clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Peter King gets smacked around

New, comment
Schmuck
It looks like Peter King is more than a little miffed that pretty much everyone in the known universe thinks he's an idiot for his ranking the NFL QBs. It's not so much that King ranked the QBs, 1-32, but rather the method which he judged them. Again, Peter isn't judging how the good the QBs are right now, as of June 20th, 2007. He's judging how good they will be next year this time, I guess. Again, in Peter's own words:
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.
Well, it seems Peter got a lot of hate mail for his predictions. Silly fans. They mistook a story titled Ranking the NFL QBs from No. 1 to No. 32 for being a football writer's objective listing of the top QBs right now. How foolish of them to assume that. Where did they get that idea? They should have read the fine print, that this is a Swami-type gaze into a crystal ball rather than an objective analysis of the Top 32 QBs in the NFL today. Next time Pete, I suggest picking a more accurate title. It will spare you the embarrasment and inevitible beatdown the blogsphere will give you when you write another assinine article like this one. We suggest something along the lines of I think here are some things I think that I think about what I think the Top 32 QBs in the NFL I think will look like in 2008, I think.

Other sites, like Football Outsiders, Hogs Haven, Niners Nation, and Fire Joe Morgan have chimed in on Peter's stupidity. Apparently, we aren't the only ones that think ranking Vince Young #7 in the league is about as dumb as intentially making a Die Hard movie PG-13. Seriously, WTF. Fire Joe Morgan had one of the funnier comments about King's silly ratings system. He actually gives points for "intangibles." Think about that for a second:

Intangibles. You made a statistic...out of intangibles. You turned "intangibles" into a tangible.
I'll echo Fooch at Niner's Nation: I understand using "intangibles" to convey some vague, extra trait that a player might have. Usually, "intangibles" translates roughly into things pocket presence, resiliency, intelligence, and the ability to make quick decisions under extreme duress. However, pesky little details like that are boring for football novices like Peter King, who is more interested in the salad bar than in actually watching the f-ing games. Here's King's definition of "intangibles," and he uses Tom Brady as an example:
Finally, intangibles. Brady led all passers with a 10 on a 10-point scale, because he's a coach, an offseason facilitator, a free-agent recruiter -- and he does it while retaining respect from the guys he often has to lean on hard.
Um... huh? First of all, Tom Brady is not recruiting free agents in New England. Guys like Adalius Thomas, Wes Welker, and Donte Stallworth came to New England because the money is good and they have a chance to win a championship. Lets be realistic about this kind of thing, and not buy into yet another Patriots stroke job from the resident New England fluffer, Peter King. Next, none of the things King cites are "intangibles." All QBs worth a damn must retain the respect of teammates, and none of them recruit free agents (team presidents and GMs are paid to do that).

Basically, this whole "intangibles" ratings is something Peter yanked right out of his massive, Jaba butt. On top of this ridiculous intangibles ranking is the fact that King contradicts himself in his own article:

I value wins from my quarterback, and that helped Manning and Brady, the leaders in victories over the last two years. I value postseason success, and their seven combined wins over the past two years is significant. Completion percentage and yards-per-attempt are the two passing stats I value the most because they tell you how often a quarterback succeeds in efficiently moving the chains through the air.
I'll let the lawyer-in-training, SkinsPatrol, bash this bit of stupidity into submission:
My main issue here is that he admits to valuing a bunch of things he summarily dismisses completely in the rankings. Being the 4th best winner on the list doesn't help Eli Manning out of 23rd, in spite of a respectable YPA and completion percentage... because he's a "4" at intangibles. Being 3rd to last in YPA, having a negative TD-Int, and being the 2nd least accurate passer included on the list didn't prevent Vince Young from getting a 7th ranking. That seems odd, especially when one considers some of the names below him: Phillip Rivers (more wins, better YPA, better completion %, +12 TD-Int, even identical "intangibles"), McNabb (more wins, better YPA, completion %, better TD-Int, same intangibles), etc. Just looking at guys 13-17, every single one has more wins, better YPA, and a better completion % than Vince Young. Which isn't to say that Vince Young won't finish ahead of all those guys, it just means that Peter King hasn't ranked the quarterbacks consistently with how he said he would.

Looks like Peter's taking some hits from this bogus rating, and as well he should. Peter is paid a lot of money to write about football. It would help if he actually knew what he was writing about. Peter wouldn't bother me as much if he were just some moron like Scout.com's Jeremy Green. It's the impression he creates that he's somehow this objective football guru. The guy is oftentimes so inconsistent and so pro-Patriots it is sickening. Go look at his archives. He hasn't written a single article about the World Champion Colts since the Super Bowl. However, he's written several major articles about the Patriots, including covering their mini-camp.

He did not cover another team's mini-camp. Pathetic.