He's a Boston guy. He loves the Red Sox. He writes about the Patriots way more than any other team and the Colts and Jets get a lot of attention as well (presumably because they are Patriots rivals). He's definitely a Patriots fan.
I subscribe to SI, have been for years. Everything I've read from him points that he favors the Pats. It's just my take on his articles. :shit:
I think they placed us in the right position for the simple fact that is our expectations wont be to high so there wont be a big let down all we could do from here on out is suprise teams and climb into the top 5...
Peter King is usually a dick about the jets, but 11 actually isn't bad, although they still should be higher.
The JETS definitely could be higher, but #10 seems to be our highest as of right now; our problem pre-season is a lot of people see our schedule and chalk up losses where there is no guarantee. We also have a lot to prove this year now that we DO have tougher NFC opponents. Denver also gets the NFC North this year, so don't be surprised for them to be a 11-5 team this year. Travis Henry will be a tough back out West and their defense got some help too with Dre Bly being signed.
Quick turnaround Rippers of my rankings don't account for volatility Posted: Tuesday July 17, 2007 1:12PM; Updated: Tuesday July 17, 2007 1:14PM http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/17/mailbag/index.html It's only July 17, and, collectively, you seem to be in midseason vitriolic form already, oh readers of mine. I figured it would be this way when I put the Rams 10th, the Lions 13th and the Vikes 31st in my pre-camp power poll. And before I get to your e-mails, I'd like to point something out about columns like mine. It would be fairly easy and extraordinarily uninteresting to take last year's standings, figure in the offseason moves each team has made, and put the teams in logical order based precisely on what appears to be the way the season will go. It'd be a cookie-cutter exercise. This just in: The season never goes the way we think it will go in July. Never. Every year for the past 10 years -- which I'll illustrate here -- at least one team has come from nowhere to be a major playoff factor the following year. Let's look. 1997: The Giants and Tampa Bay, both 6-10 in 1996, rebound to go 10-5-1 and 10-6. Both make the playoffs. 1998: Arizona, 4-12 the previous year, makes the playoffs and wins a road game as a wild card. 1999: Each NFC division winner -- Washington, Tampa Bay, St. Louis -- comes back from a .500 or poorer season in '98. St. Louis goes from 4-12 to Super Bowl champ. 2000: The Giants and Baltimore, playoff-less and a combined 15-17 the previous year, reach the Super Bowl. 2001: Chicago, 5-11 in 2000, goes 13-3 and wins the NFC Central. New England goes from 5-11 to 11-5 and wins the AFC East, then the Super Bowl. 2002: Tennessee wins the new AFC South at 11-5 after winning seven games the previous year. The Browns make the playoffs. The Browns, people. 2003: Carolina in 2001 and 2002: 8-24. Carolina in 2003: NFC Champion. 2004: Pittsburgh and Atlanta, 11-21 in 2003, win divisions in 2004. The Steelers go 15-1. 2005: The Bucs and Bears improve by six wins and the Giants by five to win their divisions. 2006: Mangenius takes the Jets from 4-12 to 10-6 and the playoffs. The Saints, 3-13 in '05, become America's Team. All right, now: Who had the Saints last year as the rising stars? Carolina in '03? The Rams in '99? The funny thing about my rankings is that, overall, they're incredibly predictable. Who doesn't have Indy, New England and San Diego at the top of their playoff-probable list? They're 1-2-3 for me. Eight of my top nine teams (lone exception: Denver) made the playoffs last year. So what's the ruckus all about? Let's find out. I EVIDENTLY UNDERRATE THE PATS. From Thomas Marples of Duxbury, Mass.: "You make no sense. The Colts beat New England in the AFC title game by one score, lose some key defensive personnel, and the Pats address one of their big weaknesses (wide receiver), and add one of the most versatile defensive players in the NFL. That doesn't make up for the one score which New England lost by? I know the Pats have other problems, but if they had Wes Welker and Donte Stallworth last year instead of Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney, they would have won.'' If Grady Little had guts, the Red Sox would have won the pennant in 2003. If the Chargers hang on to an interception in the divisional round last year, the Patriots wouldn't have advanced to even play the Colts in the game you're talking about. Here's an interesting fact about the way the NFL works, Thomas: The league does not start the next season at the point where the previous season ended. So, unfortunately for you, there's actually going to be a full season played before the Patriots have a chance to battle through the AFC to get to the playoffs and the Super Bowl. I might be wrong, which is customary this time of year, but the Patriots have to prove to me they can stop the Colts from running the ball. They sure didn't when it counted last year. I EVIDENTLY OVERRATE THE JETS. From Harold Moskowitz of Chicago: "The Jets? A team that built its record against non-winning team and lost almost all their games against teams with winning records? And I still do not get your anti-Bengal bias that is constant. What's the difference from last year? How about Carson Palmer being healthy from the get-go and able to practice all summer with his receivers? How about possibly not missing your left tackle for five games, your starting linebackers for almost all of the season, your kick returner, your punt returner, your third-down back. Yet, New Orleans, whose idea of getting better was getting a WR with a bad knee and two former Bengals who were part of the last two horrific defensive seasons, is now "hot" in your book.'' Three things about the Bengals, Harold: 1. They're 8-8 in three of the past four years. 2. Scoring was not their problem last year. They outscored five playoff teams. The lack of a consistent pass rush and allowing foes to complete 63 percent of their throws, now those are problems. Other than the addition of Leon Hall, I don't see that much was done to fix that in the offseason. 3. You act like injuries aren't going to happen. I don't think the Bengals were hit hard by injuries last year compared to other teams in the league. Their starting six skill players -- quarterback, two backs, two wideouts, one tight end -- missed a total of two games due to injury last year. Their best tackle, Willie Anderson, played 16. Their best defensive end and best safety played 16. I don't quite get the outrage. I UNDERRATE THE 49ERS. From Graham of Middlebury, Vt.: "OK, I doubt this note will get any attention because it regards the 49ers, whom you seem to bear a grudge against. You said your biggest problem was that they needed receivers. I would argue that they had several problems, the most glaring being a defense you could drive a truck through. Signing a number of quality defensive starters certainly alleviates that problem, don't you think? As for the receiving corps, seems like there was nowhere to go but up on that front. I'm not saying this core is going to set the world on fire, but I am saying it's a step up, ain't it? My point is, the 49ers went 7-9 with some of the worst, most inconsistent personnel the league has to offer. They've made significant upgrades on both sides of the ball, and you're placing them smack dab in the same place they were last year. You're a tough sell.'' You could be right. I don't see the upgrades you do, at least on offense, though clearly they're better at corner. Why will Ashley Lelie be better than Antonio Bryant? Lelie's average season in his five NFL years: 29 catches, three touchdowns. Darrell Jackson is still not physically right from last season. I wish them well. There's no finer man, and not many brighter coaches, than Mike Nolan. YOU UNDERRATE THE VIKINGS. From Jake of Bemidji, Minn.: "I know you've been burned by Vikings picks before, but 31st??? I expect them to be at least as good/bad as last year. They put one of the worst offenses in NFL history on the field last year and still managed to go 6-10. The defense should actually be better this year since they have so many players coming back from injury. How could the offense be any worse than in '06? Quarterback? I don't think it matters who your QB is -- the receivers will just drop it anyway.'' The Vikings are the team I have the best chance to be wrong about because they played such great defense last year. We'll see how big a loss Mike Tomlin is. I think it'll be significant. And Jake, I think there's a slight chance you might be underplaying the importance of quarterback in the game of football. YOU OVERRATE THE LIONS. From Eric of Eden Prairie, Minn.: "Have you watched the Detroit Lions play at all in the last five years?'' Zing! Touche', Eric. We all go out on limbs in this business. My limb this year has Matt Millen's name all over it. I think they're going to be significantly better, not only because they'll be one of football's five highest-scoring teams, but because with additions like Dewayne White as a pass-rusher, Rod Marinelli is starting to get the players with which he knows he can build a good defense.
It bugs me that he has the header "I EVIDENTLY OVERRATE THE JETS" and then only addresses the anti-Bengal-bias criticism. If he wasn't going to defend his pick of the Jets, he shoulda edited that part out of the email and use a different header.
