Peter King is an Idiot

Kid Vicious · Post #1 » by **Kid Vicious** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:10 pm

How does anyone take him seriously anymore?

Read his latest MMBQ: King is a Moron

He is vehemently defending Tiki again, dedicating his article towards defending his co-worker.

Firstly, he should be talking about the Superbowl. Secondly, everyone can see that Tiki's negativity was holding the Giants back. Is it any coincidence that when he leaves, they make the Superbowl in their first season without him?

Peter King is good for nothing but promoting his friends. He will never criticize one of his 'buddies' like Favre or Tiki, and is more apt to shower praise on them, even when it's not warranted.

I have read my last Peter King article....I'm done with idiot writers who know nothing about the game.

Post #2 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:04 pm

I wouldn

UrbanLegendMD · Post #3 » by **UrbanLegendMD** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:33 pm

Yeah BBJ knows him well.

Post #4 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:04 pm

Kid Vicious wrote:How does anyone take him seriously anymore?

Read his latest MMBQ: King is a Moron

He is vehemently defending Tiki again, dedicating his article towards defending his co-worker.

Firstly, he should be talking about the Superbowl. Secondly, everyone can see that Tiki's negativity was holding the Giants back. Is it any coincidence that when he leaves, they make the Superbowl in their first season without him?

Peter King is good for nothing but promoting his friends. He will never criticize one of his 'buddies' like Favre or Tiki, and is more apt to shower praise on them, even when it's not warranted.

I have read my last Peter King article....I'm done with idiot writers who know nothing about the game.

Maybe you linked to the wrong article, but King's MMQB column barely touches any defense of Barber:

I like Barber, and I've spent much of the fall defending him to staunch Giants fans who are mad as hell at him for criticizing coach Tom Coughlin on his way out last winter and for questioning the leadership of quarterback Eli Manning last summer. My feeling all along has been that once Barber signed to work for NBC, he was no longer a member of the Giants, and he was obligated to give his honest opinion about all 32 teams in the NFL, including the one he knew best, the Giants. When NBC signs your check, it's not a disloyal thing to criticize the coach you used to play for if you feel the criticism is legitimate, and it's not a disloyal thing to say Manning is a lousy leader if that's how you feel. It's not only not disloyal. It's honorable.

That's the extent of it.

The rest of the article relates to Barber and whether or not he misses playing football.

So what's the problem?

Post #5 » by **HCYanks** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:25 pm

Yeah King can sometimes be annoying with his man-crushes, but there are other football writers who are much more deserving of your disdain. When he sticks to reporting-based stories, he's written some really nice stuff.

Post #6 » by **Icness** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:43 pm

Trust me when I tell you Peter King is probably the most-respected of the "insiders" in the business by NFL front offices. He would have no qualms about ripping Tiki just because they are co-workers if he felt it was merited. I've done some work for Peter King and he served as my adjunct faculty advisor for my senior thesis, so I might be a little biased. But the man knows his football, and he's paid (quite well) to create buzz and sell magazines with his opinions. I don't always agree with him but I understand he has to be somewhat controversial in order to get attention from time to time. Better that than being a lap-dog suck boy like some other guys.

As for the opinion about Tiki holding the Giants back, I think the loss of Jeremy Shockey had a great deal more impact on the Giants' positive finish than not having Tiki. Eli has been a much better QB without Shockey and the whole team seems much more at peace and cohesive since he went away. I think losing Tiki helped Tom Coughlin prepare for the season and do some actual coaching instead of firefighting, so I'm not saying it's wrong. But that is clearly a much better team without Jeremy Shockey.

LAKESHOW · Post #7 » by **LAKESHOW** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:40 am

tiki held back the giants?? that is crazytalk. nothing was ever heard from tiki until this year, because he was doing media work. but while HE WAS WITH THE GIANTS, not a peep. nothing was heard. never mentioned anything negative against his teammates or coach. when he played he was a model citizen.

so holding back the giants is only a phrase used by many, THIS YEAR! but it definitely was not heard of or used WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY WITH THE TEAM!

East_Coast · Post #8 » by **East_Coast** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:11 pm

Kid Vicious wrote:Secondly, everyone can see that Tiki's negativity was holding the Giants back. Is it any coincidence that when he leaves, they make the Superbowl in their first season without him?

Tiki wasn't "negative" when he played for the Giants. How many times did he put the team on his back when he had virtually no help from Eli.

A lot of factors contributed to the Giants being in the SB, Eli's maturation being the biggest one, but Titi's leaving wasn't the main reason.

I know that the Tiki-hate is intense in NY, but people shouldn't go overboard with it.