Friday, October 9, 2009

22 comments How About A Partial Peter King Friday?

The answer to the question posed in the title should be, "hell yes," otherwise if it is not scroll down and I have included other topics in this diverse post for today so it's not just Peter King-centric for those that get tired of discussing/criticizing him.

I am still excited J.S. posted something yesterday so I thought I would let him have the floor for the day. He also posted what I will call the "JaMarcus Russell challenge" below and if I had th skills I would be the first one to post something mocking JaMarcus Russell. If anyone has the skills and the ability, give it a try. You will probably get 100,000 hits from bitter, angry Raiders fans before the end of the week.

Everyone don't forget to update your College Football Pick 'Em and Yahoo Fantasy Football teams for this weekend. My slow college football comeback has begun.

Also, we will be featuring useless sports commentary and bad journalism on Twitter, so if you are on it and care to follow just do so. The address is on the side of this page. I have decided to give it a try and see how it works. I may look back in two months and say, "Remember when I was on Twitter?" Regardless I thought I would at least give the medium a shot. The biggest problem is keeping my thoughts to less than 140 characters.

Let's start off with Peter's Tuesday mailbag for this week.

With 28 of the 32 NFL teams finished with a quarter of their seasons, let's hand out some early hardware. Of course, things can change pretty quickly in this league.

As was mentioned in the Saturday post about Bill Simmons, guessing how anything is going to end up at this point in the season is pretty pointless. This same principle also generally goes for mock drafts and any type of preseason predictions in any sport...but it still doesn't stop sportswriters from making these predictions.

Last year, Trent Edwards was my NFL MVP through Week 4, and Jim Zorn the coach.

What is Peter's minor obsession with Trent Edwards? He had previously listed him as an "up and coming quarterback" on several occasions, believes he is in the same class as Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan and he named him NFL MVP through 4 weeks last year even though ranked 12th in the NFL in TD passes, 10th in passing yards, and 10th in passer rating efficiency, so he wasn't even one of the best quarterbacks in the league, much less the MVP. Peter then compared him to Tom Brady. Read it if you don't believe me.

I actually can't argue with too many of Peter's selections "quarter of the NFL season" selections, partially because they aren't that bad and also because it is hard to argue when 75% of the games haven't even been played yet. It's like voting for the Academy Awards after only watching 25% of a movie and then trying to rank it among the other movies you have only watched 25% of.

Most Valuable Player
1. Peyton Manning, QB, Colts.

2. Drew Brees, QB, Saints.
3. Adrian Peterson, RB, Vikings.

Offensive Player Of The Year
1. Peyton Manning, QB, Colts.

2. Joe Flacco, QB, Ravens.
3. Drew Brees, QB, New Orleans.

I would love to know how Adrian Peterson is third in the MVP race but isn't in the Top 3 for the Offensive Player of the Year race? Does Adrian Peterson play defense or special teams exceptionally well (or at all) and I am not aware of it?

Here's a little tip to amateur list makers out there: If you are going to make a list for MVP that includes three offensive players, generally it makes sense to have all three offensive players be in the same order for Offensive Player of the Year as well. The same thing goes for defense. If you have a defensive guy in the Top 3 for the MVP, that player had better be #1 for the Defensive Player of the Year as well.

Adrian Peterson will be back in contention before the end of the year, but the Monday-nighter knocked a little of the shine off his star.

Much like Peter didn't feel comfortable on the Monday after Week 1 to include an MVP list without Philip Rivers and Tom Brady, and felt the need to make a note saying they would eventually be on the list, he does the same here with Adrian Peterson. It's good to see Peter either knows in advance how Peterson is going to perform for the rest of the year or has already made up his mind he wants Peterson to be in his MVP race.

Assistant Coach Of The Year

3. Dante Scarnecchia, offensive line, Patriots.

You may know what I want to say here for why Peter made this choice...Ok Patriots fans, don't kill me for being a hater. First, I didn't know there was an actual Assistant Coach of the Year Award, so I am pretty sure this is something Peter made up, and second, how is Scarnecchia doing any better job this year than he has done any other year? The Patriots usually have a good offensive line, I just don't think he's doing any better of a job this year than he has done any other year. Also, I am sure Scarnecchia is a great teacher but he also has Tom Brady standing behind his offensive line. It is no coincidence the teams that have the lowest sack totals in the NFL have Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning, and Drew Brees as their quarterbacks. Of course I have no better suggestions for third in the Assistant Coach of the Year race but I thought I would let it be known what I think about Peter's #3 ranked guy.

Free Agent Of The Year
1. Darren Sharper, FS, Saints.

2. Brett Favre, QB, Minnesota.
3. Correll Buckhalter, RB, Broncos.

You didn't think we could go an entire mailbag without mentioning his name do you? I am tired of debating Favre, so I won't do that...but was he really a free agent? Was he really free to sign with any team in the NFL? I am pretty sure he was never on the free agent market and I am also pretty sure only one team actually was able to bid for his services. So on a technicality I say he gets kicked off this list and possibly Brian Dawkins or someone else makes the list.

Did you know Jared Allen played hurt last night?

Funny, he wasn't on the injury report. Of course unless the injury report had the words "Brett Favre" on it, no one probably paid attention anyway.

Sick, actually.

Sick isn't hurt Peter. If so, I would be at work "hurt" today.

(By the way, someone blew their breath in my face yesterday and then announced to me she had the was awesome and such a great feeling)

As I talked to a coughing-and-congested Allen by his locker after the Vikings' 30-23 win over the Packers, one of the Minnesota trainers passed him a pill envelope, with, I presume, a couple of decongestant tablets.

Brett Favre probably had stolen the envelope earlier in the night to make sure there were no Vicodin tablets contained in it.

Is Jared Allen allowed to take Ny-Quil or would it set him off on an alcoholic binge? Did anyone get this joke at all?

From Anthony of Carlsbad, Calif.: "I, frankly, agree with Rodney Harrison's statement about Tom Brady being soft. Calling the roughing penalties was bad enough, but when Brady (while standing, mind you) turns to the ref and demands the call, gets an approving nod and a flag from the ref, then pumps his fist over it, well that just looks like a coddled brat who cried to mommy and got his way.''

Dammit Anthony, that was a joke that Rodney Harrison was playing on the air to amuse Tom Brady! God, can't analysts make inside jokes to their friends on-air without the public believing what he/she is saying is the truth? It's not like Harrison's job at NBC is to disseminate information about football using his opinion. If that were indeed his job, then yes I could understand why everyone would be confused by him disseminating his opinion on this matter, but he's there to make sarcastic inside jokes. They pay him for this. (End sarcasm)

Tom Brady isn't soft, he just lobbied for the call and got it. After last year's season getting cancelled due to his injury, we can't have Brady miss any more games.

From John Kaleto of San Diego: "What do you think will be the Broncos' record in four weeks, after they play New England, San Diego, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh?''

PK: Six wins, two losses. Don't ask me to predict which ones they'll win and which ones they'll lose.

Thanks Peter. Glad you think you know the Broncos record but you can't seem to tell us who you think they will beat. Very helpful.

-I saw this interview posted on Monday and it was linked in the comments by Dan. I don't know how many of you have seen this already but Peter King was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and it was pretty typical Peter. Here are high(low)lights of the interview:

(How Peter felt when his editor devoted an editor's letter to him)

PK: I think Terry's view is: I want everyone to know we have this guy, we love him, we put him out on the front lines, we hope people appreciate him as much we do. It was ridiculously humbling. I could have used a little less praise.

It sure doesn't sound like you could have used a little less praise. If that was a humbling thing for you perhaps there should be more things done to humble you...because it sounds like you appreciate yourself as much as SI appreciates you.

(On whether he offered to give money back to save jobs at SI)

It's something I did but I really don't want to talk about it.

That is very nice of Peter. He sounds like he doesn't want to discuss salary or how much he makes.

But I will say this: I make a ridiculous amount of money.

How ridiculously humble of you to say this.

I'm not saying I'm not worth it.

Oh, I am. You probably aren't worth it, whatever this magical, ridiculous number may be. It leads you to write things such as "What recession?" when you see people outside enjoying a beautiful day in a park, so yes however much money you make, whatever that ridiculous amount that has made you lose some perspective is, it's not worth it.

(On his favorite story)

Probably spending a week inside the Green Bay Packers in 1995.

I wonder who is favorite player to cover on that team was?

It was also fun watching how Brett Favre lived his life. He'd go home and help his daughter with her homework, he'd watch the Discovery channel, the Golf channel, the History channel.

Sounds suspiciously like the same life every other parent with cable television has. I don't think Peter would find other people's lives as "fun" though.

I guess at this same period Brett was skipping off to the bathroom to pop some Vicodin. Is that two Brett Favre Vicodin addiction mentions in one post? I am such an asshole...

(His favorite interview)

I would say the most interesting people and players I've interviewed probably would be Favre, Peyton Manning and Bill Belichick.

If given the chance, I probably could have chosen these three names without seeing the answers.
(Least Favorite interview)

I don't speak to T.O. anymore.

Is it because he is black?

I just think that life's too short to talk to nine-year-olds too often.

Take that all the nine-year-olds in the world! Peter King doesn't want to talk to you! Go back to your Hannah Montana and High School Musical fads, Peter wants nothing to do with you. If are a 9 year old child, DO NOT approach Peter on the streets of Boston, amid the massive amounts of dogs, and ask for an autograph or conversation. He will smite you and then walk away with his slightly bitter tasting new instant coffee selection from Starbucks.

(If he is ever worried he gets too close to an athlete)

There have been a couple of times. Sometimes you'll be at like one of these golf tournaments, and sometimes there will be the opportunity to get a little bit closer and stay at some of these guys' houses, things that are probably a little bit too much.

I understand how it is. You are at a golf tournament and have a couple of beers in you, a guy invites you back to his house, you know you should say no...but he is really pleading with you so you want to go, but know you shouldn't because you will wake up the next day hating yourself...what to do?

Peter's lone lesson he learned in his 20 years of covering sports is that sleepovers with athletes are not a good idea. Knowledge like this is why Peter is humbled to make ridiculous amounts of money he knows he is worth.

-Braylon Edwards got traded to the New York Jets. I would be lying if I said I knew if this would work out or not for either side. This does tell me Eric Mangini feels confident he won't get fired after this season because you don't make your team worse and trade for draft picks if you are trying to save your job.

In the deal, first reported by ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter, the Jets sent key special-teams player Jason Trusnik, wide receiver Chansi Stuckey and a pair of draft picks to Cleveland.

I sort of liked Chansi Stuckey, but I understand he isn't a #1 receiver type that the Jets need so he had to go. The draft picks are reportedly a third round pick that can turn into a second depending on how many balls Edwards catches and a fifth round pick.

My problem with this trade lies in the reasoning that is given for why Edwards didn't play well in Cleveland, other than the fact he rarely had a QB that could get him the ball. The reasoning is that he didn't play well because he wasn't happy in Cleveland, so he sort of shut it all down because of that. What's going to prevent him from shutting it down in New York if he doesn't like how the fans react when he drops a pass or doesn't get the ball enough? It's going to be a much tougher environment in New York than Cleveland when Edwards gets the dropsies.

It's true he has a year left on his deal, but that brings up a whole other set of problems I have with the trade. Edwards is going to want more money than his production has actually shown he is worth, so if he starts to produce this year is it a contract drive or the sign he is willing and able to be a top flight receiver for the Jets? Is he going to pout if he doesn't get a new contract? Remember, he held out of Browns camp before his rookie year, so this drama that has encompassed his unhappiness in Cleveland isn't a one time pout-fest for him. Obviously the Jets can't NOT re-sign Edwards because they traded a couple of draft picks for him and it just wouldn't seem to make sense to let him go after 12 games if the Jets gave up picks to get him.

I don't think it was a bad trade for the Jets, I guess any time a "diva" type wide receiver gets traded or changes teams I always wonder how long that player is going to stay happy at his new location.

-Rick Reilly has written a "column" about athlete's bodies in conjunction with ESPN the Magazine's release of the "Body Issue," which is a bad take-off of the swimsuit issue.

Reilly is an easy target because he doesn't seem to do a whole hell of a lot but write a 900 word column every week and gets paid an enormous amount of money to do this. He is an easy target but he is also a target that completely deserves any derision that comes his way. Read this week's "column" he has posted and try to convince me anyone with access to a locker room couldn't write a similar, and probably better, "column" than Reilly did. He's just not a good journalist, there's no denying that. He appeals to the lowest common denominator of sports fans when he is at his worst. His "columns" feel mailed in at times and he even has plagerized himself and others with the column ideas. He's not good.

On another note, why is ESPN so egotistical? I ask this because Bill Simmons recently got into a bitch-fight with Mike Francesca over whether the new "30 for 30" was similar to the HBO Sports documentaries. Francesca ripped Simmons a new one and Simmons bounced back saying HBO docs focus too much on older events, never mind the first three "30 for 30" docs are about a 20 year old hockey trade, the Colts moving to Baltimore, and a Larry Holmes boxing match. You can't really do a documentary on any subject and make it interesting if the topic is not slightly older.

Anyway, I digress. Simmons got invited on Francesca's show to settle this discussion and Simmons can't appear on the show because ESPN won't allow their talent to on networks/radio shows without permission. Why is ESPN so egotistical in this fashion? They have no problem "borrowing" print journalists like Stephen A. Smith, Woody Paige, Jay Mariotti, etc to do ESPN shows because ESPN is SO great and wonderful it actually helps the newspaper sell more newspapers (I am sure that is the reasoning from ESPN's point of view)....but they won't let anyone under their employ go on a different radio show for fear that ESPN employee will say something ESPN and it's sponsors don't agree with. I am not saying ESPN is the only perpetrator among sports networks in doing things like this, but they are certainly the biggest and the most obvious perpetrator. Working for ESPN seems like it is working under a dictatorship. They want their analysts/columnists to discuss the issues they want discussed, ignore the issues they want ignored, and to say the things they want to be said.

I don't think ESPN will start crumbling overnight but after Bill Simmons leaves in 2010, what does it's Page 2 staff look like? Remember what is used to look like? If I didn't like or agree with the previous Page 2 columnists at least I knew they wrote fairly well. Now compare what they have now. There are football non-experts (which is some of his appeal) like Gregg Easterbrook, pseudo-race baiters (what I mean by that is they make their money off talking about race a's true, denying has no effect on my thought this is true) like Scoop Jackson and JemeHill and whatever the hell Jeff MacGregor does, it doesn't seem to be much about sports. They have the television portion down pat, everyone will still tune in because they are really still the only game in town...and they keep hiring their competitors best guys which always helps with keeping the competition away.

I guess at the end of all my rambling I am just saying they should allow their employees to go on different radio shows without permission. I know they want to keep the integrity of the ESPN brand and all of that but ESPN has done well partially because newspapers weren't stingy with their talent and allowed their top columnists to branch out, so I don't see why ESPN has to be stingy and be so strict. Basically I just want to see Simmons-Francesca have an on-air fight. That's all I ask.

-I briefly made my predictions on the MLB Playoffs a couple days ago, so I thought I would make 1 more comments today.

Minnesota v. New York Yankees- The Twins are overmatched in this series. I think the one thing that could keep them in the series is if AJ Burnett bombs in Game 2. I don't think it was a very smart move to start Burnett over Pettitte. It sounds counterintuitive to want 2 LH's to start out the series when you have a chance to go LH, RH, LH, but you never actually know what you are going to get from Burnett. Pettitte isn't the pitcher that Burnett is but at least you sort of know what you are going to get from him. The Yankees are going to score runs. My bottom line is that I don't trust AJ Burnett. Also, I called both double plays Mark Teixeira hit into last night (well the second one wasn't a double play because Cuddyer got pulled off first base, but it would have been one). He can be so predictable at times.

I didn't get what Joe Girardi did with his bullpen last night either. He pulled Sabathia after a 6 2/3 innings, let Hughes finish the inning and start the 8th inning. Then Hughes had runners on 1st and 2nd so they brought in Phil Coke, but then Coke pitched to a hitter (who he got out) and Girardi brought in Joba Chamberlain. Finally in the 9th inning he let Rivera finish the game out. I know the goals is to make sure guys can appearances to stay sharp but this just seemed like overkill to me.

The only other thought I really have is that so far my predictions have been almost completely incorrect for the MLB Playoffs. I still want to say the Cardinals are going to come back and win the series against the Dodgers though I believe less and less of it with every Matt Holliday dropped fly ball. Never forget I am an idiot, unless I am right, in which case i am a genius.

Bill Simmons has a mailbag up AND Kent has tipped me off to a wide receiver myth column that has been posted. One day left for when I usually post and there are two articles worthy of dissection. These are good problems to have.


RuleBook said...

Here's a little tip to amateur list makers out there: If you are going to make a list for MVP that includes three offensive players, generally it makes sense to have all three offensive players be in the same order for Offensive Player of the Year as well.

Actually, this is common practice due to the supposed purpose of the awards. To many sports writers, the MVP is the player who is most valuable to his team (i.e., the player whose team would suffer the greatest difference in wins without him). The offensive player of the year is simply the best offensive player.

Under that definition (which is the only logical reason for the two lists to be different), King is saying that Flacco is a better offensive player than Brees, but that the Saints would suffer more without without Brees than the Ravens would without Flacco. Of course anyone saying that Flacco is playing better than Brees shouldn't be making lists anyway.

Defensive Player Of The Year
1. Darrelle Revis, CB, Jets.
2. Elvis Dumervil, OLB, Broncos.
3. Jared Allen, DE, Minnesota.

How on earth is Darren Sharper not on this list? In 4 games, he has 5 INTs and 2 TDs (the TDs being 97 and 99 yds).

Obviously the Jets can't NOT re-sign Edwards because they traded a couple of draft picks for him and it just wouldn't seem to make sense to let him go after 12 games if the Jets gave up picks to get him.

This is where the story gets interesting. Under the current CBA, a player is an unrestricted free agent after 4 accrued seasons. However, as part of the 2010 poison pill, in the uncapped year, a player is only a free agent after 6 accrued seasons. Most of the 1st round picks in 2005 signed 5 year deals (which is fairly standard), including Edwards. Thus, if a new CBA is not signed before next season, Edwards will be a Restricted Free
Agent, and the Jets can give him the top tender, which will be much cheaper than any long term contract he might sign, and another team would have to surrender a 1st and 3rd round pick in order to sign him.

KentAllard said...

I'm skeptical about the Braylon Edwards trade. I know the quarterbacks get the blame, but Edwards dropped passes in college, and has continued to do so in the pros. Going from the media Siberia of the NFL to New York isn't going to help that. And if Mangenius' job is secure in Cleveland, it means the Browns' management isn't even pretending to care any more.

Bengoodfella said...

Rulebook, ok I get you. I think that makes sense. It still seems kind of silly to me. It's like if a sportswriter voted a Mariano Rivera 3rd in the MVP race and he didn't win the Rolaids Relief Award (or whatever it is called now).

I guess the two definitions can be different then, but still it brings up the point of how the hell Flacco is playing better than Brees.

I have no idea how Darren Sharper is not on the list. That's a great question.

I thought about the uncapped year, so if he plays out the uncapped year at the highest tender, which would be a steal for them (in theory), what happens the year after that? It's interesting but I just wonder when they can stop tendering him, is it when he accrues 6 years of service?

Kent, what surprised me the most is that they Browns even traded Edwards. It looks like Mangini has permission to completely start over, which I don't know how that is going to work. He is trying to mold the team to what he wants and anyone not on board has to leave. I don't know about the trade either. It seems to me Edwards is a guy who is never happy. Of course it was a pretty good risk to take for the Jets because if it works then they have a #1 receiver.

RuleBook said...

This is Edwards 5th season. If they tendered him after this year, and he plays, he will have accrued the 6th season, so he will then be unrestricted. Thus, they can only tender him for one year if the CBA is not changed before next season.

Bengoodfella said...

That is what I thought happened. So he would have to have 2 contract years. After two years of great contract year production means if his demands are too high they can franchise him or just not re-sign him. I am getting WAY ahead of myself, I know, but I think it has to be a part of the consideration in this trade.

dan said...

I remember the Page 2 of yesterday.

They had David Halberstam writing for them who was a legend. Hunter S Thompson: legend. Chuck Klosterman who I like, but is not everyones cup of tea and Bill Simmons before he ran out of new jokes.

I wonder if I am forgetting anybody else, but at that time it was really an amazing collection of diverse talent. Sad to see what it has become. Also, that kind of gets me thinking of Paul Zimmerman, I do know we have given peter king a hard time about it but I am beginning to miss dr z's columns. He took football seriously, knew a lot about it but didnt take himself seriously which is what I thought made him a great writer.

Gene said...

Great post on the BS/MF feud? Are you in NYC area? Would love to hear more of your takes on the daily rants of Mike Francesa.

I caught Simmons modern and completely timely documentary on the twenty year old Gretzk trade. I generall love the ones on HBO, but this one was much more boring to me.

They completely gave Gretzky a pass and ignored what could have been the one intersting part of the story which is: How much did WG actually want this trade?

They acted like he was stunned and hurt by the whole thing, but I think he at least partially wanted it to be able to make more money and please Hollywood actress Yoko Ono, er I mean Janet Jones.

Gene said...


Just want to agree with you on the legend status of Halberstam. Even Simmons knows that he is not in the guys class and has quoted The Breaks of the Game as one of his favorite books. I have to agree with Bill on that one.

The more ESPN dominates the worse the quality becomes.

Speaking of low quality, did anyone hear Caray not make a call on the Texiera foul ball? 15 seconds of silence. This guy is a train wreck. It was loveable when Harry pulled this stuff, with Chip it is just annoying.

Martin said...

I was in teh kitchen for the non-call. "It could be outta here!"

~chirp chirp chirp~ WTF happend Chip, you fuck?!

Gene said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gene said...


And I think 15 seconds was an accurate estimate of the time the chrickets chirped. As you know, that is an eternity on live television. I did not know it was foul until I saw Tex standing back at the plate.

Gene said...

A review of Chip's performance:

Bengoodfella said...

I believe Ralph Wiley was a part of that team as least for a little while. Wasn't Whitlock in there also, or am I wrong about that? I miss Dr. Z for sure. I was a little bit against how all the proceeds from his benefit went only to him...I would have preferred if others could have been helped, but I would love to see Dr. Z back ASAP.

I am not in the NYC area but I know the blog SportsTalkBash is usually all over that type stuff but AwesomeSean has been pretty quiet this week. I am not sure what the deal has been. I got the "Kings Ransom" DVRd and have some high hopes for it, I don't want to be let down.

Klosterman is not everyone's cup of team, but I would love to read "Breaks of the Game," but it is not in my local library. That's bullshit.

ESPN just seems more interested in making the news and less interested in reporting it (or choosing what to report)as the case may be. I think they may have a Page 2 problem when Simmons leaves.

I heard the Chip Caray call. I don't think he knew if the ball was fair or foul so he just didn't talk. Not the best policy. He hasn't really bothered me as much tonight but that was an egregious mistake. You can't give the audience dead air to listen to, especially on a potential home run. He can be brutal at times.

Martin said...

I watched the Gretzky doc. Not that impressed. Areas I wanted covered more seemed to be dropped so the director Berg could put in more quick cuts and nebulous shots of skyline and clouds. I felt like I was watching a documentary done by a talented college student, and that's about it. Bob Ley and behind the lines have nothing to fear from Peter Berg.

Gene said...

I am with you Martin. It was like an indy film maker who finally had some budget for special effects. The quick cuts and cloud shots were distracting. They said they tried to make this for the younger audiences and tried to draw them in with that "Edgy" approach.

I still say it's all about the story and they were talking about a twenty year old hockey trade in a not very compelling way. The viewership was minscule due to the baseball running long.

They do have some topics coming up in which I am interested. Hope they dod a better job with them.

Martin said...

The LA Kings through their Fox Sports affiliate did a better job covering this a decade ago. It was narrated by Bob Miller, the Kings excellent play by play guy, and gave you a better sense of what the trade meant to Canada, and Edmonton, while showing the huge impact it had on hockey in the U.S. It too was only an hour long, and was much better in my opinion.

I hope the USFL one is better, I'm looking forward to it. I also want to give some props to Simmons. Even if these all turn out kinda "meh" it was a good idea, and from everything I've read, something he did push at ESPN. Even if in the end the execution is flawed, it was a good idea.

CHIP! CHIP! Was it a home run or not, I'm still waiting for the call....

Gene said...

Did Chip catch any heat in the papers for the non-call this morning? I have not seen anything.

Bengoodfella said...

I still want to see the 30 for 30 on my own and make up my mind for myself but it doesn't sound very good from what you guys are telling me. I will be sure to report back about what I thought about it. I am not going to give up on it if I don't like the first doc though. I think I will give it a shot.

Gene, I haven't heard anyone give him hell for screwing up the home run call last night. Everyone may forget because of the excitement of the game

Martin said...

I'd definitely watch the show Ben. It's worth watching, but it's not great, and with so many very good to excellent sports docs the last 5 years or so, it's kinda disappointing in comparison.

Gene said...

Yeah the documentary is fairly good, but Simmons is the one who made the mistake of comparing it to the HBO docs and it does not stand up vs. the best of those.

Bengoodfella said...

Well I think Simmons is going to defend the doc just because it was really his idea and he was behind it so much. It was his baby, so he either thinks or wants to think it is different from anything else that has been done. I guess they were going for more modern. Busy sports weekend but its on my list at some point.

Gene said...


I don't have to tell you this but the guy is an asshole. He basicall called the hbo docs old fashioned and said they sucked when it's not true at all. I realize he has to support his baby, but he could have done it without dissing HBO. So he made the comparison and that's what I judged it against. The only thing modern about it is what Martin said about the quick cuts and cloud shots. Next week, we get a cutting edge ripped from the headlines story on a marching band. Be still my heart! That is much better than a documentary on the greatest baseball hitter who ever lived, who was also a hall of fame fisherman and war hero AND had his head frozen less than ten years ago.