Peter King

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Coolguy55220. Show Coolguy55220's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    In Response to Re: Peter King : No problem with you pointing out that side.  I hope they exceed what you say there.  I was just saying at this point, we really dont know what we got with the rookies.  I hope to see more of Tate and Price in the next few preseason games to get a better feel.
    Posted by Patsman2


    You keep saying these could be busts, and they might be, but there are signs that can show u a lot of differences. I remember watching preseason games back when chad jackson played and remember saying how come brady doesnt throw... well the answer was that chad jackson was an idiot, he couldnt understand routes. From all the information coming out of training camp and the first preseason shows that brady is throwing to tate + hernandez which means they actually understand what they're doing. If they know what they're doing, and are in position when they need to be, i trust brady to deliver the ball to whoever it is. It doesnt matter if they're rookies. Brady's favorite target is the open one... Unfortunately last year there were only 2 targets and kevin faulk... 

    This year they easily have 4 targets, this offense is already better than last years no matter what any one has to say.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ONE-TIME. Show ONE-TIME's posts

    Re: Peter King

    I love our WR corp , even w/out Holt. Edelman can ball , period , the guy is faster/quicker than Welker and I cant remember him dropping any balls in the time hes been here. All signs point to WW coming back w/  vengeance and we all know what people are saying about the SuperFreak. 81 is getting ready to run fire through the league and prove that at 33 he still has it and is as good as AJ , Fitz etc. And even last year , if hes not hurt and 12 is on point , especially at the begining of the season , Moss runs for over 1400 and pulls in 16-18 TDs easy. And I dont consider Tate a rookie at all. This kid is ready to do work as well , hes a top 10-12 pick if hes healthy. If he stays healthy this year , your looking at 700-900/6-8 TDs easy. Im as excited about this years team as I have been in any other year.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    Apparently the world forgot that Bostonians require sourcing when anyone writes the slightest criticism about their beloved pats.   Who that writes for the NFL provides sources regarding sensitive situations?  I am gullible.  You are just another pats fan.
    Posted by underdoggggg


    Hey man, all I was doing in my original response to you was pointing out that you were full of sh*t, not Peter King (although he was, too). When you originally sourced the article from June 2 in one of your responses, you broke out the phrase "exclusive interview." That was your fundamental mistake, as far as I'm concerned. For reasons you likely would not find important, I have a very irritating hair on my tongue about the use of the word "exclusive" and you dropping it in this forum caught my attention. That's all.

    There wasn't any interview, exclusive or otherwise, the only direct attribution in the entire piece consists of four words: "Brady declined to comment." When I pointed out that the whole piece was "widely dismissed," you countered with links to some further gibberish where Silver purportedly answeres "questions just like the ones I ask." If you could see beyond the end of Peyton Manning's junk, it might occur to you that the very fact that Silver is answering these questions (and that they exist in the first place) is proof, in and of itself, that his initial premise was, in fact, widely dismissed. Why else would he feel the need to defend his (admittedly not unique) Secret Squirrel style of "journalism?." I was fine with your original "Silver appears to have a line on Brady" perspective. Personally, I don't think he does, but that's a matter of opinion. I think the entire piece was speculative and he was taking advantage of the new mantra in sports journalism. To whit: I can pretend I actually have "sources" by masking their identities under the guise of protecting my information stream . . .  essentially supporting one fiction with another. In any case, if I were editing such a piece (by him, or any of these fly-by-night hacks stealing paychecks in our fine internet age) I would introduce him to the wonderful world of "qualifiers." These are terms that are designed to substitute for actual attribution when you don't really have any, or when your attribution is woefully weak. Phrases like "it would appear" or "it seems reasonable" or "there are indications." When I see speculative stories with weak (or no) attribution I recognize them as editorials. You, as just another Colts fan looking for any excuse to lob brickbats at the Pats, break out the old standby Woodward and Bernsteirn defense and accept as "fact" any wild suppostion that supports your perspective . . . never mind the fact that Brady himself has been very clear that there is and has been no "disconnect."

    Of course, we don't really have much journalism anymore. It's all "Infotainment" nowadays, and not just in sports. Being first has become more important than being informative or accurate. But even so, claiming to "know" things that are merely his own suppositions simply makes Silver look like a deusche . . .  and defending him with an empty weapon makes you look a lot like him.

    Will McDonough would be rolling over in his grave if he could read the nonsense being "reported" these days.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Peter King

    I can't help that exclusive pustule on your tounge.  If you feel the need for the deepest details to fully put to rest a speculative article that you might not agree with simply because you are a pats fan, that's your problem. 

    I never said it WAS the truth.  My first post about Silver asked Russ whether or not he thought Silver was lying in his article?  That's a pretty strong stance by me, eh?  If you want to put me on stating it as fact, so be it, but maybe as the journalism guy maybe you should look for those qualifiers me that you mention above before you stick me on something just because you are a pis*ed off pats fan. 

    Russ asked me to post Silver's article, so I did, and I linked a local's article suggesting that Silver must have been right because he subsequently got the first exclusive interview with Brady given to a print media member since last season.  The logic says why would Brady give that interview to a guy who just a couple of months ago publicly lied about Brady's feelings.  I am not sure why I have to explain this to you.  You are the smartest guy on the board, right? 

    And I don't know what this specific issue has to do with Manning's junk.  Maybe you just like using the line or thinking about it.  Whatever.

    All in all, I assume you know all of this, you are just trying to have a little fun for your own amusement.  I call BS.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    I am not sure why I have to explain this to you.  You are the smartest guy on the board, right? 
    Posted by underdoggggg


    Smart enough to comprehend the English language and not to use jargon I don't understand.

    Get back to me when you have a clear understanding of what "exclusive" means.




    (you might want to look up "interview,"  as well . . .  if you're at all interested in accuracy, which does not appear to be the case)







     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Peter King

    That corn cob must really be irritating you.  How long's it been there? 

    Feel free to forget about me and choose anyone else on this board to mince words with.  Singling me out for your semantics class on this board seems a little hypocritical.  Likely its got much less to do with my word usage and substantially more to do with my fandom. 

    Anyway - you should take that thing out.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    That corn cob must really be irritating you.  How long's it been there?  Feel free to forget about me and choose anyone else on this board to mince words with.  Singling me out for your semantics class on this board seems a little hypocritical.  Likely its got much less to do with my word usage and substantially more to do with my fandom.  Anyway - you should take that thing out.
    Posted by underdoggggg


    Actual word meanings are not "semantics" (another term you apparently do not understand. "Semantics" are when you pretend you meant something you didn't really say because your argument gets shot full of holes, which is what you're doing here. And the reason I "single you out" is because you are the prime initiator of unsupportasble bullsh*t on this forum. If you don't like to be proven wrong on a consistent basis, I would suggest you go practice being wrong somewhere else. Don't expect to walk into my house and spew your nonsense free of critique. Not going to happen here, my friend.

    I admit it. I'm lazy. I like to take the path of least resistance, and pointing out your abject idiocy is the easiest way I've found to amuse myself in this forum.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Peter King

    Fandom at its best.  There is so much unsupportable speculation on this board from every perspective it would make a snake oil salesman blush. 

    The only difference is what you choose to deem as bullsh*t, and that choice comes from your fandom. 

    Just another fan. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikeyyy. Show mikeyyy's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    In Response to Re: Peter King : Yes Chad Jackson had "potential" too.  Bethal Johnson had "potential" too.  Funny with those rose colored glasses you only see the good and never the bad.
    Posted by Patsman2


    He has rose colored glasses and you have . . . . . . . what's the opposite of rose colored?  oh yeah . . . . BLIND!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikeyyy. Show mikeyyy's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    That corn cob must really be irritating you.  How long's it been there?  Feel free to forget about me and choose anyone else on this board to mince words with.  Singling me out for your semantics class on this board seems a little hypocritical.  Likely its got much less to do with my word usage and substantially more to do with my fandom.  Anyway - you should take that thing out.
    Posted by underdoggggg


    I think you get a bad rap on this site.  I don't think most fans appreciate the comic relief you provide.  You are sort of like the court jester of old coming out to entertain the king during times of war.  Nice hat! 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikeyyy. Show mikeyyy's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    Fandom at its best.  There is so much unsupportable speculation on this board from every perspective it would make a snake oil salesman blush.  The only difference is what you choose to deem as bullsh*t, and that choice comes from your fandom.  Just another fan. 
    Posted by underdoggggg


    Can you believe these Pats fans resorting to speculation regarding their team in August?  A quick look on the Indy Star forum shows fans only stating proven facts, exact quotes, actual statistics and detailed breakdown of game film.  Fandom at it's best!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    What you read as dire straits, I read as thin at receiver.  How many rookies regularly start each season for the pats?  Isn't that what the TE's are with the exception of Crumpler?  God forbid anyone write anything that can be construed as questioning or critical of the pats.
    Posted by underdoggggg


    underoos are you that stupid?? dude get a clue... the only thing about the ne recievers that is thin is the hair on the back of wes's head...

    all he has do to fix that is see brady's hair guy...

    come on underoos... your usually not that dumb(considering your a dolts fan)
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Peter King

    jcour - Its not that they don't have receivers, but with Welker potentially out, they have only the following experienced receivers:  Moss, Aiken (who many here bemoan), Crumpler (questionable how much he can help in the pass game), Edleman (looks like he is going to be good). 

    To me that's 2 of any significance (if Welker can't go) - Moss and Edelman.  All I said and I think King is saying - is that you have to hope for some good production out of the rooks and back ups.  and that may happen.  It happened for the colts last year, but until it does, the questions remain and the corps looks thin.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    jcour - Its not that they don't have receivers, but with Welker potentially out, they have only the following experienced receivers:  Moss, Aiken (who many here bemoan), Crumpler (questionable how much he can help in the pass game), Edleman (looks like he is going to be good).  To me that's 2 of any significance (if Welker can't go) - Moss and Edelman.  All I said and I think King is saying - is that you have to hope for some good production out of the rooks and back ups.  and that may happen.  It happened for the colts last year, but until it does, the questions remain and the corps looks thin.
    Posted by underdoggggg


    oooh so you have to see it first... well i guess using that logic you could say the dolts are thin... cause what happened last year is a small sample and could certainly be considered a fluke as they really havent proven anything.. so are the dolts thin?? wayne and what ever that dudes name is that sleeps with dolls

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share