Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

06 Feb 2006

MMQB: Ward the Warrior

Peter King praises Hines Ward and also calls this "one of the worst Super Bowls I've ever covered."

Posted by: Michael David Smith on 06 Feb 2006

67 comments, Last at 13 Feb 2006, 12:14am by young curmudgeon


by Michael David Smith :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:01pm

It seems like every week I need something Peter wrote explained to me, so someone tell me what this means:

Big Steeler fans. (Oxymoron if you've got a western Pennsylvania zip code.)

How is that an oxymoron? Aren't most people in Western Pennsylvania big Steeler fans?

by B (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:03pm

Maybe he meant to say redundant? (cause most Western Pennslyvanians are rather large individuals). Of course, complared to MMQ, maybe they're not that large at all.

by Smeghead (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:09pm

I think this is what I liked about Super Bowl week:

a. "Signed, Sealed, Delivered'' by Stevie Wonder and Joss Stone in the pre-game show.

And by Bill Leavy in the in-game show.

by Andrew (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:11pm

There are more western Pennsylvania Browns fans than you would think.

by Adam (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:21pm

Yeah, theres a pretty big Browns Backers club in Pittsburgh and I believe a couple Browns bars scattered through the city.

by admin :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:22pm

Heard too many Seattle people grousing about the officials after the game.

OK, but again, as I keep saying, what about all the NON-SEATTLE PEOPLE grousing about the officials?

by Adam (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:23pm

"Heard too many Seattle people grousing about the officials after the game. There were a couple of marginal calls -- the Darrell Jackson end-zone pushoff, which negated a touchdown, most notably -- but Seattle did quite enough to lose the game."

*Golf clap*

by Craigers (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:47pm

Seattle did quite enough to lose the game

And Pittsburgh didn't? It seems that the Steelers' overall play was every bit as poor as the Seahawks, probably worse. Their front seven was absolutely wretched; were it not for the fact that Seattle felt the need to throw the bomb every third snap, continually missing, they'd have been driven to death.

by Craigers (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:50pm

For the record, I don't buy the argument that the refs cost Seattle the game - maybe they did, but I think it's pretty arguable.

I just think the game was horribly played by both sides and that Seattle generally had the better game, outside of a stinker of a coaching and playcalling performance.

It was the football equivalent of the Special Olympics out there last night. What an awful game.

by Michael David Smith :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 12:58pm

If there's one thing I'd love to permanently banish from discussions of sports, it's comparing badly played games to the Special Olympics. I've been a Special Olympics volunteer, and I think it's a wonderful sporting event. I also think a lot of Special Olympians are big sports fans whose feelings are hurt when they hear negative comparisons between their own activities and professional sports. Please find a new way of denigrating athletes other than comparing them to Special Olympians. Thank you.

by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:01pm

I liked this nugget.

8. Washington (11-7). Dan Snyder put out a statement Saturday critical of ArtMonk not getting into the Hall of Fame. That really helps, Dan.

You're really unbiased Peter.

by Squib (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:05pm


the difference is that Pittsburgh made big plays, Seattle didn't, and they didn't stop them either.

The officials might have negated a touchdown, but how on earth do you let the Steelers convert on 3rd and 28?

by Craigers (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:08pm

MDS, the point is well taken. I withdraw the comment.

by Steve Sandvik (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:12pm

This is probably one of my favorite MMQB columns of the year. As a Seahawks fan, I think he's right--the difference was what Seattle failed to do when it counted. They outplayed Pittsburgh for 30 minutes and had nothing to show for it, then tightened up beyond all belief and let chance after chance to make a statement slip through their fingers. And I absolutely agree with King that this is one of the worst Super Bowls, at least from an execution standpoint, that I've ever seen, top to bottom. I'd be very frustrated if I were a Steelers fan, because they shouldn't have to answer questions about "deserving" this, but they're going to hear it for a while. In the end, I think everyone would have felt a little better about how it turned out if Hines Ward was able to haul in that first touchdown catch that slipped off his fingers on the edge of the end zone. That'd make his performance one for the ages, it would satisfy Seahawks fans that they got beat by 11 men and not 18 (not something I agree with, but I appear to be in the minority), and it would have meant the Steelers genuinely showed something other than the least tight team wins the game.

by Pat (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:26pm

The officials might have negated a touchdown, but how on earth do you let the Steelers convert on 3rd and 28?

Yah, there's a good point. Why aren't we talking about how incredible that play was? 3rd and 28? C'mon. And Roethlisberger scrambles and stops about a half-yard short of the line of scrimmage, and then throws the ball downfield where Ward rips the ball away from a defender.

For all the talk about "sloppy", "horrible game", that play had everyone where I was shocked. 3rd and 28! C'mon, man!

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:28pm

I'm very opinionated on the topic of blaming officials.

Only losers blame games on refs.

If you agree with the arguments that this game was fixed or that Seattle was robbed or that the league wanted Pittsburgh to win, you are both a loser and an idiot.

by Parker (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:30pm

Did I just lose my mind or did King write that the Neville/Franklin version of the national anthem was the second best he has heard in 22 Super Bowls, right behind Whitney?

Is it possible that the sound is that much different live inside the stadium? In my living room, it was awful. I mean really awful.

Best moment of the Super Bowl? Brooke Burke showing up as the top half of a hamburger bun in a giant whopper sex sandwich. That right there could keep you going for weeks.

by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:50pm


Your unwavering faith in authority amazes me. I dont even like the seahawks, and I think the officiating was awful.

by DGL (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:50pm

#16: And Joey Porter.

by Harry (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:50pm

King bought a pitcher of Pilsner Urquell at a "dive bar?" What kind of dive serves Pilsner Urquell on tap?

by Craig B (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 1:56pm

"MickJagger's body is what ChadJohnson's will look like in 30 years."

Where did this comment come from?

by Bob (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 2:01pm

#16 Sophandros ...you're my hero. Right on, brother!

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 2:21pm

It's not faith in authority. I actually have a healthy disdain for authority, but this is not a political forum.

But as an athlete, I understand that it is up to me and my teammates to win a game, regardless of how bad we think the official my be.

Hell, when we found out that a particular referree had one of our games, our coach told us to start the game off as if we were two scores down.

Regarding fan ship, I'm a Saints fan, so who wins and loses a Super Bowl has never really been a big issue for me.

by Tampa Bay Mike (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 2:47pm

Hell, when we found out that a particular referree had one of our games, our coach told us to start the game off as if we were two scores down

Sophandros, it's the phreakin super bowl! The officials get paid good money. There is no excuse for this game to be officiated so poorly. Yes, the Seahawks had numerous chances to win the game in spite of the refs, but that doesn't change the fact that it was horribly officiated and slanted to one side - to which large numbers of non-Seahawks fans can attest.

Only losers blame games on refs. You mean losers like Joey Porter and everyone else who wondered about the crappy officiating in the playoffs in general?

by Dennis (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 2:59pm

What's with all the sucking up to Adam Schefter?

For all of you who follow such things, I heard a "Hey, Peter'' Friday night at the hotel. I looked over and there was Joe Theismann.

Becaue we all keep a running tally of how many names he drops in every column.

by princeton73 (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 3:04pm

Heard too many Seattle people grousing about the officials after the game.

wonder when PK wrote this column--could it be that's he was unaware of the firestorm going on?

it's functionally equivalent to Bill James' report on the 1985 series, when he described the Denkinger play as "then there was a close play at first and the Cardinals argued a bit"

by Pat (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 3:20pm

You mean losers like Joey Porter and everyone else who wondered about the crappy officiating in the playoffs in general?

Had they lost, and Porter said they lost because of the refs, then yes, Porter'd be a loser.

If they would've lost, it would've been because of Bettis's fumble.

by Israel (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 3:35pm

I agree wholeheartedly with #9 (For the record, I don’t buy the argument that the refs cost Seattle the game - maybe they did, but I think it’s pretty arguable.) and #s 14 and 15.

It's one thing to say the refs made a bad call on Ben's TD and quite another to say it cost Seattle points. Good chance that the Steelers make that TD on fourth down and in any case it uses more clock and that missed FG never has time to happen.

It's one thing to say that maybe the OPI call was bad and cost Seattle seven points and quite another to say that it cost them the game. What do the complainers think - that with Seattle ahead, Cowher spends the fourth quarter running out the clock?

How do I link to this comment so I don't have to reproduce the whole thing in other "bad refs" threads? (I haven't read the "audibles" column yet.)

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 3:42pm

Tampa Bay Mike, yes, anyone who blames a loss on an official is a loser.

I understand that the officials are paid well, and I understand the magnitude of the game. Believe me, I do. But I don't see you guys griping about the Seattle fumble that wasn't called.

I also don't remember seeing any referees dropping passes, playing poor special teams, giving up the longest TD in SB history, giving up sacks, etc.

by Sam (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 3:46pm

#21 Craig B,

I almost lost my lunch when I read that. Thanks for the visual Peter. I know millions of women find Mick Jagger sexy, but he looks like a corpse that's been left under a radiator. Does Peter mean to say that Mick is still kind of in shape despite being 75 years old? Or is he saying that Chad parties like a rock star?

Either way, I almost tossed my cookies.

by Aaron Boden (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 3:46pm

The thing that really allowed Ben to convert that 3rd and 28 was that Grant Wistrom fell down. If he stayed on his feet ben would never have had the time to find the line of scrimmage let alone Ward. It really reminded me of the play that the Eagles pulled on Green Bay.

by Aaron Boden (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 3:47pm

I also want to know if PK got across the border to enjoy the "Windsor Ballet"

by Daniel (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 3:56pm

I guess I don't understand why people are now getting in a huge uproar over the officiating. Yeah, its bad. Its been bad for a long time. Ask the Raiders who had their playoffs ended when the refs handed the ball back to the Patriots on the infamous "Tuck Rule." Remember when the Houston Oilers were robbed in the '78 AFC championship game against the Steelers? As a fan of the Steelers I am not going to appoligize or make excuses for the Steelers winning the game. As they proved against Indianapolis, good teams overcome poor officiating. Seattle would have a legitimate agrument if they had played better special teams and held on to the ball.

by Michael David Smith :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 4:13pm

Pat, sorry, but I had to delete your comment because long URLs cause us all sorts of formatting problems. For those who want to learn how to link, just plug "a href" into google.

by Tampa Bay Mike (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 4:37pm

27,29 - My Joey Porter comment was meant to illustrate the point that a winner obviously can't blame the officials for a loss when they talk about the poor quality of the officiating. Not to mention that Joey Porter aside, winners almost never have a reason to complain about the officiating. Thus the comment that only losers complain about the officials, while cute, really offers no information to any discussion. If your point is that anyone who talks about poor officiating is a loser, well that's absurd.The Seahawks certainly could've made some more plays, but that doesn't have anything to do with the awful officiating - and the Stevens clear-as-day fumble is part of it.

33 - Yes the Tuck Rule game was awful - but that was just one (critical and technically correct but still bs) call.

Can anyone remember a SuperBowl as poorly officiated to one side as this one? I can't. This entire playoffs seems much worse than usual and I didn't even have a horse in the race for most of it.

by CA (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 5:09pm

Re: 16

I’m very opinionated on the topic of blaming officials.

Only losers blame games on refs.

I couldn't disagree more. Officials are part of the game, and as such they affect the game. If the officiating is poor in a way that benefits one team relative to the other, that is absolutely a relevant issue in judging the game. Are you saying you would never blame an official, regardless of how egregiously wrong he was? The fact is that the officials had more to do with the Steelers winning that game than any player on the Steelers did. That's not to say that if the officiating were good the Steelers would not have won. But it is to say that any good analysis of this game has to include consideration of the role that poor officiating played. If you ignore the role of the officials in this game, you are ignoring reality in order to conform to your preconceived notions of analytical etiquette. You can call blaming the officials being a loser. In this instance, I call it being right.

by Ryan Mc (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 5:15pm

One non-call which doesn't seem to be getting much discussion (apologies if I've just missed it; there's a lot to read on FO today!) came on the critical holding penalty after Stevens' catch at the 1 yard line. I'm convinced that the Steelers linebacker who was held (Clark Haggans I believe) was offsides on the play (which, in part, was what caused the block to be executed in the manner it was.) I've found one colleague today who agrees with me so I don't think I completely imagined this.

by Pat (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 6:00pm

For those who want to learn how to link, just plug “a href� into google.

I was trying to explain how to link to a comment, too. Wasn't sure to explain one or the other, so I did both. The direct links to comments are the timestamps on each comment. Just right click on the link and copy the link location.

by Tampa Bay Mike (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 6:23pm

37 - I called offsides on that play at the snap. I took a good look at the instant-replay and it was possible that the rusher just timed it perfectly (I doubt it, but it's possible). The more egregious offsides was the very next play at the same spot(perhaps by the same player) which resulted in a sack! Looking at the instant-replay on that one was conclusive - offsides - and of course, no call. To the Pittsburgh fans - I called fumble on the Stevens catch and fumble as well.

by Subrata Sircar (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 6:26pm

Re: 37
We were wondering about that too, but that was the second of two plays where a Steeler blitzer timed the snap on that side, with the official about five yards away looking right down the line of scrimmage. The official might have missed them both, but that call they usually get right.
I re-ran that one in super-slow-mo later, and it looks like he started about a half-yard upfield from the ball; his first step is before the snap but onside. Then the ball gets snapped as he hits full-stride, before the blocker even reacts.

by Arren (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 7:27pm

I just had to stop in to mention, in the wake of reading this post-SB MMQB:

Whoever recently made the comment here that King is pro football's equivalent to a gossip columnist was dead on the money.

Loud party. Rap music. Not a place many suburbanites from Montclair, N.J., find themselves in. And at one point, Mike Tyson...was escorted past me. Five feet behind me was Terrell Owens...T.O. and I, we go way back, but we did not speak. The Bettis Ball made for a strange behind-the-ropes group, folks."

Good grief.

by Trogdor (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 7:35pm

"I shadowed Bettis after the game."

If I was DJ Gallo, I would probably ask if King was wearing pants during this stalking. But I'm not. So instead, I'll ask why he didn't stalk Brady after the coin toss. Pantsless.

"I hung with Steve Smith the other day, and let's just say he wasn't in love with the Carolina offensive gameplan from the NFC Championship Game."

I wonder how that conversation could've gone. What could a receiver possibly have been upset about? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess he was mad that they didn't throw him the ball more. Because he was only being covered by six guys on every play, so in wide receiver world he was totally open.

Suggested reading exercise: read "Ten Things" item 1d, followed immediately by "Fine Fifteen" team 8. Try to keep from laughing at the inconsistency of the statements. We, the Hall voters, would never, ever, ever hold a grudge against a player who wasn't great to us! That's absurd! Absurd! But if his old team's owner dares criticize us, well, that's a different story! You're screwed now, Monk!

"Mick Jagger's body is what Chad Johnson's will look like in 30 years." BUH???

Offensive player of the week for a guy who made one play and otherwise sucked? Geez, it set a record and all, but still. Couldn't it have gone to someone like Walter Jones, who just dominated, or Faneca, who played a great game and threw a major block on Parker's run? Does the O line even exist for any writers outside this site and Dr. Z?

Harry Carson is a classy guy. I was glad he made it, and I'm glad he's not being petty now.

Call me crazy, but before I give up my room in a fancy hotel during Super Bowl week, I usually find another place to stay first. But that's just me.

And since this is the last real MMQB of the year, let me say how much I enjoy this column every week, nitpicking aside. And by nitpicking I mean, making fun of some incredibly silly comments. I still love it, flaws and all. Thanks for the column Pete, as if you'll read this.

by Erasmus (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 8:03pm

As I was watching the game, it started to look like Shaun Alexander was playing for his alma mater (this year's version). Seattle, just like Alabama this year, could move the ball between the 30 or 40 yard line, but once they got there-they could not do anything else.

#39: I was wondering the same thing, but I was wondering if Haggans just saw or heard something on the snap count or Locklear's body because that side of the ball at times seemed to have guessed the snap count.

by Richie (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 8:24pm

Re: Warren Moon comment

Why wouldn't the yards he gained in the Run N Shoot count for HOF purposes? If the Run N Shoot was so easy to rack up yardage, why did it die?

by kachunk (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 8:30pm

Re: 17. I agree. I have a pet peeve. That song was written for a marching band. I'm not a big fan of vocalists doing it, and that dude warbling like a dying egret was terrible. Give me a 120 piece marching band and that is one of the most powerful, beautiful songs out there. It can also be done very well by a gospel choir/soloist, but that really requires extreme artistry by the performers. A marching band is pretty much a sure bet every time.

by Crushinator (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 9:28pm

I don't think the refs necessarily decided the game. They did make a game that really should have been more competitive one-sided though.

I'd read/heard somewhere that Steve Smith was frustrated with the game BECAUSE they kept throwing his way. He was upset that the Seahawks had 4 guys covering him at all times and they still couldn't run the ball and nobody else could get open.

by little red tractor (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 10:05pm

37 - spot on. Hey, even as a (UK) Browns fan I was pulling for the Steelers but the officiating showed such a bias !!

Sophandros, why should you have to overcome officiating? As a cricketer, one bad decision and you're D_E_A_D. You can't overcome that. As a former boxer... need I go any further.

That Superbowl was crooked and inept, but more importantly it was WRONG. And for once I agree with that Florio chap. Use the technology, rather than leaving it's seemingly only role to prove that you are wrong after the event.

(Thanks for this website over the past season, and I wish all the FO crew posters health and happiness until next September. And especiallly Carl. Are you okay chap?)

by Harris (not verified) :: Mon, 02/06/2006 - 11:45pm

Good Lord, yet another thread devolves into an examination of the refs. People, this a message board to complain about Peter King. He's clueless, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous, a mediocre writer and he tells long, pointless stories about himself and his family. He's a man who makes seven-figures and he is complaining about the cost of the beer he bought on an expense account. He's butt-budies with Adam Schefter. He somehow manages to insert himself into an annecdote about Hines Ward. He goes to a party with Mike Tyson and Terrell Owens and the most interesting think he can think to say is that T.O. didn't bother to talk to him. And you're ripping the refs?! What the hell is wrong with you people?

by someone (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 1:38am

No, Peter King's the best writer currently covering the NFL because he doesn't pretend knowledge he doesn't have. He simply covers the NFL in an interesting and relatively intelligent fashion and has an excellent list of contacts, which he makes full use of, and which is really the only major advantage any NFL talking head has over knowledgeable football fans. When King puts in a prediction based on insider knowledge, I take a hell of a lot more note of it than someone like Mortensen. King's approach is actually relatively honest in my opinion. He doesn't invent a phoney moniker like "Doctor" and make constant reference to "charts" to attempt to falsely legitimise his view as superior to others. Or for that matter, a site using a set of statistics that potentially provide some value in showing interesting observations on team performance, but are also used in part to attempt to legitimise mistaken, amateur individual player evaluations and conclusions because actual scouting experience and inside football knowledge to evaluate the player and his role is lacking. Oh, and backed up by a small gaggle of amateur fans who enjoy using the threads to propagate a mistaken sense of elitism as to their football knowledge.

by paytonrules (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 1:39am

Did this bug anybody else?

Seattle CB Kelly Herndon. His 76-yard interception return -- the biggest single defensive play of the game, obviously

Um...really? Cause I thought Ike Taylor's was bigger, given that it stopped the Seahawks from taking the lead. After all - the Steelers WON the game. Isn't that the point?

I was actually extremely impressed with Shawn Alexander. I know he didn't rack up huge numbers, but he breaks a tackle on every single carry. Getting him the ball more early might have made a difference.

by Michael David Smith :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 8:50am

Re 1&2, it has now been changed from oxymoron to redundant.

by Thoreau (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 10:05am

What's amusing is that 'oxymoron' and 'redundant' are more or less direct antonyms. MMQB is an amusing read, but must be placd in its proper context; it's an excellent accompaniment to the john for monday post-coffee ablutions.

by princeton73 (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 10:23am

What’s amusing is that ‘oxymoron’ and ‘redundant’ are more or less direct antonyms.

he should have used the Greek equivalent "pleonasm"--that would have had people scrambling for their Funk&Wagonalls

by Dark Star (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 12:01pm

I'd love to play with Sophandros in the Superbowl. And when he scores a touchdown and they take it back on a bogus pass interference he can say "Well, they're just doing their job". And then when he scores another touchdown and it gets called back on a phantom holding call he can say "Well, we'll just need to step it up fellas". And then when the other team gets a touchdown, even though they never crossed the goal line, he can say " Well, its ok, it's just part of the game".

What a loser.

by Ryan (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 12:03pm

MDS, thank you for using the printable version of MMQB. I absolutely hate having to click "continue story" 6-8 times to read 3-4 pages worth of MMQB.

by zip (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 12:25pm

And then when the other team gets a touchdown, even though they never crossed the goal line

Why do people keep complaining about this? The ball was at least within six inches of the plane, and quite likely broke it. Even if they don't call it a TD, I think Pittsburgh would've scored on the next play. I'll agree it's a judgement call, but it's hardly a blown call.

by Ted Max (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 12:34pm

Should we even respond to trolling like # 49?

I'll agree to the annoyed comments about Dr. Z: Why people give him a free pass and complain about Peter King, I have no idea. They are both equally worthless as football analysts, my opinion.

As for the angry slam of FO, there's not much point in arguing with these people. They just don't get what FO is doing. Why they'd read 48-posts deep in a thread on a site they clearly lack respect for, just so they can post a snide response, is beyond my understanding.

by Parker (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 12:43pm

RE: #56 Agreed. In fact, it looked like if the ball didn't cross the plane, it was by a smaller margin than six inches. More like two, or one.

I don't think it was a blown or bad call and there is no way that replay should have overturned it no matter what the decision on the field was.

The only thing I found mildly disturbing about it was that the ref came running from the sideline looking like he was going to spot the ball. He had one hand in the air and was running to the spot. Then suddenly he throws the other hand up and signals TD. I understand the delay sometimes when there is a big pile up and you need to sort things out, but this was not the case.

I hope he was not influenced by Roto sticking the ball over the goal line after he was clearly down. I doubt it.

It's a hard job. I wouldn't want it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't on that kind of play.

by Tom Kelso (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 12:45pm

#45 --

The anthem was originally a poem, written in 1814, long before marching bands were organized. The tune was an English drinking song, "To Anacreon in Heaven," so maybe it would have helped if the performers had been drunk (Dr. John could have been), but it had nothing to do with bands.

The thing was written to be sung -- it was just not very well written. Then again, I'm dealing with a person who thinks Aaron Neville can't sing, so why am I trying to explain this?

by Ted Max (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 12:52pm

Sorry for the followup post, but I just read King's article again, and I wish I could ask my anonymous #49 something: Where exactly does Peter King cover the NFL in an "interesting and intelligent fashion"?

When he complains about Pittsburgh bars being too smoky, or too expensive? Where he complains about the layout of the Detroit Rennaisance hotel? Where he says Deion Branch called him "Mr. King"? Or was it the story about how it was cool (or not? I couldn't tell from King's prose) that Jerome Bettis made fun of Hines Ward for the Disneyland commercial?

Maybe it was the meaningless comment that Tom Brady feels good about his hernia, or the worthlessly weak prediction that Green will try to get Culpepper in Arizona (or maybe not, don't hold him to that prediction!).

Pointless, all pointless. The analysis on Football Outsiders has flaws, no doubt about it, but if saying something more useful about football than Peter King is the standard, that's not setting a very high bar. And FO easily vaults over it.

And yes, if I think King's insights are so worthless, I should stop reading them. No denying that.

by Crushinator (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 1:14pm

Even if you don't like the site, its signifigantly better than MMQB. The sad part here is that this was one of Peter King's BETTER articles on the year, and it still held little relevant or interesting information.

by ajn (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 3:53pm

peter king and adam schecter can talk or not talk for hours...

by r.j. (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 4:55pm

Why is Peter King to well-respected within the sportswriting establishment?

(I don't ask this as provocation, but as a real question. I really don't understand it.)

As someone who's not that familiar with his work (I only know him from MMQB), I don't understand why everyone reads him. Is it because he's friends with Dan Patrick? Is it because he was in that dopy Sandler movie? Is it because people actually care about coffee that much?

With some vanilla-boring/say-nothing columnists, at least I know they once were great feature writers. But, King just seems like an old, unfunny, fat, boring version of Bill Simmons. While both are tangent-heavy, at least Simmons is really funny. King is just senitmental and awful.

by someone (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 5:45pm

"Should we even respond to trolling like # 49?"

Yeah, make sure you ask the Collective what you should do. The groupthink on these threads is amusing.

by Ted Max (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 5:54pm

Okay, okay, truce. I'll admit that regulars on FO can sometimes come down hard on people who don't get it. We especially do it to people who just hurl insults without trying to understand what they are insulting.

I guess people just see things differently. Where you see "groupthink" and a "Collective," I see a community. Where you see an "interesting and intelligent" analyst, I see a babbling idiot. Where you see on FO a bunch of "amateurs lacking in insider knowledge," I see a bunch of rarely intelligent fans who see through the nonsense most people pass off as "insider knowledge."

You're entitled to your opinion. No problem here.

by Ted Max (not verified) :: Tue, 02/07/2006 - 7:01pm

Re: 65: Instead of "rarely intelligent," what I meant was "of rare intelligence".

by young curmudgeon (not verified) :: Mon, 02/13/2006 - 12:14am

re: 51, 52,53: the word he really wanted was "tautology" or "tautologous."