Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
Not a knock on King, dont know where else to put it
Reading King's long piece on AZ game-planning. It's interesting. But this:
Reading King's long piece on AZ game-planning. It's interesting. But this:
I know Walsh did this, and others. I've never heard it discussed in NE, so I assume it doesn't work that way. It seems sort of counterintuitive, though, that if the defense comes out in a certain surprise way, that a team "sticks to the script."
From the Devil's Advocate: I suppose there's a will-imposing component of "doing it our way, defense be damned."
This would be good fodder for BB's Friday press conference. It touches on both strategy and the game's history. Walsh did it, successfully, so there's *something* to it. But it would be great to hear one HoF coach talk about why he does things differently from another.
Not PK, but MMQB...nice take on Ben Watson. It's easy to forget what it looked like he could be at TE.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/20/nfl-ben-watson-new-orleans-saints-book-under-our-skin
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/20/nfl-ben-watson-new-orleans-saints-book-under-our-skin
There are at least three benefits to scripting:
1) you can plan your play calling sequence ahead of time, when your judgment is clearer, rather than in the heat of the battle.
2) you can rehearse the plays in sequence, which improves execution.
3) the scripted plays are usually selected specifically to show certain formation/personnel groups. This allows you to a) see what the defensive response to your gameplan is early, so you know which adjustments you need to make, and b) to establish certain looks so that you can run variations/counters off those looks later in the game, e.g. you have a run play in your script out of a particular formation/personnel group so that you can run play-action out of the same formation/personnel group later.
When the Walsh-era Niners used to script out 20ish plays, it wasn't uncommon for every one of the scripted plays to be run out of a different formation/personnel group -- they specifically wanted to give the defense as many different looks and see as many different responses as possible. That allowed them to see what worked and what didn't, where they had match-ups they liked, what adjustments they could make and what had to be abandoned for the day, etc. That stuff is hard to do on the fly if you don't plan the sequence ahead of time.
EDIT: Here's a lecture from Walsh in which he discusses why he scripted: http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2007/08/bill-walsh-method-for-game-planning.html
Last edited:
Thanks. Good stuff. I'd love to hear BB talk about Walsh. (I'd have loved to see a conversation *with* Walsh . . .)
l. Coffeenerdness: So we’ve got a new coffee shop in the neighborhood, on the east side of Manhattan. Actually, it’s a coffee hole in the wall, a tiny takeout store called Brooklyn Diamond Coffee. Very nice and smooth espresso. Tried an almond milk latte there, and I’ll be back.
Wtf is he talking about?? Disconcerting signals?? And why would the game have gone to overtime? They were still in decent position to kick the game winner? Was he on acid last night?
There would have been a 10-second runoff if the penalty had been on the offense, sending it to overtime.
Ah yeah duh. Thank you. Now what does disconcerting signals mean?
Edit: apparently that is the technical name of the mimicking QB signal penalty
Last edited:
He seems a little butt hurt that Florio may have scooped him on the manning wants to play in 16 story.
I really don't get it.
The TV crew did a great job explaining the call as it happened.
The Ref explained "unsportsmanlike" conduct and the reason why it was called.
Why would anyone go to bed confused?
Peter must have been really stretching to fill out his column for some reason*.
Edit - * and he spends a bunch of time re-covering his article on Carson Palmer game plan piece he did with out really adding any new information.
The TV crew did a great job explaining the call as it happened.
The Ref explained "unsportsmanlike" conduct and the reason why it was called.
Why would anyone go to bed confused?
Peter must have been really stretching to fill out his column for some reason*.
Edit - * and he spends a bunch of time re-covering his article on Carson Palmer game plan piece he did with out really adding any new information.
And he managed to confuse me in the process. I went to bed fully understanding what happened and what the call was and why it was made.
I don't hate PK as much as other people. Does he have a bit of an ego? Sure. Is his writing style sometimes confusing and convoluted? Sure.
But the way he blissfully ignored all of the bullshit in Sunday night's game - and instead focused on penning an epic about Brock O - shows how gutless he is as a writer. He saw it. We all saw it. But he wanted to write a Cinderella story so he ignored the real narrative of what actually happened Sunday night.
But the way he blissfully ignored all of the bullshit in Sunday night's game - and instead focused on penning an epic about Brock O - shows how gutless he is as a writer. He saw it. We all saw it. But he wanted to write a Cinderella story so he ignored the real narrative of what actually happened Sunday night.
Everyone who covers the NFL under the Roger Regime are acutely aware that negative coverage will surely equal consequences of some sort. I'm guessing a bunch of that is at play with a lot of what PK does either consciously or unconsciously.
Ol' fathead doesn't understand what the word "uniform" means.
Peter, the word "uniform" refers to the fact that everyone on the same team wears uniform clothing.
I suppose he'd like to have a word with our armed forces, as well. Where does the Marine Corps get off, calling all of these "uniforms"?
Photo: Getty Images (2) :: AP (2)
Just some of the many combinations of the Rams’ “uniforms” this season.
And another thing about uniforms …
Three weeks ago I wrote this: The NFL does not have uniforms anymore. The NFL has costumes. It was prompted by many things, not the least of which was the “Color Rush” series, which had the Jaguars dressed in a sort of mustard/dung color for their Nov. 19 game against the Titans. I'm also tired of the fact that the NFL will stop at nothing to sell sell sell jerseys and odd-colored trinkets that really and truly no one would want to own. To those points, I present the uniforms of the 2015 St. Louis Rams.
Including the bright-urine full-body uniforms they will wear Thursday night when they play the all-red Bucs in St. Louis, the Rams will have worn eight uniform combinations in the first 14 games of this season. That includes the three games in October, when customary uniforms were festooned with all things pink—pink cleats, pink socks, pink uniform towels, pink wristbands—in honor of the NFL’s monthlong nod to breast cancer awareness.
• NEXT STOP, LOS ANGELES: NFL nears vote for which team(s) are L.A.-bound
The Rams’ uniform combinations, and how often they have worn each this regular season:
Blue shirts, blue pants: 2.
White shirts, blue pants: 2.
Blue shirts, white pants: 1.
White shirts, blue pants, pink adornments: 2.
Blue shirts, white pants, pink adornments: 1.
Classic Rams blue shirts, gold pants: 2.
White shirts, white pants: 2.
Yellow shirts, yellow pants, yellow adornments (including gloves): 1.
Fourteen games, eight uniforms: 1.7 games per uniform combination. Even if you don’t consider the pink adornments a different uniform, the most common “uniform” would have been worn by the Rams four times in 14 games.
Peter, the word "uniform" refers to the fact that everyone on the same team wears uniform clothing.
I suppose he'd like to have a word with our armed forces, as well. Where does the Marine Corps get off, calling all of these "uniforms"?
It might be that I dislike PK's use of the second person even more than I dislike Cafardo's use of the first-person collective.
Stop telling me, PK, the things I thought. He doesn't want to admit that he didn't know shit about shit, so instead of writing, "Last week, I thought the following things were certainties:," he writes, "Remember those thrilling days when YOU blah, blah." No, PK, I don't remember thinking that the Bengals were dominant. I always thought they were a bit lightweight. No, PK, I don't remember thinking the Patriots were in trouble, once I found out Gronk wouldn't be out for long. No, PK, I don't remember thinking the Colts were clearly the best team in the South, considering Hasselback had to be a mirage and the Texans were playing well. No, PK, I don't remember the Bucs or the Bills were for real.
It's the same issue I always have with him, but, Jesus, why doesn't he have an editor to say, "Hey, PK, using the second person to foist your own fallibility on your readership is the shit that college columnists do. Step it up."
Stop telling me, PK, the things I thought. He doesn't want to admit that he didn't know shit about shit, so instead of writing, "Last week, I thought the following things were certainties:," he writes, "Remember those thrilling days when YOU blah, blah." No, PK, I don't remember thinking that the Bengals were dominant. I always thought they were a bit lightweight. No, PK, I don't remember thinking the Patriots were in trouble, once I found out Gronk wouldn't be out for long. No, PK, I don't remember thinking the Colts were clearly the best team in the South, considering Hasselback had to be a mirage and the Texans were playing well. No, PK, I don't remember the Bucs or the Bills were for real.
It's the same issue I always have with him, but, Jesus, why doesn't he have an editor to say, "Hey, PK, using the second person to foist your own fallibility on your readership is the shit that college columnists do. Step it up."
@SI_PeterKing You try in the last year to get Belichick to once again talk to you? Also, have you heard any whispers about PSI's this year?
Followed by this as if he has no agency of his own
Peter King @SI_PeterKing 1h1 hour ago
Peter King Retweeted JW
1 No.
2 That one’s in the vault at league offices. Very few have the key.
Followed by this as if he has no agency of his own
Peter King @SI_PeterKing 1h1 hour ago
Peter King Retweeted JW
1 No.
2 That one’s in the vault at league offices. Very few have the key.
It reminds me of a very negative review Steve Pinker gave Gladwell a few years back noting Gladwell's penchant for the "Straw We"--that is Gladwell's habit of saying things like "Why do we assume genius is innate and not related to effort" or "why do we assume it's easy to make commercially successful ketchup when in fact it's extremely difficult" when it's Gladwell who made the dumbass assumption
“@SI_PeterKing: NFL talked transparency on Wells Report, then hides PSI levels of football now. It’s just wrong. Should be public. https://t.co/jhP8ro8fUh
“@SI_PeterKing: Well, that was my thought. They should have deferred any Brady/Pats sanction till doing PSI testing thru ’15 season. https://t.co/o5tnCXfHCX
“@Bfawc: @SI_PeterKing Maybe because the measurements don’t help their case.”
So technically he did.
Honestly, PK is one of the last guys to criticize regarding .2psigate. Considering his position and relationship with the league/usual level of reporting, he has been more than fair once the shady details started coming out.
