Peter King is fat, doesn't watch the sport he writes about, and more shocking revelations

by BigBlueShoe on Jun 18, 2007 3:28 PM EDT in Analysis

Peter King asks the training staff if anyone plans to finish the last pork chop on the complimentary press buffet.

I guess I have to be like everyone else now and comment on Peter King's Top Quarterbacks List. The biggest surprise is Peter King didn't rate Tom Brady ahead of Peyton Manning. Normally, Peter would give Tommy Terrific the nod over Captain Forehead because Peter King is as big a Patriots ballwasher as ESPN is. To put King's Brady man love in perspective, look no further than Deshawn Zombie at 18 to 88:

Remember that the ONLY thing Brady has over Manning is 3 Super Bowls to 1. I personally have said many times here that it's an ignorant argument to elevate championships over all over stats because then you wind up with Terry Bradshaw as the second best QB of all time and NO ONE BELIEVES THAT'S TRUE. If we only take into account the last two years, there is no stat, NOT ONE, in which Brady has the edge over Manning. Manning has more wins, playoff wins, TDs, yards, completion %, YPA, fewer INTs than Brady. Plus Manning's beat him three straight times. Right now, there is no debate. Manning is more accurate, makes fewer bad decisions and wins more. And it's not close.

Eloquent as always. Manning has been better than Brady since 2004. Again, when Tom Brady throws 49 TDs and only 10 INTs in one season, call me. Until then, get outta my face. King ranking Brady over Manning the two years prior provides us with even more evidence that Peter King doesn't watch the sport for which he is paid to write about.

Oh, and he's fat. Did we forget to mention that?

Ah, but it isn't Peter's Brady love that makes us, and many others scratch their head when looking at Peter's QB list. It's his insistence that Vince Young is a top 10 QB. Per usual, BSanders37 provides us with some sanity:

King's formula for ranking QB's is one we generally agree with (he uses yards-per-attempt and completion percentage as his two principle statistics), but his list also features Vince Young (he of the 51 percent completion rate) in the top ten. We know it's a combination of past results and 2007 projections, but come on, Peter. Vince Young is not one of the top 10 QB's in the NFL. And Tony Romo should not be ranked ahead of Donovan McNabb, one of the few QB's in league history to throw for more than 30 TD passes and less than 10 INT's in a single season.

The problem with King's list is it doesn't really rank the best QBs right now. It really ranks where he thinks they will be by year's end:

And, hey -- don't go saying, "King's such an idiot! He thinks Jon Kitna's one of the best quarterbacks in football.'' That's not what I think. What I think is that by the end of this year, we'll have seen Kitna as one of the 10 most productive quarterbacks in the NFL this season. Kitna's the golden child in the perfect spot for a quarterback in 2007, just as with every Mike Martz quarterback of the past few years. Now, it's fine if you want to say, "King's such an idiot! He thinks Kitna's going to throw for 4,300 again! No way!'' It's fine because it's your opinion, but it's probably wrong.

Fine Peter. It's your opinion to rank Jon Kitna and Vince Young ahead of guys like Chad Pennington and Steve McNair. Perfectly cool. However, do you think it would be ok if we... oh, I don't know, held you accountable for your opinions. I mean, you make a helluva lot more money than us, and you're supposed to be THE football expert. If you end up being wrong, which is very likely since you are usually wrong about most predictions you make, can we... oh, I don't know, maybe make fun of you or something? Call you an idiot? Belittle your ignorant and overpaid opinion? Make snippy comments that no one cares about what kind of friggin' coffee you buy at Starbucks? Because it is very likely that we will do that when you are proven wrong, Peter.

Again, it's cool for you to have that opinion. However, when someone makes the kind of suggestions you are making, it suggests that your opinion is not an informed opinion. And that is what you are paid for, right Peter? To be informed?

Thanks to BSanders37 for the photo link.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

while I agree

McNabb should be ranked ahead of Romo based on past performances, there is no way Cutler or Young should be ranked ahead of Romo based on the same criteria.

My top 10

Brady
Manning
Palmer
Brees
Hasselbeck
McNabb
Romo
Bulger
Kitna
Rivers

by Terry on Jun 19, 2007 9:16 AM EDT 0 recs

I know we already had this argument, but...

You've got Bulger and Rivers behind Romo?

If you're going to blatantly cheat for Romo, at least put Hasselbeck at the bottom of that list. In fact, I'm probably on board with Romo being better than Hasselbeck.

Try this for your top 10 (assuming health for all of these guys):

1) Manning, 2) Palmer, 3) McNabb, 4) Brees, 5) Bulger, 6) Brady, 7) Rivers, 8) Romo, 9) Kitna, 10) Hasselbeck

At least Romo still makes 8 on that list.

by SteveW on Jun 19, 2007 11:06 AM EDT up 0 recs

Manning Brady

Manning and Brady have got to be 1 and 2. I'm personally very adament about that. They are the best, no question. No one is really even close. From 3-10, it's a mish-mash. Guys like Palmer, Brees, and McNabb should get top 5 consideration. Here's my list:

Manning
Brady
Palmer
Brees
McNabb
Hasselbeck
McNair
Bulger
Pennington
Rivers

Jon Kitna has absolutely no place on any top 10 list. The guy throws a ton of INTs. Romo hasn't done anything to warrant top 10 status. Palmer gets the nod of Brees because he is simply better: better arm, taller, more accurate, and more of a playmaker. Palmer would give Manning's single season TD record a run for its money if he played in NO's offense. I have no idea why people have dropped McNabb off their top 10 lists.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Jun 19, 2007 12:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

Romo and Kitna

Were on my list because I was just rearranging Terry's list. I wouldn't put them in a top-10 either.

Regarding Brady, what has he done - as a quarterback not merely a ring-recipient - to deserve unquestionable loyalty as the #2 QB in the league (not to mention many that think he's #1) ?

Brady has a forgiving defense behind him, one that never requires him to take chances to win a game and that gets the other defense back onto the field so they don't get rested. Even with that, he has only above-average but not stellar numbers as a quarterback. His most impressive feature is low interceptions, but even that's not legendary type low. Put Palmer, McNabb, or Bulger on the Patriots, and the Patriots will have improved significantly.

by SteveW on Jun 19, 2007 12:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

If Romo hasn't done anything to warrant

top 10 consideration, then neither has Rivers.

My top ten isn't based strickly on past accomplishments either. Its based on how good the player is right now.

by Terry on Jun 19, 2007 1:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think it's reasonable to say

that Phillip Rivers has outplayed Tony Romo.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 19, 2007 3:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'd say

It's more than reasonable. Rivers had only two regular season games all season in which he posted less than a 75 QB rating. Romo had three such games in his last five regular-season starts. I know QB ratings aren't everything, but isn't that the stat that props Romo up so high in the eyes of everyone? It must count for something.

by BSanders37 on Jun 19, 2007 3:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

Try

this on for size as well. He beats Romo in DPAR and DVOA.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 19, 2007 3:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

under those ratings

Romo is also a top 10 qb.

by Terry on Jun 19, 2007 4:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

No.

Under those ratings, he finished the 2006 season as a top 10 quarterback. Whether he will carry that success into next season is certainly debatable. All I wanted to add was that it is quite reasonable to assert that Phillip Rivers has thus far outplayed Tony Romo.

Nothing can take away what Romo did in '06 which, by all accounts, was an outstanding season for him. But I am not ready to crown his ass just yet.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 19, 2007 6:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

no its not

considering that Romo had a higher qb rating than Rivers.

by Terry on Jun 19, 2007 4:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

And...

Damon Huard had a higher QB Rating than Tony Romo. If I thought much of QB Rating, that kind of fact would compel me.

It doesn't. Nor do QB Ratings.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 19, 2007 6:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

and...

Huard only played half the season and was benched for Trent Green, who I don't see on anyone's top 10 list.

by Terry on Jun 19, 2007 10:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

To be fair

Huard was not "benched for Green." He was the backup and became the starter when Green went down. Green subsequently recovered and regained his starting job. At the time many believed that the Chiefs should have stayed with Huard, who had been performing quite well. But I guess Herm Edwards is from the school that says a starter doesn't lose his job due to injury.

At any rate, Huard was benched because the starter regained his health, not because of poor performance.

by ctnyc on Jun 19, 2007 11:29 PM EDT up 0 recs

I never said

Huard was benched for poor performance, but if the guy is really that good, Edwards would have never benched him for Green.

You didn't see Belichick bench Brady after Bledsoe was healthy, did you?

by Terry on Jun 20, 2007 9:44 AM EDT up 0 recs

You didn't say it

but you implied it. And as I said, many people (analysts, sportswriters, fans) at the time thought that Huard should have stayed QB even when Green was healthy -- after all, he did outplay Green. But, again as I said, Edwards must be from the old school brand of coaches that believes that a starter should not lose his job due to injury (this may be misguided, but is a well-known principle in sports that many coaches follow). Belichick did not follow this principle and that's to his credit; it made the Pats a better team. Edwards apparently did, and many -- myself included -- believe that it hurt his team.

I hardly see how that's an indictment of Huard's ability.

by ctnyc on Jun 20, 2007 11:20 AM EDT up 0 recs

well

we'll see if he even beats out Brodie Croyle this season. I think its safe to say that would definitely be an indictment of his ability if he couldn't.

by Terry on Jun 20, 2007 11:48 AM EDT up 0 recs

Terry

I'm honestly not trying to be facetious, but I'm beginning to wonder if you understand how NFL personnel decisions are made. You seem to believe that if a player starts, then he obviously is the best player on the team. There are many more factors that go into these decisions. I've already mentioned the starter not losing his job due to injury thing.

Now you contend that if Huard doesn't beat out Brodie Croyle, it's an indictment on his ability. Huard is 37 years old. Even if he is the best option KC has, they realize that he's probably only got a couple of years left. Croyle is, for better or worse, their current "QB of the future." Teams will often bite the bullet and let a kid go through growing pains as a starter, even if they realize he's not the best option in terms of winning now. They do this to get the kid experience and knowledge that he couldn't get by holding a clipboard on the sidelines. The idea is that taking a few lumps in the short term will lead to quicker progress and better success in the long term. Many, many teams have employed this philosophy, including the Colts with Peyton Manning.

This is all speculation at this point; none of us know who KC's QB will be this season. But to imply that if Croyle is the starter, it somehow proves that he's better than Huard or that Huard therefore sucks is ludicrous.

As a side note, I can't believe I've spent so much time defending a relatively unknown QB on a team that I care nothing about. Bring on the season!

by ctnyc on Jun 20, 2007 1:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

I disagree

coaches are going to play the best players, I don't believe for a second that Edwards would not play Huard if he truly believed he gave them the best chance to win this year.

Under your theory, coaches wouldn't be around very long to keep their job if they played developmental qb's over proven vets who can still do the job.

by Terry on Jun 20, 2007 1:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

OK, now I don't know

if you seriously believe the things you're saying, or if you're just spewing nonsense in order to stir controversy. Are you honestly disputing that sometimes teams go through rebuilding years? This happens in all sports, football included.

The Titans jettison a still-productive McNair (who goes on to lead the Ravens to the #2 playoff seed without much of a running game) to clear the way for Vince Young (with a couple lame starts by Collins first); the Chargers jettison a Pro-Bowl caliber Drew Brees -- before even seeing if he's healthy -- to take their chances with an unproven Phillip Rivers (p.s. Brees was healthy); the Cardinals -- owners of one of the top passing attacks in 2005 under Warner -- let Leinart stay in there to take his lumps even when Warner is healthy; even the Colts start rookie Peyton Manning in 1998, even though it will ultimately lead to a 3-13 record.

As I have said before, many factors go into deciding who to start. I've mentioned a couple already, here's another: salary. This is not my opinion, it is fact: sometimes teams realize they are better off getting young players some experience and building for the future when they realize they are not contenders. This often results in putting players on the field who are not necessarily the best options NOW, but may improve their fortunes later. Good coaches and good organizations do this.

And again, it happens in every sport. Why do you think baseball teams hold "fire sales" before the trading deadline every summer when they realize they are out of the race? They trade their productive veterans for prospects that they hope will help them in the future. These concepts are basic to team management and building consistent contenders.

Seriously, are you just stirring controversy or are you honestly trying to argue that rebuilding years don't exist?

by ctnyc on Jun 20, 2007 2:48 PM EDT up 0 recs

since when is KC rebuilding?

they made the playoffs last season for crying out loud?

Titans got rid of McNair for cap reasons, Chargers couldn't afford two franchise qb's (great problem, huh?)and Warner sucked. Guarnatee you if he was playing well Leinart never sees the field. Manning started because Colts had nobody better, thats how bad they sucked in the late 90's.

Sure, salaries and cap considerations play a role on who starts and makes the team, but at the end of the day the best players play. Period.

by Terry on Jun 20, 2007 3:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

I guess we'll never resolve this

KC scraped into the playoffs and are nowhere near a Super Bowl contender, which we all know, including KC. Yes the Titans ditched McNair for salary reasons, one of the reasons I mentioned before about why a team doesn't always put the best player on the field. Unless you believe Kerry Collins/Vince Young was a better win-now option for the Titans last year (in which case, you're nuts). Warner, as has been well-documented, suffered from a horrible O-Line but still led the top passing attack in 2005. There was no reason to expect that Leinart would outplay a healthy Warner last year, but he was left in anyway -- to get experience for a team that was going nowhere last year. True, the Chargers couldn't afford both QBs, so they picked the unproven one, having no idea whether he'd be better than Brees, but not wanting to let a 1st -round pick languish on the bench. And for the record, as good as Rivers was last year, I think it's pretty clear Brees would have been the better option.

But you really do seem to believe what you're saying that the best players are always the ones that teams pick to play. So I commend you for sticking by your guns, even though I think you don't know what you're talking about.

by ctnyc on Jun 20, 2007 3:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

Umm, that's the point Terry

QB Rating doesn't tell the entire story. That's what I'm saying.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 20, 2007 12:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

then what does IYO

wins, SB championships??

by Terry on Jun 20, 2007 1:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

Many, many things.

Completion %, TD:Int ratio, wins (though to a much lesser degree, as this is a measure of a team), experience, age (to the extent that it tells us whether the player can/will get better or worse next year), I rely heavily on Football Outsiders stats as well because the justification for their defense of those stat sets are the most compelling I've come across. I do my best to factor in a qb's unique circumstances, and how those hurt/help said quarterback.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 20, 2007 2:22 PM EDT up 0 recs