jbooma Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Profootballtalk.com mentions that with tampering so prevalent in the NFL nowadays, it's almost a certainty that L.A. already has a deal in place that would more than make up for that $4 million. Teams mentioned were the Vikings, Browns, and Steelers. This of course would lessen the Peter King insinuation that the Skins are doing something wrong. Very good point, if another team already told him if you get free we wil pay you X of course he would jump. I just wish the whole thing with LA would have ended better here, still think the guy is a great player and he will be on another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 He basically came out and accused them of fraud with no evidence.... But he didn't. He prefaced it by saying 'Not saying it didn't happen, but...' There's no lawsuit there. As for the evidence thing, you're right, there isn't any. But he does give a reason for the basis of his opinion: 'I am saying with all the money the Redskins have to spare and how convenient it was that the team could find this money after months of hand-wringing over the Arrington deal, the league needs to double check that the accounting of this is clean. ' It's not exactly coming from nowhere. LA and the skins' contract problems have been highly publicized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nope, not him or Pastabelly. I hope they both, umm, errr, nevermind. I'm going to be nice today. It's a rough day for us, isn't Halter? Losing LA makes this a sad, sad day. Well, for some of us anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterwagen Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 uh...isn't that where an opinion comes from? Don't you 'make up' your mind on something when you form an opinion?Opinions without ANY basis in facts are useless. He doesn't have to be able to win a court case, but random, out of left field speculation on a relatively minor issue (especially considering all that is going on right now), is not what you would expect from a well known writer. That then leads to questions about his motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 :2drunks:I'd love to run into Peter King:gang:....run my face in to his face a few timesEDIT: HAHAHA! Man, I want to run my fist into his face!! :doh: :laugh: Oh man, I think I just choked on my food. Ok, that's better. It is kind of funny (as someone pointed out) that Arrington might well already have a deal worked out with another team, and yet it's the Redskins doing the cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 To hurt King's opinion it was reported LA was the only skin asked to restructure that did not, so it was clear he wanted out of here. I would like now to hear Joe or Danny respond to Mr. King. I think he is pissed that the deal will be approved and the owners like Danny are not going to stay in the way like he thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 From his MMQB column --2. I think just for the sake of insuring trust in the salary cap from some skeptical front offices, the league needs to make sure LaVar Arrington is really going to forego the $4 million in guaranteed money he gave back to Washington to get his freedom now. Not saying it didn't happen, but I am saying with all the money the Redskins have to spare and how convenient it was that the team could find this money after months of hand-wringing over the Arrington deal, the league needs to double-check that the accounting of this is clean. Note to the "Reporter" look it up and then report the facts... Edit: another lazy arse that is willing to hurl accusations and then sit back and wait to be babyfed the alledged facts from the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 It's King's opinion, and nothing more. People reading it and assuming hes reporting facts, or has some inside information are the reason everyone around here gets so worked up about it. You got it right. 'King can say what he wants.' You don't have to agree with it.That's exactly all it is supposed to be taken as. You read his opinions, take it with a grain of salt and realize that it is nothing more than one man's 'mildly entertaining' opinion. I find it funny that no one mentions how on the first page of the article, King says that the sky isn't falling, and that football will be fine without a salary cap. That doesn't sound like a guy who is out to get the skins... I get that I don't have to agree...I don't care what his opinion is. However, my only point in the post you quoted was that he doesn't earn much credibility by just throwing these theories out there only to have them shot down all the time. As for the Redskin-bashing...I think he dislikes Snyder, not Gibbs or anything like that. I think he's truly torn between respecting Gibbs and disliking Snyder. But again, it's just my opinion so I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Is it wrong to wish death on someone? No way KG! If you talk crap about the 'Skins you will sleep with the fishes, thanks to my Uncle Louie! Now help me putting those concrete shoes on him... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 No way KG! If you talk crap about the 'Skins you will sleep with the fishes, thanks to my Uncle Louie! Now help me putting those concrete shoes on him... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Meet me at the docks. He's in my trunk now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangars Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 man, i really hate him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21dave Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Didn't King accuse us of tampering with Lawyer Milloy a few years back? I think this accusation will go the same route as that one did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 he sounds like Westy let it go Petey, you were wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballGuy2677 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 From his MMQB column --2. I think just for the sake of insuring trust in the salary cap from some skeptical front offices, the league needs to make sure LaVar Arrington is really going to forego the $4 million in guaranteed money he gave back to Washington to get his freedom now. Not saying it didn't happen, but I am saying with all the money the Redskins have to spare and how convenient it was that the team could find this money after months of hand-wringing over the Arrington deal, the league needs to double-check that the accounting of this is clean. Peter King needs to be fired after a comment like that. Seriously, thats uncalled for. And like the Denver Broncos didnt cheat the year they won the Super Bowl? It wasnt big, its just like they restructured John Elways contract without telling anyone and it was over the 30% rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyf316 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I just love the fact that he's got to stoop to this level to get a story. What a jackass. In a related topic, I'm a little skeptical that Peter King is a real writer. Somebody at SI should check out his work as it occurs just to make sure it's on the level. Ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Peter is a peter when it comes to reporting(??) on the Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Opinions without ANY basis in facts are useless. He doesn't have to be able to win a court case, but random, out of left field speculation on a relatively minor issue (especially considering all that is going on right now), is not what you would expect from a well known writer. That then leads to questions about his motivation. here's your basis in fact: '...with all the money the Redskins have to spare and how convenient it was that the team could find this money after months of hand-wringing over the Arrington deal...' It's a fact that the Redskins have money to spend, and will spend any amount of money to better the team. It's also a fact that the 'skins and Arrington have squabbled over money in the past. -------- why is it such a stretch and random, out of left field speculation to think something underhanded went down to get this done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Peter King is a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 another Skins mention Washington cuts LaVar Arrington. No big surprise. But word around the league for weeks has been if a deal isn't done, the 'Skins will have a record number of minimum-salary players and maybe even trade most of their 2006 draft picks for picks in the 2007 draft, when owner Dan Snyder could use the lack of a salary cap to pay players exorbitant salaries he just can't pay right now. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/03/06/labor/1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 But the most important fact is information that SHOWS there is evidence of any "cheating". He left ALL that out. What he has is pure speculation, with NO evidence whatsoever. There is no basis in fact for him to say the Redskins "cheated". Spaniard, he didnt speculate that the redskins have tons of money to spend, or that the skins and arrington have squabbled. That wasnt what the blurb was about. It was about Redskins possible "cheating". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanos Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 What I hate about King, is that he never interacts with the public to be called on his "sources". I hope he 's on Dan Patrick so callers can put him on the grill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 But the most important fact is information that SHOWS there is evidence of any "cheating". He left ALL that out. What he has is pure speculation, with NO evidence whatsoever.There is no basis in fact for him to say the Redskins "cheated". Spaniard, he didnt speculate that the redskins have tons of money to spend, or that the skins and arrington have squabbled. That wasnt what the blurb was about. It was about Redskins possible "cheating". right. based on those facts, he speculated on the possibility of underhanded dealings. In an opinion/editorial-type article. End of story. Why does he need to show evidence of cheating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Is it wrong to wish death on someone? No but is that the best you can do? There are a host of horrifically painful lingering things worse than mere death to wish on King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 right. based on those facts, he speculated on the possibility of underhanded dealings. In an opinion/editorial-type article. End of story. Why does he need to show evidence of cheating? If an "opinion Piece" showed up in your local paper stating that you were a sexual predator, would you still feel the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 2. I think just for the sake of insuring trust in NFL reporting from some skeptical fans, the league needs to make sure Peter King really does have bona fide sources for his stories and is not just pulling his stories out of his ample arse. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I am saying with all of the information he has to cover and how convenient it is that can supposedly find local stories better than beat writers, the league needs to double-check that the his sources, first of all exist, and second are legit. Edited for content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.