Monday, February 26, 2007

We know who Peter King DIDN'T like

Peter King is the sort of douchebag who likes players at the combine if they call him "sir" or "Mr. King." And if you read today's MMQB after the combine, it's not hard to pick out a player King evidently doesn't like. Not because King explicitly points out anything the player said or didn't say to him, but because it's a guy he's chosen to make fun of more than once in his column.

Here's King's "Quote of the Week III" (remember what I said--roman numerals are for philistines):

"Just look at my body of work at USC. I won a national championship as a freshman. I've been all-American two times, broke every record at USC, fourth in NCAA history in scoring touchdowns. I had 41. So look at the film.''

--Trojans wide receiver Dwayne Jarrett, sounding a tad bitter at the prospect of dropping in the draft. He's projected to be a late first- or second-round pick, dropping in some scouts' eyes because of average quickness and a perceived difficulty in getting away from quick corners in bump coverage.

OK. Nothing much to that--though King did choose this quote. Remember, sometimes the reporter doesn't have to inject bias, but shows bias in what he chooses to report about. Showing Jarrett sounding "a tad bitter" then talking about his flaws, is a deliberate choice.

Then look at "Quote of the Week IV":

"I respect him, he respects me, and that's how we pretty much differ.''

--Dwayne Jarrett, on his relationship with former USC wideout Mike Williams.

Was that English he was speaking?

Do you think that Peter King is going to use a player's quote, then say "Was that English he was speaking?" for a player he likes? I don't think so. If King likes a guy, he's not going to go out of his way to insult his use of the English language; he'll save that for guys he didn't like.

Besides that, I'd like to see this quote in context. What is the question he was answering? Was it just, "How do you and Mike Williams differ?" If so, the answer actually makes sense. Mike Williams sucks in the NFL. Jarrett, another USC WR that might be slow, doesn't want to be compared to Mike Williams because that would be bad. However, he is a USC alum with Williams (did they play together, too?) so he doesn't want to insult him by pointing out the ways that Williams sucks and the ways that he, Jarrett, is good. So he avoids the question by saying they respect each other. Fine.

But King isn't done making fun of Jarrett:

a. Dwayne Jarrett said Saturday that Pete Carroll's coaching staff at USC "is the best coaching staff I've ever been around.'' What a tribute! Did you know the USC coaching staff is better than New Brunswick (N.J.) High's? Amazing.

OK. Jarrett said something cliched and meaningless--just like EVERY athlete and EVERY coach says MANY things that are cliched and meaningless. But as a columnist, King gets to pick and choose which lame and meaningless quotes he's going to make fun of. Do you think Tiki Barber ever says anything cliched and meaningless? Brett Favre? Do you think King will make fun of them?

Jarrett must have annoyed King in some way at the combine. Didn't call him "sir." Didn't recognize him. Didn't give him time to answer questions. Who knows? But King has made the effort in his column to make fun of Jarrett, so I have little doubt Jarrett did something that, to King, signified a lack of respect. Because King thinks he's earned the respect of a person he's never met or helped or done anything to or for in his life.

King said other dumb things. Calling Troy Smith "a little Napoleonic, "BUT" a "natural leader." His moralizing over the gore in The Departed. The same brain-dead moralizing schlock he comes with every week.

But as time goes on, if you find that Jarrett becomes one of King's weekly whipping boys, don't be surprised--you can see it beginning here.


  1. Oddly, enough, I wrote about the exact same thing. I also enjoyed how King went after the 8 and 11 year old girls.

  2. Interesting that King's writing has become so obviously bad--and his biases so clear and predictable--that we can look at the same passages and independently reach the same conclusions about the subtext.

  3. I used to read him religiously. This year, however, he fell behind enough other writers/blogs that I probably only read 10 of his MMQB, scanned 2 and just didn't get around to the rest.