inflation level of the football is so close to what science says it should be."
Well, that's a stronger condemnation than what I would have expected from PK. Though, it is notable that he uses "the NFL" in place of "Roger Goodell", like the NFL is some artificially-intelligent entity that went rogue, like Skynet
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
rodderick said:
I was just corrected in the other thread: Andy Benoit wrote the piece under MMQB/SI's banner. So it still packs a wallop since everyone knows the "Think I Think" stuff's PK's brand, but it's not actually Peter King that said it.
no sensible person would describe the league’s proof as being anything close to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And just because the CBA doesn’t say it has to be doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be.
Ummm. Yes, that's exactly what it means? Words have meanings. And both sides agreed to the words.
Ummm. Yes, that's exactly what it means? Words have meanings. And both sides agreed to the words.
Yes, but hasn't Goodell recently (post the most recent CBA) argued that he should be able to levy stern punishments without having to meet typical standard of proof? I remember reading that long before Deflategate. I tried googling, but articles about Goodell and Brady clog the results.
But the point being is that some of this is on the NFLPA for bargaining themselves into the situation, but Goodell has also gone beyond what they've agreed to.
But the point being is that some of this is on the NFLPA for bargaining themselves into the situation, but Goodell has also gone beyond what they've agreed to.
You understand that that's not how it works though, right? All that matters is what is actually in the document.
The author and you can talk about what should be until the cows come home but all you'll have is a sore throat and some cows.
The author and you can talk about what should be until the cows come home but all you'll have is a sore throat and some cows.
Of course it's all that matters for how business is conducted! It was collectively bargained. The two sides came together and hammered out a deal. The players agreed to it. They can't now come back and say "wait, this isn't fair!"
I know we agreed to a deal for $150,000 for this house and we both signed off on it. But I think you're charging too much. The contract doesn't really matter for how business should be conducted. I'm only going to pay $140,000. It's what I really want to pay and it seems more fair.
Yeah, I know we agreed that I'd paint your house but it's really big house. I think I'm not going to do the last side. You're still going to pay me the full amount of course. I asked 5 other guys and they said it sounded more fair that way too. Sure they're painters too but whatever. Public opinion is on my side!
Well, yeah, regulations say we can't dump this radioactive waste here. But it's only a little bit. It's not much. We all know that big legal document doesn't /really/ mean what it says.
Yeah, I know we agreed that I'd paint your house but it's really big house. I think I'm not going to do the last side. You're still going to pay me the full amount of course. I asked 5 other guys and they said it sounded more fair that way too. Sure they're painters too but whatever. Public opinion is on my side!
Well, yeah, regulations say we can't dump this radioactive waste here. But it's only a little bit. It's not much. We all know that big legal document doesn't /really/ mean what it says.
Unfortunately the author of that piece undermines the argument she's trying to make by bringing up the standard of proof. It has nothing to do with Brady's legal case, and nothing to do with the reasons why the worm has somewhat started to turn at least with many of the national media covering this story.
However, even with that misstep, it is significant for an article to run under the MMQB site that calls for King's buddy Roger to be fired.
However, even with that misstep, it is significant for an article to run under the MMQB site that calls for King's buddy Roger to be fired.
That's actually not even close to being true.epraz said:
If I have a contract to buy product x for $10 per thousand over 10 years and it becomes clear after 2 years that I got an outrageously good (even unfair) deal, I'm not sitting down and renegotiating in the interests of fairness.
Getting back to a more appropriate example, the history of labor relations are littered with examples of parties to a contract holding the other side to the letter of the contract regardless of what may be considered fair.
pappymojo said:
Ah, so you're looking for the opinion pages not the news. Good enough.
epraz said:
lol. Right. because when business sign legal binding contracts with each other what they love is when the other side just unilaterally changes things. That's something that happens. You don't see anything wrong with that.
Again, this thing was bargained. One side wanted things and one side wanted other things. In return for getting some things one of the things the payers agreed to was the language we're talking about. It's insane to think it's appropriate for them to now go around yelling "no fair! it should be this!" Great. You want it written that way? Can do. What do you want to give up in return for it?
If you're the buyer, sure. You have much of the power unless the seller has monopolistic or near monopolistic control of the supply.Average Reds said:
If you're the seller and there are other suppliers, it can come back to bite you the next time you negotiate. But you are still right that sellers don't usually come back and renegotiate downwards.
And, of course, the former scenario is more the case here. The NFLPA (the "seller") has not proven it can keep it's talent (its "supply") from breaking ranks and selling themselves cheaply.