There are a couple of things irritating me today and I feel the need to share them with everyone. First, I wanted to say that I am going on vacation for the next couple of days. I don't normally share my vacation plans with the entire world but if you notice there is not a post in a day, I don't want anyone to think that I died. If I die, I will tell you. I do actually have a couple of posts scheduled for a couple days out, so there will be stuff posted. So check back Friday and Monday and there will be something up, other than the normal discussion in the comments of course. I worked extra hard this week to schedule out a couple of posts so you loyal commenters have something to read if you so choose while I am gone. I will catch up with the MMQB on Wednesday and I know I may miss a Simmons article or two. It's these type of pathetic things you have to do when you are the only one on the blog actively writing. I would like to just have someone else write the MMQB when I can't.
Ok, now to what is irritating me today. There are a few things that are getting under my skin, which should not surprise anyone who reads this blog regularly.
-This is not really irritating to me, but just a comment that I feel like sharing with the world. I know Mark Teixeira is playing well this year, I do realize this, and I never expected him not to. He can't carry that Yankee team though, which is why I call him the best second best player in the major leagues. He went 4 out of 5 last night against the Red Sox and had a great game...but I can't help but notice in the 9th inning against Papelbon he ground out. That is him in a nut shell for me. He gets his hits off Wakefield and Ramirez, but he can't start a Yankee rally with a base hit in the 9th inning off an All-Star pitcher. I am not throwing him in the "he chokes in the clutch" type category, but am just saying he gets paid millions of dollars to get hits off guys like Papelbon and I don't know if he can do it.
I know, I know, it's me being hard on Tex again. A-Rod drew a walk to chants of "You did steroids" from the crowd, I think Tex should be able to get on base as well. Again, I am not saying he is a choker or that he never gets on base but he certainly did not get money in this off season to get hits off Ramirez and Wakefield only.
-Jay Mariotti wrote a shit article a few days ago about how Phil Jackson needed to "ride off into the sunset" if he won a tenth title. Journalists are absolutely infatuated with the idea of coaches and players winning a championship and then retiring. They were all over Jerome Bettis when he was lucky enough to do this and they adored Michael Jordan when he pushed off Byron Russell, made a game winning basket and won his 6th championship and then retired. It's such a romantic notion to win a championship and then retire.
You hate to tell a legend when it's time to retire, especially when he's at the top of his game. But the perfect ending for Jackson would be to let the purple-and-gold confetti fall on his silver mane, celebrate his fourth crown in 10 years with the Lakers, appreciate his psychological work in transforming Kobe Bryant from a superbrat to an all-time maestro and depart in style as the league's ultimate coaching champion.
Well then don't tell him to retire. Does anyone really think if Phil Jackson retired he would stay retired? There's no way I see this happening. So in Jay Mariotti's fantasy when Jackson retired he would stay retired, but in reality he would be back 2 years later to start coaching the Dallas Mavericks or the Grizzlies. Hell, he has already retired from the Lakers one time and then come back to them, maybe he wants to compete with Michael Jordan to see how many times he can retire and un-retire. These journalistic retirement-championship fantasys are all bullshit.
The symbolism of going out on top would be particularly important in Jackson's case. Perhaps it will serve to jolt the national consciousness into finally giving him his just due.
Yeah, why does everyone always underrate Phil Jackson? He has only won 9 NBA Titles and yet you hear nothing about him on a day to day basis? What's up with that?
Actually, Jackson is not overlooked at all. He is probably the only NBA coach I have never openly questioned his in-game tactics, not because I think he is a great coach, but because I have just assumed a guy who has won so much knows what the hell he is doing. If anything Phil Jackson is rated exactly like he should be, since much like Red Auerbach he has the players to win championships and he has done so. Jackson is the best coach of the late 1970's era and I don't know what else Mariotti wants us to think about him.
So why isn't Jackson lauded more for his handling of delicate, moody, superstar psyches? Isn't it the most vital function a coach can perform in this day and age?
This is ALL he is lauded for. Seriously. Many people don't think of him as a basketball coach, they think of him as a very well paid psychologist.
Where the hell has Jay Mariotti been? Phil Jackson is widely thought to be a great coach and he doesn't need to make a dramatic exit for his coaching tenure to be considered a success. Retiring now would only lead to him inevitably coming back to coach a different team. He would not stay retired.
-Do you know what the difference in a head coach being a success and a head coach being a failure? I will give you a hint it has nothing to do with coaching, it has to do with winning games. Someone needs to tell Steve Aschburner of SI.com this revelation.
I know it seems too logical to say that, but every time a team starts winning the coach or manager starts getting credit for what is happening, like they are doing something different. All those little annoying things the players/coaches do seem to go away and everyone is at peace...until they start losing again.
Stan Van Gundy isn't your standard-issue, central-casting NBA coach. He is rumpled where others are creased, hot where they are cool, a screamer, a pleader, a celebrator, a reactor.
In other words, he is a coach that players don't normally like, except for right now, because the Magic are winning. It just irritates me when columnists are acting like Van Gundy is really doing anything different other than winning basketball games.
"I'm really glad he's around, even though he gets on my nerves," a smiling Howard told the Los Angeles Times in January. "I hate to hear his voice all the time, but he pushes us to be better. ... I could score 50 points, but if I don't have two blocks, four blocks, he's going to kill me."
Will Howard feel the same way when the Magic are 33-42 and not going to make the playoffs? No, he will not. That's pretty obvious. So why not just say the only difference in Van Gundy's players liking and hating him is that they are currently winning basketball games? That sounds a lot more accurate and easier.
Guard Jameer Nelson had been in Orlando for three years before Van Gundy arrived in June 2007. "In the beginning, I don't think anybody understood how intense he was and how passionate he was about playing the right way, doing everything right, everything being perfect," Nelson said during this season. "But he's a great coach. We understand him now. We never hold grudges. He's allowed to say something to you, you can say something back and then we go play."
Don't these quotes just sound like something is going to blow up in Orlando the first time they are below .500? Van Dundy is on Howard's ass about everything, he screwed up the guard rotation in the Finals and he is always yelling. Always.
Said Nets president Rod Thorn: "I think he's one of the better coaches in the league. They made nice adjustments in their games. I thought he did a heck of a job in Miami when he was there. ... He's like a stream of consciousness. Whatever comes out, comes out, more so than most coaches. Sometimes it may upset players a little bit, but he's a passionate guy, he cares, and I think they take it for what it is for the most part."
Notice how almost every quote in some way contains a mention that he pisses the players off? I don't see how he can last constantly doing that. Maybe he will. Either way, I know Howard doesn't always like him, Rafer Alston gets irritated by him, and he doesn't seem to be the most solid X's and O's guy around. The two reasons he is getting so much credit right now is because the Magic are winning and he has a versatile team where he can put a lot of different lineups on the floor to match up with the other team.
I want articles written about coaches to say what really happens though. When teams win, the players like him, when teams lose, the players hate him.
-Rick Reilly irritates me even when he writes an article that has a point.
It so happens that on May 8, 2004, the Oakland A's had a Mother's Day promotion. There was a fight-breast-cancer 5K run before the game, free mammograms and the first 7,500 women through the gate got floppy plaid sun hats from Macy's. Nice day for the ladies.
Except that last part really hacked off a man named Alfred G. Rava. He was incensed that men weren't getting a floppy plaid sun hat for Mother's Day. He was so mad about it that he sued.
Wow, this guy is a real tool. How do I read this article though and still get through shit like this:
Of course, you'll have to cash in your basic moral decency to do it and incur the wrath of every woman in your life -- including your mom -- and feel worse about yourself than Sanjaya's barber.
What's next, Mr. Rava? Kids' Helmet Night? (Age discrimination!) Wheelchairs along the rail with a view? (Health discrimination!) Mullets Get in Free Day? (Clean-hair statutes!)
It is so hard to do.
Personally, I find Mr. Rava as odorous as a bag of dyspeptic hamsters. He's a greasy manipulator who has found a small leak in American law and stuck an open wallet under it.
Yes, he is a horrible person. I think we can all agree he needs to get a life. From now on though, I can't get past the thought of Rick Reilly and not see that Sports Illustrated magazine cover in my head of Mark McGwire smothering his kid with a puff piece headline by Rick Reilly in the middle of the page. Fred Trigger linking that has forever changed my life. Then Reilly had the audacity to try to call others out for not calling out the steroid users simply because he hijacked Sammy Sosa in the locker room one time and asked him to pee in a cup. That makes him innocent and we should ignore the puff piece on McGwire.
Reilly did not write a horrible article in this case, but I am at the point I can't even read one of his articles due to the bad jokes and loose grasp on journalism.
-Go to the basement, bring tons of canned food and water, and be sure to have tons of batteries ready. The Simpocolypse is coming.
Fresh from Deadspin, for those of you who like Bill Simmons' podcasts and his nasally voice, you can see him debate topics on national television. I wonder if each of the arguments will end with Simmons giving a hyperbolic example and finally the camera man turning to Le Batard awkwardly to give the next topic? Or will Simmons just crack a joke and back down in an argument? I guess we will find out.
I don't listen to Simmons podcasts so maybe he will be better than thought, but I have little to no hopes for this show when he is on it. I just don't think he has a grasp on anything outside of the NBA (which I admit he is an expert on) and his favorite Boston teams to talk about them. He can talk about the Red Sox pretty well but I am not impressed with his talking about baseball as a whole. Not so shockingly, I am sure it will be one of the highest rated PTI's if they publicize his arrival as a substitute enough. Then it will give Simmons plenty of chance to create new "Faces," "Corollaries," and "Theories" in his column based on things he has said on the show. I am sure he will do fine because it is not exactly the most difficult show to do. You debate topics you have been briefed about beforehand. I wonder how many Larry Bird and Boston references he will be able to squeeze into one show?
I also really doubt that Stat Boy will be present when Simmons sub hosts. The last thing Simmons would want is to have someone point out all the things he has said wrong or inconsistent during the program. We all know Simmons doesn't like any negative feedback or criticism of any fashion. Actually, it will probably be an All-NBA edition of PTI and Stat Boy is from Simmons' area so he would probably go easy on him. Let's just say that I am not looking forward to this show. I could end up being surprised by Simmons...of course I am never home in time from work to watch PTI anyway, so none of this matters.
-In a similar vein to Robert Horry's pathetic Hall of Fame entrance attempts, Andre Rison seems to have a very high opinion of himself.
Let's hear some Andre Rison advice:
“I tell them they can’t make mistakes they can’t come back from.
Like death.
I tell them not to even put themselves in bad situations. Don’t be a follower. President Clinton did some things wrong with that whole adultery thing. Martha Stewart did some things wrong. Kobe Bryant did some things wrong. They all made mistakes here and there, and I relate that to them.”
Yes, those are some great points you have there Andre. I think Rison should be put in the Hall of Fame because he was the first borderline mentally handicapped adult to play in the NFL...at least based on these comments he seems that way.
“Unfortunately, the Smiths didn’t do what they should’ve done —- make me a forever Falcon.
Is this some type of secret code to Morrissey only he can understand?
I just came off the basketball court. But everybody doesn’t have a Brett Favre situation [where they’re allowed to play into their 40s].
"Allowed" to play in their 40s. In other words, nobody wanted his ass on their football team anymore. It wasn't about "allowing" him to play but about talent. You aren't allowed to play if you don't have talent anymore.
“Best receiver to ever play the game. I can’t show my highlights because I don’t own NFL Films, but all my coaches in college, in high school, in junior college, they all told me I could be the best.
When did Andre Rison go insane and how the hell did I miss this? His coaches said he "could" be the best, not that he was the best. Rison unsurprisingly misses this small difference in semantics.
Andre Rison doesn't own NFL Films? I thought he did. I like how he feels the need to throw that comment in there in case anyone actually believed that he was the sole proprietor and owner of NFL films.
But they must’ve lied because that title was already given to Jerry Rice. Just because you have stats doesn’t mean you’re the best.
In Andre Rison Crazy World, this may be true.
Can’t nobody tell me that Andre Reed isn’t better than Jerry Rice.
Please, please, please tell me this is not a misprint and he really called himself Andre Reed. Can this happen just for me?
But I’m coming out with my own hall of fame.”
Get there early to buy tickets to the Andre Rison Hall of Fame. They will be going slowly, so get there fast for your opportunity to see a man go insane one day at a time.
“It’s called ‘Wide Open’ and it’s already written. It’s a show-and-tell book.
Oh yes, a show-and-tell book. I would be completely lying if I said I knew what this was. Is he going to bring it to read to small children at a daycare or preschool? Does it have pop up pictures of his house burning to the ground at the hands of Lisa Lopes? I need to know these things.
You know, outside of the idea he thinks he is the greatest receiver ever, this doesn't irritate me. I'm not even angry, I'm impressed at his ability to go so crazy so quickly.
-Doug Gottlieb, who just seems like a real prick, is not really sure that Tim Floyd did anything wrong at USC. He also doesn't seem to think his resignation means he is guilty of giving money to OJ Mayo.
Clearly, Mr. Gottlieb is deluded. If Floyd was innocent he would not have resigned from his position as head coach of USC. I know there have been no charges filed or anything of the like, but I can't help but think Floyd resigned because he was guilty and wanted to salvage his career as a head coach in college basketball. Floyd is a moron. He should know the real way to avoid NCAA sanctions and make sure you keep your head coaching job is to leave BEFORE the allegations become public, just like John Calipari does.
Also, I can't read the entire article because I am not an "Insider" but I would imagine the reason Gottlieb is not criticizing Floyd for his mistake is because Gottlieb made one of his own in college. That's why I don't have a credit card. At least Gottlieb knew how to take a charge. (Get it? If so, shoot me, I just turned into Rick Reilly/Woody Paige)
-The A-Rod book sales suck. Karma is a bitch isn't it?
I don't think this is a public approval ofr steroid use as much as it is a public indictment of anonymous shady sources used by writers to support circumstantial facts. The facts sounded interesting until many people realized there wasn't a whole lot of proof behind them...hence low book sales.
-Marcin Gortat is in a fight with Reebok over his Michael Jordan tattoo.
Two things:
1. Didn't they notice the tattoo on his leg right above his foot before they signed him to a shoe contract?
2. I did not even know Gortat wore Reebok shoes. Now I do. I would imagine there are others like me. That should be enough publicity for a Michael Jordan tattoo being worth the trouble for Reebok.
I can see why Reebok wants him to cover it up (but with makeup???? On his leg???) because Jordan is associated with Nike, but they are getting great publicity out of this and really just because Jordan was a Nike guy doesn't mean people won't know Gortat wears Reeboks. I think Gortat is right to refuse to get rid of the tattoo because it was there before he signed the contract.
I will have a couple posts the next couple days and will be back live on Wednesday.
Showing posts with label robert horry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label robert horry. Show all posts
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
18 comments Peter King Follows Up MMQB Idiocy With Mailbag Idiocy
It may have taken Peter King way too long to get his MMQB Tuesday Edition mail bag up, but at least we have it now. I am excited to see that it is two pages long as well. I feel so cheated when we get a Tuesday mail bag that is only 1 page long. It's freaking mass email from many people who write in, there have to be at least twenty pages of decent questions to comment on. For every dumbass question he answers on Twitter everyday, I would imagine there is a dumbass question in his mail bag Peter can discuss and answer. After we are finished with Peter, we can talk Robert Horry news...and yes, I said Robert Horry news.
I'll have a few quick hits before completely diving into today's e-mail, but first a cardiologist speaks from the heart:
Sweet Jesus, we start the mail bag off with a pun. If only Peter had started it off with a stupid joke about a proctologist talking out of his ass, then maybe then and only then, could I condone starting off a mail bag with a bad pun.
From Raj Abrol of McLean, Va.: "I read your column every week and enjoy your insight and information. A true break from my otherwise extremely busy day. Speaking as a cardiologist who works seven days a week to take care of the sick patients of this world, I was amused that you think our Sunday "heroes" may work too hard in the offseason.
Apparently our super duper busy cardiologist named "Raj" has enough time to read Peter's marathon column every week. That must be what he is doing while I am waiting in a fucking cold ass backless gown in the check-up room wondering why the hell the only magazines to read are "Ladies Home Journal" and "Highlights."
"I understand that football is an incredibly physically demanding sport. But to imply that playing football seven days in a row in May for these world class athletes is too much to ask is a bit of a stretch. I naturally respect your opinion. But this is "work" for them, just like it is for you and me.
Boring, generic question...and I have no idea how it got published. Let's see what Peter says.
I've heard from a lot of people on this topic, and almost all of you agree with Dr. Abrol, so I understand I'm in the minority. I just think players (and assistant coaches too; don't forget they're losing more and more of their "offseason'' each year) are being asked to do more and more every year, and for what good purpose?
So their team can win more football games and they improve as football players? Or possibly the same reason most other human beings work the entire year, it's their job to do so? I am sensitive to the "offseason is short argument," but fresh off working 2 years at my present job and having 10 days of vacation in my first two years, I am not feeling a whole lot of sympathy for those who get paid more than I do and have their "offseason" being shortened.
I'm not sure four to five months of hard work in the offseason does anything but ensure that you're simply keeping up with the rest of the crowd.
Well then that is what the four or five months of hard work in the offseason does...it helps you keep up with the other teams. Sounds logical to me because without this work a person or team would fall behind the other players and teams. I know it's hot and I know it is tough, but football is becoming a year round sport. That's just how it is.
Several of you asked, and rightfully so, why I didn't ask Rodney Harrison in the lengthy Q&A about his four-game suspension for admitting to using Human Growth Hormone, a substance banned by the NFL. I did ask him, but the responses weren't great, so I didn't include it in Monday's column.
"The responses weren't great?"
What the hell does that mean? It's not like the rest of Harrison's interview was a grab bag of useful facts, it was just him stating that he will take a no-prisoners approach to being a talking head on television. I think what Peter really meant by "the responses weren't great" is "the answers did not shed a positive light on NBC's new analyst so I felt the need to not include those in my MMQB because I never want to publish anything negative about a player I like."
here's what Harrison said when Bob Papa and I asked on our Sirius NFL Radio show if he thought his four-game ban for admitting to HGH use would affect his uphill Hall of Fame candidacy, and whether it should:
"That's really not up to me. I never failed a drug test. I told the truth, the commissioner did the research ... I never used it to enhance my performance. I used it to get myself better at one particular time [to speed his recovery from injury]
That's all he used it for? No big deal then...you know, unless HGH was banned by the NFL, which it is, so then it is a big deal.
"It's funny because a lot people who haven't played the game sit back and decide if you're a Hall of Famer. If you don't know what a football player goes through, if you haven't experienced it, then why should those guys solely have it on their shoulders to decide who goes in the Hall of Fame?
I guess Rodney Harrison is now proposing that football players decide which players make it into the Hall of Fame? The problem is that I would not want football players deciding anything important except how they want to entertain me on a Sunday afternoon. Not all football players are smart but I definitely don't believe they are the most qualified to be voting for the Hall of Fame...of course neither of some of the writers who do, but that is beside the point.
you think NBC doesn't show enough highlights, and you think NBC clogs the show with too many people in the 75-minute window before the Sunday night game. Understandable. Let me tell you a few things about the NBC show.
Again, I don't watch because I can't even emphasize how useless I think pregame shows are. If I wanted to hear idiots talk I would watch ESPN all day. I am not an expert on pregame shows.
Did you know, for instance, that NBC cannot show any highlights until 7:15 p.m.?
That works out well because the SNF game doesn't start until 8:30pm, leaving plenty of time for a 75 minute show. This is not an excuse because this time is already built in by NBC, so it's not like everyone is just sitting around the set for 15 minutes shooting the shit and doing nothing. The show is supposed to start when highlights can be shown.
This in no way answers any complaints people have about showing more highlights. What the problem is for Peter is that if they only showed highlights, then he would not get paid to sit there and give Brett Favre updates.
I believe the tightrope NBC walked was a good one. (Of course, I worked on the show, so I'm not at all impartial.)
That and the fact if they cut the amount of useless shit out of the show, most likely Peter would be one of the first to go.
I like how he says, "worked" on the show. Did Peter King leave the NBC Sunday Night Football Show and I never heard about it?
The aim of the show, I think, is to try to show you what happened and to try to explain why, and to try to hit the newsiest items coming out of the day's games
Brett Favre, the Cowboys, and the popular white quarterback of the week.
Finally, I'll be doing a couple of meet-and-greets while on the NFL camp trail in late July or August. Tweetups, I think they're called. Candidate spots for them, and please let me know which you favor: Albany, N.Y.; State College, Pa., Indianapolis; Denver; Bourbonnais, Ill.; New Orleans; or Kansas City.
I would give anything to go to one of these Tweetups. I am clearly not going because that involves travel and I can't leave my mom's attic for another week because I get sunlight poisoning if I go outside. It happened from sitting on my ass blogging, watching television, and playing chess for the past two months in the attic.
My only question is why someone would want to meet up with Peter. Just to meet him? Clearly no one wants to glean important NFL information out of him, because as he has shown from week to week, he really has none.
One of the things I have against Peter King is that he fails to report accurately and fully on issues that affect the NFL players he likes. He still has not mentioned that Peyton Manning is not extremely happy with the turnover on the Colts coaching staff, he completely left out the HGH issue in regards to Rodney Harrison until someone called him out on it, and he is an incredible apologist for Brett Favre. He is not an NFL reporter or insider, he's an NFL kiss ass. Other than discussions about the labor talks and which person is going to be hired by what network and why, we get little useful NFL news out of him.
Mike Strawser of Cincinnati: Not to blow wind up your skirt [or shorts in your case], but that's why I enjoy reading MMQB -- you think before you write, so we get depth, not surface sheen.''
Mike from Cincinnati, you need to start thinking before you write. What type of depth do we get from week to week with Peter? Again, other than the labor issues and information about network hires, we get no real reporting from him. Three weeks ago we got a report that losing Moore and Mudd from the staff on Indianapolis was not a big deal. It only took 4 more days before that was proven incorrect and there were reports there were major divisions in the Indianapolis camp about the exit of these two. Peter did not comment because he was too busy pimping his Tom Brady article (which was pretty puff piecey) in Sports Illustrated. That doesn't include his one full web page or more of his Ten Things I Think I Think, which are ALL surface sheen and have very little analysis involved in them.
Where's the depth on major player NFL issues from week to week? I don't see them.
John of Chester Springs, Fla: Give me a studio show with four people and one news man. I can get all the rest of the information on the Internet. Having so many people takes away from why we watch the pregame shows in the first place, to get important news about the players and teams we root for, not to hear 50 differing opinions on how good a person is or the other fluff passed as news.
This is exactly why I don't watch pregame shows. Let's see what Peter has to say in response...
Take Fox, for example. I think the weather thing is absurd, but understandable because of the cheesecake factor. I think Jay Glazer is great at uncovering stories. And I think Michael Strahan has added an opinionated presence in the middle of four TV guys with good chemistry. So other than the weather, it's hard to find fault with what Fox does.
How is the cheesecake factor understandable? That's what I hate about pregame shows. The cheesecake factor. I want information and decent analysis, not fluff on the show. I think Glazer is the best in the business, but I can't disagree more about Strahan, from what little I saw last year his addition seemed like an attempt to add a modern ex-player into the mix at FOX. I didn't enjoy him at all and when I do watch a pregame show, I watch FOX so I have a little experience knowing what I am talking about.
Clint Burson of Hamilton, Mont.: "According to your Twitter feed, only four percent or so of your column was about Brett Favre. By my calculations, a little over 10 percent of your column was about baseball. I know you like baseball, but MMQB is about football. Can you cut back baseball coverage to Favre levels?
I think if we calculated the MMQB, we would find out that less than half of the column is useful, relevant information about football. I still think 4% of the column about a retired QB who was barely an average QB by the end of last year is too much. Throw in the aggravating travel note and the information about the coaches going to Iraq, which I don't count as any type of football coverage, and most of the "Ten Things" which are not relevant at all to football during the summer, I would bet actual NFL coverage takes up less than 50% of the space.
I never promised that this column would be all football, and when I come across the Austin Wood stories, or the Chicago Blackhawks-at-their-GM's-father's-funeral stories, I'm going to tell them.
Yes, how dare you be confused by the heading that appears each week that is called "Monday Morning Quarterback," that is completely not football related. Peter never did actually say the column was supposed to be all about football, but considering he covers football for a living, football is in the title, and it can be found under the "Football" heading on CNNSI.com's home page we should all be excused if we assumed it would be mostly football related.
From Neal Cassidy of Houston: "You said North By Northwest is one of your top three all-time films. How can you say that and then not list the other two? It's not a huge deal, but I'll bet thousands of MMQB readers saw that and thought, at least in passing, 'I wonder what the other two are?'"
Or they pointed out correctly like The Casey did, that every movie will turn 50 as long as the world does not end or we eliminate movies from society as a whole.
From Eric DeCosta (Baltimore Ravens' director of player personnel) of Owings Mills, Md.: "Loved the travel note about I-295 in Rhode Island. Same happened to me once on 295. Only I got pulled over for speeding and missed my flight. They need to take the damn sign down.''
I have no sense of direction so I MapQuest absolutely everything. I don't even pay attention to road signs, so that is why I can't understand this. Highways are supposed to be used to bypass small roads so cars can go faster, they are not meant to actually be shorter necessarily from Point A to Point B.
And people, let me tell you something about DeCosta: He's as New England as they come. Born in Taunton, 19 miles from Providence. Educated at Colby in Maine, then at Trinity in Hartford. To think the sign fooled him is giving me hope I'm not a total doofus.
I personally think DeCosta should be more embarrassed that he has this in common with Peter King. It may be making him feel like a total doofus (really? It is 2009 and I don't think doofus is used in any context anymore) to know he made the same mistake that Peter King made.
-Robert Horry seems to think that he should be in the Hall of Fame.
Horry said he's trying to get into the Hall of Fame. Horry said that he doesn't think he'll make it, because people emphasize scoring too much.
People also tend to emphasize being one of the best basketball players of your era too much as well. What's up with that?
I won't even consider scoring when determining whether I think Robert Horry deserves to make the Hall of Fame or not. Here we go, I won't include his career average of 7ppg...
Horry's career numbers. 0.9 blocks per game, 4.8 rebounds per game, 1.6 free throws attempted per game, .425 FG%, 2.1 assists per game, and .341 3pt FG%.
If those numbers don't scream "Hall of Fame!" to you, then you obviously are not a complete and utter moron. 7 rings are awesome, good job. There is no way in hell he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. No fucking way.
Horry said that he did a lot for his teams that didn't show up in the box score.
Unfortunately the Hall of Fame tends to look at the things that show up in the box score. Numbers that give an indication a player was one of the greatest basketball players of all time and not a key role player on many NBA Championship teams. I can't emphasize enough how stupid I think it would be if he made the Hall of Fame.
Dan asked Horry who he would give the ball for a last-second three-pointer. Horry said he'd take himself first. Then Reggie Miller, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan.
No offense to Robert Horry, because he made several important shots in his career, but he never created his own shot for the last second three point shot, he usually made them because the team left him uncovered, he was in the right place at the right time or the other team was focusing on the actual Hall of Fame worthy players on his team to make sure they did not beat them.
Robert Horry: Great role player on great teams. He hit big shots and was often responsible for helping his team win games but he was never one of the greatest players on his own team nor in the NBA, so he does not in any way deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. That's my take.
I'll have a few quick hits before completely diving into today's e-mail, but first a cardiologist speaks from the heart:
Sweet Jesus, we start the mail bag off with a pun. If only Peter had started it off with a stupid joke about a proctologist talking out of his ass, then maybe then and only then, could I condone starting off a mail bag with a bad pun.
From Raj Abrol of McLean, Va.: "I read your column every week and enjoy your insight and information. A true break from my otherwise extremely busy day. Speaking as a cardiologist who works seven days a week to take care of the sick patients of this world, I was amused that you think our Sunday "heroes" may work too hard in the offseason.
Apparently our super duper busy cardiologist named "Raj" has enough time to read Peter's marathon column every week. That must be what he is doing while I am waiting in a fucking cold ass backless gown in the check-up room wondering why the hell the only magazines to read are "Ladies Home Journal" and "Highlights."
"I understand that football is an incredibly physically demanding sport. But to imply that playing football seven days in a row in May for these world class athletes is too much to ask is a bit of a stretch. I naturally respect your opinion. But this is "work" for them, just like it is for you and me.
Boring, generic question...and I have no idea how it got published. Let's see what Peter says.
I've heard from a lot of people on this topic, and almost all of you agree with Dr. Abrol, so I understand I'm in the minority. I just think players (and assistant coaches too; don't forget they're losing more and more of their "offseason'' each year) are being asked to do more and more every year, and for what good purpose?
So their team can win more football games and they improve as football players? Or possibly the same reason most other human beings work the entire year, it's their job to do so? I am sensitive to the "offseason is short argument," but fresh off working 2 years at my present job and having 10 days of vacation in my first two years, I am not feeling a whole lot of sympathy for those who get paid more than I do and have their "offseason" being shortened.
I'm not sure four to five months of hard work in the offseason does anything but ensure that you're simply keeping up with the rest of the crowd.
Well then that is what the four or five months of hard work in the offseason does...it helps you keep up with the other teams. Sounds logical to me because without this work a person or team would fall behind the other players and teams. I know it's hot and I know it is tough, but football is becoming a year round sport. That's just how it is.
Several of you asked, and rightfully so, why I didn't ask Rodney Harrison in the lengthy Q&A about his four-game suspension for admitting to using Human Growth Hormone, a substance banned by the NFL. I did ask him, but the responses weren't great, so I didn't include it in Monday's column.
"The responses weren't great?"
What the hell does that mean? It's not like the rest of Harrison's interview was a grab bag of useful facts, it was just him stating that he will take a no-prisoners approach to being a talking head on television. I think what Peter really meant by "the responses weren't great" is "the answers did not shed a positive light on NBC's new analyst so I felt the need to not include those in my MMQB because I never want to publish anything negative about a player I like."
here's what Harrison said when Bob Papa and I asked on our Sirius NFL Radio show if he thought his four-game ban for admitting to HGH use would affect his uphill Hall of Fame candidacy, and whether it should:
"That's really not up to me. I never failed a drug test. I told the truth, the commissioner did the research ... I never used it to enhance my performance. I used it to get myself better at one particular time [to speed his recovery from injury]
That's all he used it for? No big deal then...you know, unless HGH was banned by the NFL, which it is, so then it is a big deal.
"It's funny because a lot people who haven't played the game sit back and decide if you're a Hall of Famer. If you don't know what a football player goes through, if you haven't experienced it, then why should those guys solely have it on their shoulders to decide who goes in the Hall of Fame?
I guess Rodney Harrison is now proposing that football players decide which players make it into the Hall of Fame? The problem is that I would not want football players deciding anything important except how they want to entertain me on a Sunday afternoon. Not all football players are smart but I definitely don't believe they are the most qualified to be voting for the Hall of Fame...of course neither of some of the writers who do, but that is beside the point.
you think NBC doesn't show enough highlights, and you think NBC clogs the show with too many people in the 75-minute window before the Sunday night game. Understandable. Let me tell you a few things about the NBC show.
Again, I don't watch because I can't even emphasize how useless I think pregame shows are. If I wanted to hear idiots talk I would watch ESPN all day. I am not an expert on pregame shows.
Did you know, for instance, that NBC cannot show any highlights until 7:15 p.m.?
That works out well because the SNF game doesn't start until 8:30pm, leaving plenty of time for a 75 minute show. This is not an excuse because this time is already built in by NBC, so it's not like everyone is just sitting around the set for 15 minutes shooting the shit and doing nothing. The show is supposed to start when highlights can be shown.
This in no way answers any complaints people have about showing more highlights. What the problem is for Peter is that if they only showed highlights, then he would not get paid to sit there and give Brett Favre updates.
I believe the tightrope NBC walked was a good one. (Of course, I worked on the show, so I'm not at all impartial.)
That and the fact if they cut the amount of useless shit out of the show, most likely Peter would be one of the first to go.
I like how he says, "worked" on the show. Did Peter King leave the NBC Sunday Night Football Show and I never heard about it?
The aim of the show, I think, is to try to show you what happened and to try to explain why, and to try to hit the newsiest items coming out of the day's games
Brett Favre, the Cowboys, and the popular white quarterback of the week.
Finally, I'll be doing a couple of meet-and-greets while on the NFL camp trail in late July or August. Tweetups, I think they're called. Candidate spots for them, and please let me know which you favor: Albany, N.Y.; State College, Pa., Indianapolis; Denver; Bourbonnais, Ill.; New Orleans; or Kansas City.
I would give anything to go to one of these Tweetups. I am clearly not going because that involves travel and I can't leave my mom's attic for another week because I get sunlight poisoning if I go outside. It happened from sitting on my ass blogging, watching television, and playing chess for the past two months in the attic.
My only question is why someone would want to meet up with Peter. Just to meet him? Clearly no one wants to glean important NFL information out of him, because as he has shown from week to week, he really has none.
One of the things I have against Peter King is that he fails to report accurately and fully on issues that affect the NFL players he likes. He still has not mentioned that Peyton Manning is not extremely happy with the turnover on the Colts coaching staff, he completely left out the HGH issue in regards to Rodney Harrison until someone called him out on it, and he is an incredible apologist for Brett Favre. He is not an NFL reporter or insider, he's an NFL kiss ass. Other than discussions about the labor talks and which person is going to be hired by what network and why, we get little useful NFL news out of him.
Mike Strawser of Cincinnati: Not to blow wind up your skirt [or shorts in your case], but that's why I enjoy reading MMQB -- you think before you write, so we get depth, not surface sheen.''
Mike from Cincinnati, you need to start thinking before you write. What type of depth do we get from week to week with Peter? Again, other than the labor issues and information about network hires, we get no real reporting from him. Three weeks ago we got a report that losing Moore and Mudd from the staff on Indianapolis was not a big deal. It only took 4 more days before that was proven incorrect and there were reports there were major divisions in the Indianapolis camp about the exit of these two. Peter did not comment because he was too busy pimping his Tom Brady article (which was pretty puff piecey) in Sports Illustrated. That doesn't include his one full web page or more of his Ten Things I Think I Think, which are ALL surface sheen and have very little analysis involved in them.
Where's the depth on major player NFL issues from week to week? I don't see them.
John of Chester Springs, Fla: Give me a studio show with four people and one news man. I can get all the rest of the information on the Internet. Having so many people takes away from why we watch the pregame shows in the first place, to get important news about the players and teams we root for, not to hear 50 differing opinions on how good a person is or the other fluff passed as news.
This is exactly why I don't watch pregame shows. Let's see what Peter has to say in response...
Take Fox, for example. I think the weather thing is absurd, but understandable because of the cheesecake factor. I think Jay Glazer is great at uncovering stories. And I think Michael Strahan has added an opinionated presence in the middle of four TV guys with good chemistry. So other than the weather, it's hard to find fault with what Fox does.
How is the cheesecake factor understandable? That's what I hate about pregame shows. The cheesecake factor. I want information and decent analysis, not fluff on the show. I think Glazer is the best in the business, but I can't disagree more about Strahan, from what little I saw last year his addition seemed like an attempt to add a modern ex-player into the mix at FOX. I didn't enjoy him at all and when I do watch a pregame show, I watch FOX so I have a little experience knowing what I am talking about.
Clint Burson of Hamilton, Mont.: "According to your Twitter feed, only four percent or so of your column was about Brett Favre. By my calculations, a little over 10 percent of your column was about baseball. I know you like baseball, but MMQB is about football. Can you cut back baseball coverage to Favre levels?
I think if we calculated the MMQB, we would find out that less than half of the column is useful, relevant information about football. I still think 4% of the column about a retired QB who was barely an average QB by the end of last year is too much. Throw in the aggravating travel note and the information about the coaches going to Iraq, which I don't count as any type of football coverage, and most of the "Ten Things" which are not relevant at all to football during the summer, I would bet actual NFL coverage takes up less than 50% of the space.
I never promised that this column would be all football, and when I come across the Austin Wood stories, or the Chicago Blackhawks-at-their-GM's-father's-funeral stories, I'm going to tell them.
Yes, how dare you be confused by the heading that appears each week that is called "Monday Morning Quarterback," that is completely not football related. Peter never did actually say the column was supposed to be all about football, but considering he covers football for a living, football is in the title, and it can be found under the "Football" heading on CNNSI.com's home page we should all be excused if we assumed it would be mostly football related.
From Neal Cassidy of Houston: "You said North By Northwest is one of your top three all-time films. How can you say that and then not list the other two? It's not a huge deal, but I'll bet thousands of MMQB readers saw that and thought, at least in passing, 'I wonder what the other two are?'"
Or they pointed out correctly like The Casey did, that every movie will turn 50 as long as the world does not end or we eliminate movies from society as a whole.
From Eric DeCosta (Baltimore Ravens' director of player personnel) of Owings Mills, Md.: "Loved the travel note about I-295 in Rhode Island. Same happened to me once on 295. Only I got pulled over for speeding and missed my flight. They need to take the damn sign down.''
I have no sense of direction so I MapQuest absolutely everything. I don't even pay attention to road signs, so that is why I can't understand this. Highways are supposed to be used to bypass small roads so cars can go faster, they are not meant to actually be shorter necessarily from Point A to Point B.
And people, let me tell you something about DeCosta: He's as New England as they come. Born in Taunton, 19 miles from Providence. Educated at Colby in Maine, then at Trinity in Hartford. To think the sign fooled him is giving me hope I'm not a total doofus.
I personally think DeCosta should be more embarrassed that he has this in common with Peter King. It may be making him feel like a total doofus (really? It is 2009 and I don't think doofus is used in any context anymore) to know he made the same mistake that Peter King made.
-Robert Horry seems to think that he should be in the Hall of Fame.
Horry said he's trying to get into the Hall of Fame. Horry said that he doesn't think he'll make it, because people emphasize scoring too much.
People also tend to emphasize being one of the best basketball players of your era too much as well. What's up with that?
I won't even consider scoring when determining whether I think Robert Horry deserves to make the Hall of Fame or not. Here we go, I won't include his career average of 7ppg...
Horry's career numbers. 0.9 blocks per game, 4.8 rebounds per game, 1.6 free throws attempted per game, .425 FG%, 2.1 assists per game, and .341 3pt FG%.
If those numbers don't scream "Hall of Fame!" to you, then you obviously are not a complete and utter moron. 7 rings are awesome, good job. There is no way in hell he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. No fucking way.
Horry said that he did a lot for his teams that didn't show up in the box score.
Unfortunately the Hall of Fame tends to look at the things that show up in the box score. Numbers that give an indication a player was one of the greatest basketball players of all time and not a key role player on many NBA Championship teams. I can't emphasize enough how stupid I think it would be if he made the Hall of Fame.
Dan asked Horry who he would give the ball for a last-second three-pointer. Horry said he'd take himself first. Then Reggie Miller, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan.
No offense to Robert Horry, because he made several important shots in his career, but he never created his own shot for the last second three point shot, he usually made them because the team left him uncovered, he was in the right place at the right time or the other team was focusing on the actual Hall of Fame worthy players on his team to make sure they did not beat them.
Robert Horry: Great role player on great teams. He hit big shots and was often responsible for helping his team win games but he was never one of the greatest players on his own team nor in the NBA, so he does not in any way deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. That's my take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)