15 comments Peter King Still Doesn't Get Why Everyone Thinks He Hates Sean Taylor

I don't dislike Peter King. Contrary to popular belief and the 137 tags on this blog with his name in them this is true. He just doesn't get it sometimes. Last week he made a comment about Sean Taylor, indirectly referring to him as a bust. He made an excuse in his Tuesday mailbag and then did it again this week in his MMQB, basically criticizing Taylor for not living up to his draft ranking, even though he is dead. Guess what? He makes another excuse this week for what he said on this Monday. At some point he has to get why everyone thinks he is wrong. Actually he doesn't have to, but he should.

First, Peter has other information about NFL assistant coaches that he needs to inform us all about.

There's a subclass of NFL workers more worried than the players about a potential 2011 work stoppage: the assistant coaches.

Anyone who doesn't make millions of dollars and has to support their family and is relying on an NFL paycheck to provide this support?

"Assistant coaches are really angry right now,'' said Larry Kennan, the executive director of the NFL Coaches Association. "They're more frustrated with management and ownership than at any time I can remember. They want to be treated with the same respect that they've given to the game over the years, but they're not.''

You mean the assistant coaches are angry because they can't do their job and support their families because a group of millionaires and a group of billionaires are arguing? I would never have thought this bickering would affect anyone other than the owners and the players. I can see how the assistant coaches and many other people who get a check from the NFL think this potential lockout is pretty selfish. The owners are basically just looking for the players to subsidize their business and the players don't want to do this...so no one gets a paycheck necessarily and the NFL fans get screwed too. It's a lose-lose-maybe win-maybe-win situation.

I don't know all of the circumstances around this labor disagreement, I won't pretend to know, but I do hate lockouts and generally think they are purposeless. Generally it is two sides who are going to agree at one point, they just wait each other out and then finally compromise when they have to. The losers are the game itself and the fans, neither of which the owners or players seem to really care about.

Kennan and the assistants are angry because of the wildcat way teams are treating coaches in regard to contracts for the 2011 season, with the prospect of a job action looming as early as March of next year. Kennan would not supply specifics, because teams have warned coaches not to disclose contractual language, but teams have been planning how to treat coaches if a lockout occurs.

They have to help the owners pay for the stadium costs? If they can't afford to do this then they have to work slave labor for whichever owner owns their team?

• About a quarter of the 32 teams have not told coaches what their plans are, and whether they will employ coaches at their full or partial salaries -- or, in the case of one team, whether they will renew any of their contracts for the 2011 season.

Part of me feels bad for these coaches, but another part of me (the evil part) doesn't feel bad for these coaches because many people in the world right now don't know the status of their job from day-to-day. So they shouldn't get extra sympathy for being in the same situation others are currently in.

• About a quarter of the teams have told coaches they will be paid normal salaries for between two months and six months -- and then, if there is a lockout, coaches will be paid a percentage of their contracts (which varies from team to team) while there is a lockout. If no games are lost due to the lockout, the lost money will be paid to coaches.

This doesn't seem like a terrible deal. At least the coaches will have time to either (a) find other jobs or (b) find another way to get money while the lockout is occurring.

• About 10 teams will cut salaries immediately upon locking out the players. The pay cuts will be between 25 and 40 percent, and could increase if the job action persists.

This is a problem because I am assuming the assistants are used to living at a certain lifestyle and they won't be able to live at that lifestyle while the lockout is occurring.

• Several teams have told coaches they'll be paid in full, though some of that is still being determined by the remaining teams.

It would be nice if teams would tell their assistants which category they fall in. Really, now that the owners and players have gone into "business mode" I don't expect any kindness like this. It's a wealthy-eat-wealthy world out there now.

The coaches are in a tough spot. They can't unionize, and they can't come forward complaining about their situations, for fear of retribution. But if there's no football, it stands to reason their contracts would be affected in some way -- because if the players aren't getting paid, most teams will feel, "Why should we pay the coaches who aren't coaching anyone?''

Which is actually a valid point. Why would a team pay people who currently aren't working? The retribution factor may be a little overrated in some circumstances. There are certain assistants in the NFL who probably would not be blackballed if they spoke up, because they are talented individuals, and talented individuals have a tendency to find jobs no matter how outspoken or big of an asshole they are. I am thinking of Leslie Frazier, Dick LeBeau, etc.

(Not that they are jerks, but they could be jerks and get away with it because they are good at their job.)

Most coaches don't have the bank balances of the players they coach. "And we don't have anywhere to go,'' said Jimmy Raye, the San Francisco offensive coordinator and the president of the Coaches Association's executive committee.

Jimmy Raye said this? Are you really Jimmy Raye?

Sorry, I have been waiting probably a year and a half to link that video. I had to place it in one of my posts or I was going to go crazy. That's easily one of my least favorite songs of all-time.

One of those guys is Raye, a 30-year NFL coaching veteran. "One assistant called me and told me he was in the last year of his contract, wasn't sure he was going to be given another one, and wasn't sure if it would have much value because of the lockout,'' said Raye. "He's got a wife, three children and wondered if he should take a job he got offered at Northern Arizona or stay. I said, 'Come on, I can't advise you on that.' But here's a guy who wants to stay in the NFL, who's a good coach, and doesn't know what to do.''

Again, I do feel bad for these assistant coaches, but it's hard to get sympathy from many Americans on this issue. I know people in a similar situation who didn't know whether to take a demotion at their company or a demotion at a new company in a new job, for less pay, because they weren't sure if their job was going to be there. I am not going all Populist on everyone or anything, but the simple fact remains this is the standard decision many people are having to make at this current time in history...or at least American history.

These coaches just have to make a decision they believe is right and try not to feel too bad if the decision is wrong. At least this assistant coach knows the job at Northern Arizona is still there. I know someone who almost took a job at a company because of fear their current job wasn't safe and then the position they almost took ended up being laid off 2 months later. So, at least there is comfort knowing Northern Arizona probably won't close its doors any time soon if this assistant coach decides to switch jobs.

Said Raye: "All I would ask is there be some concern for the coaches, a voice of concern for us, to calm the anxiety they feel. If the coaches are coaching with anxiety, I think it could take away from the quality of the game and affect their preparation time.''

This is a good point, but not shocking. A lot of people in the NFL are being selfish right now and looking out for themselves. It is just the way it currently works with the threat of a lockout looming.

Point noted. The assistants won't have their voices heard at these league meetings, but what would be good to see is a veteran coach with maximum job security pressing the league to get some equality in the contracts for the assistants -- so that the coaches for Team X are treated contractually the same as the coaches for Team Y in the event of a lockout.

Of course Peter King is too buddy-buddy with any NFL assistant coaches to call out any names who could qualify for this job, but Dick LeBeau, he may be talking to you.

Now onto Peter's mailbag:

From Tim of Washington: "You really need to check yourself and your comments about Sean Taylor. Calling someone dead as a disappointing draft pick despite all the stats that show otherwise is at the very least irresponsible journalism, at the worst completely insensitive.

Tim says Peter needs to check himself...it that before he wrecks himself?

Here's the thing that gets me. PETER DID THE EXACT SAME THING LAST WEEK! It's not like this was a one week mistake. Two weeks ago he stated Sean Taylor was a bust first round draft pick and then tried to talk his way out of it. This Monday he threw Taylor in a group of safeties that haven't panned out in the NFL, even though Taylor was on his way to doing well in the NFL until someone decided his body would look better riddled with bullets...which was clearly Sean Taylor's fault.

Something like 'While overall drafting that position may be a risk, Sean Taylor was the exception to the rule based on the short time he was able to play' would have been more appropriate. Getting shot down is not a result of playing safety in the NFL.''

Thank you. Does Peter King have an editor? At what point do these editors say, "Hey Peter, it may not be a good idea to lump Sean Taylor in with a group of bust football players for the 2nd straight week. Can you leave his name out?"

Does Peter have that big of an ego he can't listen or does he just not give a shit about what others think?

PK: I got quite a lot of negative feedback on this, and I'd ask you to look at the full message of what I wrote.

Good God, here he goes again. Last week he wanted us to re-interpret what he wrote and give him the benefit of the doubt. I won't do it two weeks in a row.

Here is what Peter wrote:

Berry looks like a top-10 pick, but the team that takes him is going to be picking against history. Of the five top-10 safeties this decade, none has had franchise-player impact: Roy Williams (Dallas, eighth overall, 2002), Sean Taylor (Washington, fifth overall, 2004), Michael Huff (Oakland, seventh, 2006), Donte Whitner (Buffalo, eighth, 2006), LaRon Landry (Washington, sixth, 2007).

He is saying Sean Taylor did not have a franchise-player impact in the 4 years he played in the NFL, despite the fact he made 2 Pro Bowls and 1 All-Pro team. He is lumping Taylor in with other guys who didn't have an impact despite the fact Sean Taylor died before he could really have an entire career's worth of impact. This can't be ignored.

If I said, "The Boston Celtics have a history of missing badly in the draft. Just in the 80's they drafted Brad Lohaus, Michael Smith, Len Bias, Michael Young, Greg Kite and Darren Tillis," doesn't it sound like I am lumping Bias in with those other players? It does because I am.

What I said about taking a safety high in the first round: Nowhere in the item I wrote about Tennessee safety Eric Berry did I say Taylor was a disappointing draft pick. I simply said the position wasn't often one that had players picked that high because it was risky to predict how long a physical safety could stay healthy.

He was healthy, he just got shot to death. I don't think lack of immunity to bullets is something that makes a player's physical health a reason to include him in a discussion when comparing him to other NFL safeties who haven't played well who were drafted in the 1st round.

But I don't know if Taylor, who was out with a knee injury at the time of his death, would have been the kind of franchise safety Ed Reed is, because to do so, you've got to stand the test of time.

Peter is missing the fucking point COMPLETELY. No one is arguing Sean Taylor would have been as good as Ed Reed, but he doesn't deserve to be on a list of players who haven't panned out at the safety position. He could have stood the test of time if he wasn't murdered. There is a middle ground. Maybe Taylor wasn't yet at Ed Reed's talent level, but he also wasn't on the level of a 1st round bust either.

The point of the item is that even the great safeties, the highly regarded ones, are such physical forces on the field that they often don't have long and impactful careers.

Nowhere in that part of MMQB did it say a damn thing about safeties having an impact with short careers. Peter talked about how even great safeties get injured, yes he did talk about that, but it was mostly only couched in terms of safeties being a risky pick...and then Peter used Sean Taylor as an example of this risky pick, which in my opinion is wrong to do. Especially two weeks in a row.

He always tries to talk his way out of stuff and sometimes he just can't.

Eli of Atlanta: "If Ben Roethlisberger is charged by the Milledgeville police, it stands to reason he would be suspended by the league. Does Pittsburgh then become a potential bidder for Donovan McNabb? They're a Super Bowl contender, which would surely interest him, and they don't necessarily have to keep him after a year if they think Ben is coming back.''

So this guy thinks the Steelers should spend a 1st round pick on a player who would either be the backup or they would get rid of after one year? How in the world would this make sense? If Roethlisberger is charged this doesn't mean he will suspended for the entire season or anything. Can't Peter pick questions that are actually good questions?

Peter agreed with me on this question, which did frighten me.

From J.R. Hall of Pittsburgh: "I don't know who that coach is who's worried about all the extra overtime decisions he'd have to make if the rule passes, but I sure hope he's not coaching my team.''

Haha. I found this funny. I don't want to minimize the decisions a coach has to make during the game, but I have to agree with J.R. on this issue. Coaches are paid to make decisions and if they say they can't easily make OT decisions then I think this is just a cop-out. An NFL coach can gather an entire game plan before a game, but can't make a decision on whether he wants to kick or receive in overtime? It's not like the NFL was proposing to make OT so difficult a coach had to spend hours thinking about strategy. The decision the NFL would ask the coaches to make in OT is no more complicated than when a coach has to think about whether to go for the two-point conversion or the point-after try.

PK: I'd bet you the majority of coaches are happy with the system the way it is. A member of the Saints' staff told me here, "We're 2-2 in overtime in the last four years. Our feeling is things just even out.

This is from a large sample size of four games over four years. Clearly, this doesn't prove a whole lot to me since the sample size is so small.

I don't see OT reform passing here, but who knows? Stranger things -- many of them -- have happened.

Naturally because Peter King thought OT reform would not pass, it did end up passing. This is one of the many things Peter has been wrong about through the years that a person who gets paid to be an NFL insider should get correct on. Peter King is not a bad person, but for a guy who is connected in the NFL, he misses the mark on his fair share of stories.

From Greg V. of Sitka, Alaska: "I think the owners claiming that the players need to give up money for stadiums is pretty ridiculous. Many of these guys are multi-billionaires who are already getting public assistance and tax-free bonds to build these huge buildings that are used, at most, 13-14 times a year. I understand if these stadiums were being funded completely out of pocket, but they are not.''

I still haven't heard a reason why the owners should be able to get help from the players in funding the stadiums. As soon as I hear an argument about why this makes sense, then perhaps I would consider the owner's point of view, but until then I am firmly on the player's side.

My bottom line is that an NFL team is a business run by an owner. Why would he expect his employees to help pay for expenses in running his business, especially the costs of the facility involved with running his business? It's lunacy.

From Aaron of San Jose: "What is your take on the 49ers GM situation? I can't imagine the timing could be any worse, one month before the draft and going through front-office issues.''

PK: The Niners have the 13th and 17th picks in the deepest draft in some time, and a rookie drafter is leading them. Should you be concerned? Absolutely. I hope to address the San Francisco situation more in next week's column.

Peter hopes to get to this situation a little bit more next week in his MMQB...unless something more important happens, like an East Coast team does anything of interest or he feels the need to insult Sean Taylor some more.

-As everyone can see, I predicted the Rockies to win 94 games this year. That was the ceiling of what I thought they could win.

Woody Paige has gone overboard in his prediction in my mind. He thinks the Rockies will win 99 games. I know that is a difference of only 5 games, but my pick was the absolute peak of what they could win. His peak is higher. The best part of this article is his reasoning why. I would almost rather he base his prediction on no reasoning, but just a gut feeling, as opposed to how he did come to this conclusion.

With 11 runs Sunday afternoon against the Royals, the Rockies, in their past five games, have scored 47 — 47! — runs, including 10 against the A's on Friday and 11 against the Angels on Saturday.

Guess what? It's Spring Training games. They mean almost nothing.

The Rox team batting average for 21 spring training exhibitions is .307. Four starters are hitting above .345. Ian Stewart singled in the first inning Sunday to raise his average over .400. Chris Iannetta had two doubles, and he's hitting exactly .400.

Both had anemic .228 batting averages last season.

This clearly means both Stewart and Iannetta are going to be flirting with .400 all season and the team will hit over .300 as a team all season. Nevermind Iannetta has never hit above .264, this is the year he breaks .300!

Clint Barmes, who slid hard in the second half of 2008, is at .345 in Arizona, and Carlos Gonzalez's bat still sizzles from the playoffs — .367. Troy Tulowitzki (.292), Dexter Fowler (.286), utilityman Omar Quintanilla (.375), backup catcher Miguel Olivo (.391) and pinch-hitter extraordinaire Seth Smith (.284) are in the swing in the spring. Todd Helton (.250) has played in only three games and Brad Hawpe (.250) six.

A 9.2-run average for nine innings will win most games in the Humidor Age.

These numbers are impressive, but they also mean very little because these numbers are from Spring Training. I think all indications are that the Rockies will have a good year, but to take statistics from Spring Training and then base that team's record for the year on them...it doesn't feel like it works to me.

The Rockies could have a Bash Bunch of a half-dozen, or more, 20-plus home run hitters (reminiscent of the Yankees in the 1950s): Stewart, Tulowitzki, Barmes, Hawpe, Iannetta, Olivo, Gonzalez and Smith.

Hmmm...let's look at these players to see if this could happen:

Chris Iannetta: Has never played in more than 104 games and has a career high of 18 home runs in his four seasons in the majors.

Miguel Olivo: Will be sharing time with Iannetta and has hit 20 home runs once in his career and that was last year. How they can share time and both hit 20 home runs? I guess we will see.

Ian Stewart: Ok, he can do it.

Troy Tulowitzki: He will do it.

Todd Helton: Hasn't hit 20 home runs since 2005. Not likely since his totals have gone down as he has gotten older and steroid testing has been in effect. I mean...um, whoops. Nevermind.

Clint Barmes: He did it last year and could do it again this year if he stays healthy.

Brad Hawpe: It's very likely because he hit 23 home runs last year.

So four guys have a chance to hit 20 home runs and three other guys aren't so likely to do it. Also, let's back off the comparisons to the 1950's Yankees please.

Fourth-fifths of the Rockies' starting rotation has won at least 15 games in a season — Jeff Francis 17, Aaron Cook and Jorge De La Rosa 16 and Ubaldo Jimenez 15. The fifth starter, Jason Hammel, won 10 after joining the Rockies last April.

None of these players have won that many games in all the same season as each other. I think it is a bit interesting to take five pitcher's career win totals and then try to make it sound like they will all have career seasons in the exact same year as each other.

The Rockies would love a total of 74 victories from those five, but that's an unreasonable expectation.

You think, Woody? ARE YOU SURE IT IS UNREALISTIC TO EXPECT FIVE STARTING PITCHERS ON THE SAME TEAM TO ALL MATCH THEIR CAREER HIGHS IN WINS IN THE SAME YEAR?

What is reasonable is Jimenez becoming the Rockies' first 20-game winner

I don't know if "reasonable" is the right word here. "Possible" may be the right word because Jimenez's career high is 15 wins, which he set last year. It could very well happen, but I wouldn't think it would be reasonable for him to be the franchise's first 20 game winner.

Reasonably, four Rockies could hit 20 home runs because they have actually done it before. Possibly there could be five or six Rockies who hit 20 home runs, but it is not reasonable since they have never all done this in the same year before. Anything is possible, but reason needs to be based on some sort of actual fact...at least in my mind.

Semantics are fun.

For 17 consecutive years, I've correctly predicted that the Rockies would not finish first in the National League West.

This is not exactly a mammoth accomplishment. I have predicted through their entire franchise history the Florida Marlins would not win the NL East and I have been right ever year. It doesn't make me smart though. It just means winning a division is hard to do, especially when you have a history not being able to find quality pitching, like the history the Rockies have.

For the 18th season, I'm predicting that the Rockies finally will finish first

This will happen.

and win a team-record 99 games.

This doesn't seem likely, especially based on statistics from Spring Training games. It's not these statistics don't mean anything, it is just they aren't real games so I don't think Chris Iannetta will hit .400 this year or even .300 this year. He'll be lucky to hit .270. The Rockies will have a good year this season, but I think Woody is taking these Spring Training statistics and giving them a bit too much credit.