Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

From his own[URL=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/06/17/mmqb.chiefs/3.html] MMQB column[/URL] today:

1. I think this is why making predictions is dangerous: While working on an SI story, I walked into the office of Baltimore coach Brian Billick the other day, and the first thing he said was: "I don't know why you're wasting time with us. We're not even going to the playoffs this year.'' A couple of minutes later, in came GM Ozzie Newsome. "You mean the Patriots let you come down to see another team?'' he says. Ouch. You may recall I picked the Steelers to win the AFC North, and the Ravens to miss out on a wild card behind Buffalo and Indy. I guess they fire up the Internet in Ravensville.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Goddamn, I can't stand that calzone with legs.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

i think we should make a petition, on the website where we have the art monk hall of fame petition, to force peter king into an early retirement.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

I kinda like that line by Ozzie Newsome

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

That's funny.. Say what you want about Billick, he is one of the few coaches with a personality..

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Billick has a personality all right, he's a huge a--hole with an enormous head.

As for Peter King, I actually like him. King adores Gibbs (and regularly stands by Gibbs' decisions) and, in my opinion, is not biased against the Redskins. He's often wrong, but who isn't? Moreover, King often admits it when he is wrong. That's more than I can say for many football experts who never remind readers when it turns out their predictions were wrong.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

I couldnt even imagine Andy Reid at his house. He probably just stands in the kitchen and scowls at his wife until she makes breakfast.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Billick has a personality all right, he's a huge a--hole with an enormous head.

As for Peter King, I actually like him. King adores Gibbs (and regularly stands by Gibbs' decisions) and, in my opinion, is not biased against the Redskins. He's often wrong, but who isn't? Moreover, King often admits it when he is wrong. That's more than I can say for many football experts who never remind readers when it turns out their predictions were wrong.[/QUOTE]

I'm 100% with you on this. He is fair with the Redskins. There has been a lot to criticize with Dan Snyder making decisions. But he's been mostly complimentary of late, defending Gibbs in most instances. He even somewhat understood the Coles trade, buying into the concept that you don't keep someone around if they really don't want to be there. He didn't really like what the Redskins got in return, but he understood the reasoning. The only beef we Redskin fans can have against him is the Art Monk debate (and even with Monk he does back his opinions up with legit facts, even if I don't agree with him); otherwise he's a very fair, informative, and enjoyable journalist.

Len Pastabelly, however, is an entirely different story. Now he is biased.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

He is less of a pompous ass than Pastamoron but he still qualifies as a pompous windbag.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Ramseyfan -
My dislike of King has less to do with his observations on today's game (which, while frequently wrong, are occasionally entertaining) than his bedrock-solid insistance that Art Monk shouldn't be in the Hall. Read the mailbag in his columns - he will admit when he's wrong, but this is the only point he seems to be unwilling to debate.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Ramseyfan -
My dislike of King has less to do with his observations on today's game (which, while frequently wrong, are occasionally entertaining) than his bedrock-solid insistance that Art Monk shouldn't be in the Hall. Read the mailbag in his columns - he will admit when he's wrong, but this is the only point he seems to be unwilling to debate.[/QUOTE]

Here's the article where King debated the Monk situation. He devoted a good amount of space to it. I don't agree with his points, but he does back his stuff up. I definitely don't agree with his anti-Monk sentiment, but I don't see a bias in his writing overall.

Click here and scroll down to the Quote of the Week section:
[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/01/17/mmqb.divisional/"]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/01/17/mmqb.divisional/[/url]

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Don't get me wrong, I strongly disagree with King's decision not to vote Monk into the HoF. I just think that otherwise he's pretty fair towards us.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

By devoting that many column inches to why he will not (not "did not", [b]will not[/b]) vote for Art Monk, he demonstrates bias. And the reasons are so media-centric!
1) [I]The media only twice voted him an All-Pro.[/I] Art Monk held the media in disdain. He rarely granted interviews, and was less than warm during them.
2) [I]Players stated they "didn't fear Monk".[/I] Players say all kinds of things to the media. Fred-Ex spent days denigrating a Patriots secondary that embarassed him and his family last Super Bowl. I suppose his "lack of fear" says more about them than it does him.
3) [I]Numbers don't mean everything.[/I] The only thing he said that makes sense - but they have to mean [u]something[/u]! He was the first WR with 100 catches in a season. He caught balls in 183 straight games (then a record). He has more catches than anyone in the Hall. Those numbers mean something. By mentioning the dozen or so receivers who will eclipse some of his numbers in the next five to ten years, King makes more of a comparison of eras than players - in his era, Monk (along with Rice and, to a lesser extent, Largent) set the benchmarks that today's receivers need to reach to achieve greatness. Of those three receivers, Largent is in the Hall, and (we presume) King will be voting for Rice, despite his gaudy numbers.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

Not only that, the West Coast offense was just getting started. It's nothing short of remarkable that Monk had so many catches in a run-oriented offense.

Re: Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Billick has a personality all right, he's a huge a--hole with an enormous head.

As for Peter King, I actually like him. King adores Gibbs (and regularly stands by Gibbs' decisions) and, in my opinion, is not biased against the Redskins. He's often wrong, but who isn't? Moreover, King often admits it when he is wrong. That's more than I can say for many football experts who never remind readers when it turns out their predictions were wrong.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this Ramsey...I read King every week. He is often wrong but I don't think it's a bias. I am very annoyed at the way his opinion is involved in keeping Art Monk out of the hall, but I don't think he does it out of a dislike for the skins or Monk. And as I said before on this website, King predicted the Redskins would win big with Spurrier so he is certainly not biased with the skins or any other team. I think a lot of the king dislike is centered around Monk and I must admit when the hall voting comes up every year King loses popularity points with me also but I do think he is one of the better NFL writers around...