OT: Bruce Allen going at Peter King RE: Patriots Draft

[Ian]

Bruce Allen is calling out Peter King for being a bit hypocritical in criticizing the Patriots and praising the Eagles for how each team handled the draft. I watched the exchange on Twitter, and I support Bruce on this. I think he makes some excellent points and I find it interesting King addressed him in a column just published a little while ago:

Boston Sports Media Watch Watching Peter King

Ian

 

[maverick4]

Re: OT: Bruce Allen going at Peter King

Peter King is a gossiping moron who adds zero value to sports journalism. He basically just flouts rumors, and is a barometer/parrot of mainstream mediots.

His disgraceful articles and complete lack of understanding and hypocrisy over the Video Witch Hunt were despicable. Even now the guy doesn't understand that any team can still videotape hand signals at dozens of other locations in the stadium, just not on the sideline.

 

[DarrylS]

Bruce Allen does not get enough credit for what he does, one of my faves..

 

[Ian]

Bruce Allen does not get enough credit for what he does, one of my faves..

Amen. I met him a few years back and I can also tell you that he's a terrific guy, and he's definitely come a long way since he started that site.

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

Peter King :banned:

 

[Deus Irae]

Allen's not 100% wrong, and King's not 100% right, but King is more correct on this than Allen.

 

[maverick4]

Allen's not 100% wrong, and King's not 100% right, but King is more correct on this than Allen.

What are you smoking, did you not read the article? Allen just made a fool of King's hypocritically divergent opinions based on two teams doing very similar things in getting extra value.

 

[Deus Irae]

What are you smoking, did you not read the article? Allen just made a fool of King's hypocritically divergent opinions based on two teams doing very similar things in getting extra value.

I read the article by King, the response by Allen, the twitter exchange, and the King answer today. King has a point. Allen has a point. King's point is better than Allen's.

 

[maverick4]

I read the article by King, the response by Allen, the twitter exchange, and the King answer today. King has a point. Allen has a point. King's point is better than Allen's.

Then you share the same faulty reasoning/logic as King. King is *now* trying to make it about which team had the better talent haul, rather than about his initial view regarding how each team traded down for more picks.

Allen isn't arguing about who picked better players. Since you don't get it, I'll explain it for you. Allen is calling out how the Eagles were praised by King for trading down for more picks and called 'innovative' and 'imaginative', and how the Patriots were 'drunk with power', 'strange', and 'uninspired' for the same moves of trading down for more picks.

What part of King's argument is stronger than Allen's?

 

[Deus Irae]

Then you share the same faulty reasoning/logic as King. King is *now* trying to make it about which team had the better talent haul, rather than about his initial view regarding how each team traded down for more picks.

Allen isn't arguing about who picked better players. Since you don't get it, I'll explain it for you. Allen is calling out how the Eagles were praised by King for trading down for more picks and called 'innovative' and 'imaginative', and how the Patriots were 'drunk with power', 'strange', and 'uninspired' for the same moves of trading down for more picks.

What part of King's argument is stronger than Allen's?

King's right on this and Allen is wrong. I say this not because Allen doesn't have a point (he does), and not because King is 100% correct (he's not), but because of the location of the picks make King's point for him despite his writing missteps. King's comments on the Patriots were a bit silly, because it's about a feeling as opposed to anything concrete, but that's what happens when you're dealing with a columnist and not a strict reporter. However, the Patriots accomplished their biggest moves because of maneuvers with a first round pick, while the Eagles did it with a third round pick. The Patriots could have had Oher and still gotten their 3 defensive choices and pushed a pick or two into the next year, but they got cute with their maneuvering.

King's not 100% correct, as I stated, but his general argument is valid. The successful 'rebuttal' by the Patriots will happen only if the lower round players pan out as a group.

 

[maverick4]

Deus yu're saying the Eagles did an even better, more efficient job of extracting value, is that correct? So you're arguing about different degrees of the same behavior, yes? How does that then somehow justify calling one team the model everyone should emulate, and then call another team strange, drunk, and uninspired, for doing varying degrees of the same thing?

 

[Ian]

strange, drunk, and uninspired

That I think is more of the issue that Bruce has (which I agree with) then whether the two teams outperformed eachother. The moves were similar, albeit different due to the varying degrees of perceived value. But for King to offer up such a different outlook using that type of verbage, I just think is unfair.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're saying the Eagles did an even better, more efficient job of extracting value, is that correct? So you're arguing about different degrees of the same behavior, yes? How does that then somehow justify calling one team the model everyone should emulate, and then call another team strange, drunk, and uninspired, for doing varying degrees of the same thing?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Perhaps you should read King's MMQB Tuesday Edition, since you seem to have missed that part based upon your response here. As I said, Allen's not 100% wrong, King's not 100% right, but King is more right than Allen.

 

[PatriotsDaily.com]

King's comments on the Patriots were a bit silly

This is the entire point of the post.

All the other stuff is secondary, the biggest point being made in the post is that both the Patriots and Eagles moved around during draft weekend. The Patriots do it, and it's "mystifying" and "drunk with power," while the Eagles "put on a draft clinic."

It's way too early to tell whether either team was more successful than the other.

 

[Deus Irae]

The reality is that the Patriots could probably have gotten all 3 defensive players they picked in round 2 AND Michael Oher if they'd made trades differently, and still pushed a pick or two into next season. King looks at Oher as a much better option than Vollmer. In that context, King is absolutely correct about the trades.

Where the Patriots can 'rebut' this is in the future. If Oher craps out, or Vollmer becomes a legitimate force at LT and the players drafted lower in this draft mostly work out, BB will have been correct and brilliant. If they don't, he'll have been too cute by half.

Right now, King's going with too cute by half.

Comparing that to the Eagles, who got bonafide players PLUS the players they wanted by merely parlaying a lower round pick, King sees the Eagles as brilliantly massaging the draft and the Patriots fiddling about. I don't really see an issue here, but it's the offseason, so I'm not surprised that people are getting testy about draft interpretation even as they insist that draft interpretation is utterly useless for at least a couple of years post-draft.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is the entire point of the post.

All the other stuff is secondary, the biggest point being made in the post is that both the Patriots and Eagles moved around during draft weekend. The Patriots do it, and it's "mystifying" and "drunk with power," while the Eagles "put on a draft clinic."

It's way too early to tell whether either team was more successful than the other.

They were silly because he chose silly words, not because he didn't have a possibly valid point.

 

[Sicilian]

King's right on this and Allen is wrong. I say this not because Allen doesn't have a point (he does), and not because King is 100% correct (he's not), but because of the location of the picks make King's point for him despite his writing missteps. King's comments on the Patriots were a bit silly, because it's about a feeling as opposed to anything concrete, but that's what happens when you're dealing with a columnist and not a strict reporter. However, the Patriots accomplished their biggest moves because of maneuvers with a first round pick, while the Eagles did it with a third round pick. The Patriots could have had Oher and still gotten their 3 defensive choices and pushed a pick or two into the next year, but they got cute with their maneuvering.

King's not 100% correct, as I stated, but his general argument is valid. The successful 'rebuttal' by the Patriots will happen only if the lower round players pan out as a group.

I think your arguments would be a whole lot less abrasive if you changed the wording from "King's right on this and Allen is wrong" to something like "I lean closer to King than I do Allen." That at least implies a recognized opinion, as opposed to a claim of fact.

All assumptions about the draft (including yours regarding what they could have gotten, or even if Oher was someone they wanted), is pure speculation. There is no such thing as draft facts when it comes to who made the best moves until about three years after the draft was completed.

 

[maverick4]

King's response/defense doesn't even make sense:
[Though in principle you might be right, Bruce, it wasn’t the same thing. The Patriots didn’t have the same result in trading down as the Eagles did...]

Allen isn't arguing about which team did better. Allen is calling out King for bashing one team and praising another for different degrees of the same smart behavior/strategy.

Of course it "wasn't the same thing", King you moron. King is so dumb he doesn't even know what Allen is arguing about. Perhaps that's why Allen ended with, "I guess that’s all we can do right now", after realizing he was trying to argue with a pea brain.

 

[Pats67]

King's right on this and Allen is wrong. I say this not because Allen doesn't have a point (he does), and not because King is 100% correct (he's not), but because of the location of the picks make King's point for him despite his writing missteps. King's comments on the Patriots were a bit silly, because it's about a feeling as opposed to anything concrete, but that's what happens when you're dealing with a columnist and not a strict reporter. However, the Patriots accomplished their biggest moves because of maneuvers with a first round pick, while the Eagles did it with a third round pick.

That probably explains why the results of the trades left the Patriots two extra picks in the top 65, as opposed to four extra picks in the next 200.

The Patriots could have had Oher and still gotten their 3 defensive choices and pushed a pick or two into the next year, but they got cute with their maneuvering.

This assumes that Oher was a target going in. I'd be interested to know how you discovered this was a priority for them. Or maybe you're just going with your feeling, as opposed to anything concrete.

 

[Sicilian]

Comparing that to the Eagles, who got bonafide players

Again, not to belabor my point, but you have no idea what kind of players the Eagles got yet.