I'll third that. I hate when he talks about the Sox. MMQB used to be required reading but I don't feel that way anymore.I was reading this today and thought the exact same thing.
I'll third that. I hate when he talks about the Sox. MMQB used to be required reading but I don't feel that way anymore.I was reading this today and thought the exact same thing.
This is a horrible idea. Fun for some fans, sure, but wrong nonetheless.I second that. It is absurd the Raiders and Niners play once every four years. The way to accomplish this is simple. Each team is assigned a rival in the other conference that it would play every year. Half the teams in the league, or maybe 18, would have it easy. Giants-Jets, Ravens-Skins, Steelers-Eagles, Bucs-Dolphins, Chiefs-Rams, Texans-Cowboys, Raiders-49ers, Jags-Falcons, Bears-Colts. The other 14 teams would invent a rivalry, because some teams would not have a natural rival. Arizona-San Diego. Seattle-Denver. Detroit-Cleveland. And some teams wouldn't have a regional or sensible rival; and in those cases, the teams would have to just take one for the league. The benefit to most is worth some pain to others.
Brian Daubach? Really? Hey Peter, there is more to evaluating a player than just looking at how many HR he has on the season.g. The Red Sox scored 46 runs in 51 hours in their four-game sweep in Chicago, thanks in large part to David Ortiz finally starting to hit. For a few months, he was producing an awful lot like Brian Daubach.
I think your doctor was just being kind.b. No more [Eric]Gagne references in the column this week. I promised my doctor, who is worried about my blood pressure.
Link is broken?You have to stop whatever you're doing and read this:
The awesomest thing ever posted on a Blog
It will change your perception of PK forever.
I don't know if this is the exact same entry, but I think it's the same idea, and its fucking hilarious anyway.Link is broken?
Oral steroids can worsen blood glucose control, so Wilson's explanation doesn't ring true. Does Peter King not get that Wade Wilson may have been a middle man, obtaining the drugs and passing them onto players? How can he be so naive?I think I understand the NFL having a zero-tolerance policy for performance-enhancing drugs, and it acted properly in whacking the Patriots' Rodney Harrison for four games after he admitted using a banned substance (reportedly human growth hormone). And good for him, by the way, in admitting it instead of hiding behind some legalese, or saying in a Sheffieldesque or Bondsian way he had no idea what he was taking. But to give Cowboys assistant Wade Wilson five games for taking a banned substance solely to help him fight diabetes? Over-the-top.
When a Lions assistant (Joe Cullen) gets one game for driving through a fast-food drive thru nude and a DUI (that's one game total) and Wilson gets five for using a banned substance to treat his diabetes ... that's just wrong. Now, Wilson should have told someone -- the league, Cowboys officials, someone -- he was taking something illicit. But the punishment here just does not fit the crime.
Yeah. I'm not entirely sure how we ended up agreeing that Mangini didn't pass his phone message along because coaches are evil.King's explanation of the incident with the miscontrued mention of Bellichek is twisted in so many directions at once, but finally comes out with his intended finale: Everyone's at fault except Peter.
Is he saying that because of some bizarre grudge he holds over Randy Moss that because of Moss, the pats will miss the AFCC or is he saying that unless Moss is healthy they'll miss the AFCC or is he saying that even if Moss is a little healthy they'll blow some indeterminate great team out of the water in the playoffs?I think Randy Moss is going to be one of the compelling stories of this season. He had a what-did-you-expect attitude after the game. The answer to that is, we had no idea what to expect. Said Moss: "Before today, because I was hurt, Tom didn't have all his toys to play with. Now that he does, the sky's the limit for him.'' If Moss has 14 relatively healthy games, there is going to be a great football team ... and I mean great, that gets eliminated before the AFC championship weekend.
i think what he's saying is that there are three great teams in the AFC with room for only 2 in the championship game....best guess...I am very confused by this note in today's MMQB
Is he saying that because of some bizarre grudge he holds over Randy Moss that because of Moss, the pats will miss the AFCC or is he saying that unless Moss is healthy they'll miss the AFCC or is he saying that even if Moss is a little healthy they'll blow some indeterminate great team out of the water in the playoffs?
The above are my best guesses about what he means, but none of them seem like reasonable conclusions to draw right now.
I just knew someone was going to beat me to it. Peter is in rare form with this abortion of an article.I'm beggin' you guys. Don't do it today. You'll just ruin your lunch.
Going with what Beerabelli said, "The best player of my lifetime"? Really? Are you serious? There are two better "best players" of his lifetime in Jeter's locker room in Clemens and Rodriguez. Three if you want to include Rivera. Listen, I'm not a Jeter basher. I'd take him any day on the Red Sox, he's the last man standing in the greatest boom of AL shortstops that the game has ever seen (ARod, Nomar, Tejada, Jeter and Vizquel) and he's won a lot, had some big hits for the Yanks, but the best player? You've got to be on fucking crack.c. Never a good idea to pitch to Derek Jeter if you could pitch to Bobby Abreu instead. I don't care what the stats say. Ask Curt Schilling if, with first base open, he'll ever want to pitch to the best player of my lifetime again.
It is?I don't know if this is the exact same entry, but I think it's the same idea, and its fucking hilarious anyway.
Who cares though, right? :lol:Honestly, I didn't think it was that bad. Sure, it was anti-BB to an extent, but who cares?
EDIT 1: Ok, the comment having to do with a NY Times sports editorial (THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD! according to King) calling the Patriots "Model Cheaters" is pretty stupid. It was a fucking editorial by a New York sports writer, Peter. Consider the source for a minute.
EDIT 2: Oh, fucking Puke. Best player in your lifetime? Seriously?
Maalox, one of the handfuls of people that got the rather obvious humor in that link- myself included- would be glad to walk you through it. All you need to do is ask, brother.It is?
I think for something to be hilarious, it has to make sense. That was...well, that was a huge letdown. Like having someone tell you a joke only he could possibly find funny, because he's the only one who even understands it.
Please do, because I got zilch from that.Maalox, one of the handfuls of people that got the rather obvious humor in that link- myself included- would be glad to walk you through it. All you need to do is ask, brother.
If you've ever read The Onion, there's a column "written" by a guy that focuses on Hollywood, celebrities, gossip, that sort of thing. He's kind of a cross between a Jiminy Glick type character and a guy writing about pop culture for a small town newspaper. Malapropisms, misinformed "outrage," doofy pollyanna observations, misspellings, really lame play-on-words stuff. "This Jerry Steinfeld phenomenon makes no sense to me- too mean! A show about nothing indeed!"- that sort of thing.Please do, because I got zilch from that.
If you've ever read The Onion, there's a column "written" by a guy that focuses on Hollywood, celebrities, gossip, that sort of thing. He's kind of a cross between a Jiminy Glick type character and a guy writing about pop culture for a small town newspaper. Malapropisms, misinformed "outrage," doofy pollyanna observations, misspellings, really lame play-on-words stuff. "This Jerry Steinfeld phenomenon makes no sense to me- too mean! A show about nothing indeed!"- that sort of thing.
The article was pointing out how similar this joke column is to the actual pop culture musings of Peter King. For someone at all familiar with this thing from the Onion, the similarities are both funny and seemingly endless. This made me laugh; I've read both and never made the connection.
I love this guy.GOOD LESSON. From Paul Goodwin, of Seattle: "I just finished reading a book on Bobby Jones -- The Grand Slam by Mark Frost. In one tournament, Jones called a penalty on himself because his ball may have moved less than an inch after moving some loose debris. No one was watching, and even Walter Hagen, playing with him, told him not to take the penalty. He took the 1-stroke penalty and lost the tournament by one stroke. After the media heralded him for his honesty, Jones got upset, saying that congratulating a sportsman for following the rules was like cheering a garbage man for picking up the garbage. It was his job to play fair. I think a lot of professional coaches and players in all sports would benefit from reading about how Jones reached the highest level of success with complete humility and integrity.''
Your e-mail gives me chills. Thanks for writing, Paul.
1) I read the Onion all the time.If you've ever read The Onion, there's a column "written" by a guy that focuses on Hollywood, celebrities, gossip, that sort of thing. He's kind of a cross between a Jiminy Glick type character and a guy writing about pop culture for a small town newspaper. Malapropisms, misinformed "outrage," doofy pollyanna observations, misspellings, really lame play-on-words stuff. "This Jerry Steinfeld phenomenon makes no sense to me- too mean! A show about nothing indeed!"- that sort of thing.
The article was pointing out how similar this joke column is to the actual pop culture musings of Peter King. For someone at all familiar with this thing from the Onion, the similarities are both funny and seemingly endless. This made me laugh; I've read both and never made the connection.
True, but I think they both hold a sort of Polly-anna naivete that made the comparison more funny than, say, a Larry King or Andy Rooney one. I think including either of those two in the comparison suggests you still don't really get the joke.2) The whole Jackie Harvey gag is based on the fact that that is a common type in the media. Jackie Harvey is hundreds if not thousands of people. Peter King's wide-eyed, pop culture cluelessness isn't even rare in high-profile media; Andy Rooney, Larry King, Art Buchwald, the list goes on. To suggest that "Peter King is Jackie Harvey" is not to make a joke, but to fail to completely get the joke that is Jackie Harvey.
They weren't related in theme or topic- as was the point of the piece, they're related in tone and retardation.3) The blow-by-blow juxtaposition of passages which often aren't related thematically, let alone topically, was confusing and not inventive, so it cannot rescue this klunker from its heavily flawed premise.
I'm not thinking any more about this than you are. I'm only responding in detail because you "walked me through it." My initial reaction was visceral.Might I suggest you're overthinking this?
I know. That's the point. That's why it's not funny: because one person is a fictional, intentionally comic character who represents people who are serious.They share similarities; this much is hard to argue. One is a fictional character created to be laughed at. The other's a grown man being 100% serious.
OK. Now I see what you're getting at.The impression I got was that the writer of the column had all this time failed to understand what Jackie Harvey is making fun of - until a Peter King comparison made it clear to him.
Not an especially mockable column.
I haven't read either book, but King's non-insult insult is classic. Holley's book was significantly richer in meaningful factoids and real knowledge about Belichick than Halberstam's isn't demeaning? To a writer? Then King follows by saying (again) that it's not a criticism. If Halberstam were still alive, he might feel a slight sting of insult ... if he gave a shit about Peter King's opinion.I really like Michael Holley's stuff. He's a talk-show host for WEEI now, but his book, Patriot Reign, on a year in the life of the Belichick Patriots, was an all-time keeper. I say this not to demean the late David Halberstam, but Holley's book was significantly richer in meaningful factoids and real knowledge about Belichick than Halberstam's -- a credit to Holley, not a criticism of Halberstam.
Let me clarify. Not-especially-mockable for a Peter King column.Oh, I don't know:
Agreed. He actually think's he's sticking it to that yuppie helicopter parent in this column, but he just ends up looking like an ass.What bothered me about that little story is I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic with the "I must be a bad parent!" comments. As is the theme with his "travel notes," he's making fun of someone else on the train/plane with him. In this case, he's making fun of the guy for having active, well-rounded kids, and for having the gaul to discuss his kids with his brother, mother, friend, whatever.
The irony, of course, is that Mr. King has, for years, droned on and on about what his daughters are up to on their respective softball teams, or what college they're heading to, or whatnot, in his forum.
On top of that, as you say, he then gives himself a very public pat on the back that is appropos to nothing.
I think he's just an insecure old coot who happens to be good at writing about football.
Not to mention, maybe the guy was talking about his retarded sister, or his invalid mother, or his wife who had brain cancer, or whatever.Agreed. He actually think's he's sticking it to that yuppie helicopter parent in this column, but he just ends up looking like an ass.
I think there should be something called the Peter King Principle; in the internet age good reporters are given so much bandwith, on various TV shows and on the internet, that they no longer have time to actually do a good job reporting a story. King, Z, Mort must spend a combined three hours a week reporting, a minute and a half each editing, and the rest of the time is for bloviation.
I think you nailed the reason why, though. Because the Patriots were/are so well-known for playing things very close to the vest and controlling leaks, Holly was in a position to fill the book with information that even hardcore Pats fans didn't know. An insider book that really does get inside info-wowee! I don't think anyone really holds Holly's prose in high regard, the freshness of his anecdotes is what gets the buzz and the love.I don't get all the love for Patriot Reign. It has some then-untold stories, such as the coaches hating Patrick Pass (especially Weis), but Brady loving him, so he stuck around. Other than that, it was really a long magazine feature stretched out into book form.
I think... I don't understand any of this.Not to mention, maybe the guy was talking about his retarded sister, or his invalid mother, or his wife who had brain cancer, or whatever.
The bottom line is that publicly chastizing a guy for being a concerned parent (or whatever his relation to the subject of his conversation was) is more reprehensible than being a loud talker.
Did you read the article? King gets on a guy for talking loudly, on his cell phone, about a female who goes to camp and volunteers at a home. He implies that the guy was acting obnoxiously. How was he acting obnoxiously? Was he talking too loud? Maybe he was, but if that's the issue at hand, then what he was talking about is irrelevant, and literally millions of people talk loudly on their cell phones, oft-times because they have to. No, the key issue here is not the volume of the guy's voice. King's major bone to pick is the fact that the guy was, in all likelihood, talking about his daughter (although we don't KNOW that he was talking about his daughter. "She" can mean many things. King makes that assumption) who sounds like a pretty well rounded person. Why is this such a bad thing? King chooses his column, which is read by far, far, more people than could have overheard the guy on the phone in the first place, to make fun of some man for talking about his female aquaintance, of whom he is proud. To me, that's kind of fucked up. It's especially fucked up when one considers that King does the exact same thing that the man he's criticizing does in the very same column when he raves about how wonderful the King girls and their friends are in softball or at Tufts, or whatever.I think... I don't understand any of this.
And then he spent the rest of the section talking about how that girl was a go-getter or whatever.loud enough for the folks in a two-seat radius to hear.
Yeah, I took it as his way of saying I wasn't being a weirdo and listening in on this guys conversation. That he was talking loud enough for PK not to be creepy to be listening to his conversation.drleather, PK didn't complain about the guy talking about Phoebe, he just said: And then he spent the rest of the section talking about how that girl was a go-getter or whatever.
Yeah, I took it as his way of saying I wasn't being a weirdo and listening in on this guys conversation. That he was talking loud enough for PK not to be creepy to be listening to his conversation.drleather, PK didn't complain about the guy talking about Phoebe, he just said: And then he spent the rest of the section talking about how that girl was a go-getter or whatever.
If that's the case, then why recount the whole story? Moreover, why the snarky comment about being a bad parent?Yeah, I took it as his way of saying I wasn't being a weirdo and listening in on this guys conversation. That he was talking loud enough for PK not to be creepy to be listening to his conversation.