Peter King FMIA article feature Bills camp

[H2o]

It's a solid write up and it's hard to disagree with what he said. At the same time, you have to take in the full context of the settings against KC. First game? The DL couldn't stop a nose bleed and CEH had his best game of the season. Limited opportunities, in bad weather, and we could never really get anything going. The AFC Championship? We all saw what happened when the Chiefs were called for the penalties in the SB that they weren't called for against us. Yeah, McDermott played it conservative on some calls we all wanted him to go for, but the tale of that game was the refs. They let Chris Jones punch people without consequence. Their DB's were illegal contacting, pulling jerseys, and damn near tackling our WR's on almost every play. Tony Romo's clown *ss talking about "sticky coverage" the whole game. Yeah, sticky as in that KC $$$ keeping those penalty flags stuck in the refs' pocket. Did Allen set the world on fire in either game? No, but damn if the deck wasn't stacked against him in both cases, the latter especially. 

[78thealltimegreat]

16 hours ago, Mat68 said:

Running the football did not effect the outcome of any game they played.  I feel that is just a lazy narrative.

If you review the Chiefs game Spags was basically daring the Bills to run the ball  and it isn’t lazy to want a running back to finish off drives when your 258 million dollar QB is essentially your best short yardage back 

[machine gun kelly]

While I agree King’s article is not insightful for a Bills fanatic, he’s writing for across the nation, and the avg. football fan in Indiana, or Minnesota, this is probably a good read for these people.  Several people pointed out the Rodgers piece was interesting, but I bet if you lived in Green Bay, or Milwaukee it is a big so what as they read about Rodgers daily.  I thought it was a fair piece.

[ganesh]

On 8/16/2021 at 10:44 PM, eball said:

 

Let's take a look at Josh in the playoffs.  I'm ignoring the Houston game because Josh was still playing a lot of hero ball at that point.

 

Against Indy he was the best player on the field; he's the only reason the Bills won.

Against Baltimore he outplayed Jackson in a wind storm, didn't turn the ball over, and led the game-winning TD drive at the start of the 2nd half.

Against KC he basically moved the Bills up and down the field but given the dinged-up receiver situation they simply didn't finish drives with TDs, and he had that very untimely INT off John Brown's hands.

 

To sum up, I don't think Josh "failed us" in last season's playoffs and he didn't "lay an egg" against KC.  There were a lot of factors at play against Buffalo in that game.

 

Before I start saying -- or listening to someone say -- Josh "can't win the big games" I need a larger sample size, because what I've seen so far doesn't suggest that at all.

 

+1.  Does Josh need to do better ?  Yes...But he has been the reason for the two wins and also played well in both the Houston and Chiefs game.   If the team had been able to convert those FGs to TDs then the game is a lot closer than people think.   

[Shaw66]

On 8/16/2021 at 7:27 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

The Green Bay fans probably feel similar about the Rodgers stuff. Peter King is covering the whole league it is tough for him to uncover nuggets that local guys haven't already got to during camp when he is literally in and out for 24 hours. 

First, I'm sure he has people helping him. He isn't just in and out.  He has some advance people who should be giving him some nuggets to pursue,

 

Second, he could have written this in February.  Bills pass rush has to be better.  Allen has to be better in big games.   That's not a camp report.  

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

First, I'm sure he has people helping him. He isn't just in and out.  He has some advance people who should be giving him some nuggets to pursue,

 

Second, he could have written this in February.  Bills pass rush has to be better.  Allen has to be better in big games.   That's not a camp report.  

 

Isn't that kind of his point? He went in with a particular narrative in mind and ended up being most struck by something else? 

 

And I don't know what you think budgets in journalism are like these days but I very much doubt he has teams of people going in advance to prep stories for him. 

[Shaw66]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Isn't that kind of his point? He went in with a particular narrative in mind and ended up being most struck by something else? 

 

And I don't know what you think budgets in journalism are like these days but I very much doubt he has teams of people going in advance to prep stories for him. 

You know more about journalism than I do, but I suspect he does have some advance people.   He works for a big-time network, is one of their lead experts, and he's been at the top of his field for a couple of decades.    I'd guess that out of his own pocket he could afford to pay someone, but I'd also guess that when he left SI and joined NBC, he negotiated for support in what he does.   I don't know any of that, but that's what I would guess. 

,

But more to the point, if that article is all that he has to say about the Bills, then it leads me to conclude that it isn't worth reading what he has to say about the the other teams' training camps, because although it's a lot of words, it's pretty superficial coverage of what's actually going on with the team.   I mean, if I were a Seahawks fan and I wanted to know what was going on with the Bills, if you wrote me 800 words or whatever it is that King wrote, I'd know ten times as much about the team as I would get out of what King wrote.   You'd give me something about the offensive line - starters returning, developing depth   You'd give me something about the wideouts and their depth.  You'd tell me something about how the young DEs look and what the Bills need from them, you'd give me something about the running backs.  And there's be the obligatory stuff about Allen, but something more than he has to be better in big games.  

 

What he wrote is accurate, I'll give him that.   But he didn't help fans understand what's going on with the team.   And he doesn't need to travel all around the country visiting camps if that's what he's going to produce.   

 

The economics of journalism is really a shame.   Local papers and media can't earn enough to staff up the way they need to be, and national media do nothing much more than give people what they already know and want to hear.  

 

I'm sick of reading about Rodgers, so I didn't read what King wrote about him.   That's the kind of stuff that King does really well - the personal dynamics of situations on teams.   

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

You know more about journalism than I do, but I suspect he does have some advance people.   He works for a big-time network, is one of their lead experts, and he's been at the top of his field for a couple of decades.    I'd guess that out of his own pocket he could afford to pay someone, but I'd also guess that when he left SI and joined NBC, he negotiated for support in what he does.   I don't know any of that, but that's what I would guess. 

,

But more to the point, if that article is all that he has to say about the Bills, then it leads me to conclude that it isn't worth reading what he has to say about the the other teams' training camps, because although it's a lot of words, it's pretty superficial coverage of what's actually going on with the team.   I mean, if I were a Seahawks fan and I wanted to know what was going on with the Bills, if you wrote me 800 words or whatever it is that King wrote, I'd know ten times as much about the team as I would get out of what King wrote.   You'd give me something about the offensive line - starters returning, developing depth   You'd give me something about the wideouts and their depth.  You'd tell me something about how the young DEs look and what the Bills need from them, you'd give me something about the running backs.  And there's be the obligatory stuff about Allen, but something more than he has to be better in big games.  

 

What he wrote is accurate, I'll give him that.   But he didn't help fans understand what's going on with the team.   And he doesn't need to travel all around the country visiting camps if that's what he's going to produce.   

 

The economics of journalism is really a shame.   Local papers and media can't earn enough to staff up the way they need to be, and national media do nothing much more than give people what they already know and want to hear.  

 

I'm sick of reading about Rodgers, so I didn't read what King wrote about him.   That's the kind of stuff that King does really well - the personal dynamics of situations on teams.   

 

Sports journalism in "the mainstream" is pretty much dead. What you get is poorly paid local beat reporters and then (subject to it making itself long term profitable which to this point has been tricky) The Athletic. One of my former colleagues works as a football (soccer) journalist for the BBC. His job is mainly updating live texts on a Saturday afternoon when games are going on. That isn't journalism. It's a crying shame. 

 

I think King does a decent job. You have to remember as well that rules teams place on media members in camp makes it really difficult. I listen to Sal's segments on WGR on demand and bless him he is barely allowed to say anything meaningful. 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Sports journalism in "the mainstream" is pretty much dead. What you get is poorly paid local beat reporters and then (subject to it making itself long term profitable which to this point has been tricky) The Athletic. One of my former colleagues works as a football (soccer) journalist for the BBC. His job is mainly updating live texts on a Saturday afternoon when games are going on. That isn't journalism. It's a crying shame. 

 

I think King does a decent job. You have to remember as well that rules teams place on media members in camp makes it really difficult. I listen to Sal's segments on WGR on demand and bless him he is barely allowed to say anything meaningful. 

Thanks.  I agree with this.  And I agree about King.  Writes well, is rarely wrong, gets some really good inside stuff.   He's a Boston fan, so he was in his glory all those years with the Pats, because he could write for a national audience about a team he liked.   That notwithstanding, the stuff he wrote about Brady and the Pats was interesting insightful stuff.   He was a Favre groupie, and a Rodgers groupie, so he does good stuff about them, too.  

 

Trying to push out meaningful stuff about 32 teams is more or less impossible.   I had the impression that he left SI because he couldn't stand the grind, and then he jumped right back into it.   But that just goes to support my original point, which was that these camp reports are shallow and don't really give the serious fan a good look at what's going on with the team.   I would guess that the journalist in King would prefer not to do them, because he probably understands that he's just regurgitating stuff and making it look interesting by writing it well.  But the capitalist in him knows that he gets paid six figures to produce content that people will click on.   You and I may be looking for in-depth stuff, but most of his readers, if they read about the Bills at all, want "Allen, Allen, blah, blah, blah, pass rush, first-round pick, blah, blah, blah."   That's what works.  An in-depth analysis also would work, but it won't create any more clicks.  

 

I used to read him all the time.  Now, I rarely do.  If the Bills have a lot of success again this season, King will get around to doing some in-depth work on the Bills, someone will post a link here, and I'll go read it.  It will be good, interesting, and I'll learn something.  But week to week, I'm not interested.  

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks.  I agree with this.  And I agree about King.  Writes well, is rarely wrong, gets some really good inside stuff.   He's a Boston fan, so he was in his glory all those years with the Pats, because he could write for a national audience about a team he liked.   That notwithstanding, the stuff he wrote about Brady and the Pats was interesting insightful stuff.   He was a Favre groupie, and a Rodgers groupie, so he does good stuff about them, too.  

 

Trying to push out meaningful stuff about 32 teams is more or less impossible.   I had the impression that he left SI because he couldn't stand the grind, and then he jumped right back into it.   But that just goes to support my original point, which was that these camp reports are shallow and don't really give the serious fan a good look at what's going on with the team.   I would guess that the journalist in King would prefer not to do them, because he probably understands that he's just regurgitating stuff and making it look interesting by writing it well.  But the capitalist in him knows that he gets paid six figures to produce content that people will click on.   You and I may be looking for in-depth stuff, but most of his readers, if they read about the Bills at all, want "Allen, Allen, blah, blah, blah, pass rush, first-round pick, blah, blah, blah."   That's what works.  An in-depth analysis also would work, but it won't create any more clicks.  

 

I used to read him all the time.  Now, I rarely do.  If the Bills have a lot of success again this season, King will get around to doing some in-depth work on the Bills, someone will post a link here, and I'll go read it.  It will be good, interesting, and I'll learn something.  But week to week, I'm not interested.  

 

Just on the bolded I believe he left SI because they were slashing budgets and he was gonna have to take a pay cut to stay. I still find his FMIA column on Monday's during the season must read material and there is very little of that around when it comes to the NFL in the mainstream media and not behind a paywall these days. 

[Shaw66]

32 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Just on the bolded I believe he left SI because they were slashing budgets and he was gonna have to take a pay cut to stay. I still find his FMIA column on Monday's during the season must read material and there is very little of that around when it comes to the NFL in the mainstream media and not behind a paywall these days. 

I suspect that's true, but what he said publicly was about the grind and the opportunity to head off in a different direction.  I remember being surprised that almost immediately he recreated the same column.  

 

And you're absolutely right about his in-season column.   It is the best national coverage you can find.     During the season, if he watches the games and the highlights, and he does, he gives good insights into what he saw and what he learned from a few contacts he called.  I can watch a game and write multiple paragraphs about it - actually, I do.  He, to his credit, watches multiple games and highlights and writes a lot of paragraphs.  It's good stuff.  I'm not going to do that.  It's hard work.  The point is that every Sunday, he and you and I start in the same place, with the same material - we watch the game. 

 

I was commenting on his camp reports, which are different. It's more or less impossible to watch a training camp session and write something meaningful about the team.  You have to interview people and find out what's been going on.  He did very little of that with the Bills, so it was difficult to write much that is meaningful about the Bills.  I suspect he does very little in other cities, as well.  It's just too hard to do it.  

 

I know enough to write a meaningful camp review, but I know it from having listened to a lot of press conferences and interviews, having read good things that people write here, and having watched video.    In other words, I have dozens of hours invested in the process to understand where the team is today.  King can't invest dozens of hours in 32 teams.  

 

 

 

 

[machine gun kelly]

King was just on Airing It Out on NFLR this morning.  Most of his comments were on the Packers and Rodgers stuff, but he did make a few comments on the Colts with Wentz and Cleveland.  He also talked about the success of QB’s that were allowed to sit for awhile including Brady, Mahomes, Rodgers, and one other.  His point was related to Lance and the pressure Gnagi has for Fields.

 

Not much was said of the Bills.  I like King.  I believe he is fair minded, and doesn’t try and do hot takes.

[buffaloboyinATL]

That was a pleasant read.  I know it is repetitive to most of us, but keep in mind, he writes for a National audience. For many readers, they are still getting introduced to John Allen, so the “re-cap” is necessary.  
 

I noticed he said that Basham has looked good in camp.  Everyone who was talking about waiving him and “sneaking” him onto the practice squad, may want to take a slight pause on his crucifixion, after half of one preseason game. 
 

His quote:

“I heard good things about Basham (57 tackles behind the line in four Wake Forest seasons) in camp. “His inside-outside versatility’s been impressive,” Beane said. We shall see.”

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by buffaloboyinATL

[Mark Vader]

On 8/16/2021 at 10:14 AM, eball said:

 

Let's take a look at Josh in the playoffs.  I'm ignoring the Houston game because Josh was still playing a lot of hero ball at that point.

 

Against Indy he was the best player on the field; he's the only reason the Bills won.

Against Baltimore he outplayed Jackson in a wind storm, didn't turn the ball over, and led the game-winning TD drive at the start of the 2nd half.

Against KC he basically moved the Bills up and down the field but given the dinged-up receiver situation they simply didn't finish drives with TDs, and he had that very untimely INT off John Brown's hands.

 

To sum up, I don't think Josh "failed us" in last season's playoffs and he didn't "lay an egg" against KC.  There were a lot of factors at play against Buffalo in that game.

 

Before I start saying -- or listening to someone say -- Josh "can't win the big games" I need a larger sample size, because what I've seen so far doesn't suggest that at all.

 

 

Right on!

 

I'll take this even further and talk about the Houston playoff game. Yeah, Josh Allen was still doing some hero ball, but that's not why the Bills lost the game.

 

Settling for a field goal instead of going for a touchdown at the end of the first half was a terrible decision, and I put that on Sean McDermott. The Bills had gotten into the red zone on that drive and had plenty of time and timeouts to get into the end zone. Instead they played it safe and ended up with only 3 points.

 

Then there's the second half kickoff, which it seems like everyone wants to ignore or doesn't acknowledge that it ever happened. Make no mistake, whether it was a touchdown or a safety, it was a huge non-call. I still want to know why the back-up officials were involved in this non-call.

 

Let's not forget the BS block in the back penalty called on Cody Ford.

 

Anyway, Peter King's article is nice, just not very insightful. He states the incredibly obvious. When he says that Josh Allen needs to do better in the big games, he means that he needs to do better against Kansas City.

Josh Allen has won in big games, now he and the rest of the team have to play better against the Chiefs, and they can.