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. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    In Response to Re: Peter King : 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.
    Posted by bradleyBliss


    I think the concern is that the "quite deep" part is largely unproven rookies at this point.  Looks like we could be starting 2 rookie TE's, 1 rookie reciever, and have the 4th reciever as a rookie as well. 

    If these guys turn out to be a Chad Jackson or Bethal Johnson, we could be in serious trouble.
     
  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. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    I heard Edelman only has "potential".  So, yeah, this WR group could be in serious trouble.
    Posted by russgriswold


    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.
     
  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. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    In Response to Re: Peter King : 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.
    Posted by ebuddha


    I think Jackson did.  But college production is no guarentee to translate to pro production.  I am not saying these guys are going to be busts, just that at this point their unproven.  How can you not be alittle nervous when a good portion of your pass attack (2 TE's, #2 and #4 reciever) are rookies that have yet to take a single snap in a regular season game.
     
  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. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2'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


    Well appearences can be deiciving.  Just like you can't say there better off, you cant say their worse off either (even if only saying appreance).  There UNPROVEN at this point.  Time will tell if their better or worse off.

    Not sure it could get any worse then Galloway last year anyway thou. 
     
  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. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    In Response to Re: Peter King : Right, but Edelman only has "potential"?  You do realize the only thing that held him back from an even more impressive rookie season was some guy named Wes Welker and the fact he broke his arm, correct???? How is me really liking Edelman's progression and skill set here wearing "rose colored glasses"??? Maybe because the bad is minimal and far less than 80% of other organizations, I don't see the point in really mentioning it???? This is why people suspect you as a troll.
    Posted by russgriswold


    What does edelmans progession have to do with how tate or price progress? any more then how Jackson and Johnson did not progess have to do with tate or price?

    You mention ONLY edelman like every rookie will progress like he did. Thats NOT the case.

    Plus no one was even discussing edelman.  They have Moss at #1, assuming welker is healthy, he is in the slot.  Edelman is welkers backup in the slot unless you are suggesting using him as the #2?  If not, you are starting two rookie TE's (maybe Grumpler starts but he would only block), a rookie at #2 (Price or Tate), and have a rookie as #4 (Price or Tate).

    Thats alot of Rookies. So I dont think its being a troll for saying there is some uncertainty there and alittle worrisome.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 123meg. Show 123meg's posts

    Re: Peter King

    Tate is not a rookie
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    Tate is not a rookie
    Posted by 123meg


    LOL ok what did he play 1 game and like 3 snaps? I stand corrected.  There is NO uncertainty there.
     
  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. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Peter King

    In Response to Re: Peter King:
    Two actually, plus preseason.  This is his second full offseason/training camp. 
    Posted by 123meg


    Wait, he was hurt in college and put on the PUP list before the season (the one you have to miss the first 6 games).  So, he wasnt in any preason games or practices.

    I think he was active for 2 games, but only actually got into 1 game and then for just a few snaps.

    Either way my point is he is still an unproven guy at this point.  Coming off a knee injury, makes it even more so.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share