What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Peter King MMQB (1 Viewer)

It's Peter King's way of letting you know that he's in the know, even if you don't know what the hell he's talking about.

 
Has anyone else ever thought about how cool it would be to go up to Laura King's school, meeting up with her at a keg party, getting her completely trashed, and then taking adantage of her... all just so you could email Peter King and brag about it?Um... me neither.

 
Ok thanks.......sorry. I thought maybe he got a new job with another network or something big.Peter King...you are going to lose me as a reader very soon. You better shape up dude. :boxing:

 
I love how he ranks the Patriots above the Broncos, who beat them not once, but twice this year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's Peter King's way of letting you know that he's in the know, even if you don't know what the hell he's talking about.
Click to expand...
The next time that Peter King says something insightful will be his first.
 
Ok thanks.......sorry. I thought maybe he got a new job with another network or something big.

Peter King...you are going to lose me as a reader very soon. You better shape up dude. :boxing:
Click to expand...
Hopefully you're reading him for pure entertainment value. His column lost football knowledge years ago.

For example he had this to add in this weeks' MMQB:

Laura King made it to the AFC title game, and to the weekend festivities. She makes friends pretty easily. "I'm soooo into football this year,'' she said. The King girls are finally getting into the game. Good stuff.

Coffeenerdness: You're doing a good job, Peaberry Coffee Company. I know it's hard to fight the Starbucks monster, but keep it up. You make a nice latte all over Denver.

Then there's:

Thursday morning, in the Westin Tabor Center (another Westin, by the way, that does not charge for use of the health club, unlike the Providence Westin, which charges $10 to use the elliptical trainer for 40 minutes in one of the all-time hotel ripoffs in American history)

Does that fat tub of goo actually think he can convince us that he's a health and fitness freak?

He had some rant about chapstick somewhere in the column too. The guy has a firm grasp on "Village Idiot" honors.

 
Has anyone else ever thought about how cool it would be to go up to Laura King's school, meeting up with her at a keg party, getting her completely trashed, and then taking adantage of her... all just so you could email Peter King and brag about it?Um... me neither.
Click to expand...
:lmao: sig
 
why do so many people who clearly hate Peter King's writing continue to read his column and ##### about it here?

 
why do so many people who clearly hate Peter King's writing continue to read his column and ##### about it here?
Click to expand...
I don't mind him. I just don't read it expecting to learn something. It's the Diet Coke of football journalism. Just 1 calorie.
 
why do so many people who clearly hate Peter King's writing continue to read his column and ##### about it here?
Click to expand...
and this is somehow different than #####ing about the sunday night announcing crew? or patriot fans? or that bad call by the refs?because we can...lol. it's about football so we read, watch, etc (even when it's not great). how the hell else can one explain Dr Z still writing about the NFL? :bag:

 
if I hate something, I usually stay away. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to read an internet column written by a writer that I hate. guess I'm weird that way.with regard to TV commentators, you don't really get a choice there if you want to watch the game. you could turn the audio off, but you're going to miss some important details that will make the game harder to follow.as an example, I despise Sean Salisbury as an NFL analyst. I think he offers very little insight and information and rarely even puts any thought into what he is talking about. ESPN, however, continually puts him on the radio and on TV and makes it very difficult for me to avoid him. If he wrote an NFL column online, there is probably a 0% chance that I would actually seek it out and read it on any kind of regular basis.Peter King's column is what it is. He offers his own opinions on the NFL and talks about his personal experience of covering the league, while occasionally throwing in some anecdotes about his own family. It's been that way for years and its not going to change anytime soon. A lot of people like that, which probably makes it a pretty popular column on SI.com. If you hate King and his column, but continue to read it, I'm just wondering why you voluntarily put yourself through that? There are plenty of other places online to get quality NFL info from.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
King's really not that bad. He doesn't claim to be an "X's and O's" expert, and he obviously isn't. But he consistently offers semi-intelligent football opinions, which is better than 97% of the crap you read and hear.

 
how the hell else can one explain Dr Z still writing about the NFL?
Click to expand...
Dr Z is a living legend and he's written one of the best books ever on football, so we should forgive his occasional lapses.
 
Hay-zoos. Dr. Z is BY FAR the most knowledgable mainstream writer. If you're more entertained by Bill Simmons, then bully for you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hay-zoos. Dr. Z is BY FAR WAS the most knowledgable mainstream writer.
Click to expand...
fixedseriously, the guy lives on his rep now. if there's something he's written in the last six months that i should read post a link and i'll read it with an open mind. the few articles of his i've read lately revolve around bad camera angles, why the fullback is announced as a starter when the team comes out in a 3 wr set, and other worthless minutia that is interesting to him and nobody else

again, post a dr z article that you really enjoyed of late and i'll check it out :thumbup:

 
Last edited:
post a dr z article that you really enjoyed of late and i'll check it out
Click to expand...
His analysis of the last Super Bowl was the finest I read:
It soon became obvious, at least to me, that neither team was going to run much against the other club's regular base defense. Those defenses were just too sound against the run. If there would be any running, a team would have to trick it up with misdirections, reverses, runs out of multiple wideouts, etc.It was also obvious that neither team could fully handle the other one's rush scheme. The Patriots had opened with their nickel-rush personnel up front, two linebackers on the wings, two linemen inside, backed up by three linebackers and four DBs. The beauty of the New England system is that the Patriots are not only willing to run in new plays and formations week to week, but complete personnel groupings. I had never seen this alignment from them, and it seemed to confuse Philly. The Eagles, though, looked like they were getting a functional Terrell Owens back, which I never thought would happen. Maybe not as a deep threat, but valuable enough in the short-to-medium ranges. And this meant they could go with four wideouts (Greg Lewis as the fourth), which they hadn't done since Owens got hurt, and they could probe the depths of the Patriots secondary.The Patriots offense was in a quagmire, though. Penalties, indecision by Brady, failure to handle the rush -- four bad series to open the game, as Philly took a 7-0 lead. Then, ingenuity kicked in. The Pats went to four wide, "to spread 'em out," as Charlie Weis said, "and let Tommy see where his pressure was coming from."OK, the book says that you beat four wide with gut pressure. You blitz it up the middle (which fits in well with Eagle coordinator JimJohnson's normal inclinations anyway) and make the quarterback pay when he goes to his hot read. In other words, you murder him, Buddy Ryan style.So what did Weis do? He had Brady throw screens out of the four wide set. "I can't remember us ever doing that" Brady said. "We screen from our base offense." He completed two in a row to Corey Dillon and got his team out of a hole. Later he completed two to Kevin Faulk to set up a TD.It made the Eagles scratch their heads. It blunted their rush. It shifted the balance of power and put the Patriots in command. Last game, against the Steelers, the Patriots threw exactly one screen pass, a five-yarder to Dillon. But they killed Pittsburgh by protecting with seven and sending Deion Branch on the deep post. They did not run that once against Philly, and they called no end arounds, either. The play had worked well against the Steelers.Weis, they say, hates to repeat himself. He's almost impossible to type. He sure showed it Sunday. On the other side of the ball, on defense, the New England complexities involved personnel switches.Roman Phifer, just about forgotten in the Patriot defense, became a key man against the Eagles, going as both a rush and drop LB. Ted Johnson, the tough-guy inside LB, wasn't on the field against the Colts in the Divisional Playoff, but he was a key man against the Steelers. Then he went to the bench again in the Super Bowl, until an attempt to run the ball was smelled.So the Patriots took command, but toward the end of the first half they suffered a real setback. Gene Wilson, their free safety and the guy assigned to Brian Westbrook when he lined up in the slot, the Eagle RB's most dangerous position, broke his arm and was out of the game. His place was taken by little-used Dexter Reid."We've been down that road before," Phifer said. "You don't have time to worry, you don't have time to panic. For two years now, we've had to play with whoever the coaches put in when someone got hurt. We're used to it."Well, the Eagles burned Reid twice for TDs, first with Westbrook on an underneath crossing pattern out of the slot, then on a 30-yard post to Lewis. But by then it was too late because it seems, and I don't really know how to put this, that somewhere along the line, the two-minute offense has been lost from the Eagles' game.Maybe it's because they hadn't been involved in enough contests in which they had to come back late, to win it. Maybe it was because McNabb was having such an erratic game. But Andy Reid played it like he was the tortoise that was going to catch the hare with a slow and steady approach, emphasis on slow. Maybe he figured this game would last five quarters instead of four.Down 10 points with 5:40 left, the Eagles snailed their way down the field, taking lots of time in their huddle, coming up to the ball slowly, throwing underneath. There was no sense of urgency, just as there hadn't been for the Steelers in the second half of the Championship game against the Patriots. Maybe New England casts some weird spell on opponents in big games, takes them out of their two-minute offense, freezes their minds, or something. It was depressing to watch. Reid mumbled something about being careful and making sure he got points on the board, but I don't buy it. When you're down by more than one score, your two-minute offense has to begin immediately.Reid had done it at the end of the first half, too. With all their time outs left, the Eagles had the ball on their own 19 with 1:03 showing. They ran three plays, up to their own 41, then called time out at 0:10. Super Bowl, fellas. Biggest game of the year, you dig? Guess they didn't.And how about their final series of the game? Ball on their own 4, thanks to the fact that they had chosen to rush everybody and not drop someone back on Josh Miller's punt, which, in itself, didn't make sense. Forty-six seconds left. A desperate situation but not entirely hopeless.One-yard checkdown to Westbrook, clock running. Incomplete pass to Owens on a short slant. Interception. Ballgame over. Has there ever been worse Super Bowl game-planning in the clutch than the Eagles showed Sunday? The sad thing is that there were really some heroic performances from them. Owens, occasionally limping on the ankle that had been broken and dislocated, was magnificent. I was so sure he wouldn't be a factor that I gave him a brush-off in my pregame matchups, and for that I'm sorry.Well, I still have to look at the Super Bowl film and try to break down the parts of the game that eluded me on Sunday. If I come up with anything shocking, you'll be the first to know. How did I rate this Super Bowl? Interesting, as all of them are. Fascinating, actually. As far as the entertainment value, you'll have to ask someone else about that. Football never has been entertainment to me. There's something in it that's too deep and too honest for that.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Z has the occasional interesting article where he talks about topics that are actually relevant. But 90% of the time it seems like he's talking about some amazing running back that played in the 40's, or some other player whose prime occurred well over 3 decades ago. I hate that crap.

 
So long

Even John Elway showed up for former Denver Post football writer Adam Schefter's goodbye party Friday night at the home of Sports Illustrated columnist Rick Reilly. Schefter, who now works for NFL Network, is moving to NYC.
Click to expand...
I guess he's moving from Denver to NYC. :shrug: http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_3408187
Click to expand...
I guess that's what King is referring to. Adam is excited about having an office at NFL HQ, maybe not as excited about moving to NY. He's still planning on renting an apartment here in Denver. He's going to Detroit Saturday, then to Hawaii for the Pro Bowl, and Lord knows where else after that!
 
Dr. Z

The Good

Dr. Z is a among the best analysts of individual talent. His grades of lineman are better than anyone else out there in the mainsteam.

He does not fall for the whole "media darling" shtick, and have all of his columns about Brady, Bettis, ect. when the real story is someplace else.

The Bad

He has not kept up with the game. The complexity of modern offenses and defenses are a complete mystery to him.

His writing is subpar (and always has been). The only "story" his articles tell you is "I'm smarter than you and here is why"

Pater King

The Good

His articles are an easy read. I love reading MMQB. It's a nice break between some of the heavier articles and expanded box scores I go through on Monday mornings.

Gets the best quotes from players and coaches.

The Bad

Clearly favors people he "likes", and is needlessly tough on peolpe he doesn't.

His "insider" information is wrong just enough to be completely unreliable.

Does a lot of "puff pieces" (These are probably assigned to him by SI, so not entirely his fault)

 
why do so many people who clearly hate Peter King's writing continue to read his column and ##### about it here?
Click to expand...
Personally, I haven't read anything he's written in about two years. I feel pretty confident believing that he hasn't vastly improved over that time period.
 
In answer to the question, my guess is that MMQB stands for Monday Morning Quarterback, a sports equivalent to the maxim "hindsight is 20/20". I also posit that this phrase was coined before Monday Night Football.

 
Dr Z is still the best sportswriter in the business. Peter King is too partial to certain people (Brett Favre, Patriots, etc) for my taste.

 
I personally have a ton of respect for Peter King and what he's been able to accomplish. He's one of the most successful writers in the game. If I had to read between the lines, there's a little more there. It's an undercurrent among many of the old school writers that the NFL Network is not an altogether good thing. The NFL Network has an unprecedented line of connection to the players that the old media doesn't have. How many times do you see a player on Total Access being interviewed by Rich Eisen and at the end the player is just gushing about thanking Eisen for having him on? Or giving Eisen a hard time about it taking so long to get him on? You ever see a player end an interview with a guy from the local paper thanking him? Not often. There is a worry that the game will become more and more accessible to the NFL's equivalent of a "state run media" and less accessible to the beat writers. A little twist is that Schefter is the former president of the Pro Football Writers of America - the group that has expressed worry over this very issue. He was of course a long time writer with the Denver paper.He's also one of the most likable guys in the business so that helps. He was super accomodating in the interview he did for us this Summer with Cecil and I hope to continue working with him in the future.On the flip side, the worries about a "state run media" are not entirely unfounded. Watch sometimes ESPN's coverage and compare to what we see from the NFL Network. ESPN might have Mike Irvin talking about drug use in the NFL and if it's commonplace while NFL Network might have the school that John Lynch visited today. Both are legit. It's just different spins. To the NFL Network's credit, I think they've done a good job of keeping it honest. Rich Eisen has been pretty tough on Mike Piera's officiating stuff for instance and doesn't obviously take the "party line" on everything. It's an interesting dynamic though and a pretty new world we're entering with this. Fun to watch how it develops.J

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe, I share many of the same concerns about the NFL Network that you and others do. But the thing is, the NFL has already shown it's not afraid to flex its muscles if it disagrees with what another network does. Witness the rather quick demise of "Playmakers" on ESPN.

 
why do so many people who clearly hate Peter King's writing continue to read his column and ##### about it here?
Click to expand...
That's *exactly* what I was thinking.Personally, I like reading MMQB.

 
Joe, I share many of the same concerns about the NFL Network that you and others do. But the thing is, the NFL has already shown it's not afraid to flex its muscles if it disagrees with what another network does. Witness the rather quick demise of "Playmakers" on ESPN.
Click to expand...
That's true AW. Another one was making the networks pull the Two for the Money ads. The NFL is super strong and not afraid to flex it's muscle. I think that's what has the beat writers a little bit :unsure: J

 
I can't stand King's partiality. His Fine Fifteen ranking of the Patriots has been absolutely absurd this year, week-in and week-out, justifying the ranking when they were playing like crap by saying things like "they're still the champions, blah blah blah," and then, after the Patriots had put together a nice late-season run, having the audacity to validate their high ranking by saying "oh wow, they're actually playing well now. watch out NFL!" This year he blew his literatary load on the Patriots and the Chargers, failing to go 3 sentences without mentioning how great the Chargers are this year and how tragic of a season it was for them to miss the play-offs.He also seems to have some sort of disposition against the Bengals, the organization he covered early on in his career. That could just be me though. I also could care less about Mary Beth King or his other daughters, but some people don't mind reading about it, so whatevs. I used to read his stuff religiously, but I've lost a lot of respect for him lately. I do tune in on the occasion that I'm bored though, and probably read his articles somewhere between a 35-45% clip.But people who disagree with him who continue to read his material, myself included, read it because he's an excellent sportswriter. As much as I hate the casual, almost ignorant observations about the actual games, I've always enjoyed reading the anecdotal sections of his article. He seems like a pretty sentimental guy, and I've always liked the fact that he points out examples of classy guys in the NFL (and conversely calls out the selfish primadonnas who permeate the league) whenever he gets a chance, and he's also pretty cool about giving credit to the more unsung players of the game. He is easily the best writer covering the NFL, and as someone said above, his articles are always an easy read.

 
Ya think he's got something against the Bengals? According to him they were the worst team in the playoffs this year. As in worse than the 23-0 losing Giants, whom he ranked 11th.-QG

 
Ya think he's got something against the Bengals? According to him they were the worst team in the playoffs this year. As in worse than the 23-0 losing Giants, whom he ranked 11th.

-QG
Click to expand...
Who also happen to be the last team to beat his #1 overall team.
 
I personally have a ton of respect for Peter King and what he's been able to accomplish. He's one of the most successful writers in the game.
Click to expand...
Titanic was a successful movie at the box office. That doesn't mean it was a quality film.
 
Peter King knows a lot about football. And he's an excellent reporter with many sources. He's not a fantasy football writer so nobody should care that his own fantasy predictions are mostly off-base. His MMQB column is not the same as the stuff he writes for SI magazine. It's got a lot more opinion in it and he probably considers it more of a fun thing to write as opposed to the "real" stuff he does for the magazine and elsewhere. Consider it his version of "Random Shots" which I think most of us enjoy even if we might not "learn" anything. It's not costing anybody a cent to read MMQB. Dr. Z is the same. He's dead serious when he analyzes a game, as we can read in that excerpted piece of his about the last Super Bowl. When it's time for the online weekly rankings, he gets goofy. But how many people, when deciding to rank the greatest RB's of all time, will actually take a trip to the Hall of Fame just to watch existing game film of Bronko Nagurski and Clark Hinkle?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
Peter King Retiring
Replies
46
Views
1K
rockaction
rockaction
Hot Sauce Guy
Will that dog hunt? 2024 Win-Now Dynasty & Redraft
2 3 4
Replies
187
Views
3K
ffmail4me
ffmail4me
-OZ-
  • Poll
Flashback 10 years. 2014 draft - who would you have rather your team drafted? (Pick 3)
Replies
27
Views
997
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top