Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

19 Sep 2005

MMQB: Saints Marching On

In Week 2 of MMQB, Peter King starts off with -- you guessed it -- more on America's team, the New Orleans Saints. He also says no one is playing better defense than Indy, names McNabb the Offensive Player of the Week (and Culpepper the Goat of the Week), has a funny quote from Jeremiah Trotter, and is already questioning his NFC Championship pick. King ends his column by calling out an amorous couple at the O'Hare airport, thinks the Red Sox are done, and calls Randy Johnson a baby. Oh yeah, he likes the Saints and the Cowboys tonight.

Posted by: P. Ryan Wilson on 19 Sep 2005

110 comments, Last at 21 Sep 2005, 6:31pm by Carl

Comments

1
by Neptune1 (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:10pm

If Peter King spent as much time actually watching football as he does doing all this other crap (drinking coffee, kissing Brett Favre's butt, writing articles about his daughter's athletic exploits) his column might be worth reading. This guy is a clown.

2
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:12pm

INdy isn't playing the best defense right now, Pittsburgh (Look, I remembered the H) is. And I call shenanigans on MMQB's "Quote of the week." Dollars to lattes tells me Trotter wasn't talking about the call on him, he was talking about the missed spearing penalty that injured McNabb and netted a $7500 fine for the Falcon who committed the penalty.

3
by princeton73 (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:15pm

did he mention that since the night that Tom Jackson said Belichick had "lost control of the team", they're 35-3 (oops, 35-4)

4
by beedubyuh (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:19pm

"a. Memo to the couple at O'Hare last night that was pawing each other while waiting for American Flight 1914 to Newark: Next time, get a room."

Yeah, right. What he doesn't tell you is that I was able to pull myself away from my girlfriend long enough to say, "Hey, King, take a picture why don't you?"

5
by Ryan Mc (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:21pm

Of course we all recognise that turnovers generally lead to losses, but I think Culpepper illustrates that the reverse is true too.

4 of his 5 INTs against the Bengals came in the second half when he was taking unusual risks in order to try to overcome a 27-0 deficit. He also threw a late desperation INT against Tampa in the 4th quarter last week which he would not have thrown if his team had been leading at that point.

I'm certainly not arguing that he's had two great games or anything, but let's keep the stats in some perspective. (ie. his performance was affected by the fact that his defense got toasted for over 500 yards)

6
by MKEPack (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:27pm

I think Peter King gets more idiosyncratic by the week. This week's column is like an ignorant version of Larry King's (hmm.. relation?) News & Notes with a vague football theme. The only difference is that Larry's column is a riotously good time while this is... well, it's tedious, whiny and it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

His travel note: he whines about being delayed at the airport, then he whines even more when they go, about getting stuck in a holding pattern. Boo-hoo, Peter, a million other people want to go to Newark at the same time you do, and that's what happens. "Nice planning," he says, as though he wouldn't have moaned about an even longer delay in Chicago if they didn't take off and have to hold.

Not to mention his part about "cruel and inhuman punishment" in an 88 degree airplane. Weren't you just writing about hurricane victims a page ago, Peter?

And speaking of which: "4. Philadelphia (1-1). I don't care if he were playing Little Sisters of the Poor on Sunday, Donovan McNabb's five touchdown passes in three quarters with a bruised sternum is a heck of a job."

Does this man pay attention to no media whatsoever? Interesting choice of words at this point in time.

OK, I've ranted enough. I've defended Peter King for years but he crossed the line into incoherence for me this week.

7
by Neptune1 (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:29pm

Plus, if King hates to travel so much, why is he always on the road. His stories sound like the typical PR fluff you can find anywhere. His columns all boil down to the following:

1. "Favre is great"
2. "Boy, that Bill Belichick can coach"
3. "Let's all pull for the Saints"
4. "I hate waiting in airports!"
5. "Coffee is good! Real good!"
6. "[Insert worthless player] will win the MVP this year!"
7. "[Insert below .500 team] will win the Super Bowl this year!"
8. "Mike Brown is the best safety in football! Who's Troy Polamalu?"

How does this guy warrant a regular football column? His knowledge of football seems incredibly shallow. I enjoy reading his column simply to obtain further proof that he is a complete dolt. Fortunately, he rarely disappoints and continues to post completely inane things in his columns.

8
by Parker (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:30pm

Ryan, I might be able to buy that if the INTs were a result of him taking a little more risk in order to thread a pass somewhere he would not normally try. However, at least the last two interceptions were just retarded. That attempted screen pass is honestly one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. And the last one in the end zone was ridiculous as well. Feeling pressure to make a play and trying something risky is different than lobbing the ball into a group of defenders.

I don't know what the reason for it is, but Fumblepepper was putrid yesterday and there simply are no extenuating circumstances that can make a dent in his putridness. Blech.

9
by Ryan Mc (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:38pm

I think this is my favorite section:

"I think this is the best way to describe what has happened in the NFL the first two weeks: Had I been in a knockout pool, I'd have taken Minnesota over Tampa Bay for Week 1 and Green Bay over Cleveland for Week 2. And I'd have been knocked out twice. That says three things. 1) I have no idea what I'm talking about; 2) There's a good chance the Packers and Vikings are a lot worse than we thought; 3) This is really going to be a fun year."

Considering the Philly-SanFran game was available in week 2, I'd have to agree with the comment that he doesn't know what he's talking about! (Even though I confess to having picked the Pack to beat Cleveland. I did, however, pick Tampa over Minnesota in week 1)

10
by Dennis (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:42pm

He finally got something right:

"1) I have no idea what I'm talking about"

11
by Balaji (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:57pm

King should kindly shut up about air traffic control, a subject about which he obviously knows nothing (not unlike many other subjects).

I'll also ignore the fact that the 1-1 Pats, despite not playing very well so far, can apparently be considered better than several other teams who have been flattening their competition. I suppose King is still trying to convince Brady that he really, really likes him.

12
by DavidH (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 3:58pm

#9 Ryan Mc:

Don't forget you can only pick each team once. So maybe he just didn't wanna blow his load by using up the Eagles too early.

#6 MKEPack:
And speaking of which: “4. Philadelphia (1-1). I don’t care if he were playing Little Sisters of the Poor on Sunday, Donovan McNabb’s five touchdown passes in three quarters with a bruised sternum is a heck of a job.�

Does this man pay attention to no media whatsoever? Interesting choice of words at this point in time.

Apparently I pay no attention either, because I have no clue what is wrong with his choice of words here.

13
by J-Diddy (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 4:04pm

When I read MMQB, i use the Yahoo copy so I don't have to hit continue 5 times to read one article. Maybe you guys can link to that from now on? (Click my name)

14
by zip (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 4:34pm

#11

"I’ll also ignore the fact that the 1-1 Pats, despite not playing very well so far, can apparently be considered better than several other teams who have been flattening their competition. I suppose King is still trying to convince Brady that he really, really likes him. "

Just curious, what teams are you talking about that are flattening the competition? Cincinatti, Tampa Bay, Kansas City? I think his argument would be that it's too early to conclude those teams are better than the Pats when they haven't beaten any teams as good of as the Patriots.

Notice I said his argument, not mine. I am just wondering who you are talking about, exactly.

15
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 4:39pm

I think by "Several" He means Pittsburgh. Corrected top 15:
1) Pittsburgh (Sorry Indy, your defense has to stop an NFL caliber offense before you're declared great)
2) Indy
3) Philly
4) NE
5) NO (Pending tonight's outcome)
6) Car
7) Atl
8) KC
9) TB
10) Cincy
11-15) Who cares?

16
by Neptune1 (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 4:40pm

Re: 14

The three teams you mentioned plus the Steelers looked as good as the Pats. I know the Pats have played tougher competition, but the Pats running game looks terrible, and their offensive line would seem to have some question marks. I just chalked it up to more of the usual homer-dom that King is (in)famous for.

17
by elhondo (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 4:46pm

Re: # 12

I think he was referring to the fact the the Little Sisters of the Poor fielded a significantly better defense than San Francisco this year.

At least, that's my assumption.

18
by Jamie T. (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 4:48pm

I find it very interesting that Favre sent 37 tractor trailers down to MS last week. This just so happens to be the exact same number of trailers that the Steve McNair Foundation sent to exactly the same place....last week. Coincidence? Considering King's usualy horrendous reporting, I think not.

19
by zach (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 4:51pm

For a team usually as composed and relatively flatline (like its head coach), this was an egregious breach of discipline before a big game.

the eagles actually do this sort of thing all the time before games. they are very "flatline" off the field, but from the time before the game up until the clock runs out, the word is the defense is kinda crazy. especially dawkins and trotter.

20
by melvin (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 4:51pm

why do the links show up as plain text in the rss feed(bloglines)? it s a pita to select copy paste the url. also mmqb is one of the worst offenders in the 'lets put one paragraph on each page so the reader will have click thru 10 pages to read the entire article.' why not link to the printable (or single page) versions?
mmqb

21
by Balaji (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 4:56pm

#14: "Just curious, what teams are you talking about that are flattening the competition?"

"Several" was a poor choice of words, but yes, I did mean Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. I'm slightly less convinced by the Bengals based on recent history, but they have looked pretty darn good in the first two games.

22
by MDS (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:04pm

I dunno, is it really all that generous that Tom Benson is helping the staff of the Saints with their moving expenses? It seems pretty common to me that when a business relocates, it pays the expenses its employees incur in the relocation. I guess I can't get all teary-eyed over a guy whose net worth is in the hundreds of millions giving a few thousand to some of his staff.

23
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:09pm

Hmmm, let's not get too excited about Cincy. So far they've beaten Cleveland and Minnesota, who I estimate are ranked 31st and 32nd (With Green Bay a close 33rd).

24
by MIPackerBacker (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:09pm

rimshot

25
by Balaji (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:11pm

#23, B: "Hmmm, let’s not get too excited about Cincy. So far they’ve beaten Cleveland and Minnesota, who I estimate are ranked 31st and 32nd (With Green Bay a close 33rd)."

I know, I'm just doing my best not to sound like a total homer. :)

26
by Neptune1 (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:13pm

Re: 22

Excellent point, but the funniest part of King's article is that he ignores the fact that Benson originally was only going to give the money to the players and NOT the staff!

27
by dryheat (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:30pm

Hmmm, let’s not get too excited about Cincy. So far they’ve beaten Cleveland and Minnesota, who I estimate are ranked 31st and 32nd (With Green Bay a close 33rd).

Hmmm, perhaps the reason they're ranked so low is because the Bengals shredded them? Seems circular, at best.

28
by DMP (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:31pm

I never got this "Saints are America's team." Various writers, including King, seem to be wanting to convince people that this is what the national fan mood is. Honestly, I don't see it. It's not as if they were Superbowl bound and this derailed them. Tragedy or no tragedy, Brooks is still the QB to kill your team right when you are at the cusp. Obviously their lives have been turned upside down - for those who actually lived in that area. But many players on other teams have had their lives turned upside down too with all the relatives they have in that area. I feel for these guys in that their season may still go to shells because they play 16 road games this year. I certainly want them to destroy the Giants tonight after the NFL took a dump on their heads and moved the game to the Meadowlands. Still they should be much better off than the thousands on non-millionaires caught in hurricane disaster. I don't see anyone going around saying "Hey, let's support Trent Lott in any law he wants to pass! He lost his gorgeous beachfront mansion in Mississippi because of Katrina, and is barely getting by with a few mill in lobbyist money!"

I feel bad for the Saints' circumstances, but I'm rooting for the Lions when they play on Christmas Eve. Seriously, feel bad for the Lions too. We've had to deal with Bill Ford Sr AND Matt Millen for years.

29
by Jamie T. (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:43pm

#28

I've never rooted for them. In fact, I have never rooted for any NFC team, but I'll be rooting for the Saints this year. I suspect that I'm not alone.

30
by KL (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:43pm

I never got this “Saints are America’s team.� Various writers, including King, seem to be wanting to convince people that this is what the national fan mood is.

I thought the exact same thing. I don't get that vibe at all. Perhaps people will pull for them a little more in a game they would otherwise not care less about, but it's not like people are going out and buying a Duece jersey are they?

31
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:44pm

dryheat: Believe me, I'm basing my judgements on Cleveland and Minnesota on more than their game vs. Cincy. I'm reasonably sure that by the end of the year those two teams will be at the bottom of DVOA rankings and Cincy will be a wildcard team.

32
by Template (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:47pm

<weekly columnist> is so awful. If they spent less time <doing something they do> and more time watching football, they might not be such <expletive> idiots.

I can't believe this guy gets paid to write about football. They should just send me his paycheck and I'd write his column, minus the <something they do that you don't like>.

33
by BillT (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 5:54pm

When did you guys all become a bunch of whiney little bitches?

34
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:03pm

Around September 2003. Why did it take you so long to notice?

35
by zip (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:05pm

Wow, I didn't even realize that King had the Pats above New England. That certainly makes no sense, given that they were good last year and have beaten up two (pretty bad) teams this year.

Here's a good question, if the Saints knock off the Giants, should they be considered a potential playoff team? They might be the 2-0 team with the most "quality victories" after this week. In any case it would make the NFC South very hard to predict. Especially because there is no precedent for a team experiencing what the Saints have.

36
by zip (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:10pm

And by "Pats above New England" I meant "Pats above Pittsburgh."

37
by BillT (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:11pm

I guess my memory sucks, B.

38
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:12pm

If NO wins tonight, King will put "America's team" in the #1 slot in his next ranking, whether they should be there or not. I might switch NE and NO, depending on how impressive the victory is, I still don't believe the Saints can sustain their success through a long season, though.

39
by Neptune1 (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:19pm

B,

How can you put anyone in #1 but the Colts? Don't you know that their defense is playing the best football in the history of the NFL????? Just ask Peter King!

40
by Neptune1 (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:23pm

Re: 32

Since when does King write about football? Half his column is usually devoted to material that isn't even related to football. The half that is related to football contains virtually no analysis whatsoever (Jake Plummer is an MVP QB, Danny Wuerffel will be the next Joe Montana, etc.) but is instead pure guesswork.

This guy must have a following somewhere, since he writes for SI so much but I just don't get him at all.

41
by internet retard (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:26pm

Columns that I read of my own free will make me furious! My subjective opinions are obviously correct while the subjective opinions of this writer are obviously wrong!

42
by Neptune815 (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:34pm

Re: 41

Hey, who knew King posted under a pseudonym?

43
by Conspiracy theory retard (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:34pm

I think internet retard and traditional stat retard are the same person.

Have you ever seen them post at the same time? Have you?

44
by robert hoog (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:38pm

Two Things I Think I Think:

1) I hadn't realized that the Patriots had reached late 90's Yankees status...that is, that neutral fans have taken to seizing upon any misstep as a signal of the end of The Dynasty.

2) You all are right, Kings column has devolved from a must read to an after thought. He is approaching clown status.

Enjoyable/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week:
Today on the Path train from Manhattan to New Jersey I couldn't get a seat. This caused my shirt to dampen a bit with perspiration, yet no one seemed to care.

45
by Ryan Mc (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:50pm

re #31 (and others): caution is entirely appropriate regarding Cincinnati. As a Bengals fan who has watched both their games, the run defense still concerns me, but has been bailed out by a highly efficient offense that has scored early and often and taken the Browns and Vikings away from the run. I'd worry about the Bengals playing Pittsburgh at this point; luckily that only happens later.

On the other hand, the Bengals managed to win by 29 points despite:
throwing an INT in the end zone,
having an 86 yard TD called back by a holding penalty which was unnecessary (since it didn't spring the play),
having two fumble recoveries nullified by offsides penalties on David Pollack, who was not the guy who caused or recovered the fumble on either occasion,
settling for FGs twice after Palmer overthrew an open Chad Johnson in the endzone,
and committing 17 (!!) penalties.

Hey, these guys can still get a lot better with some good coaching!

46
by Malene, Dk (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 6:56pm

seriously people, why are we having this discussion every monday?

No, PK offers no analysis, yes, he's crappy at picking games. We get it. Just. Don't. Read. The. Article.

He might not really be a football expert, though his SI magazine features usually show that he knows football more than he lets on in MMQB. BUT the NFL is more than x's and o's, and he's a brillant reporter. He most certainly knows a thing or two about front office machinations, team chemistry et al, and interesting quotes and rumors pop up even in MMQB. If that's not your thing, please, leave it at that, and let the rest of us discuss the content

47
by SLB1 (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 7:05pm

Yes, Peter King posts brilliant articles on the quality of double hazlenut lattes in Bumf**k, Wisconsin. If not for Peter King's analysis of the Starbucks franchise, I might not know where to buy my coffee. Please, everyone, stop criticizing Peter King. It is just not fair. As is indicated in post 46, Peter King is not, and should not be mistaken for, a "football expert" even though he writes for one of the most famous national magazines in America on that very issue. Please, read Peter to learn about what is aggravating today's travelers and where to buy coffee. Get with the program, people!

48
by zlionsfan (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 7:39pm

We'll see how generous Benson is with relocation expenses when the Saints leave New Orleans. The article did say, though, that he was originally going to split the money among all the employees, not just the players ... however, it also suggested that $500K/90 = $4500.

I have three entries in a knockout pool that starts in week 2 (so you feel dumber when you get knocked out right away). Colts, Eagles, Steelers. And I normally struggle, both in pick pools and survivor pools.

Green Bay over Cleveland? Well, it wasn't a terrible pick, but there were probably more likely winners on the board. I'd rather use up all the sure things by week 6 than get knocked out in week 3 ...

49
by BlueStarDude (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 7:59pm

King: "There didn't used to be Saints fans across the country. Now this team has fans from sea to shining sea"

I keep hearing this from sports pundits, but although a lot of people might "like to see the Saints win" this or that game, I haven't met a single person who has become a Saints "fan" because of Katrina. This cliche is just silly. Certainly none of the Giants fans I know up here in the NY area will be saying "well, at least it was the Saints" if they lose tonight. They want to beat em damn it.

50
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 8:06pm

Why do we have the same complaints every Monday about King's column? It's just the appetizer for the real whinefest on Tuesday about Easterbrook's. Carl, I hope you're getting warmed up!

51
by Shane Warne (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 8:13pm

Why are there always links to MMQ and TMQ when there is so much non-football gubbins in the article.

Everyone seems to just slag them of anyway.

If they discuss anything interesting I'm sure you erudite readers will link to it. I can't believe that these two are the pinnacle of football reporting in the USA.

Also Twycross Cricket Club Second Eleven won the Leicester Seniors Division Four Championship this season with a record number of points.

You see, factual reportage but utter mince in a football context.

I love you all.

52
by thad (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 8:36pm

did any of you ever read the book by peter king called
"the season after: are sports dynasy's dead"?
it came out in 1989. his main premise is that, well, sports dynasties are dead. he talks to a bunch of executives and coaches. i think it was
george young
bill parcells(who seemed to know he was doomed before that super hyped giants bears monday night opener in 87)
pat riley
glenn sather...edmonton oilers
davey johnson.
king does a really good job going around the country and talking to these people. my favorite part was when george young of the giants was talking about how after the super bowl win all the players wanted more money.
apparently sean landeta showed up with a 12 page paper filled with his various punting statistics. what exactly these stats were was never clearly explained.
the most fun part of the book is all the examples of these highly paid atheletes, who by todays standards, are clearly getting screwed salary wise.
(as i write that last sentance i see carl on the horizon, ready to pounce)
but the main problem is
1. the players and their agents never really get a chance to speak.
2. within a few years we saw the rise of the bulls and yankees, making the title seem way way off base.
its a fun read, don't get me wrong, but i have never been able to take him seriously since.

53
by MKEPack (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 9:31pm

Re: DavidH (#12):

Apparently I pay no attention either, because I have no clue what is wrong with his choice of words here.

"Heck of a job, Brownie."

In several media outlets I follow, "heck of a job" has quickly become either an insult or a joke.

54
by Joey (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 9:47pm

I have not read the book but PK's hypothesis being proven wrong doesn't automatically mean he can't ever be taken seriously again. You say the GMs and coaches were agreeing with him at the time, so he wasn't the only one drinking the Kool Aid. I do wonder how he could have come up with that hypothesis given that baseball's economics hadn't changed. With no cap and an ever-widening gap between the few haves and the have-nots, it was actually getting easier every single year to buy a championship-caliber club.

My belief is that MMQB and TMQ are probably almost as good for first-time readers as they were when the columns were brand new. It's just that, like TV series, columns aren't designed to ever end. You read them for a few years and suddenly what seemed clever and fresh morphs into inane and overdone.

55
by thad (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 10:02pm

re 54
i guess i explained it poorly.
it did not seem like everyone was agreeing with him. it seemed like he was cherry picking quotes. and i did not mean to imply that he was the only one drinking the kool aid, a lot of people were. it's worth reading just for a look back at various sports teams. i just thought he took a very narrow approach.

56
by Dennis (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 10:34pm

re 54:

My belief is that MMQB and TMQ are probably almost as good for first-time readers as they were when the columns were brand new. It’s just that, like TV series, columns aren’t designed to ever end. You read them for a few years and suddenly what seemed clever and fresh morphs into inane and overdone.

That's because they both write the exact same thing every week. PK writes about how great Bill Belichick is, Starbucks, and bad flying experiences. GE says run the ball (except when it doesn't work), don't blitz (except when it does work), and then rambles about scifi and other non-football crap for 3,000 words.

If they actually came up with new ideas every once in a while instead of auto-texting 95% of every column, they could still be clever and fresh.

57
by Jake Brake (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 10:38pm

That column was so bad, it made my eyes cross.

58
by Joey (not verified) :: Mon, 09/19/2005 - 11:10pm

#56:
We're coming from the same place, I think. But, it's hard to reinvent a column. (Granted, it's easier than doing it with a TV show, but it's still not easy.) If PK drops the coffee and daughter references, what replaces them? The non-football stuff PK and GE stick in their columns is a large part of their appeal. 90% of the time when I smile or laugh while reading PK or GE it's from something non-football.

59
by putnamp (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 6:20am

Lighten up, guys, TMQB's coming out tomorrow, and unless Carl's been hit by a train, we'll have plenty more to argue about.

60
by Adam Gilchrist (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 10:44am

Re: #51

Noice one, Warnoiy!

61
by B (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 10:57am

The only thing more predictable than MMQTMQ's non football commentary is people complaining about thier non-football commentary.

62
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 11:36am

I'm trying to go cold turkey off of MMQB and TMQB. But. Must. Have. King. Jonesin' for King. Must.

Aaaaaaigggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

OK.

"I did because I think this is a team going back to its running roots. I like the team's chances to win with Deuce McAllister more than Aaron Brooks."

Deuce "I Suck on First, Third and Important Yardage Situations" McAllister? Yeah, King. Go against the trajectory of professional football since 1978. Run. A lot. Depend on that marvelous New Orleans O-line and fall back on that ever-so-aggressive defensive seven to really mix things up. On the road. Every week.

Certainly Horn and Stallworth are NOT your strengths. Count on a bunch of reject OLs to make that game for you. Especially when you're going to be playing behind most of the time.

63
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 11:41am

"Valiant show from the clear leader of his team."

But let's not say a thing about a certain wide receiver who caught five passes for 143 yards (a 28.6 yd avg!), including one monster 68 yd dash, and two touchdowns.

TO had more yards than the entire SF fleet of receivers.

And I know it's an odd stat line, but Philly's punter had a great game. SF's Lee, however, will get more practice this year.

64
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 11:46am

"Five interceptions. Five! In the absolutely pathetic loss to the Bengals, Culpepper had his second straight rotten game, which -- probably rightfully -- is going to bring up a lot of Culpepper-is-lost-without-Randy-Moss talk."

Dear Mr. King,

In front of every quarterback is the nutty little football institution called the 'offensive line.' While no one would argue Culpepper played a good game, perhaps -- and I know this is zany -- his problem isn't so much lacking a tall, fast and moody WR galloping down the sideline, but rather a horseshoe of a line that might rival only Houston for sheer incompetence.

When a quarterback is under pressure, and trailing games, running to save his life, he tends to throw inaccurately. Culpepper is facing such an existence now. Unless you can put 100 pounds on Moss and start teaching him pass blocking assignments, his return to the Vikes won't help much.

65
by B (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 11:47am

Watching the Saints "home" game against the Gaints last night, I was screaming at my TV every time the announcers said the Saints are trying to be a run-first team. 2.5 YPC last week 3 YPC and they want to run more? My favorite comment was when McGuire (Or was it Theismann?) praised the Saints running attack last week. "Sure they only had a 2.5 yards per carry, but they gave Deuce 26 carries!" This is a good thing why exactly?

66
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 11:48am

"It's likely the show will do a piece in advance of the book's Oct. 15 publication date."

No s$&%t, Pete "Obvious" King. Thanks for the explanation.

67
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 11:49am

"Is it possible that the Peter King-NFC Championship pick just might turn out wrong? Shocking!"

Is it possible Travis Henry and Kerry Collins aren't the answer either?

68
by Brian G. (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 11:50am

You guys left out his biggest mistake of the week. Pete gives a big complement to Romeo Crennel for using Braylon Edwards "down the field" in the biggest play of that game. The play was actually a 5 yard slant that Edwards took 80 yards to the house. It would be nice if he watched a highlight show before he comments on games he didn't see.

69
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 11:55am

"I love Jimmy, but this is a ridiculous statement. Gibbs judged before the first game that Ramsey was his best of three quarterbacks. He gives him one half, then judges he's not. What kind of judgment is that, other than knee-jerk?"

But didn't he really have a preseason to watch him? And maybe, just maybe, he saw more of the same old crap and yanked him for the guy he originally recruited (at way too much money, with screwed up their short-term cap situation)?

And didn't this same overpriced guy win at Dallas?

70
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 11:59am

"USC. Not."

USC just beat a good Arkansas team 70-17.

Linger over that score for a second.

USC still has to go on the road against good Oregon, Notre Dame, California and Arizona State teams, but might they be the best around now?

The PAC-10 team I'm intrigued with is UCLA. It's going to be the last game of the season for USC, and it might be an upset if UCLA keeps playing like they are now.

The problem about UCLA is that they haven't played a good team yet (and that includes Oklahoma).

71
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:01pm

" 1) I have no idea what I'm talking about; 2) There's a good chance the Packers and Vikings are a lot worse than we thought; 3) This is really going to be a fun year."

So tempting.

72
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:03pm

" Troy Brown. I never thought I'd see him run 71 yards again, but there he was, on the receiving end of a Tom Brady throw."

Uhhhh, didn't Brown catch an 82 yard pass in 2003? And didn't this same team dragoon him for CB play last year? And didn't he come back this year to play WR and not CB?

73
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:04pm

Carl, are you trying to rationalize anything that happens in Washington?

Crazy man!

74
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:08pm

"The best idea Bush could have right now is to say the feds will build a stadium with one catch -- it will be constructed to be a disaster headquarters if another hurricane like Katrina strikes again."

Yes. Now the FEDERAL taxpayer should be lining up to enrich another football billionaire.

Just a nutty notion, but why don't the NFL owners bail out one of their own? There is a revolving fund for stadia construction. Instead of tossing some pesos to whatever team can't weasel some cash out of local taxpayers for eight days of "economic development" per annum, why not rebuild the Super Dome and make it the permanent home of the Super Bowl?

Would that not send a message that the NFL is serious about keeping football in the ravaged town? Wouldn't that give the team and a town increasingly built on the shaky tourism industry an annual influx of money?

No. Instead milk the federal wage earner for the cost.

Nice.

75
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:14pm

"(H)e'll give Ed Reed a run for his money as the best safety in football."

I love Ed Reed, but I'm not sure he's the best safety in football.

Maybe King didn't catch the game, but Troy Polamalu destroyed the Texans. Safety blitz. Over and over. Covered the tailback, receivers in the flat AND SACKED THE QB THREE TIMES.

You don't see many safeties doing that.

In honor of Pat, I'd also put in a good word for Michael Lewis and Brian Dawkins.

76
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:17pm

"The Ravens ended up giving more than $1 million between players and owners, and they're not done."

Especially the offensive line. They've decided to keep giving up on pass coverage until they match the Houston Texans or Minnesota Vikings for sheer incompetence.

77
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:18pm

"Memo to the couple at O'Hare last night that was pawing each other while waiting for American Flight 1914 to Newark: Next time, get a room."

I bet they were more interesting than the Steelers-Texans game.

78
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:20pm

"New Orleans 23, Giants 16. Dallas 14, Washington 13."

0-2. If Peter King were a NFL franchise, he'd be sharing space with Baltimore, Houston, Oakland, San Diego, Green Bay, Minnesota and Arizona.

Go team.

79
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:25pm

"Tonight in New Jersey, I expect the Saints to try to gash the Giants with a big dose of McAllister."

The big dose o' McAllister was good for 47 yards after 15 carries. He never got more than 9, and you can figure the average rush in your head.

Arguably, didn't Smith have a better game when he got the chance?

Unable to move the ball on the ground, the Saints' receivers actually looked pretty impressive. I've never been a big Stallworth fan, but he put out last night.

80
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:27pm

"Loved what I saw of newcomer Patrick Crayton."

Next game: One catch. Five yards.

Glenn looked good.

81
by Kim (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:29pm

Carl -
Slow day at work?

82
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:40pm

Kim,

I don't work. I'm the new O-Line coach for the Texans.

83
by DavidH (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:40pm

Kim just cracked me up. I had to explain what made me choke on air just now tp my coworker, who apparently doesn't think it's as funny as I did.

84
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:42pm

I don’t work. I’m the new O-Line coach for the Texans.

Taking the same approach as your predecessor, apparently?

85
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 12:49pm

In honor of Pat, I’d also put in a good word for Michael Lewis and Brian Dawkins.

So far this year, Dawkins is heads and shoulders above Ed Reed. I think he's great, but something is wrong in Raven-land. The nice thing is that technically they don't play the same position: Reed's listed as a SS, and Dawkins is a FS (Polamalu's an SS as well). So Dawkins is pretty easily the best FS in the business. SS is left to the reader. :)

86
by MikeB (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 1:01pm

Who cares -- King is not such a bad writer and he's entertaining. He won't provide in-depth analysis, but he will comment on a host of usually interesting topics and occasionally has some unique insight. He's freaking annoying as hell much of the time but so are 99% of the characters on ESPN etc. And King wears pretty well comparatively.

87
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 1:14pm

Speaking of Safety's... there's no doubt the fellas mentioned above are better than whom I'm going to mention... but there's a lot of good safety's in the NFC East.

Sean Taylor has got to be up there in top 5 consideration... that hit on Crayton during the end saved the drive... AND IT WAS A FUMBLE, CATCH PLUS TWO STEPS!

Roy Williams is also decent... not as fast... he can horsecollar with the best of them. Even Madden and Michaels were talking about the blatent horsecollar on Brunell... and that wasn't the only one he had.

The NFL needs to fix their refs...

Also, both Safeties need to work on their coverage discipline (Williams and Taylor).

88
by DavidH (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 1:16pm

I like his Tuesday morning edition much better, where he answers emails. This week's edition contained a great letter from the Gayest Football Fan Ever. See the third letter on the page linked in my name.

89
by zip (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 1:17pm

I think the weekly MMQB/TMQ debate/criticisms is hilarious. Aaron, if you're wondering if you should keep linking them, here's one vote for yes.

Also does anyone want to give PK credit for predicting the Washington-Dallas final score exactly, albeit with the teams reversed? I know it's all luck, but I was still impressed.

90
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 1:30pm

I always thought his MMQ:Tuesday version was dedicated to the MNF game? Considering there were two games on last night and King didn't put his two cents in other than to say "I can't predict football games". If I have to wade through Brett Farve love-fests on Tuesday morning and discussion on other Monday night games... he better **** well write about it when my team plays on Monday night.

I swear, the media is biased against the Redskins... no one jumped on their bandwagon like Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, Arizona, or Tampa Bay... but now they are sitting at 2-0... when everyone is saying how "lucky" they got to win at Dallas. Well what happens if they beat Seattle at home to go 3-0 in week 4? Just a by-product of playing in the mediocre NFC? Although all the other bandwagon preseason picks were part of the mediocre NFC. King and Pasquarelli are the worst, especially with their blatent anti-Art Monk lobbying in the Hall of Fame... how does a player who owns nearly all the receiving records when he retires get snubbed from the Hall of Fame? I know Jerry Rice broke his record... but if Steve Largent is in the HoF so is Art Monk. Last week during his chat Pasquerelli called the Redskins the "Deadskins". Is there really that much of a difference between Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder... yet every week they bash Snyder for being "hands on" and meddling.

There... I said it... but if you didn't follow closely you would think the Ravens have a better offense than the 'Skins. If the game has passed by Joe Gibbs than what has it done to Brian "Quentin Tarantino of Football" Billik?

91
by zip (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 1:55pm

The Redskins have won 2 games by a combined total of 3 points and got embarrassed for 3 quarters of last nights game.

I would say they are, by far, the 2-0 team that has looked the worst en route to being 2-0. Which is why I'm not on their bandwagon.

92
by Ryan Mc (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 1:59pm

re #87: Matt, you are absolutely correct on that call. I also saw it as a catch and two steps before the hit. How on earth can officials continue to blow these plays dead when we are now 7(?) years into the current replay system. How hard is it to simply let play continue, let the ball be recovered and then make a call as to whether it was a fumble or an incompletion? This way the coach on the wrong end of the call can challenge it if he wants to.

93
by Kim (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 2:01pm

[insert columnist here] doesn't know what he's talking about. He picked [team A] to win, and look what happened! He should spend more time watching the game, and less time talking about [pick one A) coffee, b) the latest science fiction phenom, c) his family]. Not only that, but he gives [insert your team here] no respect. How can he say [Player A] is the best in the league? Didn't he watch last weeks' games?! Clearly [Player B] from [insert your team here] is far superior. And he spends way too much time nattering on about [insert object of man-crush here.]

Insert [random other complaints].

And it keeps us so amused!

94
by King Kaufman (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 4:01pm

We’re coming from the same place, I think. But, it’s hard to reinvent a column.

If it was easy they'd let anyone do it. Hard is no excuse. It's not asking a columnist to reinvent a column to ask him/her not to keep recycling the same things over and over.

Almost everyone who's ever written a regular column is guilty of that to some degree, including me. And there's also the matter that there's sometimes a fine line between "recycling the same ideas over and over" and developing themes over time, or continuing to explore an issue or whatever.

I think the challenge of writing regularly is to keep it fresh, which means finding new things to say and new ways to say the old things; not to fall back on schtick or a template that can be filled in with little effort ("my sports Academy Awards this year go to ...")

Also, semicolons are bad.

But that's just me. Schtick can be fun. Peter King and TMQ both do schtick. I find both enjoyable, though I wish both would make more of an effort to keep the column fresh. It's important to remember, though, that for both King and Easterbrook, the MMQB and TMQ columns are side gigs.

95
by Daniel Warehall (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 4:18pm

#89,

I agree, I wouldn't read either MMQB or TMQ, if it wasn't for the comments... Without Carl, King and Easterbrook are nothing!!! Go Carl!

96
by B (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 4:19pm

KK: Obviously they do just let anybody write a column, if you have one ;)

As an aside, I think from now for your What the Heck (TM) picks, you shouldn't be allowed to pick against a team that just lost their starting QB. I didn't mind it for the Ravens, cause there's hardly a difference between Boller and Wright, but I don't want you using that game as precedence.

97
by King Kaufman (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 4:43pm

B: Obviously, you're good at reading subtext.

And about WTH™ Picks: The key is the pick has to be a team that I honestly think is going to lose. There are certain rules on top of that -- I can't pick a team with a winning record as a WTH&#153, for example -- but I don't know about the starting QB thing. There are teams that aren't hurt much by losing their starting QB. I'll mention it at the next international convention, though.

98
by Neptune1 (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 4:47pm

If writing MMQB is King's sidejob, what is his main gig? Isn't he a sportswriter by trade? Does he work for the Brookings Institution as well? If so, what policy issues does King work on?

99
by dryheat (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 4:53pm

In honor of Pat, I’d also put in a good word for Michael Lewis and Brian Dawkins

Are Rodney Harrison/Disrespect quips still allowed, or has it become passe'?

100
by B (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 5:06pm

I think King's main gig is for Sports Illustrated magazine, although these days he probably writes more for the website.
I actually thought the Titans were going to win that game. I could pretend it was evidence of my prognostication skills, but I also thought Miami and Buffalo were going to win.

101
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 5:43pm

"He might not really be a football expert, though his SI magazine features usually show that he knows football more than he lets on in MMQB."

Either that, or his SI editors know a lot about football and won't let a lot of this stuff into their copy.

102
by Erasmus (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 6:22pm

Re #70.

Arkansas is good? In what way, good at getting embarassed, good at not tackling or covering. I agree. This is a team that loss to Vanderbilt-at home...The only reason why I even ask this is because you mention Oklahoma as not being a good team. If Oklahoma is not a good team, I have no idea what Arkansas is then.

103
by Carl (not verified) :: Tue, 09/20/2005 - 6:34pm

Vanderbilt is a bowl team this year (OK, I picked them to go 6-5, but they'll probably go 7-4).

I put Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss together in about the same part of the SEC. Kind of where Oregon State or Arizona would be in the PAC 10, or where Oklahoma, Nebraska or Missouri are now.

I think Arkansas is better than Oklahoma. Sue me.

104
by King Kaufman (not verified) :: Wed, 09/21/2005 - 2:12am

If writing MMQB is King’s sidejob, what is his main gig?

Writing for the magazine. I would be surprised if MMQB is even edited, though it's probably copy edited. It looks to me like just a fun side thing.

105
by David (not verified) :: Wed, 09/21/2005 - 4:40pm

Since this is the most SI-related thread on the site at the moment, it seems like the best place to point this out.

Philadelphia is officially doomed. This week's Sports Illustrated has the Eagles and the Phillies on the cover.

106
by SLB (not verified) :: Wed, 09/21/2005 - 4:45pm

Even if writing MMQB is not his real job, he is a sportswriter and he should take more pride in what he writes. Unlike Mortensen or Pasquarelli, you will rarely find any real insider info in MMQB. Instead, it is really just a soapbox for King to vent about a bunch of bizarre stuff.

I think that MMQB is an OK read, it does not send me into orbit like some of these people, but it is not very good from a football standpoint. It is really not even that entertaining anymore. If it is so hard to keep the column fresh, why not simply let someone else step in and take a shot at it? I think that King's enthusiasm for football is waning (except when it comes to his beloved Patriots). I first noticed this when he did his daily Postcards from Training Camp bit. This is kind of how those went:

POSTCARD FROM CHARGERS CAMP

Wow, the weather's nice here! Lots of players throwing balls around and stuff. Looking good, having fun. Marty Schottenheimer is hoping to not be a clueless boob this year. Drew Brees is hoping for a repeat of his great performance last year.

Then, after this "in depth" analysis, he would launch into like a 10 paragraph dissertation of what food the team serves during camp. Who in the hell cares what is served to the players? Why write about that?

I guess what I'm getting at is simply this: What is the point? Is he trying to be entertaining by railing at the airlines, coffee shops, Six Feet Under, etc.? If he is, then he is not succeeding (at least in my opinion, although I am sure that some love his column) and his columns just sound like it was put together by some cranky jerk. If he is trying to do a column that actually contains relevant information, then he is woefully failing at that. His column pales in comparison to just about anyone else's (even Rich Eisen's new bit on NFL.com is better).

This is not meant to be a rant against King, who has been writing the column for a long time and for the most part, it was fun. But he has lost his touch. MMQB is something of an institution at this point, and like most people, I read it every Monday because I love football and I read just about everything I can about it. But MMQB has lost about three feet off his fastball and it is time for change.

107
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 09/21/2005 - 5:01pm

Then, after this “in depth� analysis, he would launch into like a 10 paragraph dissertation of what food the team serves during camp. Who in the hell cares what is served to the players? Why write about that?

Actually, my wife found it interesting. Part of the reason why I read TMQ/MMQB is that it gives me something semi-football related to talk with her about.

I like Pasquerelli, I really do, but he's "hardcore football fans only, and only if you've got a dictionary handy anyway." Given what readers of this website are, I think it makes perfect sense that people tend to prefer Len.

108
by SLB1 (not verified) :: Wed, 09/21/2005 - 5:08pm

Pat,

That is a good point, and there is no doubt that there is a good market for "casual" football columns that are aimed at casual fans, younger readers, and football widows. Those are fine, but I do not really think that MMQB is intended for those people either. In short, I think that MMQB has drifted so far from what it originally was (an analysis of the games after the fact with kudos where deserved and criticism when warranted) that it is kind of in limbo and is not really satisfying to any demographic. But, I acknowledge that my tastes are not everyone's, and I can understand if someone thinks MMQB is great. It is just like watching one of your favorite TV shows go down the drain. You get used to something, enjoy it greatly, and then it is kind of disappointing when it just does not work for you anymore.

109
by Ryan Carney (not verified) :: Wed, 09/21/2005 - 5:34pm

Peter King tries to muster credibility by naming McNabb and culpepper player and goat of the week, and also by putting up the cautioon flag on his choice for nfc champ, only to drag said crediblity in the mud with his less than stellar Monday Night picks. Maybe next week Pete

110
by Carl (not verified) :: Wed, 09/21/2005 - 6:31pm

In honor of Peter King, I'm going to go out on a limb and name his next dozen or so "Player of the Week" awards.

It's going to solely follow any QB who played against the 49ers secondary.

Next week, we get the rebirth of Drew Bledsoe on short rest. Then Kurt Warner, the grizzled vet who leads his downtrodden Cards to at least one gutty win. Then Peyton Manning sets a NFL single game passing record (his brother will put up nearly the same numbers three weeks later).

Fill out the rest of the scorecard with heavy doses of Mark Brunell and Brian Griese.

The most inspiring Player of the Week comes nearly at the end of the season, when a Byron Leftwich hobbling about the field on peglegs is carried from huddle to huddle in a fourth quarter drive to beat the 49ers 7-0.