Yeah, I noticed that too. When King turns on someone, he really turns on someone.
And his fantasy picks were god-awful.
And his fantasy picks were god-awful.
Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
more gems from today:
Peter discovers why Johnny Cash was relevant to prisons.
Peter trashes the latest Rocky movie, four months after it came out and actually received decent reviews.
Peter makes a mock suggestion that Peyton Manning should do commercials, but not nearly as funny as Peyton's own joke about how many commercials he does
Peter discovers why Johnny Cash was relevant to prisons.
Peter trashes the latest Rocky movie, four months after it came out and actually received decent reviews.
Peter makes a mock suggestion that Peyton Manning should do commercials, but not nearly as funny as Peyton's own joke about how many commercials he does
If there's any truth the Sopranos spoiler this mildly retarded fuckface just casually dropped in to his latest column, I hope he gets raked over the coals for it. Granted, it's nothing earth shattering, but all things considered, I can't imagine anyone thinking it was smart to just throw that into a football column with no warning.
What a fucking idiot.
What a fucking idiot.
From a guy who admits to having just discovered Guinness about a month ago, this comes across as a little laughable:
"(By the way, the greatest, truest Irish bar in America, Tierney, is in Montclair, N.J., and I say that because they pour Guiness the right way there. "
Now, I've never been to Tierney, so he might be right, and I lived in Jersey for 4 years so I have no issue with the notion that there are some decent bars here and there. However, I find it hard to believe there aren't "greater and truer" Irish bars in either Boston or NYC. Something tells me Peter King ("I just discovered Guinness, what a beer!") wouldn't know a real Irish bar if it bit him in the ass while he was pumping Tony Romo.
EDIT: also, how does Green Bay/Brett Favre get lumped together with Chicago and NE as a "tough game" for San Diego? Are you kidding me? It will be like 36-10. Finally, I think there's a fair chance Indy doesn't get to the NE game at 5-0. Tennessee, Denver, and Jacksonville could all trip them up.
EDIT 2: It often sounds now like he wants the Red Sox to fail. Why?
"(By the way, the greatest, truest Irish bar in America, Tierney, is in Montclair, N.J., and I say that because they pour Guiness the right way there. "
Now, I've never been to Tierney, so he might be right, and I lived in Jersey for 4 years so I have no issue with the notion that there are some decent bars here and there. However, I find it hard to believe there aren't "greater and truer" Irish bars in either Boston or NYC. Something tells me Peter King ("I just discovered Guinness, what a beer!") wouldn't know a real Irish bar if it bit him in the ass while he was pumping Tony Romo.
EDIT: also, how does Green Bay/Brett Favre get lumped together with Chicago and NE as a "tough game" for San Diego? Are you kidding me? It will be like 36-10. Finally, I think there's a fair chance Indy doesn't get to the NE game at 5-0. Tennessee, Denver, and Jacksonville could all trip them up.
EDIT 2: It often sounds now like he wants the Red Sox to fail. Why?
He's from the Shaughnessey branch of Sox fandom in that he's most happy when the Sox suck, because he loves to whine about them. Loves it. He has gone on record saying:
1. The CHB is a great columnist
2. The Sox should trade Manny for whatever they can get for him
3. Last year, the Sox were going to miss Tek more than Manny
BTW, what makes his lack of baseball knowledge so infuriating is that he used to be the Reds beat writer when he first started out. He either was completely clueless or forgot everything he knew about baseball.
Hopefully Keith Olberman puts him in his place this year when they're both on the NBC Sunday night show.
Whoa. Waitaminit. Olberman and King on the TV screen at the same time? Could they get Jimmy Fallon to do some attempted humor and drive the suck level to all-time record highs?
What a coincidence- this is exactly the conclusion I've reached in becoming familiar with Peter King over the last couple months.
Also- did anyone else find that this wasn't exactly the conclusion of said article?
I love this week's column where he says he's not going to mention Barry Bonds as a silent protest to the fact that he cheated to get the record. Because there's no steroid and HGH use in football, right Pete?
I'd say the article says the opposite. It concludes that he's a strange cat, sure, and he's really goofy, but he's also a reasonably smart guy who loves cars, likes (and works hard) at baseball, reads books, watches the discovery channel, and doesn't give two fucks about the media.
The Guiness stuff makes him look like a moron. One month after discoverying (at age 49) that Guiness is good, he is now acting like the world's expert.
I found this as pretty admirable. In the grand scheme, it doesn't mean anything. It is just his own silent protest. Very cool if you ask me.
And Shaunie, I love the fact that he is a Red Sox fan. Sure his shot at Manny this week was misguided, but I always love it when he throws in Sox stuff at the end of his football column.
I don't have an axe to grind with Peter King - I find he's an ok read most of the time... but this was so strange I had to note it here:
Really? Those friends will understand when Michael Vick hands them a check for some amount and then tells them he can't see them anymore? What kind of people does Peter King hang with, that this is acceptable behavior?
Maybe the editor added in the word "golden", which I guess would make this whole quote different. But this sounds unbelievably crass.
Edit: added link
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writ...29/draft/6.html
Really? Those friends will understand when Michael Vick hands them a check for some amount and then tells them he can't see them anymore? What kind of people does Peter King hang with, that this is acceptable behavior?
Maybe the editor added in the word "golden", which I guess would make this whole quote different. But this sounds unbelievably crass.
Edit: added link
I love this week's column where he says he's not going to mention Barry Bonds as a silent protest to the fact that he cheated to get the record. Because there's no steroid and HGH use in football, right Pete?Thanks, Sille, but Dean posted this.
(/borges)
I found this as pretty admirable. In the grand scheme, it doesn't mean anything. It is just his own silent protest. Very cool if you ask me.
And Shaunie, I love the fact that he is a Red Sox fan. Sure his shot at Manny this week was misguided, but I always love it when he throws in Sox stuff at the end of his football column.
I never noticed it before but he really is like Norm McDonald's impression of Larry King.
Except sort of gayer and more clueless.
I don't think so. You've got to look after yourself in life, and sometimes that means severing relationships with people who are bad for you.
And I think King's implication was that a lot of those people aren't real friends, and the ones who are will reconnect later.
Al Gore had this same problem with hangers-on when he invented the Internet.
King was absolutely abysmal today, first with the Shank quote and then with praising Borges without mentioning that he get canned on Friday?
Also the rebuttle by the NFL cable guy to his claim last week that paying for something, after getting it for nothing, is a good thing was strange in that he didn't offer any comeback to the NFL guy.
I am not looking forward to his column in two weeks when he comes back from Italy telling us about this "great new place I found. It's called Rome, and it's truly spectacular!" Of course there will be the inevitable comparisons of Italian cappuchino to Starbucks (Memo to Rome: More Starbucks!), some crap about how he got all of his sports news a day late and some boring story about how he was stuck at a five-star hotel and they forgot to put a mint on his pillow one night.
Also the rebuttle by the NFL cable guy to his claim last week that paying for something, after getting it for nothing, is a good thing was strange in that he didn't offer any comeback to the NFL guy.
I am not looking forward to his column in two weeks when he comes back from Italy telling us about this "great new place I found. It's called Rome, and it's truly spectacular!" Of course there will be the inevitable comparisons of Italian cappuchino to Starbucks (Memo to Rome: More Starbucks!), some crap about how he got all of his sports news a day late and some boring story about how he was stuck at a five-star hotel and they forgot to put a mint on his pillow one night.
King picks the Colts to repeat over the Saints this year 44-37. Can't wait to see how many times he changes it.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writ.../03/mmqb/1.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writ.../03/mmqb/1.html
This guy is such a character. "The parenting stuff in there is as good as the football stuff." Fantastic.
Well, looks like you were all pretty damn close on what the Rome column would look like:
1.) No mention of gelatto, but he did go to the same pizza place three times.
2.) The great new place is Tuscany, not Rome - and would you believe it, Tuscany apparently has great food and is really charming.
3.) Italian wines are good. He knows this because he is now a semi expert.
4.) "International travelling is tough. A guy was snoring on the plane. It was loud."
To be fair lots of people make the same sort of banal observations when they travel - it's not shocking that you notice the same sorts of things other people noticed before you. Although not a lot of people include it in their football columns.
King's analysis re the Pats and Colts is weak. He questions the Pats' linebacking, without accounting for the fact that they added the most sought after free agent at linebacker, Adalius Thomas, and brought back Junior Seau who, despite his age, played very well at linebacker for them last year until he got hurt. And he dismisses the fact that the Colts lost two starting corners with the non-sequitir that Manning hasn't lost his "Jeter-esque" desire to win, while seemingly ignoring that one of Brady's well known attributes is that he's among the more competitive and driven athletes in professional sports. I'm not saying that King had to pick the Pats, and I know that many people will in fact pick them, so perhaps he's trying to distinguish himself (as much as that can be done by picking last year's winner), but I do think that his analysis is -- surprise -- extremely superficial.
The wine thing killed me as did loading every single "Friday Night Lights" onto his iPod. And good pizza in Italy? The hell you say ...
King is middling overall, but I can't argue with what he wrote here. Seems like the Colts' wins over the Pats have all featured Manning (principally with Dallas Clark) gouging the Pats defense with passes in the middle of the field. Adding Thomas to the LB corps doesn't mean the Pats have fixed this weakness, given the other LBs and Harison are all a year older. What they really need is a Pfifer replacement.
I'd like to think that had he known about all the great parenting going on in the show, he's have been watching it all along.
The fucker's on a roll. Recommended the CHB book for father's day.
Maybe the King sign of approval will get him disappear from the Globe just like it did for Borges.
Maybe the King sign of approval will get him disappear from the Globe just like it did for Borges.
I'm pretty sure my father would disown me if I gave him a book by the man he refers to as the Chia Pet.
He also gave the "They're Unstoppable" reverse mortal lock jinx to the Patriots. Now they're going to finish 7-9, third in the division behind New York and Miami.
FWIW, King has picked Indy to repeat.
I thought it was a good piece today. It certainly got me excited especially considering Rodney's quotes about Moss. I don't get the Peter King hate around here, for my money he is one of the better football writers going.
I thought it was a good piece today. It certainly got me excited especially considering Rodney's quotes about Moss. I don't get the Peter King hate around here, for my money he is one of the better football writers going.
I just read the whole article, and why would Steven Spielberg, of all people, want to direct a Sopranos movie? That doesn't really seem to be his type of flick...
It was a solid piece, and King's access to players is unrivaled. In fact, this is probably due to the same "aww shucks" personality and penchant for shooting the shit that we often ridicule. His BSing about his life lets him relate, on a personal level, to the people he wants to open up and give him insight. He's genuine, at least, and he sincerely loves the game he covers, which is a lot more than we can about some other sports writers out there.
BUT...His MMQ columns are usually puff pieces. He's allowed to get away with them because he's already so accomplished and can, when he wants to, pull a great story out of his ass. I just think the non-football segments of his MMQs go a little too far, especially when he starts to moralize or tell the readers things that they (probably) already know and passes it off as a revelation ("Hey! French wine is REALLY GOOD!").
Again, I know its done with the best intentions, but it just rubs me the wrong way; in part because I see that stuff as having opportunity cost, that he could have written more about the failed Raiders option schemes or something...stuff that is educational.
So yea, you're right, we should ignore that stuff...but it's such a meatball down the middle of the plate that its really hard to resist.
Is it though?
This thread and the Simmons thread kill me. When both of these guys are writing to their strengths, they are unparalleled IMHO. They can't do it all the time so I've learned just to ignore the weaker stuff. For me, it really isn't that hard.
I guess people just feel better about themselves when they complain about someone else.
I don't think that's entirely fair vis-a-vis King.
King writes columns that regularly contain a lot of "trivia" that could only be interesting to a relatively small subset of his readers. I like a lot of his football stuff, and I especially like his access, but reading MMQB is an exercise scanning to avoid the uninteresting parts, at least for me.
In addition, his football analysis is sometimes quite superficial. I posted this above, but I found his remarks about Manning maintaining his Jeter-style desire after having won a SB, especially in a paragraph where he was talking about the Pats and Colts, to be an odd point to emphasize in light of the fact that one of Brady's well known attributes is not resting on his laurels. I don't write that as a knee-jerk Pats fan defending Our Tom, and I never would have thought that Manning would be content with just one title, anyway; I just thought that it was a lazy distinction for King to have made in that context.
For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly on Simmons and don't get all the hate, even though I need to skim many of his columns so I can skip over some of the pop culture stuff there, too.
Maybe I'm missing the tone of the thread a bit, but to my eyes, no one's really complaining as much as they are laughing. His non-football stuff is just off-the-charts funny. He's a character. I'll take your word for it on his prowess as a football writer- I don't watch the NFL, so I wouldn't know- but having been intro'd to his fluffy MMQ column endings via this thread... I mean, it's undeniably silly. It's begging to be pointed out, I think.
OK, maybe complaining wasn't the right word.
I dunno. Maybe I'm a glass half full guy or like to focus on the good rather than the bad in all things. I do pretty much skim MMQB for the parts that I find interesting as I do with Bill's columns. But, I probably do that with pretty much anything I read about sports.
What I do find is that for the most part, there are probably no other people who write about sports who are as cubically transformed as these two. I mean shit, here in Boston we have to put up with fucktards like Felger, CHB and Callahan in our daily fishwrap. If we want to listen to sports radio, we're forced to listen to WEEI who trumpets out blowhards like Pete Shepard and Meter all day.
The most surprising part of all this is that I learned that a renaissance man such as yourself doesn't watch football.
Come on man, it's the national pastime for goodness sake!
I dunno. Maybe I'm a glass half full guy or like to focus on the good rather than the bad in all things. I do pretty much skim MMQB for the parts that I find interesting as I do with Bill's columns. But, I probably do that with pretty much anything I read about sports.
What I do find is that for the most part, there are probably no other people who write about sports who are as cubically transformed as these two. I mean shit, here in Boston we have to put up with fucktards like Felger, CHB and Callahan in our daily fishwrap. If we want to listen to sports radio, we're forced to listen to WEEI who trumpets out blowhards like Pete Shepard and Meter all day.
The most surprising part of all this is that I learned that a renaissance man such as yourself doesn't watch football.
Come on man, it's the national pastime for goodness sake!
The nice thing about Peter King is how he breaks his MMQB column up into easily digestible pieces with section headers to warn readers what to skip:
"Aggravating/Enjoyable Travel Note of the Week"
"10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:"
"Aggravating/Enjoyable Travel Note of the Week"
"10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:"