Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!

Ramseyfan -
My dislike of King has less to do with his observations on today's game (which, while frequently wrong, are occasionally entertaining) than his bedrock-solid insistance that Art Monk shouldn't be in the Hall. Read the mailbag in his columns - he will admit when he's wrong, but this is the only point he seems to be unwilling to debate.

Here's the article where King debated the Monk situation. He devoted a good amount of space to it. I don't agree with his points, but he does back his stuff up. I definitely don't agree with his anti-Monk sentiment, but I don't see a bias in his writing overall.

Click here and scroll down to the Quote of the Week section:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/01/17/mmqb.divisional/

Don't get me wrong, I strongly disagree with King's decision not to vote Monk into the HoF. I just think that otherwise he's pretty fair towards us.

By devoting that many column inches to why he will not (not "did not", will not) vote for Art Monk, he demonstrates bias. And the reasons are so media-centric!
1) The media only twice voted him an All-Pro. Art Monk held the media in disdain. He rarely granted interviews, and was less than warm during them.
2) Players stated they "didn't fear Monk". Players say all kinds of things to the media. Fred-Ex spent days denigrating a Patriots secondary that embarassed him and his family last Super Bowl. I suppose his "lack of fear" says more about them than it does him.
3) Numbers don't mean everything. The only thing he said that makes sense - but they have to mean something! He was the first WR with 100 catches in a season. He caught balls in 183 straight games (then a record). He has more catches than anyone in the Hall. Those numbers mean something. By mentioning the dozen or so receivers who will eclipse some of his numbers in the next five to ten years, King makes more of a comparison of eras than players - in his era, Monk (along with Rice and, to a lesser extent, Largent) set the benchmarks that today's receivers need to reach to achieve greatness. Of those three receivers, Largent is in the Hall, and (we presume) King will be voting for Rice, despite his gaudy numbers.

Not only that, the West Coast offense was just getting started. It's nothing short of remarkable that Monk had so many catches in a run-oriented offense.

Billick has a personality all right, he's a huge a--hole with an enormous head.

As for Peter King, I actually like him. King adores Gibbs (and regularly stands by Gibbs' decisions) and, in my opinion, is not biased against the Redskins. He's often wrong, but who isn't? Moreover, King often admits it when he is wrong. That's more than I can say for many football experts who never remind readers when it turns out their predictions were wrong.

I agree with this Ramsey...I read King every week. He is often wrong but I don't think it's a bias. I am very annoyed at the way his opinion is involved in keeping Art Monk out of the hall, but I don't think he does it out of a dislike for the skins or Monk. And as I said before on this website, King predicted the Redskins would win big with Spurrier so he is certainly not biased with the skins or any other team. I think a lot of the king dislike is centered around Monk and I must admit when the hall voting comes up every year King loses popularity points with me also but I do think he is one of the better NFL writers around...

Just to add to my last post, I think Lenny P has a genuine dislike for the Redskins. if you read Kings redskins stories and Pastabellies stories in the same sitting you will see a big difference. Lenny makes underhanded unprofessional comments which point to a genuine dislike for the Redskins. Peter King may have negative opinions on the skins but he will always keep them professional.

By devoting that many column inches to why he will not (not "did not", will not) vote for Art Monk, he demonstrates bias. And the reasons are so media-centric!
1) The media only twice voted him an All-Pro. Art Monk held the media in disdain. He rarely granted interviews, and was less than warm during them.
2) Players stated they "didn't fear Monk". Players say all kinds of things to the media. Fred-Ex spent days denigrating a Patriots secondary that embarassed him and his family last Super Bowl. I suppose his "lack of fear" says more about them than it does him.
3) Numbers don't mean everything. The only thing he said that makes sense - but they have to mean something! He was the first WR with 100 catches in a season. He caught balls in 183 straight games (then a record). He has more catches than anyone in the Hall. Those numbers mean something. By mentioning the dozen or so receivers who will eclipse some of his numbers in the next five to ten years, King makes more of a comparison of eras than players - in his era, Monk (along with Rice and, to a lesser extent, Largent) set the benchmarks that today's receivers need to reach to achieve greatness. Of those three receivers, Largent is in the Hall, and (we presume) King will be voting for Rice, despite his gaudy numbers.

Yeah I totally agree with your stance on Art Monk, it's just that nowhere in Peter King's points does he show any indication of bias. Bias isn't necessarily present when someone disagrees with you. I can't point to any bias in any of his writing. If he's biased against Monk because Monk didn't take to the media, then King's doing a really good job of covering up for that bias by making fair points backed up by stats.

Again, we might disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he has it in for the Washington Redskins like Lenny P does.

PS Celts you are right on with your posts.

Maybe it would be better phrased as his argument is piss-poor for not wanting Monk in. :)

Yeah I totally agree with your stance on Art Monk, it's just that nowhere in Peter King's points does he show any indication of bias. Bias isn't necessarily present when someone disagrees with you. I can't point to any bias in any of his writing. If he's biased against Monk because Monk didn't take to the media, then King's doing a really good job of covering up for that bias by making fair points backed up by stats.
Except his stats in this case are that stats don't matter. Monk's numbers - record-setting though they may have been - aren't enough. His other points against Monk can be explained by his general reluctance to kowtow to the likes of Peter King.

I also think you need to take those numbers in context. With his argument, and how players just get bigger, stronger and faster each year, SOMEONE will be on pace for 200 catches one year.