Articles from around the Web
PDF VERSION NOW DISCOUNTED OVER 30%
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
Andrew Healy: @AndHealy
Rivers McCown: @RiversMcCown
Chad Peltier: @CGPeltier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
24 Jun 2013
Punter's got a platform.
Posted by: Rivers McCown on 24 Jun 2013
63 comments, Last at
03 Jul 2013, 9:55pm by
I haven't read it yet, but I think it's an inspired idea to let Kluwe write the column. Hopefully he lives up to his own reputation.
Chris Kluwe is here to remind you about the TPS reports.
Don't forget about the new cover sheets we're using now guys.
Well, I don't think he wrote anything which means precisely the opposite of the idea he wished to convey, nor did he enlist a low paid security guard to get over on a 7 year old, and then boast of the triumph.
In other words, he's likely a better columnist than The Kingster. So much for practice.
I would love to look that up, but for the life of me I can't find that. Is there any way to find that one again?
I hadn't read these before, so I had a quick google. Here you go: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/peter_king/news/2003/03/31/...
And as a bonus, the one from the week after, where he defends himself and calls the kid a thief: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/peter_king/news/2003/04/06/...
Why, what a phenomenal dick that man is.
Here's a nice summation.......
Peter King is sports porn.
It's fake, overdone and a fantasy of all men to get paid just to go from sports event to sports event and drink coffee and beer and the biggest worries on your mind are what kind of coffee to drink and what kind of beer to drink.
I enjoy Peter King, but I found this comment funny, insightful, and very accurate.
Change the selection criteria to: Two to four offensive players, two to four defensive players, and zero to one specialists/administrators.
Under his proposed criteria, I don't see how special teams players would get any more love. They would simply continue to allot them zero spots. Any I missing something?
Also, Kluwe's column was a thousand times more entertaining than anything King ever wrote.
I really don't think there would be a huge number of administrators (coaches, GMs, owners, maybe agents) nominated either. Even if only one or two specialists (P, K, or special teams guy) got in every ten years, it would be one or two more than currently get in. Thuogh it wouldn't then surprise me to see specialist redefined to include situational pass rushers and gadget players.
I think his point is you wouldn't have the HoF voters trying to decide who is more deserving, a punter or a wide receiver. If 20% of voters think that no punters belong in the Hall of Fame that's fair enough, but he does have a point that it feels like a punter might belong in the Hall of Fame, but there are too many deserving offense or defense players in the conversation for them to get enough consensus to be in the top 5.
I personally think that was one of the more entertaining sports columns I've read in quite a while. Kluwe even poked PK in a good-natured way. I don't think I'll try his alcohol concoction though. I'm a couple decades on the wrong side of 30.
Really, if you are going to drink whiskey, skip the investment in other materials, and buy better whiskey. If it's really hot out, put enough ice in the glass to just cover the bottom, and then fill the glass. If it's cooler out, put one very small ice cube in the glass, and then fill.
A man after my own heart:
Other than the cocktail part (a Sidecar has cognac and lemon and no simple syrup, this is great stuff.
Football careers are short, and most players disappear once they're done. Sometimes, I only wish they'd disappear. Here's hoping that Kluwe finds a way to keep his voice after his playing days eventually run out.
I know we tend to make this joke any time someone does a guest column for MMQB, but this really is the best MMQB I've ever read. Chris Kluwe should have his own TV show.
I have no doubt that he would be doing just that had the Raiders not offered him a job. Actually, he probably has a standing offer from the logo network.
I guess I am the only one disappointed by this column. My expectations were high for a Kluwe column, and I found it "just" OK. Far from best of all time.
I wish Evan Mathis could get a column, he's the funniest athlete I've ever seen.
The MMQB guest columnist I want to read is Arian Foster.
He is absolutely spot on his major points.
1. Leaning your chair back on a plane is a war crime.
2. Sidecars are delicious.
3. Beer tastes like fermented camel urine.
There's enough diversity of beer styles now that you can probably find something you like, most likely locally-made.
Cocktails are fine. I really disagree with the notion, however, that crappy spirits are the way to go when mixing drinks, and make no mistake, Jack Daniels is pretty crappy whiskey. As I wrote above, if cost is the issue, forgo the added ingredients, and just buy better whiskey.
In the hottest days of the year. I like a good mojito, with fresh squeezed lime, homemade simple syrup (damn those to hell who use plain sugar), fresh mint from the garden, and good rum, not the B word swill most prominently displayed on supermarket shelves.
No, you don't need to buy the super expensive stuff when mixing drinks, but it is a real error to think that any dreck will do.
You are simply wrong about beer, of course.
One of my oddest experiences was drinking in Munich with three British prison guards -- one Irish, one Northern Irish, one English. We were talking about whisky, and then mentioned how much they cherished Jack Daniels and Tennessee whiskey/bourbon persuasions. We were somewhat aghast, coming from the home of scotch and whiskey, but then mentioned that to them, that's the local crap -- bourbon was the import.
It was an interesting perspective.
I love bourbon, and other American whiskeys . I really dislike Jack Daniels.
I'm actually not a scotch drinker, though.
This is a pretty interesting article if you're the type that may buy small batch whiskey...
Oh, you don't have to buy small batch to get good whiskey, and some small batch whiskeys are hugely overrated. However, if you can't taste the difference between Jack Daniels or Jim Beam, and, say, to pick just one example of a large producer that isn't too pricey, Buffalo Trace, then whiskey is likely not your thing. Hell, Trader Joe's sells a store brand whiskey that tastes a lot better than regular Beam or Daniels, and at a lower price.
Replace the lime and rum with bourbon, and I'm there. I'm actually not much of a drinker. I haven't really tried lots of different brands of various things. Mostly I end up drinking something made from whatever is around at a party or other social gathering. And you've never had fermented camel urine, have you? Delicious.
The nice thing about modest alcohol intake is that when you do imbibe, quality ingredients aren't much of financial commitment.
I've had fermented mare's milk. It'll do in a pinch.
Try Ron Zacapa rum in that mojito.
Oh, there are a lot of really good rums widely available now. This is really the Golden Age of Booze. I don't care if you like beer, wine, cognac, whiskey, whisky, tequila, rum, gin, etc., there is a wider variety of high quality hooch, at often reasonable prices, available to the drinker than ever before. For anyone older than 30 it is almost astonishing, given we came into our majority in an era where the selection was just a fraction of what it is now, and in many retail outlets, even those considered to be offering a good cross section of products, the consumer was given very little choice, and the choices often were all mediocre at best, or extremely expensive.
I'm glad this thread took this turn. I had thought to post about rum yesterday and got distracted by work. It's something I wish I knew more about. I enjoy rum, and I'm sure there are premium rum's available and I'd love to investigate further, but good luck finding something above Captain Morgan. Don't get me wrong, I've been on many a journey with The Captain (ar!) and those are adventures best not even shared on the internet; it's just that I figure if Cap is good, imagine what the good stuff tastes like. But I don't know which is more difficult - finding "the good stuff" or finding someone who knows about it and is willing to share the knowledge.
Ron Matsusalem is from a Cuban family that exiled to the DR, and they make some really good rums as well. They use the same method that fine sherry makers employ, and while their high end labels are exceptional, even their entry level bottle, at about 20 bucks for 750 ml, and available in a lot of stores, is terrific. But as the other poster indicated, there are a ton of good labels out there these days. Total Wine is the best large retail chain I know of, so you may want to see if you get to a city that has their stores, but there are lot of good retail operators these days as well.
Ah Total Wine... love that place. But here in Virginia they don't sell liquor - that's for the state run stores. Of course that's still better than Pennsylvania, where all wine and liquor is sold at state run stores, and beer has to be bought only by the case or keg at a beer distributor. (Bars can sell smaller quantities though...)
I drink my rum like I do my bourbon, in a rocks glass with an ice cube. The best I've discovered is Santa Teresa 1796. Just an outstanding sipping rum that I would give 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place to in the category. It's only been imported into the US about 6-8 years now, and is still hard to find. Other good ones are Dorado, Pampero, and Cruzan Single Barrel, which is half the price of the others but 90% as good.
Here we go again: Everybody pile on Peter King for what he does and what he doesn't do. But answer this: If King is so objectionable, why do you guys read him every week? And who's better than him?
I read PK because between all the dreck (the bad beer and coffee comments, the name-dropping, the way he blithely goes through life being amazed by things that have been around forever), he sometimes comes through with some great compelling stories. Just a quick perusal of the SI archives uncovered this story about Brian Banks http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130409/brian-banks-atlanta-f... and this eulogy for Steve Sobel http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/18/steve-sab.... (Sorry, I'm too lazy right now to embed them.)
Credit where it is due; about once a year King will pull his head out and actually earn his paycheck with some decent reporting. Last year, he wrote a piece on the Saints that actually provided useful information.
I don't read him every week. I usually stop by every six months or so, just to remind myself of how bad he is, or , like this week, when he didn't write the column.
Mike Tanier is about a 1000 times better than Peter King. First, Tanier doesn't write like a 9th grader who needs summer school. Second, he knows a lot more about football. Third, he had a previous career in which he was trained to think, and it shows, whereas Ol' Kingy has been riding the expense account gravy train his whole life, where kissing ass to maintain access is the coin of the realm.
Finally, I've never read a Tanier piece that made me think. "Goodness, is this guy ever an obnoxious twit, without even a shred of self-awareness."
To sum up, other than The Kingster being clueless about football, unable to craft a sentence competently, unable to think clearly, frequently a sychophant, and a self-centered navel-gazer, he's really great.
I don't read him every week because I don't think he is a good writer. When I do read him, it is for the humor value.
He's a fine sports-writer, but he puts himself over far too much with the name-dropping and the "here's another letter congratulating me on something" bits. And his writing about his Childlike Wonder (tm) about normal things is a tiresome act -- Field of Dreams was a fine movie, a Field of Dreams TV series would be dire.
I don't even read the articles. I just come here to enjoy the snarky comments about him.
Another excellent guest column, and it's entirely possible to say that without bashing Peter King himself.
But not nearly as much fun.
It was a good column. The numbering on the ten things I think I know that I think I ... was excellent, but there were only 10 items.
Did Chris just get added to the no-fly list?
I think it's a bit disengenious to compare Jack Daniels to Bourbon, and downright offensive to compare it to Jim Beam.
Jim Beam is rotgut. I wouldn't even spill it for my fallen homies.
At least Makers Mark is sold at a similar price point, and I would say the two products are similar in quality. Even so, still not an accurate comparison.
Jack is the single best selling brand of hard liquor in the world, but it is not Bourbon. The charcoal barrels Jack uses impart a completely different flavor than anything on the Bourbon Trail.
I'm proud to proclaim that I love Jack. I'll drink it neat. I'll drink it on the rocks. I'll mix it with coke. Depends on the whim of the moment. But I won't pretend it's Bourbon and would NEVER put it in a Mint Julip. Nor would I pretend it's anything other than an acquired taste. Either you like your whiskey charcoal mellowed or you don't. It's not a marketing gimmick - it genuinely does affect the flavor of the whiskey.
Likewise, I would never drink Woodford (by far, the best mass produced Bourbon) any way other than neat, and you can apply that same standard to any of the varous small batch and craft Bourbons which blow Woodford out of the water.
I only meant to compare them in the sense that they are both whiskey made in the U.S.A., similar in price, and I don't care for either.
Except that they're not similar in price.
Eh, Totalwine.com has 750ml of Jack at $14, and 750ml of Beam at $12. Similar enough to me.
I'm with you, decent whiskey/bourbon should never be disgraced with ice. If you think the drink is good then why chill it to reduce the taste or dilute it?
Because it's hot out?
Because it's currently 85 degrees in my liquor cabinet?
You see I forget that some of you people from the colonies have to deal with such sweltering heat.
Reading my mind, Karl.
And if you don't want to shell out $30 for some rocks, just go outside and grab some. Soak them in soapy water overnight or run them through the dishwasher and you're all set. Sure they won't look as nice, but they'll work just as well. Just make sure you don't get something soft like sandstone that dissolves easily!
If you can find a gravel parking lot, that's probably perfect.
1 small ice cube in a dram of good whiskey helps release aroma, and allows you to more fully appreciate the taste. In cold weather, a couple drops of good water does the same.
Agreed on a small amount of ice or water especially in a blend. I was really objecting to your earlier post describing covering the bottom of the glass which would be a waste with a good single malt.
Oh, no, single malt is not for extremely hot weather. Bourbon with a little more ice works fine.
British booze tradition is informed by heat -- this explains the hoppiness of IPA and the quinine in a gin&tonic.
Yes, gin is a terrific hot weather nectar. My preference is for Hendricks, but Tanqueray Number 10 is a favorite, too. It's really the same as the rest of the booze world, however; the selection and quality, even at non-exorbitant prices, has never been better.
Gin is indeed wonderful in hot weather, especially the torrid regime we have in Tucson from June-September. Plymouth Gin is my particular choice, but there are any number of reasonably priced premium selections, as opposed to the faddish flavored vodka options.
Will Adrian Peterson leave Minnesota for a warmer climate in 2015?
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties