Peter King makes me want to gouge my eyes out...

Dorito Dink · May 23, 2016

I'm offended that Notre Dame encourages the stereotype that we're violent. If they don't change it then I'll be forced to bash skulls.

Jackson 2 · May 23, 2016

Brady'sButtBoy said:
I have no stake in this but you ought to read a little more closely if you're going to rip somebody. The by-the-book thing is a little weird granted, but King does not in any way suggest the Ravens shouldn't be docked a draft pick. He says, "I'd be surprised" if they lose a draft pick, not even close to what you imply. And the term "precious" is clearly meant to refer to all mid-round draft picks, not just the Raven's.

Brady was railroaded, no doubt, but that doesn't mean every other team ought to be treated as unfairly.

And speaking of fair - you fail to mention that King, out of what could be thousands of apropos choices, chooses to run a letter to the 2nd Court of Appeals, written by a private citizen no less, in his Quotes Of The Week; you'll like it - “Isn’t this still the United States of America, where a person is innocent till proven guilty? Tom Brady was never proven guilty. Don’t you have anything more important to do?”

Doesn't seem like the work of a moron or Pats hater as you make him out to be. Pay a little more attention and you'll not have to use as much toothpaste after puking in your mouth so often.

B.S. Because Brady was railroaded is precisely why I WANT every other team to be treated that unfairly. Every...single...one...

QuantumMechanic · May 23, 2016

Jackson 2 said:
B.S. Because Brady was railroaded is precisely why I WANT every other team to be treated that unfairly. Every...single...one...

Exactly!

And not just for revenge but also because if no one else gets railroaded than there is zero incentive for the owners -- who are the only ones who can do something about it -- to do something about it.

upstater1 · May 23, 2016

TommyBrady12 said:
Shouldn't indian people (from india) be complaining about the cleveland indians? How about the chicago blackhawks? No one is telling those franchises to change their name. Why pick on just the redskins? Leave it alone.

1. Why would they be offended?
2. Blackhawk is a Sauk Indian name.
3. Redskin is a derogatory term used by whites to refer to the natives.

upstater1 · May 23, 2016

upstater1 said:
1. Why would they be offended?
2. Blackhawk is a Sauk Indian name.
3. Redskin is a derogatory term used by whites to refer to the natives.

There is literally nothing to disagree with here, archstanton.

patman12 · May 23, 2016

TommyBrady12 said:
Shouldn't indian people (from india) be complaining about the cleveland indians? How about the chicago blackhawks? No one is telling those franchises to change their name. Why pick on just the redskins? Leave it alone.

The quick answer is that the Redskins name is considered by many as a derogatory slur towards Native American Indians whereas the Blackhawks are named after an Army unit that was named after an Indian leader that fought against the US (Chief Black Hawk). There is a bunch of debate about the origin of the word Redskin and if it really is a slur but the commonly held belief is that it is offensive.

I think this is mostly all silliness but if Native Americans were 90% in favor of having the team name changed because they deemed the name Redskins as offensive, then I would have zero issue with that argument.

Kontradiction · May 23, 2016

upstater1 said:
1. Why would they be offended?
2. Blackhawk is a Sauk Indian name.
3. Redskin is a derogatory term used by whites to refer to the natives.

An overwhelming majority of actual Native Americans that were polled don't find the term all that derogatory anymore. In football terms, that poll was a 56-3 blowout.

archstanton543 · May 23, 2016

KontradictioN said:
An overwhelming majority of actual Native Americans that were polled don't find the term all that derogatory anymore. In football terms, that poll was a 56-3 blowout.

Right and what about Indians calling white people "Paleface"? Is that derogatory towards white people?

chasa · May 23, 2016

patman12 said:
The quick answer is that the Redskins name is considered by many as a derogatory slur towards Native American Indians whereas the Blackhawks are named after an Army unit that was named after an Indian leader that fought against the US (Chief Black Hawk). There is a bunch of debate about the origin of the word Redskin and if it really is a slur but the commonly held belief is that it is offensive.

I think this is mostly all silliness but if Native Americans were 90% in favor of having the team name changed because they deemed the name Redskins as offensive, then I would have zero issue with that argument.

lacking from that article were any credentials of the native americans in question. asking a bunch of white people who self identify as "native american" isn't the same as asking actual native americans.

It would be like asking me how slavery and Male dominated society affects my life, as a white male that identifies as a sassy black woman.

Shockt327 · May 23, 2016

KontradictioN said:
For the most part? White people living in upper middle class neighborhoods posting anonymously behind their white picket fences apparently care more about it than Native Americans actually do. You know... the people that actually have an excuse to be offended by the name? The people who are offended are the same people who, odds are, have very little (if any) actual friends outside of their own race so they feel the need to overcompensate. I call them the C.O.C. (Constantly Offended Crowd). This crowd knows no race, sexuality, height, weight, religious belief, or political affiliation. They are simply miserable people who wake up every day (probably alone or next to a whale of a partner) offended by something in the world that, in the big picture, is usually extremely trivial. As time goes on, the rest of us will continue to learn to pay them no mind.

This.

I'm as liberal as it gets and I feel the same way. A sports logo/name change an utterly superficial gesture that white people are hopping on the bandwagon for. It's superficial in the sense that -- the actual change in question -- will not impact they own suburban existence in any real way, nor will it have any tangible impact on the minority in question. Funny how they don't rally around causes that might impact their own neighborhood (or checkbook). It's all so they can hold their heads high and pretend like they've fought the good fight for a minority.

Kontradiction · May 23, 2016

Shockt327 said:
This.

I'm as liberal as it gets and I feel the same way. A sports logo/name change an utterly superficial gesture that white people are hopping on the bandwagon for. It's superficial in the sense that -- the actual change in question -- will not impact they own suburban existence in any real way, nor will it have any tangible impact on the minority in question. Funny how they don't rally around causes that might impact their own neighborhood (or checkbook). It's all so they can hold their heads high and pretend like they've fought the good fight for a minority.

Boom.

lurker1965 · May 23, 2016

If I ever need an update on the coffee in the Pittsburgh airport, I'm glad Peter is there for me.

oldrover · May 23, 2016

Shockt327 said:
This.

I'm as liberal as it gets and I feel the same way. A sports logo/name change an utterly superficial gesture that white people are hopping on the bandwagon for. It's superficial in the sense that -- the actual change in question -- will not impact they own suburban existence in any real way, nor will it have any tangible impact on the minority in question. Funny how they don't rally around causes that might impact their own neighborhood (or checkbook). It's all so they can hold their heads high and pretend like they've fought the good fight for a minority.

I've considered your statement carefully, and come to the conclusion that...

Tony2046 · May 23, 2016

upstater1 said:
1. Why would they be offended?
2. Blackhawk is a Sauk Indian name.
3. Redskin is a derogatory term used by whites to refer to the natives.

I have never in my life heard anyone disparage an American Indian with the term "Redskin". Never.

But if you, a bunch of COC's (Kontra's term) and 9% of the American Indians wish to change the name might I suggest the following:

1. The Washington Lobbyists - Have a logo with two parties exchanging cash for votes.

2. The washington puppies - Everyone loves puppies but would advise using a neutral colored puppy for the logo just to be safe.

3. The Washington Politicians - Have multiple logos representing each party. Logo on helmet dependant on which party the current elected president represented. For example, last year they would have played with a donkey on the helmet.

4. The Washington "EIAW" (Everybody Is A Winner) - The logo could be a nice big blue participation ribbon on the side of the helmet. After every loss the Coach would have to contractually state that "although this was a tough loss everybody tried their hardest"

5. The Washington PCers - After every game the Owner, the Coach and the players would argue the flags, the legalities of certain plays and find ways to improve games by changing the rules...... Oh Wait.....that already exists......Ok scratch that.

Honestly I don't care and if it turns out that a majority of our American Indian brothers find this offensive then it should be changed but that doesn't seem to be the case.

RecoveringCowboy · May 23, 2016

oldrover said:
(rant mode on)

Can he really be this stupid?!?! Three gems from today's column (and by 'gems' I mean 'turds':

1. Regarding the Raven's practice violation, he refers to Baltimore as the 'by-the-book' Ravens. (throwing up in my mouth a little) Moreover, he says the Ravens shouldn't lose one of their quote "PRECIOUS MIDDLE ROUND" draft picks... even though THEY WERE CAUGHT... WITH PROOF. Hmm... not caught doing anything... with NO proof... that cost a 1st and a 4th for one team. But maybe Baltimore's pick are just more 'precious'.

2. Native Americans by 90%-9% in a recent poll said they were not bothered by the Redskins team name. 90-9!!!! King's response: "What about the people who ARE bothered?" <eyes rolling> By that logic, we would never allow anything in this country, since some moron will always be against it.

Oh, and guess what... he's one of those precious snowflakes who IS bothered about it, and will bloviate about it soon. Can't effing wait.

3. The SI poll of the NFL's alltime most hated players... Peter is upset by the inclusion of ... wait for it... that all time NFL model citizen... Odell Beckham Jr. Did King not watch the Panthers game and see the cheapshotting that guy did when he was being shut down for the first three quarters? This to King, makes the article worthless. Odd that King makes no mention of the #5 on that list... the GOAT. Nothing to see THERE.

Either King is an effing idiot... or... he has a brilliantly Machiavellian sense of exactly which buttons to push to enrage his readers.

I choose A.

Future Super Bowl sites among topics at NFL meetings | The MMQB with Peter King

(rant mode off) (reminder to self: no third cup of coffee before 9am)

Maybe you also assume common sense is common place. I'm slowly realizing it's not.

NashuaPats · May 23, 2016

From what I have read, the term "Redskins" referred to Native American warriors because warriors from many tribes would wear red war paint when going into battle. It was chosen because it was a term of honor. Why would any team name themselves after a derogatory word? It doesn't make sense. "Redskins" was never a derogatory term, but some people today mistake it for one. As long as Native Americans aren't offended, then it shouldn't be changed. After decades of people lecturing to Native Americans that they should be offended, 90% still haven't bought into it. That says something. Maybe, just maybe people were wrong about the meaning and connotation of the word to begin with.

NEPats1 · May 23, 2016

Peter King in March:

Peyton Manning retires from NFL; Tom Brady: ‘He set the standard' | The MMQB with Peter King

Osweiler, however, will be Denver’s prime target, and you should expect him to be re-signed by John Elway. The Broncos GM is convinced Osweiler can be a star.

Peter King in April after Osweiler signs with Houston:

J.J. Watt of Houston Texans talks injury, NFL future, retirement | The MMQB with Peter King

With the exception of Brock Osweiler (and I’m not convinced that Elway is broken up that he missed out on paying Osweiler $16-18 million a year), Elway hasn’t lost a very big player yet whom he wanted to keep.

jagkho · May 23, 2016

I've known he's an idiot from the first time I read his column title " Ten Things I Think I Think."

This implies that he's not even sure of what he thinks --- and it gives him a out for any opinion he states --- namely "Well, its not what I think, its only what I think I think." Really cowardly journalism

Deflatemyballs · May 23, 2016

Peter King is nothing but a mouthpiece media whore. That's all I really got

Tony2046 · May 23, 2016

I will say that Peter King was one of the first guys I heard question the whole deflategate incident based on the science in the Wells report.

Edit: Listen from around the 6 minute mark.

(<<Link)

Peter King makes me want to gouge my eyes out...

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

Burn it all down!

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

On my retirement tour.

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

On my retirement tour.

In the Starting Line-Up

"You're gonna have to serve somebody..."

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

On the Roster

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter