Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
I don't think he's describing the rivalry in terms of payroll, rather in terms of how each tries to one up each other, hence the Dice-K, A-Rod extension parallels. It doesn't really fit here because the point he is making isn't entirely clear and there is an actual cap in football but there is some semblance of an idea hidden beneath layers of fodder.
Yea, you're probably right. The rest of the column was pretty decent, although I wince at how he intentionally excluded Manny from the list of Sox "core" players. I know he was out for an extended amount of time, but come on.
The first coffee story he has ever had that actually got me engaged:
This is a man who hates coffee trying to pretend he likes it because everybody else does. Eight sugars? Take it from someone who also doesn't like coffee, mister, stop being a poser and get a Coke. Sugar content's about the same. You're not fooling anyone.
It's a good thing Peter's getting the info on this out. It's crowded in NYC during the holidays.
I get it, it's in his non-football section. "I liked this movie. That Carrie Underwood's got class." Great. But what struck him about this information that he felt it necessary to include it?
He's a weird guy.
Let me say this, I do like Peter King for the most part. What annoys me about him is his self promoting and his overreaction (like when the Pats got caught with spygate and he wanted BB to apologize like he just killed someone)
I hate though when he has to note that talks to players like they are his friends
examples
I hate though when he has to note that talks to players like they are his friends
examples
and
My problem, does "via cell phone" and "by phone last night" need to be in there? I feel like I read all of the MMQB and I think anyone who reads it will realize this is consistent with King's approach about promoting himself as more then your average reporter
Meh. I was in the city ten days ago - it was no worse or better than any of the other times I visited recently.
Or going out of his way to include Andy Reid's "cheeseburger" comment, and then having to expound on its circumstances to put it in context, a context which is irrelevant to football.
In fact, I thought including the cheeseburger thing at all was kind of a bizarre choice, given the "weighty" things going on in Reid's life.
I am sure it has been mentioned before, but for anyone bored and wants to continue with the King bashing, check out his infamous Pats-BB apologogy column
How Belichick should've apologized for spy scandal
Some of my favorites
How Belichick should've apologized for spy scandal
Some of my favorites
Isnt that exactly what Big Ben said to the sideline reporter after the game and again at the press conference?
(if so, why ask again?)
You're right though, the 'via cell phone' bit is annoying. Like I'm supposed to be impressed that he apparently has some players cell phone #'s.
Maybe the editor changed it from "a piece of ass" to "got class." Gotta keep the lid on Peter.
Did ya even watch the game Peter? San Diego was AWFUL!!!
They had something like 150 yards of offense and despite TWO special teams TD's repeatedly tried their damndest to hand the game back to the Colts. I guess you could say their defense played well, but Norv and the offense were playing to lose that game.
The Colts might have lost but their defense is to be feared. Forget any punt or kickoff returns or missed field goals, or interceptions - their defense should be credited with holding San Diego at bay. :bravo:
This may have been the worst analogy ever. It completely and utterly confused me. "We needed this win like I need a cheeseburger right now."
Given the fact that Reid is probably 350 pounds, he needs a cheeseburger about like I need an inoperable brain tumor. Which I took to mean him saying "Meh, we didn't need the win." Which made no sense at all.
And then King explained it (sort of). But still, just an awful comparison.
This is THE perfect description of Peter King. He's a fucking weirdo.
That's how I'm going to view his columns, a well-hooked up weirdo. Nothing he writes will mean anyting to me any more because, he's just so fucking strange.
And twoB that's originally how I read the cheeseburger line too. It would've been funnier though if he said, "I needed a loss like a need another heroin selling junkie son." But you know, some people aren't good at poking fun at themselves.
Can someone explain to me what this horribly constructed sentence is supposed to be saying?
"Peter King" said:
They don't think anyone has ever played better over ten weeks.
Was it really that hard to decipher?
Maybe you're right that's what he was trying to say, but the actual words mean that he thinks someone has played better over ten games than the Patriots have, and asks how that is possible.
What if he said this: "How is it possible that in the history of coffee someone has made a better cup than the one I had last week at Starbucks?" Doesn't that question imply that his cup of coffee was not, in fact, the best cup of coffee of all time?
I agree, I had to read the sentence 3 times before I could fully appreciate it's convolutedness. In other words, how is it possible that anyone else has ever written a more convoluted sentence?
No. If that's what he were saying, it would have been "How is it possible that no team has ever played better...?"
I love to pick on King as much as anybody, but come on; he's obviously praising the Patriots here.
EDIT: In other words:
"Is it possible that any team played better than the Patriots?" According to King, no: "How is that possible?" (the implication being: "No. No other team has.")
Here is how you are misreading it, as if he wrote this:
"Is it possible that no other team played better than the Patriots? How is that possible?" (the implication being: "No. It's not possible that no other team has." This is a double negative, so: "Yes. Some other team must have.")
I think the point is not that King was bashing the Pats; the point is that a national columnist for a major website couldn't successfully make it through a one-sentence team blurb without tripping over his own figurative shoelaces. I enjoy MMQB, but there have been a couple of head-scratchers per column recently.
Love that he calls the Chargers "frauds". Hate that he calls Moss a "borderline" HOF'er. The guy has 12,000 yards recieving and 120 tds.
I gotta call bs on that, though I see where you're coming from... (As such, the bs is on King... increasingly, these days, which is sad to see, really...)
Thing is, SD hasn't been good. He believed in them for no good reason. Now he's blaming them for the fact that he, himself, was deceived. Are the Chargers somehow insidiously duplicitous for trying to win a couple of games and thereby duping this now jilted writer? Is King actually accusing them of dishonestly deceiving him by showing signs of life in past games to the point that they even tried, and, horrow of horrors, succeeded in winning a couple?
Please.
The proper journalistic move there is to own up to the fact that he completely overrated the Chargers because he had basically "tenured" them in his upper standings based on past history rather than a real assessment of how they had played.
If there's a systematic problem with some of these writers, it's that they increasingly get stuck in their opinions and defend them even in the face of disconfirming evidence--as though the articles themselves were the point of the process--rather than adapting and following the teams and league as they play out the season.
The Koffee King was one of the main members of the media keeping the Pats camera story alive weeks after the punishment had been handed down and now he says the Belichick bashing is too much. Ugh
From his most recent article
Does Peter King know something that we don't? This an awfully full statement to make without having something to back it up.
He just keeps insinuating... Funny how differently he treated this and the Colts crowd noise. In that incident, he said something along the lines of "If they have no hard evidence then we should just drop it". Whatever, he sucks, everyone knows it. It's that "trainwreck/can't look away" mentality for me.
He doesn't "suck." What's frustrating about King is that he uses his vast and high podium to sometimes make ill-thought out points based on dubious reasoning. He'll follow up some really insightful stuff with a fawning, irrelevant, comment about some player he "bumped into in the buffet line." Then he'll praise a guy like Jeter because Jeter gets his uniform dirty on running out a double, then bash Manny Ramirez for having dreads and baggy pants as he trots the bases after a grand slam.
He should really just scrap the "Non Football Points." I believe those are best representative of where he's gotten off track.
*sigh*
Second of all, How does the following comparison, if true, render The Office better than Seinfeld (not even getting into writing, originality, longevity, commercial success, etc...):
The Office Seinfeld
Dwight === Kramer
Michael >> Jerry
Pam > Elaine
(blank) <<< George
Secondary << Secondary
Characters Characters
First of all, it should be a comma between "...Seinfeld, but..."
Second of all, How does the following comparison, if true, render The Office better than Seinfeld (not even getting into writing, originality, longevity, commercial success, etc...):
The Office Seinfeld
Dwight === Kramer
Michael >> Jerry
Pam > Elaine
(blank) <<< George
Secondary << Secondary
Characters Characters
I was just going to post that. That paragraph sent me into a BLIND RAGE.
This:
This:
is, objectively speaking, flat out wrong.
The Office is one of my favorite shows ever. How about a few more seasons of great TV before anyone proclaims it on the same level of Seinfeld, I mean really...
I wonder if King was smart enough to realize he used "nip" and "Elaine" in the same sentence.
Probably not.
Probably not.
You know what? I bet he wanted to sneak "nip" in there from the beginning, then he got turned on thinking about nipples, and decided he'd rather fuck Pam than Elaine. This is a coded way for the man to get his jollies. He's going to call up Romo on the ol' cell phone and clue him in.
"Hey, Tony, howya doin' big guy? Check out my column...yea...I talk about Elaine and Pam's nipples...well, no, not literally...Say, that Pam is a dish, eh?"
You know, I'd argue that it's Jim/Jerry and Michael/George, at least in terms of how the characters are set up
Okay, there's a touch of irony in the situation, but this really is a stretch. Did PK even see the play? The ball was on the ground, Bunta-Cain was the only player in the vicinity and he fell on it. He didn't win the game, the guy who knocked the ball from Warner won the game ... and Neil Rackers lost it.
The odd thing is that the British version of The Office was so much funnier than the American version. Ricky Gervais' David Brent was so much funnier than Michael (his performance in the episode "Training" is epic), and once you'e watched Gareth, Dwight is a pale substitute. There is no real substitute for Finch, who was hilarious, although the Michael-Ryan dynamic may have been funnier than David-Finch.
Back to King however...at least there were only two "over the phones" or "told me" mentions this week.
Well, they are different types of humor (some might prefer one over the other), but something tells me King has never seen the British version, and wouldn't like it if he did. In fact, I think it would fly completely over his head. I suspect he would be so angered by his failure to get the humor that he'd feel the need to put it down in his column. Part of my suspicion comes from the fact that for all his ranting and raving about how great HOUSE is, he's never mentioned The Black Adder.
I think this was accurate in season 1 of the American version, but I don't think it holds true any more. 2.0 has had the opportunity (in fairness, there wasn't enough time for 1.0) to flesh out the secondary characters, and has done a wonderful job. Stanley, Kevin, Creed, Angela, Kelly and Andy are one of the best supporting casts of all time.
2.0 has also succeeded, where so many others have failed, in transitioning from the "will they; won't they?" dynamic of Jim and Pam. I won't say 2.0 is better, because it IS a knock-off, but I think it's just as good.
Well, as you acknoledge, the BBC version only had a grand total of 12 episodes, and the two Christmas specials. The American version is already at 50+ episodes. Its much harder to build much more than your core characters in less than a full season (which is normally ~22-30 shows if I recall correctly). I don't doubt that 1.0 (as you put it) would have been able to flesh out more characters had they had more time. I personally think that the original was better, however that is not a knock on the American version which is still extremely funny. They are, as drleather points out, different types of comedy altogether.
Ultimately though...I don't think the Office 2.0 is ever going to be able to beat David Brent's music video. That was an all-time classic.
Ultimately though...I don't think the Office 2.0 is ever going to be able to beat David Brent's music video. That was an all-time classic.
In Tuesday's MMQB King dissects all the 4th quarter Pats-Ravens calls and says they were all correct. However, he says OPI should have been called on the Hail Mary.
I thought he did a great job in the call analysis. Of course, I'm a Pats fan.
However,
Ugh. First of all, as far as we know, the structure of the deal is supposedly Lester or Ellsbury, not both, rendering this question kind of moot. However, King doesn't comment on Lester, only Ellsbury, who he somehow knows will be a starter for the next 10 years and steal 500 bases in that time frame with some good OBP. Then he assumes that Santana will get injured in the next few years, and also assumes that Beckett will get mad.
So it boils down to: "No. Because nevermind how good Santana is; the absolute worst case scenario for the Red Sox, should they trade Ellsbury, is pretty bad."
I wonder if Peter King keeps his retirement savings in his mattress, because banks can get robbed and stocks can plummet.
However,
Ugh. First of all, as far as we know, the structure of the deal is supposedly Lester or Ellsbury, not both, rendering this question kind of moot. However, King doesn't comment on Lester, only Ellsbury, who he somehow knows will be a starter for the next 10 years and steal 500 bases in that time frame with some good OBP. Then he assumes that Santana will get injured in the next few years, and also assumes that Beckett will get mad.
So it boils down to: "No. Because nevermind how good Santana is; the absolute worst case scenario for the Red Sox, should they trade Ellsbury, is pretty bad."
I wonder if Peter King keeps his retirement savings in his mattress, because banks can get robbed and stocks can plummet.
For the most part I find King's MMQB a good read. He seems to find usefull points across like this weeks expensive coach's table. What annoys me about him, and I have mentioned it on this thread before, is when he gets into his self promoting style and acts like he is above a reporter.
A great example when he made his "text message of the week" with Brady. I feel like you should let your content and your reporting make a difference, instead of trying to prove to his readers all the that he is an inside source for players. Everyone knows Gammons is an inside source for the majority of the game, but you never see him saying "I got a text message from Epstein.."..
King has done this plenty of times this year, and one of the only times I felt like it was a good resource when Trent Green went down with a concussion and in order to to quote him he has to tell us it came via Text. Fine. He just seems to do it each week
I also have to ask, if he is more then a reporter why does he complain about post game quote sheets
<H3>
</H3>
</H3>
I agree for the most part, although this gem irritated me.
I mean, King has to be bored writing Brady's name so much and his disdain for the Patriots comes through quite often. He did give Anthony Smith his "goat of the week," but how was Brady's day (399 yards, 4 TD, 0 picks, 0 lost fumbles) worse than Collins day (224, 2, 0 int, 1 lost fumble).a
Sure, Collins exceeded the ZERO expectations that Washington had for him, but Brady did tear up the Pittsburgh defense which has only allowed something like 11 passing touchdowns all year before they gave up four in one game to Brady. That counts for something, right?
King has been more than generous with his Pats praise over the last 7 years. Seriously, in other internet circles, he gets roundly mocked for his continual back-slapping of certain players, with only Favre ahead of Brady (followed by Romo).
In fact, his weeks 2-5 harping on "spy-gate" ("My gut tells me there's something more to this...stay tuned!") can most likely by written off as him over-reacting as a result of being embarrassed by giving the such high praise the previous 5 years.