Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

From his own[URL=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/06/17/mmqb.chiefs/3.html] MMQB column[/URL] today:

1. I think this is why making predictions is dangerous: While working on an SI story, I walked into the office of Baltimore coach Brian Billick the other day, and the first thing he said was: "I don't know why you're wasting time with us. We're not even going to the playoffs this year.'' A couple of minutes later, in came GM Ozzie Newsome. "You mean the Patriots let you come down to see another team?'' he says. Ouch. You may recall I picked the Steelers to win the AFC North, and the Ravens to miss out on a wild card behind Buffalo and Indy. I guess they fire up the Internet in Ravensville.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Goddamn, I can't stand that calzone with legs.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

i think we should make a petition, on the website where we have the art monk hall of fame petition, to force peter king into an early retirement.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

I kinda like that line by Ozzie Newsome

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

That's funny.. Say what you want about Billick, he is one of the few coaches with a personality..

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Billick has a personality all right, he's a huge a--hole with an enormous head.

As for Peter King, I actually like him. King adores Gibbs (and regularly stands by Gibbs' decisions) and, in my opinion, is not biased against the Redskins. He's often wrong, but who isn't? Moreover, King often admits it when he is wrong. That's more than I can say for many football experts who never remind readers when it turns out their predictions were wrong.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

I couldnt even imagine Andy Reid at his house. He probably just stands in the kitchen and scowls at his wife until she makes breakfast.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Billick has a personality all right, he's a huge a--hole with an enormous head.

As for Peter King, I actually like him. King adores Gibbs (and regularly stands by Gibbs' decisions) and, in my opinion, is not biased against the Redskins. He's often wrong, but who isn't? Moreover, King often admits it when he is wrong. That's more than I can say for many football experts who never remind readers when it turns out their predictions were wrong.[/QUOTE]

I'm 100% with you on this. He is fair with the Redskins. There has been a lot to criticize with Dan Snyder making decisions. But he's been mostly complimentary of late, defending Gibbs in most instances. He even somewhat understood the Coles trade, buying into the concept that you don't keep someone around if they really don't want to be there. He didn't really like what the Redskins got in return, but he understood the reasoning. The only beef we Redskin fans can have against him is the Art Monk debate (and even with Monk he does back his opinions up with legit facts, even if I don't agree with him); otherwise he's a very fair, informative, and enjoyable journalist.

Len Pastabelly, however, is an entirely different story. Now he is biased.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

He is less of a pompous ass than Pastamoron but he still qualifies as a pompous windbag.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Ramseyfan -
My dislike of King has less to do with his observations on today's game (which, while frequently wrong, are occasionally entertaining) than his bedrock-solid insistance that Art Monk shouldn't be in the Hall. Read the mailbag in his columns - he will admit when he's wrong, but this is the only point he seems to be unwilling to debate.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Ramseyfan -
My dislike of King has less to do with his observations on today's game (which, while frequently wrong, are occasionally entertaining) than his bedrock-solid insistance that Art Monk shouldn't be in the Hall. Read the mailbag in his columns - he will admit when he's wrong, but this is the only point he seems to be unwilling to debate.[/QUOTE]

Here's the article where King debated the Monk situation. He devoted a good amount of space to it. I don't agree with his points, but he does back his stuff up. I definitely don't agree with his anti-Monk sentiment, but I don't see a bias in his writing overall.

Click here and scroll down to the Quote of the Week section:
[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/01/17/mmqb.divisional/"]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/01/17/mmqb.divisional/[/url]

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Don't get me wrong, I strongly disagree with King's decision not to vote Monk into the HoF. I just think that otherwise he's pretty fair towards us.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

By devoting that many column inches to why he will not (not "did not", [b]will not[/b]) vote for Art Monk, he demonstrates bias. And the reasons are so media-centric!
1) [I]The media only twice voted him an All-Pro.[/I] Art Monk held the media in disdain. He rarely granted interviews, and was less than warm during them.
2) [I]Players stated they "didn't fear Monk".[/I] Players say all kinds of things to the media. Fred-Ex spent days denigrating a Patriots secondary that embarassed him and his family last Super Bowl. I suppose his "lack of fear" says more about them than it does him.
3) [I]Numbers don't mean everything.[/I] The only thing he said that makes sense - but they have to mean [u]something[/u]! He was the first WR with 100 catches in a season. He caught balls in 183 straight games (then a record). He has more catches than anyone in the Hall. Those numbers mean something. By mentioning the dozen or so receivers who will eclipse some of his numbers in the next five to ten years, King makes more of a comparison of eras than players - in his era, Monk (along with Rice and, to a lesser extent, Largent) set the benchmarks that today's receivers need to reach to achieve greatness. Of those three receivers, Largent is in the Hall, and (we presume) King will be voting for Rice, despite his gaudy numbers.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Not only that, the West Coast offense was just getting started. It's nothing short of remarkable that Monk had so many catches in a run-oriented offense.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Billick has a personality all right, he's a huge a--hole with an enormous head.

As for Peter King, I actually like him. King adores Gibbs (and regularly stands by Gibbs' decisions) and, in my opinion, is not biased against the Redskins. He's often wrong, but who isn't? Moreover, King often admits it when he is wrong. That's more than I can say for many football experts who never remind readers when it turns out their predictions were wrong.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this Ramsey...I read King every week. He is often wrong but I don't think it's a bias. I am very annoyed at the way his opinion is involved in keeping Art Monk out of the hall, but I don't think he does it out of a dislike for the skins or Monk. And as I said before on this website, King predicted the Redskins would win big with Spurrier so he is certainly not biased with the skins or any other team. I think a lot of the king dislike is centered around Monk and I must admit when the hall voting comes up every year King loses popularity points with me also but I do think he is one of the better NFL writers around...

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Just to add to my last post, I think Lenny P has a genuine dislike for the Redskins. if you read Kings redskins stories and Pastabellies stories in the same sitting you will see a big difference. Lenny makes underhanded unprofessional comments which point to a genuine dislike for the Redskins. Peter King may have negative opinions on the skins but he will always keep them professional.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]By devoting that many column inches to why he will not (not "did not", [b]will not[/b]) vote for Art Monk, he demonstrates bias. And the reasons are so media-centric!
1) [i]The media only twice voted him an All-Pro.[/i] Art Monk held the media in disdain. He rarely granted interviews, and was less than warm during them.
2) [i]Players stated they "didn't fear Monk".[/i] Players say all kinds of things to the media. Fred-Ex spent days denigrating a Patriots secondary that embarassed him and his family last Super Bowl. I suppose his "lack of fear" says more about them than it does him.
3) [i]Numbers don't mean everything.[/i] The only thing he said that makes sense - but they have to mean [u]something[/u]! He was the first WR with 100 catches in a season. He caught balls in 183 straight games (then a record). He has more catches than anyone in the Hall. Those numbers mean something. By mentioning the dozen or so receivers who will eclipse some of his numbers in the next five to ten years, King makes more of a comparison of eras than players - in his era, Monk (along with Rice and, to a lesser extent, Largent) set the benchmarks that today's receivers need to reach to achieve greatness. Of those three receivers, Largent is in the Hall, and (we presume) King will be voting for Rice, despite his gaudy numbers.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I totally agree with your stance on Art Monk, it's just that nowhere in Peter King's points does he show any indication of bias. Bias isn't necessarily present when someone disagrees with you. I can't point to any bias in any of his writing. If he's biased against Monk because Monk didn't take to the media, then King's doing a really good job of covering up for that bias by making fair points backed up by stats.

Again, we might disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he has it in for the Washington Redskins like Lenny P does.

PS Celts you are right on with your posts.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Maybe it would be better phrased as his argument is piss-poor for not wanting Monk in. :)

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Yeah I totally agree with your stance on Art Monk, it's just that nowhere in Peter King's points does he show any indication of bias. Bias isn't necessarily present when someone disagrees with you. I can't point to any bias in any of his writing. If he's biased against Monk because Monk didn't take to the media, then King's doing a really good job of covering up for that bias by making fair points backed up by stats.[/QUOTE]
Except his stats in this case are that stats don't matter. Monk's numbers - record-setting though they may have been - aren't enough. His other points against Monk can be explained by his general reluctance to kowtow to the likes of Peter King.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

I also think you need to take those numbers in context. With his argument, and how players just get bigger, stronger and faster each year, SOMEONE will be on pace for 200 catches one year.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Except his stats in this case are that stats don't matter. Monk's numbers - record-setting though they may have been - aren't enough. His other points against Monk can be explained by his general reluctance to kowtow to the likes of Peter King.[/QUOTE]

That's a hollow explanation though. What support do you have for saying that Peter King doesn't like Art Monk because he didn't kowtow to him? That's just speculation, I can't find any evidence in any of King's writing that he has a general dislike for anything related to the Redskins. Just because he argues against Monk doesn't mean he has something against him.

But even if you take that point away and dismiss it as media bias against Monk, it still doesn't account for King's point that Monk was voted to the Pro Bowl only three times. I know that voting now is decided 33% by fans, 33% by players, and 33% by coaches. It may have been an entirely player-driven thing back in the 80s, I'm just not sure. But the point remains, Monk's peers didn't put him in the Pro Bowl that often. That is not a media-related issue, and it's a fair point.

I think Monk's 100 catch season and his super bowl rings make the case for him, but disagreeing with the man is entirely different than finding him biased.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

I get your point Schneed. My feeling is that if all he were doing was voting against Monk for those reasons, he'd be justified. Instead, he writes about why Monk isn't a Canton guy, and trots out those reasons every year when people ask why Monk isn't in. He makes his viewpoint bigger than the 1 vote he provides.

I wonder what made James Lofton, Lynn Swann, and John Stallworth worthy, when Monk isn't? I wonder why King didn't vocally speak out against any of them? I wonder why he's choosing Monk's career to make a stand?

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Personally, I just get tired of King's constant praising of the Patriots- for once Billick was right on something. All the talk of them doing it "the right way" with "no egos" eventually wears me down- I know they have won 3 Super Bowls, enough already :frusty:
As for Monk, even as a big fan, he is a tough case. Not talking to the media does hurt you (just look at Jim Rice in baseball). Also, Monk never had that one big play at one big moment like Swann- the Super Bowl catch vs. the Cowboys helped pull him in. But if big game performances was the ONLY thing that let you in, Bob Horry would be in there in a heartbeat.
Still, Monk deserves to be in no matter what King says. He has the numbers, he was a respected WR during his prime years (ask the Broncos or Bills over whether they prepped for him), and he set a record of which took over a decade to break in a non pass-happy era. That has to stand for something. In a way, Monk personifies the kind of team first guy King just loooooooves in the Pats- quiet, does his job well, performs and goes home.
And that's all I have to say on that.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

good point SASpen00XIII ;)