Peter King MMQB

[thespaniard]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/08/06/mmqb/index.html

9. I think the Saints' Bush is just like the other gazillion rookies in the NFL: He had to sing his college fight song in the cafeteria the other day. Joe Horn made him do it. Had to stand on his chair and belt out the Trojans' ditty. :laugh:

[Oldskool]

Funny stuff.

However..

Boycott SI and Peter Queen :redpunch: :cuss:

[thespaniard]

Funny stuff.

However..

Boycott SI and Peter Queen :redpunch: :cuss:

No thanks. It's still better than doing work on a Monday morning..

[ouvan59]

2. I think this is the best way to put in perspective how significant it is that Pittsburgh has had two head coaches since 1968: In the last 38 years, Pittsburgh and New England have each had two head coaches likely bound for the Hall of Fame -- Chuck Noll (already in) and Cowher in Pittsburgh, Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick in New England. Remaining head coaches for each team during that span: Pittsburgh, zero; New England, 12.

Peter King is absolutely shameless with his man-crush on Parcells. Talking about forcing him into the conversation.

[ouvan59]

God, I hate Peter King.


7. I think these are my Hall of Fame thoughts of the weekend:

a. Petty and sportswriterish, yes, but when I finished listening to all the speeches (during which I aged about 17 years), my first thought was, Warren Moon made a mistake in not crediting John McClain, the Houston Chronicle sportswriter who made one of the best cases I've ever heard for a candidate in February in presenting Moon's case to the 39 selectors. Quite frankly, I wasn't voting for Moon before McClain spoke that day, but afterward I was a Moon man. Very powerful. I just think Moon would not have been standing there Saturday with a pedestrian presentation, and he should have thanked McClain in front of the world.

This says everything you need to know about what is wrong with the HOF process.

[thespaniard]

God, I hate Peter King.



This says everything you need to know about what is wrong with the HOF process.

How would you suggest they do it? :whoknows:

[ouvan59]

How would you suggest they do it? :whoknows:

Why is a sportswriter giving an impassioned speech to get Warren Moon in the HOF? The voters shouldn't be advocates one way or another. Plus Warren Moon shouldn't need to thank a friggin sportswriter for getting him into the Hall of Fame because a sportswriter should have nothing to do with it. His play on the field, his coaches at all levels and his teammates are what got him in the Hall of Fame. The whole process is just a big political quagmire.

Peter King is just taking out the years of being the last kid picked for dodge ball and is now strutting in front of the world to show how he has these big athletes under his thumb. The whole "reconsidering his stance" on Art Monk charade makes me sick.

[Spartacus87]

How would you suggest they do it? :whoknows: Throw in a mix of current HOF players to vote on it as well- get some perspective from people who actually PLAYED on the field against some of these candidates and really know what they're talking about, not biased writers like King here. That'd be a good start.

[thespaniard]

Why is a sportswriter giving an impassioned speech to get Warren Moon in the HOF? The voters shouldn't be advocates one way or another. Plus Warren Moon shouldn't need to thank a friggin sportswriter for getting him into the Hall of Fame because a sportswriter should have nothing to do with it. His play on the field, his coaches at all levels and his teammates are what got him in the Hall of Fame. The whole process is just a big political quagmire.

Peter King is just taking out the years of being the last kid picked for dodge ball and is now strutting in front of the world to show how he has these big athletes under his thumb. The whole "reconsidering his stance" on Art Monk charade makes me sick.

I'll ask again - what would you suggest they do?

[ouvan59]

I'll ask again - what would you suggest they do?

I think Spartacus87 had a good suggestion. Get the people that actually played the game. A good mix of players and coaches who serve a certain number of years on the committee. Maybe one representative for each NFL team. Obviously this doesn't remove all bias but it at least gets guys who know what really happens on the field and in the lockerroom.

[Spartacus87]

I think it just boils down to the fact that guys can play their entire careers setting records, winning Super Bowls, being locker room leaders, and team inspirations, yet at the end of it all it comes down to a few journalism majors sitting in a room to decide whether or not they really were THAT important to the game. Ridiculous.

Sports writers can get some perspective, sure, but former players/coaches could tell firsthand just how that player in question made them feel on gameday, made them react. Whether or not they honestly feared going up against that defensive player, or had to always remain cautious about that offensive playmaker getting the clutch first down or big TD all the time- sports writers can't get a grip on that. I'm sure some players would be biased as well, but I think overall they would be able to appreciate a fellow players efforts and qualities much more than an average sports writer, and besides, wouldn't it just make more sense in principle to allow these greats in the HOF to decide who can join them over anyone else making that decision?

[thespaniard]

I think Spartacus87 had a good suggestion. Get the people that actually played the game. A good mix of players and coaches who serve a certain number of years on the committee. Maybe one representative for each NFL team. Obviously this doesn't remove all bias but it at least gets guys who know what really happens on the field and in the lockerroom.

That's not a bad idea, although it will still be lopsided some because players will play certain teams and certain players more often than others and so may be biased themselves. Having a rep from every team does help that though. Also though, if you have players and coaches on a committee, it may be harder for players of certain eras to get in. Example - if you made a committee now, it would probably be a lot of coaches and players who played/coached in the 80's and 90's, just because more of them are still around. That could hurt a guy who played in the 70's that no one on the committee played against. It could also go the other way with someone like Favre who will retire and be eligible soon, but no one on the committee would have coached or played with him, because they would have been retired by the time he entered the league. Certainly that would have to be addressed as well..

In a way, sportswriters, while their knowledge of the game is not as deep as a player or a coach, certainly the breadth of their knowledge is more vast. National sportswriters can cover many different eras over their career, and it is their job to cover and analyze EVERY team, not just a few. Also, they have no allegiances to players or coaches (in theory) because 1.) it's their job not to and 2.) the don't have the same kind of personal relationships with coaches and players that coaches and players have with each other.

[OWUeagleMD]

Funny stuff.

However..

Boycott SI and Peter Queen :redpunch: :cuss:

ESPN is much more worthy of a boycott than SI.

[Oldskool]

ESPN is much more worthy of a boycott than SI.

Peter King + Dr. Z > ESPN in terms of hate for the Skins and horrible coverage of football in general.

[JoeSkins]

ESPN is much more worthy of a boycott than SI.

I can't boycott ESPN. I get it for free with cable and they have Mondays! :(

They've got me by the bells.

Now SI, while I get that for free too, is much easier to live without. :evil:

[ouvan59]

In a way, sportswriters, while their knowledge of the game is not as deep as a player or a coach, certainly the breadth of their knowledge is more vast. National sportswriters can cover many different eras over their career, and it is their job to cover and analyze EVERY team, not just a few. Also, they have no allegiances to players or coaches (in theory) because 1.) it's their job not to and 2.) the don't have the same kind of personal relationships with coaches and players that coaches and players have with each other.

The one thing the internet has done is show how little many of these guys know. The #1 priority for a writer is not knowledge. It is to put out a well written piece that flows and entertains. Getting the facts right is not nearly as important as the grammar. As Skins fans we have made it a habit of picking Peter King, Len Pasquarelli and Dr. Z's columns apart with a fine tooth comb to show how inconsistent and biased they are. I'm not sure which team you are a fan of but I'm sure your fanbase has writers they focus on as "haters."

You are correct though. Unbiased, knowledgable sportswriters should be a great system since they have covered multiple eras. The problem is that theory isn't always reality.

Peter King is the poster child for all that is wrong with the system. He openly campaigned for Harry Carson, a player who he covered during the Giants glory years, a player who for all intents and purposes is the Art Monk of linebacking. He speaks gushingly of Bill Parcells every chance he gets. By themselves these don't necessarily bother me. Plenty of sportswriters campaign for guys to get into the HOF, but answer me this. How many sportwriters openly campaign for a player NOT to get into the HOF like King does for Monk? Every year around the time of the voting King is on every radio show and every TV show explaining his reasons against Art Monk. He gets paid for these appearances. Talk about your conflict of interest. As long as Art Monk is kept out of the HOF he keeps himself in the limelight and keeps getting paid. As soon as Monk makes it nobody will want him anymore other than his usual gigs.

[Henry]

I'll ask again - what would you suggest they do?

How about having the NFL set up a commission made up of ex-players, coaches and/or scouts? Maybe set up a voting process similar to the pro-bowl, where peers, coaches and fans get a say?

Honestly, I don't know. What I DO know is that the system as it stands now is horrible. King's claim that Moon, a guy who threw for 50,000 yards and went to 9 pro-bowls, should thank a sportswriter/voter for his induction is arrogant, insulting and shows a complete lack of respect for the people who actually played the game. It shows just how completely and utterly out of touch and self-important these columists are with the people they write for, and write about, and is damning evidence against the current HOF voting process.

What would I suggest they do? Take guys like King out of the equation. After that it's all gravy.

[drowland]

How about having the NFL set up a commission made up of ex-players, coaches and/or scouts? Maybe set up a voting process similar to the pro-bowl, where peers, coaches and fans get a say?

Fans voting on the HOF is a bad idea IMO. Save fan voting for all-star games. I think a commission of former players, coaches and the media would be best. You're covering 3 different perspectives on the game.

[Henry]

Fans voting on the HOF is a bad idea IMO. Save fan voting for all-star games. I think a commission of former players, coaches and the media would be best. You're covering 3 different perspectives on the game.

Actally I agree. Though for the same reason I don't think writers should have a say either.

[bulldog]

Writers are nothing more than fans who have better seats each week to watch the games :)

If you haven't played the game or worked for an organization in personnel you are an OUTSIDER.

The mistake King and others make is they believe their experience around a team equates to being an INSIDER.

NOT TRUE :D