This week, Peter King gives Brett Favre some love (finally!), calls Donovan McNabb an intergalactic hero, wonders if the Chargers miss Martyball, thinks we were all wrong about Randy Moss, and has Tom Brady atop his MVP Watch list. That shouldn’t aggravate the natives.
posted
9-24-2007 at 7:35 AM by
Ryan Wilson
||
Extra Points
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Your names and email address are required --- it's part of an effort to reduce comment spam -- but your email address won't be displayed.
If you create a comment, but it doesn't display, that's probably because it didn't pass through our spam filter (make any references to erectile dysfunction medication?), and is living in Comment Limbo Land. Please don't try to post it 14 more times -- try again once, and if it doesn't go through, then send an email to webmaster-at-footballoutsiders.com and let us know. Mentions of ED drugs, poker games, and anything you get email spam about will likely cause your comment to be held for moderation.
Please respect our discussion threads by refraining from the following:
- comments about politics
- ad hominem attacks on other commenters
- posts designed to promote another website
- thread-hijacking, particularly by turning threads that are not about Tom Brady or Peyton Manning into arguments about Brady vs. Manning
- discussing Spygate except in the Irrational Spygate Argument Thread.
Such comments may be deleted.
If you want to reference a link, put it in the URI field (go Rams!). Please don't put the 'less than' sign in the comment text -- it's seen as the beginning of an HTML tag, and that just messes everything up.
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
“… not that I buy into QB ratings.”
.
“e. Kansas City can’t run. At all.”
.
Tell us something we don’t know Peter.
:: Theo, Holland — 9/24/2007 @ 8:09 am
According to the Fire Joe Morgan guys (link in name), King said on Friday to bench Brian Westbrook this week. WTG, Pete!
:: Tim D. — 9/24/2007 @ 8:10 am
Huh. Peter King likes Michael Holley’s book on the Pats better than the late David Halberstam’s. Huh.
:: Gus — 9/24/2007 @ 8:13 am
b. Easy to see what’s wrong with Daisuke Matsuzaka. He’s a professional nibbler, afraid of going after hitters.
Gol darn it, Peter, you know jack shit about sports. The problem with Matsuzaka, actually, is that he’s had a very heavy workload this year and is totally gassed.
:: Gus — 9/24/2007 @ 8:17 am
Chargers at #6 in the fine fifteen? What?
:: sam — 9/24/2007 @ 8:24 am
Could McNabb really be an intergalactic hero?
If there are Philly fans on Zargox-5, I bet they’re still booing him.
:: cd6 — 9/24/2007 @ 8:25 am
You really have to read between the lines on PK here:
“”The thing that makes me laugh is what so many players and coaches have said about us having their plays. Like the Eagles saying we knew everything that was coming in the Super Bowl because we ran so many screens. Give me a break. Of course we ran all those screens! They blitz on every down! Especially on every down where the d coordinator raises his right fist and holds up two fingers on his left hand! Wait, scratch that last part.”
– New England quarterback Tom Brady. You almost hear the steam coming out of his ears on the phone on this subject. Obviously he’s upset about the unfair treatment he’s getting after it’s been revealed the Pats are cheating to win games.
:: cd6 — 9/24/2007 @ 8:33 am
Somewhat surprised no mention how after Driver was absolutley levelled by McCree Donald played like a man possessed the rest of the game.
:: BadgerT1000 — 9/24/2007 @ 8:59 am
#5 - Fair enough, if you ask me. I certainly wouldn’t have them lower than 8. They’ve faced a horrible opening schedule.
#1 - Gotta disagree with you and Pete. Kansas City can run, just not on the Bears or Vikings. Johnson and Bennett averaged 4.5 yards/carry against the Texans, which is a whole lot better than Carolina (3.1) or Indianapolis (3.2) could manage. I don’t hear anyone saying Joseph Addai’s not getting it done. The Chiefs may not look like a good running team, but that’s just because they’ve played three top run defenses. Now if you want to point out that they can’t pass, cover or tackle, well, that’s another story.
Finally, can anyone explain to me how you can produce a power ranking in which the team at #15 was blown out at home only eight days ago by the team at #14. And I’m not moaning homerishly: 14 is the right sort of area for the Texans. I’m just saying that Carolina beat up on an injury-crippled Rams team that wasn’t much good even before losing Pace and Incognito, got taken apart by the good-but-not-great Texans, and then struggled with Atlanta, who suck beyond all human understanding. They are not an above average team. I thought they were too after week 1. Those last two games are enough to convince me I was wrong.
:: Mr Shush — 9/24/2007 @ 9:07 am
Re: 8 I was surprised a couple of the guys on the radio seemed to regard this as a clean hit. I don’t think it was meant to be dirty, but I thought he very clearly lead with his helmet, and that’s a 15 yard penalty in today’s game.
:: Flounder — 9/24/2007 @ 9:13 am
Plus it was pretty funny that he was too busy flexing to realize he’d been called for a penalty.
:: Flounder — 9/24/2007 @ 9:14 am
re: Matsuzaka
He’s had control issues all season, and they usually revolve around him nibbling. Of course, the fact that he is gassed from the innings pitched is playing a huge role right now.
:: RickD — 9/24/2007 @ 9:17 am
The odds that King was going to open this column with a Favre story have been off the table since about 10:30am PST yesterday.
:: Darin — 9/24/2007 @ 9:18 am
That comment about Cutler maturing is just absurd. He was 16/23 222yds 1td 1int. The problem wasn’t him it was the complete lack of a running game, and a complete inability to stop the run.
:: Fan in Exile — 9/24/2007 @ 9:20 am
Apparently 15% of Bears fans are friends and family of Rex Grossman.
:: White Rose Duelist — 9/24/2007 @ 9:26 am
#6:
If there are Philly fans on Zargox-5, I bet they’re still booing him.
Well, considering that Zargox-5 is a little over 2 light years away, they are probably just getting the SB39 TV signals right now, and what they see is McNabb heaving at midfield. Can’t blame them.
:: slo-mo-joe — 9/24/2007 @ 9:28 am
Then, just off the escalator into the lobby of Penn Station, a guy sidled up next to me. “Hey, loved your story on the makeup lady the other day.” And that made it all worthwhile.
Is he being sarcastic or does he really think he’s doing some kind of public service by writing about people he sees on the train?
:: Dennis — 9/24/2007 @ 9:36 am
I like the way he uses a section specifically to point out how useless QB ratings are, then in the very next section uses Brady’s QB rating as proof that he’s the MVP. If you’re writing 3 sentences about Tom Brady’s MVP worthiness, surely you can find something other than a statistic you just discredited, right?
And then he uses it when talking about Favre 2 sentences later. Egads.
:: Darin — 9/24/2007 @ 9:38 am
Tom Brady is on pace for 53 TD’s. Big deal! Based on his week two game Carson Palmer is on pace for 96!
:: JFP — 9/24/2007 @ 9:39 am
Re: 7
What you’re really reading here is Peter King just now realizing that any in-game advantage Belichick got directly implicates Brady. It’s easy enough to hate Belichick and thus totally over inflate the seriousness of it all. It’s another to go back and say that Brady must have had huge advantages. Brady haters from other teams will have no problem with that of course, but the impartial types will have to stop.
At some point, they may even realize the “seriousness” was all due to how annoyed they are that Belichick thumbs his nose at the media, the leageue, and the rules, period, and was never about any issue of competitive advantage gained.
:: Vern — 9/24/2007 @ 9:40 am
“I called Marty Schottenheimer after Sunday’s debacle in Wisconsin, hoping to get his take on the Bolts. It does not surprise me, nor disappoint me, that I’m waiting for the return call.”
Pretty dignified from Marty. He’s just been offered a free shot, and turned it down.
:: James, London — 9/24/2007 @ 9:46 am
e. Hurry it up, Jay Cutler. There’s a playoff spot hanging in the balance of your maturation process.
Like #14 said, the problem isn’t Cutler. he may have more potential to live up to, but he’s played well enough that the loss can’t be pinned on him. Denver’s running game was horrid (credit that to Jacksonville’s defense). They ran well in the first two weeks, except for red zone situations.
I would contend that the problem right now is that the defense is built too much on pass defending, at the expense of run defense. Jacksonville was built to run against Denver’s new line of pash rush rookies and Rice.
With Bailey and Bly, it’s no wonder Jax featured the run game as heavily as they did. Running Garrard as much as they did limited the rush too, which made the Leftwich move actually a good thing for this particular game.
If I played the Broncos, I’d run it like crazy, too. It’s a lot smarter than passing in Bailey’s direction.
:: hooper — 9/24/2007 @ 9:46 am
One thing I think: I think when Peter King thinks he can tell us what Tedy Bruschi REALLY thinks to gin up the totally over-the-top, non-stop Belichick bashing by the King-Costas-Collinsworth Cabal, I want to go through the rest of the season without MMQ, Inside the NFL, and whatever the hell they call that little church group they gather for the Sunday night pre-game.
:: Dan Riley — 9/24/2007 @ 10:04 am
I think when I hear Tedy Bruschi, the ultimate honorable competitor, rail about the Patriots’ honor and how he’ll stand up to anyone who questions the team’s integrity, I’m really hearing him say: I’m ticked off that our great record has been sullied by Rodney Harrison’s HGH suspension and Belichick getting caught videotaping other teams’ signals.
I know, it’s so unfair that people think less of you when you cheat.
:: Jesse — 9/24/2007 @ 10:19 am
re #20:
Of course, the NFL (and Goddell) didn’t exactly acquit themselves in the eyes of any impartial viewer by destroying all evidence without explaining its depth or use.
As Goddell made the decision to destroy the evidence and not investigate anything, all I could think of was the scene in “Clear and Present Danger” when the president says to his chief of staff about the illegal war on drugs — “Then it should all just go away.”
:: Purds — 9/24/2007 @ 10:20 am
The thing that annoys me the most about the spygate affair is that BB just takes himself so damn serioiusly. Lighten up, Francis; it’s a game.
So easy to tell he’s a Wesleyan boy — the third place school in a three-college league.
:: Purds — 9/24/2007 @ 10:24 am
“Gol darn it, Peter, you know jack shit about sports. The problem with Matsuzaka, actually, is that he’s had a very heavy workload this year and is totally gassed.”
Yuppers. I’m really dreading the next 3 or 4 years of Francona. I’m wondering who’s arm falls off first, Okajima, Matsuzake, Papelbon, or Bucholz? He absolutely abuses pitchers.
My biggest pet peave about him, is pitchers at 100 pitches, 7th inning, and he lets them give up 4 runs and lose the game before pulling them.
If the guy has 90+ pitches, and he walks someone, you pull him. How many times have we seen this year a pitcher go 6-7 scoreless (or 1 run) innings, then have to watch as Francona lets them give up 2 walks, a double, and then another walk before pulling them. The guy is frigging awful.
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 10:46 am
9:
I recognize that the Chargers had a rough opening schedule. The Packers are not a terrible team despite whatever mainstream media might have been saying. But the Chargers are not playing well at all. It seems to me their ranking is based on the fact King places a high probability that they will improve, because they were good last year. Well, then why not put NO up there, too? They have a lot of talent, they were good last year…
:: sam — 9/24/2007 @ 10:46 am
I think one reason the Packers are doing well is that Farve has accepted his limitations for the first time:
“There may come a time when I think out of the box, but that time’s not now because things are working too well,” he said. “Now, dumping it off and letting guys run after the catch is working. It’s great.”
:: Brian — 9/24/2007 @ 11:06 am
“They have a lot of talent, they were good last year…”
Because they haven’t played 3 of the best 5 or so defenses in the league.
They’ve been spanked by TB (who no one knows is any good). SD has lost 2 close games to good teams, and been blown out by the juggernaut that NE appears to be. NO getting blown out by TB really is what makes it look so bad.
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 11:13 am
Apparently the NFL has gotten a lot better, if PK thinks the Seahawks team is better than the one that went to the Super Bowl, and therefore they should be tied for 15th in the fine 15. Does he read what he’s writing?
:: Steve Sandvik — 9/24/2007 @ 11:21 am
Good to know that PK thinks his kids suck, but it’s all right because random people like his writing.
:: mmm... sacrilicious — 9/24/2007 @ 11:33 am
Re 24
I believe that Tedy Bruschi is pissed because (and rightfully so) questioning how they won games is by implication questioning the team’s ability. Some of the players, understandably, are quite pissed at this, and will most likely go out of their way to prove they didn’t need to steal signals to win.
:: LnGrrrR — 9/24/2007 @ 11:42 am
I wonder if Peter looked at the guys phone to see if he was actually talking to someone.
:: BruceNH — 9/24/2007 @ 11:44 am
BTW, citing Unitas as an issue with the QB rating misses the mark. Any stat you could come up with would fail just as much.
The real reason for the difference is the rules changes, most of which went in after 1978. Pre 1978, a career QB rating that high WAS a measure of greatness.
:: Vern — 9/24/2007 @ 12:10 pm
The example he uses to bash QB rating is ridiculous. The NFL game & rules have changed greatly since the Unitas era to increase completion percentages and decrease interception ratios.
As far as Moorman being ST player of the week - yeah, the Bills would have lost by at least 38 without his efforts.
:: Are-Tee — 9/24/2007 @ 12:10 pm
I find myself rooting against the Chargers this year (after being sort of indifferent the past couple of years) because they fired Marty after a 14-2 season. I was no Marty fan prior to him becoming a Chargers coach, but after all the flack he’s taken for turning a crappy franchise into one of the best in the NFL and getting fired for it, I found myself liking the guy.
:: Richie — 9/24/2007 @ 12:21 pm
I hesitate to bring it up, but PK takes issue with McNabb saying this:
“I bet Fran Tarkenton, Steve Young, Jake Plummer and Doug Flutie have never been told by a member of a racial consciousness organization that they don’t play the quarterback position white enough.”
Apart from the fact that I think it’s rather droll, isn’t this kind of an indisputable statement?
:: zerlesen — 9/24/2007 @ 12:30 pm
re #25 Of course Goodell “covered up” any evidence. That was in the best interest of the league. The Pats had been caught & punished. He doesn’t want this black eye to linger by spelling out how bad the cheating was. Time to focus on the games, and crack down on the future.
On another topic. I really don’t think Philly is very good. Their uniforms just made it hard to focus on tackling. It is Swedish camoflage after all.
:: Chris G — 9/24/2007 @ 12:33 pm
re: #25 Goodell destroyed all the evidence and made it all go away because the reality of it all is that the Patriots didn’t cheat. Sure the Pats broke the rules by videotaping coaching signals from the sideline as opposed to videotaping the signals from booth - which most teams do and which is legal - or as opposed to taking notes or Polaroid shots of the signals from the sideline - which are also legal. So the reality is that the Patriots got no more information than any other team gets during game time and the Patriots got no competitive advantage whatsoever. Sure the Pats broke the rules but the hype was about two things and two things only: (1) the media dislike Belichick because he generally shows coontempt for the media and (2) the general audience of the media (i.e., the football fan) are sick and tired of the Pats winning. So let’s just get down to brass tacks and end this silly discussion of the Patriots cheating or stealing signals when in fact they did neither.
:: Paul — 9/24/2007 @ 12:38 pm
“The Arizona Cardinals have devoted 13.6 percent of their salary cap to the quarterback position this year, with Matt Leinart ($8.1 on the cap) and Kurt Warner ($5.0 million) taking up $13.1 million.
The Colts’ quarterback percentage of the cap: 11.6 percent, with Peyton Manning and Jim Sorgi combining for $9.1 million on the cap.
Gee, I wonder which team feels better about its quarterback situation and its quarterback/cap situation.”
Would any court convict me if I grabbed King by the hair and banged his head on his desk until his brains leaked out of his ears?
Maybe the cap difference has something to do with Warner/Leinart both getting starting QB money when they signed while Sorgi was signed to backup a QB that never ever gets injured.
:: RobM — 9/24/2007 @ 12:45 pm
You guys crack me up making fun of Peter King. I didn’t bother to read his trash, but these comments are hilarious.
:: Chris — 9/24/2007 @ 12:52 pm
RE #41, while I completely agree with your point - I think King was trying to make a case that maybe Peyton isn’t such a huge drain on the Colts’ salary cap as was reported when he signed his extension. Back then there were a lot of writers claiming the they would be regretting his contract very soon.
:: Chris G — 9/24/2007 @ 12:53 pm
Ok, I’m a Pats homer, and even I’ll admit that they were stealing signals (which isn’t illegal), and that they did probably get some competitive advantage from it (else why would they do it?).
The thing is, I don’t think it was an advantage to the point where it significantly tipped the scales in their favor. That’s just my opinion though, and no one but Goodell and Belichick really know.
:: LnGrrrR — 9/24/2007 @ 12:56 pm
So the Patriots add Randy Moss and Wes Welker, give the o-line another year of experience, and now Brady is the MVP because he’s playing much better than last year? Does that really make sense? Just goes to show how ridiculous the idea of a single “MVP” is on any football team.
:: vanya — 9/24/2007 @ 1:03 pm
Well, the Colts did have to release a bunch of veterans (including their prime RB) to make room for cap, but of course they were successful with the rookie replacements they picked up (especially at RB).
But the main reason for the disparity is that nowadays top-draft rookies get ridiculously inflated salaries, and QBs get the most ridiculously inflated salaries of all. A top-notch, or at least very competent veteran QB ends up costing not much more than an unproven rookie. And the veteran is supposed to be immediately productive.
That said, I was surprised that the Cards kept Warner on at that salary, I thought they had restructured him at this point. They would have had very good bargaining power to do it, since I doubt many other teams would have been interested in him. (That may change now, though)
:: slo-mo-joe — 9/24/2007 @ 1:09 pm
Re 40: the Patriots didn’t cheat. Sure the Pats broke the rules
From the American Heritage Dictionary definition of cheating:
“To violate rules deliberately, as in a game”
:: Dennis — 9/24/2007 @ 1:18 pm
““To violate rules deliberately, as in a gameâ€?”
Then all teams cheat. Moving before the ball is snapped is cheating. Grabbing a WR’s arm is cheating….
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 1:22 pm
“and that they did probably get some competitive advantage from it (else why would they do it?).”
The “They wouldnt do it if it didnt give them an advantage” is such a poor argument. Players don’t change their socks because they believe it gives them an advantage. Thinking something gives you an advantage doesn’t make it true.
Chris, the problem with Manning and the Cap isnt his current cap number, its that the Colts keep pushing back HUGE amounts of money. When he does start declining, they’re going to be paying $20M a year for a QB who can’t perform anymore.
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 1:30 pm
Then all teams cheat. Moving before the ball is snapped is cheating. Grabbing a WR’s arm is cheating….
So? We’re back to the “everyone does it” defense now?
:: Dennis — 9/24/2007 @ 1:32 pm
If you cite the broadest posible definition of “cheat” to prove your point, then yes.
:: Starshatterer — 9/24/2007 @ 1:41 pm
I’m just trying to understand how intentionally breaking the rules isn’t cheating. I really don’t care if they gained an advantage or not, or if everyone else is doing it or not.
Can someone provide a good explanation of why - in a general sense, not this incident specifically - it shouldn’t be considered cheating when you intentionally break the rules?
:: Dennis — 9/24/2007 @ 2:38 pm
I love that we’re now claiming that the Pats didn’t even cheat.
What’s next? “The rules say you HAVE to film!! All the other teams were cheating by not using cameras!!”
:: cd6 — 9/24/2007 @ 2:39 pm
#37 - Me as well. It only makes it easier to root against them knowing Norv Turner is their HC.
:: Joe T. — 9/24/2007 @ 2:41 pm
The point is that there are degrees of cheating. If one defines cheating as the violation of game rules to gain an advantage, however small, then undeniably all teams cheat. If one is honest, however, and admits that there is a wide difference between cheating by bribing officials and cheating by holding at the line of scrimmage, then one has also to admit that taping what everyone is free to see and record in non-tape fashion falls much closer to the latter infraction than to the former.
But ultimately, people who simply say “The Pats cheated” as if that had any absolute significance are either a) trolling, b) acting like a self-righteous pricks or naive pollyannas, or c) whining once again about their team being handed their ass by the Pats in the past few years. More often then not, all of the above.
:: slo-mo-joe — 9/24/2007 @ 2:53 pm
Bill Belichick should be awarded a medal for his forward-thinking, visionary tactic of employing video surveillance to decipher the signals of his (obviously evil) opponents. It shouldn’t surprise anyone by now that he’s light years ahead of any other strategist. After all, he’s won three Super Bowls (and frankly was cheated out of two others) despite having only one good player (Tom Brady, the modern Adonis, the on-field personification of divine courage and grace! Would that I were a woman, that I could bear him a tribe of suckling babes!) Those who would impugn his motives as less than honorable are but black-hearted philistines who would prohibit birds from singing and flowers from blooming if they could. I would award the Patriots an *extra* first round draft pick for their stratagem; after all, it’s already an injustice worse than any Jim Crow law that they have to pick late in every draft round as punishment for being good. Belichick: What a beautiful man! What a beautiful team!
:: Not The Great Babe Laufenberg — 9/24/2007 @ 2:55 pm
As funny and witty as we can all be, is it time to start a Belicheat/Tapegate/whetever thread in the spirit of the irrational Brady/Manning threads? For a while now, the discussion has been nothing but word-parsing and hair-splitting and relativism. I don’t mind discussing the controversies, but we’re well past the point of adding anything new. Additionally, there are 3 +/- 1.2 people left in this world who might have their minds changed about it all, and I’m pretty sure that none of them read FO.
I don’t like the idea of cutting debate off (as I’m now suggesting), but does this not sound reasonable?
That’s all I will say about the subject. Just my opinion.
:: hooper — 9/24/2007 @ 3:07 pm
Double post. Sorry.
In the opening paragraphs, King lauds Favre for accepting his coaches’ requests to play a little more conservative and protect the ball better. Isn’t that what Sherman et. al. were not requesting of the Great Overlord Favre during the last few years?
Packers fans, imagine what the last few years could have been like. I’m looking forward to explaining this to my Packers-frenzied friends and watching them resist the urge to choke me. :)
:: hooper — 9/24/2007 @ 3:13 pm
Re 49:
“Players don’t change their socks because they believe it gives them an advantage. Thinking something gives you an advantage doesn’t make it true.”
I bet if the NFL made it a rule that you have to change your socks, players would start doing it. Unless, of course, they thought the advantage they got from not changing their socks was worth the punishment they would get if they got caught. And so, if it really didn’t give them any advantage, they would be stupid not to adhere to the rule. If it did create an advantage, they’d keep doing it.
:: TED F!@#ING GINN!? — 9/24/2007 @ 3:15 pm
56 - brilliant. totally redeemed a degenerating thread.
:: Jimbohead — 9/24/2007 @ 3:21 pm
“We never did it. We never had any video cameras. We never got anyone’s signals.”
– Alabama coach Nick Saban, a close friend of Bill Belichick’s who spent two years as coach of the Miami Dolphins.
And of course Nick Saban’s word is good enough for me.
on the way into the city for our second HBO Inside the NFL taping of the year.
Ah, the royal “we”.
The Jags limited the potent Broncos offense (much of that is potential, because Denver doesn’t look potent yet)
So the Jags are the defensive “player” of the week because they stopped the potential Denver offense? Isn’t he saying the Jags are DPOW because they stopped the not-potent Denver offense? The best defense player this week was 11 guys who held a not-potent offense to 14 points?
I think this is what I liked about Week 3: …Jared Allen made a big difference on the Kansas City front, with two sacks and a forced fumble
Maybe the only defensive player you liked this week is the DPOW? Even if the Vikings offense is not potent…
/rant
:: MRH — 9/24/2007 @ 3:22 pm
“And so, if it really didn’t give them any advantage, they would be stupid not to adhere to the rule. If it did create an advantage, they’d keep doing it”
Players in baseball keep corking bats, even though it has been SHOWN to not help.
Your supposition that people doing something proves it is effective is downright absurd.
Again, for that to be a valid idea, then you have to assume that information is perfect, and players know whether or not something is helping them. The amount of superstition in professional sports proves thats not true.
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 3:25 pm
“I bet if the NFL made it a rule that you have to change your socks, players would start doing it.”
You mean, kind of like how the NFL has made a rule saying you can’t spike the ball, and players have stopped doing it?
Or how the NFL has made a rule saying you can’t celebrate using the ball as a prop, and players have stopped doing that?
Or how the NFL has made a rule saying you can’t tackle someone by the back of his shoulder pads, and players have stopped doing that?
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 3:28 pm
RE: King’s articles
I’m beginning to wonder if the Monday deadline makes it hard for King to check his articles for consistency. As #61 (closest example to this post) points out, his logic for the Jax D and Broncos O are mutually damaging. The rapid turnaround between his distaste for QB ratings and his use of QB ratings to justify his thinking is another example. I think if he had a little more time to enjoy his triple-whamma-mocha-licious latte and to breathe between his typing and his proofreading, the articles would flow much more smoothly.
I don’t know how feasible an afternoon article release would be for SI, but I think it’d make things a lot easier for King to avoid the inconsistencies we find in MMQB.
Other than that, I really enjoy his articles. I like the optimism, and I don’t need every single point explicitly proven beyond all doubt to understand where he’s coming from . I can agree and disagree as I feel, and let it stay at that. I’m just waiting for the article when he discovers that Starbucks is terrible.
:: hooper — 9/24/2007 @ 3:33 pm
Can’t we all agree, at least, that videotaping was not the sole and/or major reason for the Patriots dominance over the decade, especially if they are still doing it this year?
:: LnGrrrR — 9/24/2007 @ 3:36 pm
re: #63
Thats fantastic. That list can go on forever. A while back, the NFL made it illegal for offensive linemen to hold a defensive player’s jersey, yet that hasn’t stopped offensive linemen from holding! Closer to the present, the NFL made it illegal for a defensive player to tackle the ballcarrier by grabbing on to the ballcarrier’s facemask. Do you think that eliminated facemask grabbing? Hell no!
This could turn into a Robin Williams routine. I guess the moral of the story is that the NFL shouldn’t even bother making up rules, much less enforce them, because someone will always break the rules.
:: senser81 — 9/24/2007 @ 3:36 pm
Re 33 believe that Tedy Bruschi is pissed because (and rightfully so) questioning how they won games is by implication questioning the team’s ability. Some of the players, understandably, are quite pissed at this, and will most likely go out of their way to prove they didn’t need to steal signals to win.
From the autobiography of Bill Belichick, circa 2015:
I want to talk briefly about “Videogate”. A lot was made of us “cheating” by videotaping other teams’ signals and what advantage we gained by it. Actually, very little. We already had that information from plenty of “legitimate” sources.
You’ll remember a lot of press comment at the time speculated that’d gotten too arrogant to realize that the league meant to enforce the “no-video-taping” rule. And that we’d gotten so arrogant that we didn’t think the Jets would notice we were filming them or do anything about.
That was far from the truth. We knew the Jets were on to us and that the commissioner was cracking down on bad actors of any kind. The real reason we video-taped the Jets in that game was precisely so we would get caught.
The “no-respect” card was no longer motivating the players. We needed something to get their focus back to what it had been in our earlier championship runs. By getting caught and having the players’ ability and effort called into question - as if our championships were solely due to their coach’s cheating - we were able to return to a version of the “no respect” Patriots.
I have to admit that I thought we’d lose a less valuable draft choice, more akin to what the Broncos, 49ers, and Steelers lost for circumventing the salary cap…
He’s not that devious, is he?
:: MRH — 9/24/2007 @ 3:39 pm
RE: 64
I agree. I had a similar thought reading this edition that he sometimes may have underlings scratch stuff together for him that he approves. He probably also pre-writes a lot of it before Sunday, so some of the stuff might not be on the top of his mind as he furiously scribbles together the rest of the article. It would explain the inconsistencies.
:: Brian — 9/24/2007 @ 4:14 pm
“I guess the moral of the story is that the NFL shouldn’t even bother making up rules, much less enforce them, because someone will always break the rules.”
no, the moral is that its absurd to think that just because a player will break a rule, doesn’t mean its advantageous to that player.
Players break the celebration rule all the time and that absolutely does not indicate that it gives them an advantage, which is what Ted F*%*CKING GINN is alluding. The fact that they don’t stop when a rule is instituted absolutely does not lead to the conclusion that a competitive advantage is gained.
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 4:39 pm
Re: Pats Cheating
Yes, they cheated, and the advantage they gained was probably negligible. but the problem is that we can’t pinpoint what specific advantage they got and there is always going to be that qualifier on the Pats past accomplishments of “Yeah, they’re good. But how much was them and how much was cheating?”
The fact that that question even has to be asked presents a problem immediately.
:: Crushinator — 9/24/2007 @ 4:49 pm
Guys, guys, guys.
Come on now. Don’t you get it. It’s really simple and straight forward.
1) The Pats broke a rule, but they didn’t cheat.
2) And they just cheated for the hell of it…they didn’t get any advantage from it.
3) And since there is no advantage from it…it also makes total and complete sense that everyone else in the league also cheats the same way. You know…because all NFL teams pursue rule breaking, not to get an advantage, but just for kicks.
4) And of course they didn’t break any other rules…they (proven rule breaker) were asked by the Commissioner to turn themselves in and face other sanctions and of course proven rule breakers always, always, always do exactly what they are told by the commissioner, like not breaking a rule after being warned 3 times.
5) And if you think otherwise, you are either a troll, a PATS HATER, a hater of America, anti-freedom, anti-family and an evil mongering prick of the highest order. And you probably like molesting young boys…and stuff.
:: OMO — 9/24/2007 @ 4:49 pm
re: #69
I don’t know the details, but I would guess that the Patriots were trying to gain a competitive advantage from videotaping the Jets’ signals rather than trying to get some new ‘celebration material’ from the Jets coaches.
:: senser81 — 9/24/2007 @ 5:00 pm
“but the problem is that we can’t pinpoint what specific advantage they got ”
Right, which is why all these claims of “they only beat us because” are absurd.
Maybe they did, maybe they didnt, but theres no way to know. The assumptions that this made a huge difference are absurd, especially considering that several very good coaches (Jimmy Johnson, Barry Switzer, etc) have come forward and said they did the same thing, and stopped doing it because they believed it was a waste of time.
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 5:02 pm
re: #73
Right, there’s no way to know. So you say that the Patriots got caught cheating, the Commish reviewed the data and the Pats were penalized, and life moves on.
Barry Switzer and Jimmy Johnson cheated? NO WAY!
:: senser81 — 9/24/2007 @ 5:07 pm
“don’t know the details, but I would guess that the Patriots were trying to gain a competitive advantage from videotaping the Jets’ signals rather than trying to get some new ‘celebration material’ from the Jets coaches.”
Again, absolutely no one is arguing that they weren’t TRYING to gain a competitive advantage. The question is whether they actually did gain one.
The fact that they were trying, and believed they were gaining and advantage, does not necessitate that they gained an advantage.
And thats the whole argument. People are coming to the absurd conclusion that believing you gain an advantage means you are gaining an advantage.
The patriots COULd have been gaining an advantage. They could also have been just wasting their own time, just as baseball players do when they cork bats.
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 5:09 pm
especially considering that several very good coaches (Jimmy Johnson, Barry Switzer, etc)
I actually believe the value of the videtaping was minimal and the reactions over-done. But to lump Barry Switzer in the category of “very good coaches” is not an argument I’d try to make.
:: MRH — 9/24/2007 @ 5:11 pm
I would guess stealing someone’s signals would be a significant advantage. I don’t think anyone could write an article with the conclusion “knowing the other team’s signals gives no significant advantage” as you might find on about corked bats. Or is Belichick such a genius that he can say “we were unable to decipher the Jets’ signals” and you’d believe him?
:: senser81 — 9/24/2007 @ 5:13 pm
Rich, so if you go home tonight and find somebody trying to pick the lock on your front door, that’s ok because he didn’t actually break into your house?
:: MTR — 9/24/2007 @ 5:16 pm
“One point, and one point only: Enough. If McNabb thinks he’s helping himself by blogging and talking about this again, he’s mistaken.”
Hey everybody, maybe PK has a point–the way to deal with race is not to talk about it.
Christ, what an asshole.
:: Julie Armstrong — 9/24/2007 @ 5:17 pm
When is stealing not stealing? When the Pats do it.
:: ArizonaCardinalsFan — 9/24/2007 @ 5:23 pm
#71
That’s true, I am pretty into molesting “stuff”
:: zip — 9/24/2007 @ 5:26 pm
Peter King ranks Tampa Bay (2-1) at 13 and the Seahawks (2-1) at 15 and notes that he doesn’t like how the hawks are playing. I guess he forgot about the blue man group beating up the bucs in week one? And on a personal note to PK– find an independant coffee shop already!!!
:: tic toc — 9/24/2007 @ 5:38 pm
“I would guess stealing someone’s signals would be a significant advantage”
yeah, and Jimmy Johnson, Barry Switzer, Bill Parcels, and others would disagree with you, and seeing as how they’re actual professional football coaches, I’d say their opinion is a little more relevant than yours.
“Rich, so if you go home tonight and find somebody trying to pick the lock on your front door, that’s ok because he didn’t actually break into your house?”
Its got nothing to do with this.
Its like changing lanes frequently in traffic… it really doesn’t get you home any faster, even though, at the time, you think its advantageous.
If the rules say taping is wrong, its wrong. That doesn’t mean that the patriots got some huge advantage from it.
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 5:47 pm
“Hey everybody, maybe PK has a point–the way to deal with race is not to talk about it.”
I kind of agree with PK here.
I’m sick of hearing how Donovan McNabb, making $10M a year, is being unfairly treated “because hes black.”
Donovan, News Flash, you play in Philly. Its not because you’re black that you’re picked on, its because you play in Philly, and haven’t won them a superbowl. No, its not rational, but its got nothing to do with race.
:: Rich Conley — 9/24/2007 @ 5:51 pm
Re: McNabb
What’s he complaining about?
He’s the one sold out to the White man. Nobody forced him stop scrambling and sit in the pocket, not even his Chunky Soup slinging momma. He should have kept it real. Like Mike Vick. Nobody ever criticized Mike Vick for not being white enough.
:: The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly — 9/24/2007 @ 6:18 pm
“And thats the whole argument. People are coming to the absurd conclusion that believing you gain an advantage means you are gaining an advantage.”
Exactly…why would anyone make that argument.
Pfft. Knuckleheads. Gaining an advantage doesn’t mean you are GAINING an advantage. Every one knows that.
Duh.
:: OMO — 9/24/2007 @ 6:31 pm
#77:
I would guess stealing someone’s signals would be a significant advantage.
It is indeed. But that is not “cheating”, in fact it’s allowed by the NFL. The Dolphins last year boasted publicly that they had stolen the Pats’ offensive signals before their 21-0 spanking, and no one batted an eye. (Well, Brady did, he answered that even if they did, it wouldn’t have helped them.)
Hard to believe based on all the garment-rending and chest-thumping, but “stealing signals” was not what BB was busted for.
:: slo-mo-joe — 9/24/2007 @ 7:10 pm
Donovan, News Flash, you play in Philly. Its not because you’re black that you’re picked on, its because you play in Philly, and haven’t won them a superbowl.
McNabb was criticized by the Philly head of the NAACP for not playing the position “black” enough. Rush Limbaugh also suggested the only reason he was being lauded was because he was black. Did you forget that?
That’s really what he was talking about. Remember, this all happened in the context of an interview about McNabb’s life. It isn’t about anything that happened recently.
McNabb never really responded significantly to those two comments. That’s what this entire thing was. I don’t agree with him choosing to do it (I thought it was classy that he stayed quiet about it) but he certainly has the right to, and it’s not “jeez, McNabb, stop whining” worthy.
:: Pat — 9/24/2007 @ 8:57 pm
Ridiculously Proficient Patriots Stats of the Week
Yeesh. Please tell me this is not going to be a recurring item. And yes, I’m a Pats fan.
:: Christina — 9/24/2007 @ 9:37 pm
If the rules say taping is wrong, its wrong. That doesn’t mean that the patriots got some huge advantage from it.
And it’s still cheating.
They got caught, they paid the fine, now let’s all move on with our lives.
:: Dennis — 9/24/2007 @ 10:05 pm
Its time for an intervention.
Rich, your endless (please tell me it will end sometime soon) struggle to minimize the Patriots cheating has only reinforced my theory that you are deeply ashamed of your beloved coach. Your rationalizations and justifications seem to be an attempt to convince yourself, first and foremost, that all is right in Patriot land. Sadly, there really is no light at the end of the tunnel. The Patriots impending 16-0 season, Brady’s 65 TD’s, and another Super Bowl championship will provide you with a brief moment of celebration, but in the end will only further magnify your inner demons.
As I see it, you have only two options now. 1) Seek professional help for your deep seeded guilt and embarrassment before it poisons your very soul, or 2) turn away from the dark side, use the force, and start routing for all that is good in the world, also known as the Indianapolis Colts.
:: Don Booza — 9/25/2007 @ 10:01 am
Rich
Seriously,
I love the Pats as much as you do, but come on. You’re still arguing about video-gate two weeks later.
You’re starting to give the rest of us Pats fans a bad rap.
Cut it out, or your Tom Brady Fan Club membership card will be revoked effective immediately.
:: Phil — 9/25/2007 @ 10:22 am
“Pfft. Knuckleheads. Gaining an advantage doesn’t mean you are GAINING an advantage. Every one knows that.”
Omo, your simple lack of ability to understand the english language amazes me.
Thats not what I said. What I said is this: Thinking you’re gaining an advantage doesnt mean you are gaining one.
Players cork bats thinking they are gaining an advantage. They aren’t.
:: Rich Conley — 9/25/2007 @ 10:29 am
“Cut it out, or your Tom Brady Fan Club membership card will be revoked effective immediately.”
Obviously you dont spend too much time here. I’m probably the biggest Brady critic around.
Look, stop putting words in my mouth people.
Things I have never said:
The patriots didnt do anything wrong.
The patriots shouldnt be punished.
The patriots didnt break the rules.
SO STOP SAYING I SAID THOSE THINGS.
I haven’t said a god damn thing about the patriots. What I have said is this:
Someone believing they are gaining an advantage does not mean that they actually are gaining an advantage. People are superstitious, and our entire brain is designed to recognize loose patterns.
There is not a single one of us who at some point in the day doesn’t fall victim to correlation without causation.
The argument that it must have been effective because they did it is absurd.
:: Rich Conley — 9/25/2007 @ 10:34 am
“Obviously you dont spend too much time here.”
I spend plenty of time “around here”. I just usually pass over your posts, because they mostly incoherent. However, this EP has been all you.
:: Phil — 9/25/2007 @ 10:57 am
re: #93
Were the Patriots corking bats? No. I don’t understand your obsession with corked bats. As others have stated, I also think the advantage gained by the Pats was small, and that the NFL levied a punishment and its time to move on with our lives. But you keep harping on this corked bat stuff, so now I am thinking that the Patriots used corked bats on defense against the Jets.
:: senser81 — 9/25/2007 @ 11:54 am
“No. I don’t understand your obsession with corked bats”
Because it very clearly makes the point that assuming something gives you an advantage doesn’t mean it actually gives you an advantage.
Some people are arguing “the patriots kept doing it, so it must have given them a significant advantage”. My point is that its an absurd assumption.
If you do something, and you win, you’ll continue to do it, whether or not its actually helping you win: like players not changing their socks, or washing their jersies, or whatever.
:: Rich Conley — 9/25/2007 @ 12:12 pm
Re #67:
WOW. I can’t believe someone was paranoid enough / perceptive enough to wonder whether the Pats were doing it deliberately JUST for the reason #67 specified in his crazy-like-a-fox BB-bio-from-2015.
Did anyone else wonder why BB would do this two days AFTER receiving an *unambiguously* clear letter from the NFL stating that such behavior would be punished severely?
I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, but this seems like something BB would do specifically as a motivational technique. Anyone else agree?
== Mark
:: Mark — 9/25/2007 @ 2:01 pm
I see that Gregg Easterbrook is stepping up his campaign to become OMO/stan’s favorite columnist of all time.
:: PatsFan — 9/25/2007 @ 3:04 pm
re: #97
So the reason the Patriots were videotaping the Jets signals was because of superstition?
:: senser81 — 9/25/2007 @ 3:24 pm
gotta say, easterbrook has gone over the deep end on that one. he’s obviously never been to law/j-school, or if he has, he’s forgotten everything he learned.
pretty much what i’d expect from someone who thought saddam was a clear and present danger to the US.
:: scott — 9/25/2007 @ 3:44 pm
Rich…I quoted you and yet it’s still MY fault that I can’t understand the English language.
At this point…you’ve become a know-it-all parody of your know-it-all self and I have to tell you…it’s staggeringly funny.
Just like this line is:
“I haven’t said a god damn thing about the patriots.”
Good times. Good times.
:: OMO — 9/25/2007 @ 4:16 pm
“So the reason the Patriots were videotaping the Jets signals was because of superstition?”
No, the reason the patriots were taping the jets is because they BELIEVED it gave them an advantage.
That doesn’t mean it did.
:: Rich Conley — 9/25/2007 @ 4:49 pm
No, Omo, you didnt quote me. You paraphrased and removed the word “believing”
ME:
“People are coming to the absurd conclusion that believing you gain an advantage means you are gaining an advantage.â€?
OMO:
“Gaining an advantage doesn’t mean you are GAINING an advantage.”
Do you really think those two are the same thing?
:: Rich Conley — 9/25/2007 @ 4:52 pm
Rich…look at post 86 and STFU.
The first paragraph…quote.
““And thats the whole argument. People are coming to the absurd conclusion that believing you gain an advantage means you are gaining an advantage.â€?
The only thing absurd here is your OMG ITS SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE…CORKED BATS…B, B, BUT…BS that you think is reasonable and presentable logic.
Just like your attempts in another thread to tell someone that they can’t possible know what Wilfork was thinking on that hit on Losman…but in April you sure as hell had no trouble telling us what Asante Samuel REALLY was saying when he had his press conference when he was not happy.
You don’t know the advantage gained by BB and you don’t know the advantage NOT gained. You are just like the rest of us…YOU DON’T KNOW.
You just, once again, act like you do.
F-ing internet-know-it-all.
:: OMO — 9/26/2007 @ 9:11 am