tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post3249551178640640111..comments2023-10-31T06:31:41.395-04:00Comments on Bottom of the Barrel: MMQB Review: A Very Peter King-ish MMQB EditionBengoodfellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-78979267721885923232012-12-21T15:26:54.569-05:002012-12-21T15:26:54.569-05:00Anon, I think Matt Ryan probably is happy he doesn...Anon, I think Matt Ryan probably is happy he doesn't have to worry about the midnight phone calls and creepy texts. Brett Favre? Yes, he could be jealous. <br /><br />JD, he's trying to lose his audience so he can use MMQB for his personal views only and not talk about the NFL anymore. There's my theory on why he has a haiku at the end of very column. Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-5528039349922958242012-12-20T16:54:09.679-05:002012-12-20T16:54:09.679-05:00Peter King knows full
His haikus are killing us
Sl...Peter King knows full<br />His haikus are killing us<br />Slowly, like herpesJDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-36187529209423824222012-12-20T16:14:27.371-05:002012-12-20T16:14:27.371-05:00I find it very funny that Peter King now has a nut...I find it very funny that Peter King now has a nut-crush on JJ Watt. I thought for sure Matty Checkdown was his new lover boy. After all, PK had Matt Ryan pegged for the hall of fame after his first game. Do you think Checkdown feels cheated on by King's continued love for Favre and new crush on JJ Watt?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-49528679287371724072012-12-20T08:59:31.440-05:002012-12-20T08:59:31.440-05:00HH, whoops he missed that one. I do wonder if Pete...HH, whoops he missed that one. I do wonder if Peter has an editor? I know he has to, but sometimes it seems like mistakes get through. It is probably because they are on such a tight deadline to get MMQB out. Still...big mistake in the score there. <br /><br />Snarf, I do tend to agree with you and I think that attitude is a good example of how some writers no longer write their weekly columns as a source of information for their readers, but as an ego massage for themselves. At some point, MMQB became so big that Peter no longer thought people were reading because they like to read about sports, but thought they were reading because they like hearing HIS thoughts on sports and other topics. This has happened to Bill Simmons too. At some point the writer thinks the interest is in the him, not the topic. <br /><br />Therefore, to Peter he can write whatever the hell he wants to write because people still read. Since people are reading, he tells himself there is still interest in hearing his personal thoughts on gun control and other issues like that. It becomes a sort of ego-centric venture about Peter and what he wants to write and less about the topic of the NFL and what happened that last weekend. Obviously the NFL will always be a part of MMQB, but MMQB is no longer seen as a column about sports for readers, but an outlet for Peter King's thoughts. Like how it happens for other wirters, MMQB is more about Peter than it is about the readers. <br /><br />Rich, I know a family who homeschooled four of their children and then didn't homeschool two other children. There's no fundamental difference in what I can see about the four that were homeschooled and the ones that weren't. Besides, more accidents happen in the house than anywhere else right? Obviously if someone is homeschooled then there wouldn't be the worry of being killed in a school shooting, but I'm not sure I see it as the solution here. <br /><br />Oh, I'm with you on that. I'm not against revisiting of gun control measures but the whole "do something" attitude irritates me. There is an old SNL skit with Kenan Thompson, which wasn't very funny, but I thought it showed the point you are making. Kenan would come out as some character who wanted things fixed (like the economy, the plumbing), but he had no idea how to do this. So when asked "What do you want them to do specifically?," he would just say "fix it!" As you can imagine, it got old quickly, but it showed the whole "someone do something" attitude Peter seems to have. <br /><br />What was frustrating for me is the gun control laws did work in that he wasn't able to purchase a gun, but failed in that he eventually did acquire one. It does go to show if a disturbed person really wants to do something like this, there isn't a lot that can be done. Overlooking the mentally ill part of this is a mistake as well. That's an important part of the equation. It needs to be treated with as much importance as the gun control issue. Mentally ill people prone to violence don't always require a gun to do harm. <br /><br />It's fine to be precocious. Peter finds it endearing. Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-67140470122107074742012-12-19T18:55:05.987-05:002012-12-19T18:55:05.987-05:00I mean to say gun control laws are* doing what the...I mean to say gun control laws are* doing what they're supposed to be doing...<br /><br />I also noticed I said arguing/argument wayyyyyy too much in a 2 sentence span, sorry for being so precocious.richnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-3093389553877936152012-12-19T18:51:25.199-05:002012-12-19T18:51:25.199-05:00f. I bet a lot of parents, sitting around the dinn...<b>f. I bet a lot of parents, sitting around the dinner table Friday night, said to one another: "We've got to home-school our kids."</b><br /><br />Like you Ben, I'm going to (try to) tread lightly - the individual who shot up the school was homeschooled. Clearly that's not the reason why he went on a murderous rampage, but homeschooling also doesn't reduce the odds of being in a mass murder lower in a statistically meaningful way.<br /><br />Crazy doesn't have a specific location to strike. <br /><br />There's also another part of his article that was incredibly naive as well:<br /><br /><i>must have ideas what to do, while protecting the right of law-abiding Americans to bear arms.</i><br /><br /><i>It's also ridiculously and cruelly blind to the events of recent months in America, where a movie theater, shopping mall and idyllic New England elementary school have been shot up by sick people -- and, in the case of the Newton shootings, a sick person with access to the kinds of guns used in war zones.</i><br /><br /><i>d. Your moves, President Obama, and leaders of the House and Senate, on both sides of the aisle. Be leaders. Do the right thing. Do something.</i><br /><br />Nothing bothers me more than when someone says they have no idea what to do, but then argues that they should do the "right thing." What is the right thing Peter? That depends heavily on who you are and so there is no such thing as the "right thing," there rarely ever is a black and white "right" answer to things when dealing with politics.<br /><br />Even worse, "do something." First he says to do the "right" thing and then simply demands they do anything at all. Peter has no idea what to do, but demands that someone does something... it's a recipe for disaster. The last time we tried to do the "right" thing and "do something" was when we invaded two countries.<br /><br />Without (hopefully) getting political, the fact that Peter also calls out the three mass shooting perpetrators as "sick" and then becries the slogan of "guns don't kill; people kill" is really off base. I think the slogan is kind of stupid, but arguing the argument for it being a flawed statement by saying that the murderers were "sick" is not a good argument - in fact it's an argument for the statement. To overlook the "sick" part of the equation to focus on the gun part is a tragedy in and of itself.<br /><br />Ultimately, the disturbed individual attempted to purchase a weapon and was denied. The fact that he still managed to do what he did (by stealing his mother's firearms) is an indication that gun control laws (although private sales being exempt from background checks is absurd) aren't doing what they're supposed to do; it shows that no matter how illegal you make something, someone who wants to murder is ultimately going to find a way to do so.<br /><br />To argue that in this case, doing the "right" thing is possible - what is the "right" thing? - or simply "do[ing] something" may be the most inane, inconsequential and idiotic thing to say... until I glanced over TMQ's comparison of last year's QB crop to this year's.richnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-42878516997977321942012-12-19T17:51:23.441-05:002012-12-19T17:51:23.441-05:00And for those who say to me, "Stick to sports...<b>And for those who say to me, "Stick to sports,'' you've got the wrong guy. I won't be offended if you never click on this column again, or if you stop listening to me on radio or TV, or stop following me on Twitter. It's a free country, and we're not going to agree on everything. The media world has changed -- maybe for the better, maybe not. But it's different than the world was in 1989, when I was hired by Sports Illustrated.<br />A generation or two ago, a sportswriter covering the NFL might never have been asked for his opinion on anything -- he might have reported on the NFL and not been opinionated about it, but rather have been right down the middle on everything. I was hired by the magazine strictly to be a reporter and writer 23 years ago; that started to change with the advent of the internet a few years later.<br />Now, my job in this multi-media world is to report on events in a straightforward way in stories for Sports Illustrated -- as happened a couple of weeks ago with my cover story on the Colts -- and on NBC's Football Night in America, then to be a reporter with football opinions and personal opinions in this column and others on SI.com. And to do pretty much whatever I want on Twitter, keeping in mind my SI bosses asked me in 2009 to interact with readers for a few minutes every day. So that's my job. It's not everyone's job in this business, but it's mine. And I respect you if you think I do it poorly, or you disagree with me. It's also your option to skip over my rantings if you wish, particularly in a long column like this. There should be enough football in it for anyone. Your call.</b><br /><br />I have taken Peter's advice. I wrote SI earlier this week to let them know I would take this recommendation and refrain from browsing SI.com and would be cancelling my magazine subscription (grown tired of it other than bike/eliptical/sauna at the gym anyway) directly in response to suggestions from Peter King. I used to enjoy the insights in his column, but I have grown tired of it over the past few years. He seems to have become more full of himself.<br /><br />Honestly, I think what rubs me the wrong way most is the attitude that he displays above. He is writing a column for people to read. His readers tell him, "we want to read you write about sports, not all of this other stuff." Peter responds by saying that he'll do whatever he wants, which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's like Coca-cola responding to outcries to bring back "old coke" by saying "Then don't drink New Coke if you hate it so much!" Snarfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-67360445709569833912012-12-19T17:22:10.274-05:002012-12-19T17:22:10.274-05:00Embarrassing night in Foxboro Monday, with New Eng...<b>Embarrassing night in Foxboro Monday, with New England's 42-28 win. </b><br /><br />Embarrassing error for national celebrity Peter King. The Pats won 42-14.HHhttp://www.twitter.com/kingharisnoreply@blogger.com