Peter King

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsfan1033. Show Patsfan1033's posts

    Re: Peter King

    Yea, read his article earlier and was thinking the same thing...he's getting the Tom Jackson treatment and deservedly so!
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bradleyBliss. Show bradleyBliss'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



    Actually doggiedodo that isn't what they are criticising or observing about PK. What they mean is that he doesn't know enough about the young, but very real talent of the recent draft picks over the last two years or so. We are truly thin at OLB, but we are quite deep at WR. PK used to know the Patriots in depth. He doesn't seem to do so now.


     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Peter King

    It's not bad to be starting rookies if they can play. The Pats appear to have done an excellent job in the draft this year..Spikes, Gronk, Hernandez, Mesko, McCourty. These guys can play. Parcells used to say, " It's not throwing them to the wolves if they are one of the Wolves". We got a few wolves this year and we should unleash them.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ebuddha. Show ebuddha's posts

    Re: Peter King

    Familiarity breeds contempt? Seems as though ever since King moved to Boston, he's not very welcome down there. Ironic that the city in which he makes his home, is the one he seems to know least about (in an NFL sense).
     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    How is it critical when it's completely off base?  If you are critical, at least have a leg to stand on. Get it? Patten can still play right now if he wanted to. He decided to retire because he has young kids blowing by him in camp. This is a good thing.  Not a bad thing. Again, the media looks for a name on the shirt they recognize AND King also conveniently leaves out Edelman, Tate and the TEs. Hey, Peter, name me Brady's best TEs in his career here.  Yeah, that's what I thought. This is my point. You call it "thin", I call it DEEP at WR.  Very deep.   He mentions Price, but mysteriously leaves out a VERY impressive Julian Edelman and a eye popping Tate. This is BETTER THAN ANYTHING BRADY HAS HAD HIS ENTIRE CAREER INCLUDING 2007.  IN 2007, he had Stallworth who was not even used after Week 6 because that's how deadly that offense was. Now, he has 3 TEs being brought in here, Moss/Welker, Edelman and a young Tate? This is thin? I get Tate has never played 16 games in his career before.  Neither has Price.  If this is thin, what is Indy's WR corps?  "Quite thin"? Wayne = Moss Gonzalez = Welker Garcon = Tate Collie = Edelman I am using "=" here to serve the purpose of what each WR represents in terms of quality for each team. Obviously, I think Moss />Wayne, Welker />Gonzalez, I'd put Garcon />Tate and I feel Edelman />Collie. So, really, how thin is this WR corps here? Note how Jeff Saturday just had surgery and is rehabbing, but where is the media on this?  Wouldn't that be a possible problem for Manning? I think it would.  Ugoh has been moved to Guard. That's a new position for him. Note how when Kazcur moves inside, gets hurt, etc, it's a gloom and doom media sensation. When a draft bust by Polian like Ugoh moves inside, there is no real mention of it. And I am not even mentioning the O  Line in general for Indy that seems to have some serious problems.  Didn't Howard Mudd retire, too??? I'll keep saying this until I am proven wrong, but NE is held to a different standard because of an agenda the media has created against NE. This is a constant thing.  Another example is the Brady and Manning contracts. If you were a casual NFL fan, you'd think ONLY Bob Kraft is being "cheap" and looking to trade Brady, not Irsay and the Colts. And, I don't care if Irsay said he wants Manning to be the highest paid QB. Kraft says he wants Brady to retire a Patriot and the media ignores it and creates more lies.  It's incredible. Another example right there.  It's one thing to be critical, but to leave out contexts and facts on purpose proves there is an agenda.
    Posted by russgriswold


    Good post, Russ. I've always thought of Peter King as a blowhard with very little credibility.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ebuddha. Show ebuddha'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


    Neither of those guys had the NCAA production of Tate and Price, did they? Just thinking that off the top of my head, could be proven way wrong with some stats.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 123meg. Show 123meg's posts

    Re: Peter King

    Why assume Welker won't be ready to go when all indications seem to be that he will?  What draft pick - Price?  He's been practicing, why wouldn't he be ready?  Looked ready yesterday.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    Further thoughts - Assuming Welker and their draft pick are not ready to go early in the season (per pk), the pats will start the season with Moss, Edelman, (some unproven 3rd), and a new tight end (either proven and old or unproven, but regardless, new to the system).  If this is the way the season starts - By appearence the pats receiving game will start worse off than they were last year.  
    Posted by underdoggggg


    I take this as the point of the thread, PK is writing from the assumption you state above. If he is right or wrong is irrelevent, it's the fact that he didn't state both sides of the case to allow the reader have a full perspective and form there own opinion. ( ie could Edleman or Tate actually step up ). Now did he exclude the aformentioned WR's on purpose because there unproven or is it becuase of a lack of knowledge in regard to the Pats? and if it is lack of knowledge, why bother to continue to read the words of the uninformed. Should he even be writing if such is the case.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Peter King

    I'm just surprised and happy with the way the WR's and TE's are already working. They looked quite good the other night and very in-Sync for the opening game. They will only get better from here and that is certainly not an area of concern for me.I'm looking forward to seeing them tear Atlanta a new one this week.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from threejak. Show threejak's posts

    Re: Peter King

    Conjecture at it's best....
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 123meg. Show 123meg's posts

    Re: Peter King

    Tate is not a rookie
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 123meg. Show 123meg's posts

    Re: Peter King

    Two actually, plus preseason.  This is his second full offseason/training camp. 
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts