Articles from around the Web
PDF VERSION NOW AVAILABLE
Click here to buy PDF version.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Rivers McCown: @RiversMcCown
Chad Peltier: @CGPeltier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
15 Oct 2012
Peter King loves him some rookie quarterbacks, but in general he's as confused as the rest of us by Week 6 in the NFL.
Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 15 Oct 2012
30 comments, Last at
17 Oct 2012, 6:26am by
By my count, King mentioned Tom Brady 10 times in the column.
He has to make up for not being able to mention Favre anymore.
"And Russell Wilson -- more about him later -- has overcome the height and rookie thing to beat Tony Romo, Aaron Rodgers, Cam Newton and Tom Brady in the first six weeks of his pro career."
Oh God, 2 paragraphs in and I already need to stop reading this crap. What about Max Hall Peter, HE WAS A WINNER TOO.
Anyway, I continue to read this: Green Bay wideout James Jones is the most underrated receiver in football. What hands ...
You have to admit, Russell Wilson did a great job holding the Cowboys to 6 points, sacking Aaron Rodgers 8 times, and covering the eyes of the replacement refs. Not every rookie QB under 6' tall can do that.
Can we at least agree that he's not a backpack full of rocks and Yoda that a defense shares for their Jedi training, unlike Rex Grossman?
That comment about James Jones seems like it was written by Larry King, especially since the style in that section is the same style Larry King used. I wonder if Larry King is related to Peter King.
Having this back-to-back with "Mandatory Monday" is almost cruel and unusual punishment for King.
"I think I am sick of those in and out of the football business telling me Ben Roethlisberger gets no respect. Stop. Just stop. Just because someone doesn't think Roethlisberger is as good as Tom Brady or Eli Manning or Aaron Rodgers doesn't mean that person doesn't respect him. We're in the golden age of quarterbacks -- the best time for quarterbacks, with the deepest roster of very good ones, in the history of the league -- and I consider Roethlisberger highly respected in the hierarchy. If it's bashing a guy to consider him the third- or fifth- or seventh-best at a time of such greatness ... I mean, Lord help us."
Come off it Peter, no one thinks Ben Roethlisberger is EVEN the seventh-best quarterback in the league. Except possibly announcers and Pittsburgh fans.
I count two Mannings, Brady, Rodgers, Romo, and Brees as being basically inarguably better. You'd have to place him ahead of -all- of: Ryan, Flacco, Stafford, Dalton, Rivers, and Schaub.
[Yes, I know Romo has been inconsistent. But his highs are long and very high, and his lows are always on national television because he's a Cowboy. His overall production is extremely impressive.]
I'd take Ryan, Rivers, and maybe Schaub over Ben, and I suspect that the people taking Stafford -may- be right.
Which makes Roethlisberger one of the better QB's in the middle third of NFL starters.
Take away Peyton, Brady, Brees and Rodgers. I don't think anyone would argue there.
What is the case for Rivers, Romo, Eli and even your next group, to be better than Roethlisberger?
Ben statistically is a top flight QB. He's got the 4,000 yard seasons, the 30 TD seasons, five seasons with passer ratings above 95. Ben Reothlisberger statistically is a great QB, and this is with awful o-lines for much of his career (apart from his first two seasons). Roethlisberger is a bad person. He's not a nice guy. He's a great QB, and he's going in the HOF. He's not an all-time great. Far from it. But he's not a middle third starter.
I cannot believe any objective observer would choose Romo over Roethlisberger.
I don't agree with all of this, but it's a decent argument that disproves the notion that "no one" thinks Roethlisberger is a top QB.
My personal, subjective top 6 QBs in the NFL last year were Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Ben/Eli in some order, and Rivers. I didn't rank Peyton because he was out. I haven't decided on my 2012 rankings yet, so I can't say who stands where yet except that anybody who takes Dalton over Ben for any reason other than Dalton is much younger needs their head examined.
I don't think he ever said Dalton over Ben, I think it's being misread. Either way it seems a little unclear
Ryan, Flacco, Stafford, Dalton, Rivers and Schaub??
Say Maddox goes down in week 2 of 2004 and one of these guys come in... I'd say the Steelers would be on the playoff contenders list every year. The surprise team. But not the Super Bowl contenders they have been the last 9 years.
Yeah. You also have to consider the situation - Roethlisberger has been better for the Steelers than a number of other very good QBs might have been because his skills are well-suited to playing behind a shambles of an offensive line.
Rivers is the only name on there that's plausible to me. He's put up some amazing numbers while the rest of the team is being Norv'd.
Also, we're not in a golden age of quarterbacks. We're in a golden age of pass-friendly rules. If Dan Marino or Dan Fouts had the lifelong training that Andrew Luck has had, and the rules in place today, I shudder to think how many touchdowns they could have created.
I usually manage to get through MMQB without getting too upset with Peter King's stunning lack of logic, but this one got me today:
"I think I like Mike Vick owning a dog. As he said, he needs to break the cycle of animal abuse in his family. How will you do that for the next generations without showing them dogs can be beloved pets and not killer competitors?"
The idea of Michael Vick teaching his kids about how to treat a dog makes about as much sense as bringing Jerry Sandusky over to babysit. Look, he did his time and as much as I despise him as a human being, I thought he deserved a chance to go back to the NFL. I don't think that man should ever be allowed to own an animal again, period.
I'm a big animal lover, but I confess to not getting the ongoing fixation on Vick and his dog ownership (or lack thereof). Funny thing is that if he'd been busted for punching his girlfriend out, or pulled a Roethlisberger and groped every chick in site and treated them all like garbage, there'd be no comments on how he should never be allowed to have a girlfriend again. Yet, we're actually debating whether he should be allowed to have a dog? Again, I love animals, but the whole thing just seems out of whack.
Not that I agree with Vick's critics on this, but I think the reasoning goes, 'Another adult with the aid of society can appropriately defend themself against unwarrented agression, an animal can't.' I don't completely agree.
For my part, I think he's paid his debt, and should he find it necessary he could go to court and have the conditions of his sentence altered such that he's permitted to own one or two dogs in a manner that is satisfactory to the court. It just seems to me, the reformation of Michael Vick into a responsible pet owner is a more valuable example to society, than his perpetual punishment bleeding over onto his children.
He has to live with what he's done, including the lasting impression he's made on others, so he'll perhaps always be subjected to dersion. That really should be enough. IMO of course.
If he had killed multiple women, I would certainly be on board the no girlfriend* train.
Likewise if he had punched a single dog once, I would not be opposed to any future dog-related activities on Vick's part.
*Of course it would be likely that he would then become someone else's "girlfriend"
Well, as far as Roethlisberger goes, I personally think he's probably a d-bag but absent any criminal convictions, I can't claim that he should be prohibited from doing anything.
I would argue that the salient difference, if Vick had instead been in prison for beating a woman, would be that any woman who chose to date him now would have full knowledge of that fact and be making an informed decision to do so. Vick's dog doesn't get that opportunity.
I also don't think you can overstate the ghastly nature of what Vick did. I'm in no way excusing, say, a Chad Johnson who loses his temper and hits a woman. That's wrong and he should face whatever legal punishment is deemed appropriate. But Vick didn't lose his temper and hit a dog once...he systematically tortured and murdered dozens of dogs in the course of running a brutal dogfighting operation. IMHO, the guy's simply a sociopath.
I wonder who sold Mike Vick a dog. I also wanted to see the face of the employee when he registered the dog.
I want to see him wave "morning neighbor!" when he walks his dog.
I know that King is largely an idiot and its my fault for reading but really, REALLY, he can't understand why people would still support Lance Armstrong? Yeah, I guess defeating a devstating cancer only to win the most grueling race on earth seven consecutive times isn't very impressive at all? BTW, I don't really care if he used steriods, EPO, or vodka martinis to win. I am sure EVERYONE was using banned substances.
Right. Armstrong was cheating, but so was everyone else. Jonathan Vaughters, who was one of his teammates who said Armstrong was doping and admitted doping himself, had a great comment. He won a Tour stage and said he was fine if they took away his stage win, but then who would they give it to because at least the top 10 finishers in that stage have all been proven dopers.
I've lost respect for Armstrong because of his continued refusal to admit it. He can talk about never having tested positive all he wants, but the evidence is overwhelming. So just come clean and admit you were doping along with everyone else.
I understand where you're coming from, because it would be emotionally satisfying to her him speak the simple truth. But as a purely practical matter it would be foolish for him to come clean. He would be condemned if he told the truth, because people do not want to hear the truth. They want to hear what they want to hear.
I personally believe that doping does not diminish Armstrong's immense athletic accomplishments or his work on behalf of cancer patients in any meaningful way. 'Cheating' entails some unfair advantage, and if everyone (or at least all the serious competitors) breaks the same rule, where's the advantage? But I also believe that my opinion is a small minority viewpoint.
The vast majority of people will not tolerate the idea of a 'dirty' athlete excelling. And there will always be a lot more people willing embrace an obvious lie than are willing to accept an uncomfortable truth. Plus, if Armstrong tells the truth now everyone that believed he didn't dope will quite rightly feel like they've been played for chumps, and they'll turn that anger and embarrassment against him.
So long as Armstrong keeps lying, many people will support him. If he tells the truth, almost no one will be in his corner. Look at how many of Pete Rose's former friends in the media turned on him once he told the blindingly obvious truth that he bet on baseball.
But not everyone was using drugs to cheat. There were some of the best cyclists in the world who never had a chance at winning the tour because it was contested between drug cheats. Bradley Wiggins might be the best cyclist of all time but never had a chance of winning the TOF until of Armstrong and his like were banned. These guys don't just do it for rosettes and lapel pins, they get lucrative contracts for their performances. This too is denied the cyclists who are competing cleanly. Armstrong (and many like him) decided it was more important for him to win no matter how much he needed to cheat so he could have all the rewards and they would be denied to others who competed cleanly.
Imagine this guy was say Chinese or Russian, how many Americans would still think it was OK for him to cheat as long as he won?
And as British people are finding out 'Does a lot of work for charity' can be a very misleading characterisation and dubious excuse for questionable behaviour.
If you (being a clean athlete in a sport dominated by dirty ones) decide that the playing field is not level, especially in a sport that you have dedicated your life to, and that in order to be competitive, you have to do the same thing that everyone else is doing, then I don't have a problem with it. I know that if I had busted my a$$ for over a decade ascending the ranks in the bicycle racing world, only to hit a brick wall where the limits of the human body are preventing me from moving onwards where others have surpassed through artificial means, I know darned well that I would do what it took to even the playing field. With that said, I have no problem with the idea that Lance was doping. If he wasn't, he was truly superhuman. If he was, he was still transcendent as an athlete, able to beat everyone else, even when they were doping as well.
I also can not blame him for sticking to his story. Given the situation, he really doesn't have much of a choice.
You are assuming there that every single cyclist was doping, which wasn't the case and Armstrong went out of his was to ruin the careers of some clean riders. You also assume that his cheating created a level playing field with the other cheats, which is probably not true as he won so much.
There is evidence that he drove a clean competitor off his team, that he was the driving force behind the doping program and used his influential position to get the authorities to look the other way, he has been accused of bribing them.
He is a cheat, a liar and a fraud, defend him all you want.
There is another option open to you if you find everyone else is cheating, you could have the courage to stand up to the cheats and try and get the sport cleaned up.
I'm not a pro cyclist but I'm willing to wager like in most other sports just because you're at the pro level doesn't mean you have a legitamte shot at being a champion. Just because you're a PGA pro doesn't mean you're more likely to win the Masters. Being a tennis pro doesn't mean you have a better shot than Nadal or Federer to win Wimbledon. Possible? Yes. Likely? Hell no. I am sure cycling is the same. There are a handful of pros that are >95% likely to be one of the Tour winners. Do I think they were all doping? Yes. So if you're not one of those elites, carping about it not being "fair" doesn't generate much sympathy with me.
Regarding the Armstrong discussion: This is exactly like the "Patriots are cheaters" vs. "everybody else was doing it too" discussion. How many supporters of either side actually change their minds on the subject? Not too many I think.
Fun discussions but don't expect to sway any opinions.
Heck, add "pro Obama" and "anti Obama" to the mix.
The choice never seems to come down to logic.
Why have Kenny Vaccaro and the Saints' secondary been such a headache for New Orleans this year?
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties