Peter King's Rankings

[Sherlock Holmes]

16 hours ago, Captain Hindsight said:

What exactly about the Raiders is good?

Renfrow and Ruggs III

[JoPoy88]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Can we just play already.

 

13th is ridiculous.

the 13th doesn’t concern me as much as the teams King put ahead of them (Raiders are exhibit A). Again, I hate Peter King. I hate King more than some of you hate Maddy Glab. King’s a league stooge and doesn’t particularly care to hide it anymore. There are better people out there to read, about analysis, predictions, whatever you want. Put PK to bed; god knows he’s tired carrying all that water for the league for so long.

[BillsFan2313]

18 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

I doubt it too but I can see why some would have that opinion.

 

Their offense was below average and they had an unbelievably easy schedule. Closing out the season they went 1-4 against the better teams of the league. They have a similarly tough schedule this season to what we saw in those last 5 or 6 games.

 

And one of those teams was the Steelers and scrub Duck Hodges. They are replacing him with a future HOF.

 

Did they get blown out in any of those losses?

[HOUSE]

Peter King's Rankings

Edited June 4, 2020 by HOUSE

[GunnerBill]

13 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Exactly.   I agree that it would be fine to say "the Bills desperately needed to do something."  That's typical hyperbole that we use all the time, and that usage cues the reader that "desperate" in this context is meant to imply the second of Gunner's definitions.   

 

Semantics, for sure, but King gets paid a lot of money to get it right, both his football information and his writing.   He got lazy. 

 

It certainly could have been worded better. But I am a little more sympathetic than you. 

[Captain Hindsight]

7 hours ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

Renfrow and Ruggs III

Who is gonna throw to them?

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

it’s because phone-it-in personalities like peter king fall for the same mystery box fallacy that so many here do. There is absolutely no guarantee any of those receivers he named become as good or better than diggs. If fact, given how good diggs already is at 26, chances are none of them will. But King’s a lost soul at this point. For all those other outlets’ preseason rankings mean nothing, King’s mean less than nothing. Disappointing people still give him clicks 2 decades after he peaked.

 

 

And yet again the attack the messenger fallacy.

 

So popular here and generally on the net despite the fact it has absolutely zero logical validity. 

 

Attack the argument, not the messenger.

 

And no, there's no guarantee that any of those guys will be better than Diggs. There's also no guarantee Diggs doesn't turn into a locker room problem or diva and end up somewhere else a year or two from now.

 

I wouldn't have done this trade myself. I do get that Beane is doing a terrific job. He's smarter than me at this. But it's very legitimate to have the opinion that we paid too much, that Diggs had a problem with not being thrown to enough or well enough by a team that throws more than we seem to want to and by a QB that's very accurate compared to how ours has thrown so far. Could that portend a problem? Yeah, maybe. Dunno, nobody does, really. Plus the salaries Diggs is receiving the next four years are terrific from a team point of view, but will he start to fuss about this? Nobody really knows.

 

IMO there are very legit arguments on both sides of this issue. Might be a great trade. Might not. Short term it's certainly better for the Bills but the long-term effects are still unpredictable.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Sherlock Holmes]

53 minutes ago, Captain Hindsight said:

Who is gonna throw to them?

Carr can get back on track, he's not terrible...if he gets injured at least there is Mariota and not just PeterPan

[DCOrange]

3 hours ago, Captain Hindsight said:

Who is gonna throw to them?

Carr is fine, probably around a league average starter. He's not good enough to elevate the Raiders but it's not like he's a legitimately bad starter either. They have enough talent there to be a good offensive team this year. Obviously have to wait and see if it actually comes together, and even if it does, the defense is still a pretty big question mark.

 

Having said all that, I don't really see a good case for arguing that they should be ahead of Buffalo. The Raiders should probably be somewhere around 15 IMO.

[1ManRaid]

Yet another idiot that has his blinders on to harp on the "harsh price" of the Diggs trade, while ignoring the team friendly contract, the Covid-interrupted offseason hampering rookie development, and the fact that it was actually a very fair price for a top 10 receiver.

 

We're in a push for playoff wins this year and he wants us to develop a second tier rookie WR (because blah blah deep WR draft blah blah) into a better-than-Diggs star without an offseason.  I'll take the tried and tested plug-and-play #1 WR seven days a week.

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

And yet again the attack the messenger fallacy.

 

So popular here and generally on the net despite the fact it has absolutely zero logical validity. 

 

Attack the argument, not the messenger.

 

And no, there's no guarantee that any of those guys will be better than Diggs. There's also no guarantee Diggs doesn't turn into a locker room problem or diva and end up somewhere else a year or two from now.

 

I wouldn't have done this trade myself. I do get that Beane is doing a terrific job. He's smarter than me at this. But it's very legitimate to have the opinion that we paid too much, that Diggs had a problem with not being thrown to enough or well enough by a team that throws more than we seem to want to and by a QB that's very accurate compared to how ours has thrown so far. Could that portend a problem? Yeah, maybe. Dunno, nobody does, really. Plus the salaries Diggs is receiving the next four years are terrific from a team point of view, but will he start to fuss about this? Nobody really knows.

 

IMO there are very legit arguments on both sides of this issue. Might be a great trade. Might not. Short term it's certainly better for the Bills but the long-term effects are still unpredictable.

You miss the point.   It's completely appropriate in this case to attack the messenger, because he failed completely to offer any intelligent thought on the subject.   His discussion about wideouts essentially assumes that some wideout (and King doesn't suggest which one of many that wideout would be) available at 22 will be better than Diggs.   There is no basis whatsoever for that assumption.    It also essentially assumes that with the late round picks they gave up the Bills would have gotten players who make the roster and would be valuable contributors to the team.   There is pretty much no basis for that assumption, either.  

 

Had he given some reason, any reason, for his conclusion, I'd have no problem.   He doesn't.   If he believes what you believe, that the risk of Diggs being a diva makes the move riskier than a draft pick, I'd disagree but I could respect the fact that he has some basis for his opinion.  

 

The complaints here about King are warranted and not unfair.   He seems to have succumbed to the problem that afflicts many journalists, which is that their industry requires them to produce content in such volumes that the quality suffers.  King decided he wanted to be a rockstar, wanted to be an expert video talking head, rather than be the guy at the front of SI's Monday Morning Quarterback.   His choice hasn't worked out all that well for him.   I think Colin Cowherd made the same mistake.  

[JoPoy88]

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

And yet again the attack the messenger fallacy.

 

So popular here and generally on the net despite the fact it has absolutely zero logical validity. 

 

Attack the argument, not the messenger.

 

And no, there's no guarantee that any of those guys will be better than Diggs. There's also no guarantee Diggs doesn't turn into a locker room problem or diva and end up somewhere else a year or two from now.

 

I wouldn't have done this trade myself. I do get that Beane is doing a terrific job. He's smarter than me at this. But it's very legitimate to have the opinion that we paid too much, that Diggs had a problem with not being thrown to enough or well enough by a team that throws more than we seem to want to and by a QB that's very accurate compared to how ours has thrown so far. Could that portend a problem? Yeah, maybe. Dunno, nobody does, really. Plus the salaries Diggs is receiving the next four years are terrific from a team point of view, but will he start to fuss about this? Nobody really knows.

 

IMO there are very legit arguments on both sides of this issue. Might be a great trade. Might not. Short term it's certainly better for the Bills but the long-term effects are still unpredictable.

PK is the guy making the argument, not passing along a message. He’s not a messenger. But, please, play semantics with me more.

 

And of course the trade MAY end up being bad for the team - if Diggs gets seriously hurt or otherwise crashes and burns here then yeah, it ends up being a bad trade. I am judging the trade using the information we had at the time the trade was made, not engaging in future “what-ifs” like King and apparently you are.

 

Hey if you don’t agree with my opinion of King fine just say so. He clearly still has fans; I certainly ain’t one of them. Don’t accuse me of engaging in “fallacies” though when you are playing 2nd grade semantics. That’s something a hack like King would do.

[BigDingus]

On 6/3/2020 at 7:42 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

They still beat 3 of those top 10 teams on the road last year. Add in that they added Diggs and won 10 games its hard to imagine them going backwards. 10 wins and you’re a top 10 team.

 

The problem is our passing offense was as bad as it was against the weakest schedule in the NFL. 

If our offense just had a rough time because we were playing playoff team after playoff team it'd be a little more understandable. But there were so many close games against bottom of the barrel teams that we should've just destroyed with a competent offense, as well as games against good teams we could've easily won had our offense not just shat the bed.

 

Point is we can't just disappear offensively for 2.5-3 quarters of a game this year. Getting ahead a bit early and then doing absolutely nothing until the 4th quarter isn't a path to success. A lot of that is on Allen, but definitely not all of it. 

So yes, we have the potential to rise up & really cement ourselves as a legit top team. Or we can play like we did last year, only now against a tougher schedule, and sink to 6-10.

[Thurman#1]

18 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

PK is the guy making the argument, not passing along a message. He’s not a messenger. But, please, play semantics with me more.

 

And of course the trade MAY end up being bad for the team - if Diggs gets seriously hurt or otherwise crashes and burns here then yeah, it ends up being a bad trade. I am judging the trade using the information we had at the time the trade was made, not engaging in future “what-ifs” like King and apparently you are.

 

Hey if you don’t agree with my opinion of King fine just say so. He clearly still has fans; I certainly ain’t one of them. Don’t accuse me of engaging in “fallacies” though when you are playing 2nd grade semantics. That’s something a hack like King would do.

 

 

The attack the messenger fallacy is the name of a logical fallacy. Also called the ad hominem fallacy. It has nothing to do with whether the guy is making the argument or passing it along. Your argument here is entirely beside the point. It's not beside the point because you're the one making it. It's irrelevant because it's entirely beside the point. Arguments are true or false, reasonable or unreasonable entirely based on their own merits ... and the mention of who said something has no bearing whatsoever on how reasonable the substance of the argument is.

 

Who said something is completely and entirely irrelevant to whether what was said is right or wrong. If Norman Borlaug says something, the fact that he saved millions of lives has nothing to do with whether what he said is right or wrong. Absolutely zero. And if someone absolutely and purely evil - say Joseph Stalin - says something, like maybe "Hey, it's May 5th," the fact that he's Joseph Stalin has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong in this particular case.

 

Sorry to unburden on you. The ad hominem nonsense is absolutely constant on these boards, almost always used against members of the media. And it's a horrible argument.

 

I accused you of a fallacy because your argument is based on one. Doesn't prove your opinion is wrong, but yeah, insulting King does nothing to support your argument, no more than complimenting King would support the argument that he is right. What I personally think about Peter King means exactly the same here as what you think of him, zero, in terms of whether this argument makes sense. I don't use ad hominem arguments, whether I hate or love or don't have an opinion on the person making the case, and for the obvious reason

 

Oh, and it's also unreasonable to say that you're arguing only on info we have at the time and opponents aren't. You're making a guess at the future, same as anyone trying to evaluate a trade. You're not ignoring the future here. Diggs has acted the diva in the past. Remember when Diggs was asked about rumors he wanted to be traded and said, "I feel like there's truth to all rumors no matter how you dress it up." Or when he purged all Vikes mentions and photos from his Instagram in February? Or when he stirred speculation that he wanted more money by tweeting "Tired of the cap ... lol." Or when he complained he wasn't getting enough passes in an offense that passes much more than Buffalo's and  has a QB who passes better than we do (at least so far, though we all hope Allen will keep improving, and do better on deep throws). It wouldn't require a serious injury for this trade to not work out. Diggs has showed in the past plenty of behavior to support either argument, and there's an argument the Bills gave up too many picks as well, though that argument surely isn't popular among Bills fans. You're giving your opinion on what you think the most likely outcome wil be. It's certainly possible you'll be right. I'd argue it's just as possible you'll be wrong. I hope you're right.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Thurman#1

[JoPoy88]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

The attack the messenger fallacy is the name of a logical fallacy. Also called the ad hominem fallacy. It has nothing to do with whether the guy is making the argument or passing it along. Your argument here is entirely beside the point. It's not beside the point because you're the one making it. It's irrelevant because it's entirely beside the point. Arguments are true or false, reasonable or unreasonable entirely based on their own merits ... and the mention of who said something has no bearing whatsoever on how reasonable the substance of the argument is.

 

Who said something is completely and entirely irrelevant to whether what was said is right or wrong. If Norman Borlaug says something, the fact that he saved millions of lives has nothing to do with whether what he said is right or wrong. Absolutely zero. And if someone absolutely and purely evil - say Joseph Stalin - says something, like maybe "Hey, it's May 5th," the fact that he's Joseph Stalin has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong in this particular case.

 

Sorry to unburden on you. The ad hominem nonsense is absolutely constant on these boards, almost always used against members of the media. And it's a horrible argument.

 

I accused you of a fallacy because your argument is based on one. Doesn't prove your opinion is wrong, but yeah, insulting King does nothing to support your argument, no more than complimenting King would support the argument that he is right. What I personally think about Peter King means exactly the same here as what you think of him, zero, in terms of whether this argument makes sense. I don't use ad hominem arguments, whether I hate or love or don't have an opinion on the person making the case, and for the obvious reason

 

Oh, and it's also unreasonable to say that you're arguing only on info we have at the time and opponents aren't. You're making a guess at the future, same as anyone trying to evaluate a trade. You're not ignoring the future here. Diggs has acted the diva in the past. Remember when Diggs was asked about rumors he wanted to be traded and said, "I feel like there's truth to all rumors no matter how you dress it up." Or when he purged all Vikes mentions and photos from his Instagram in February? Or when he stirred speculation that he wanted more money by tweeting "Tired of the cap ... lol." Or when he complained he wasn't getting enough passes in an offense that passes much more than Buffalo's and  has a QB who passes better than we do (at least so far, though we all hope Allen will keep improving, and do better on deep throws). It wouldn't require a serious injury for this trade to not work out. Diggs has showed in the past plenty of behavior to support either argument, and there's an argument the Bills gave up too many picks as well, though that argument surely isn't popular among Bills fans. You're giving your opinion on what you think the most likely outcome wil be. It's certainly possible you'll be right. I'd argue it's just as possible you'll be wrong. I hope you're right.

Well you’re accusing me of fallacies as though I was making a formal argument. I wasn’t. I don’t like King for too many reasons to go into here. Only thing I shared was that opinion - of course I engaged in ad hominem insults, I intended to. King’s history in my mind justifies this. Plus, it isn’t as if King’s stupid blurb followed any logical rules or forms either, so no it didn’t occur to me to use any to call him wrong.
 

as for “Diggs vs hypothetical rookie X Y or Z” no you’re right neither side can point and say well we know this so about him so we can definitely predict that. But only one side can support their stance with at least some prior relevant performance indicators. That’s Diggs. His past apparent attitude problems may be a problem, they may not. You seemed to be keenly focused on those attitude issues though, as if you think they are predictive. They don’t bother me so much.

[WideNine]

I do believe our offense needs to average at least another score per game, but I also feel like our offense and Allen's focus was to play it safe and limit turnovers, particularly after that first terrible performace against NE.

 

Our defence also needs to get a bit better at closing out games where we have the lead.

 

Too many times last year when we gained the lead or were holding on to a lead our defense would have that late game collapse - giving up scores.

 

Early in the season our red zone defense was superb at preventing TDs, but I felt that slipped a bit near the end of the year. I do recall we had a few amazing goal line stops.

 

Either way, both sides of the ball need to become more complementary. If the defense gets a turnover or key stop our offense needs to do better turning those into points. If our offense has a big score our defense needs to come out and pitch some 3 and outs. If our offense sprints to an early lead our defense needs to close the door. If our offense can't score they need to slow the game down and sustain drives to give the D time to recover. Also our special teams needs to do a better job of tilting the field for our defense. I like our kick return game, feel like it was solid and we have a very good return man.

 

If we see more of that this year, this will be a hard team to beat. Too many if's right now for me to take offense if someone does not crown our Bills AFC East champs without a game played.

 

I honestly don't see NE, the Dolphins, or the Jets rolling over for us. I think they will all play us tough.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

On 6/6/2020 at 3:26 AM, JoPoy88 said:

Well you’re accusing me of fallacies as though I was making a formal argument. I wasn’t. I don’t like King for too many reasons to go into here. Only thing I shared was that opinion - of course I engaged in ad hominem insults, I intended to. King’s history in my mind justifies this. Plus, it isn’t as if King’s stupid blurb followed any logical rules or forms either, so no it didn’t occur to me to use any to call him wrong.
 

as for “Diggs vs hypothetical rookie X Y or Z” no you’re right neither side can point and say well we know this so about him so we can definitely predict that. But only one side can support their stance with at least some prior relevant performance indicators. That’s Diggs. His past apparent attitude problems may be a problem, they may not. You seemed to be keenly focused on those attitude issues though, as if you think they are predictive. They don’t bother me so much.

 

 

Dude, whether an argument is "formal" or not is irrelevant. What is a formal argument anyway, is there some commission you have to run it past? Bad logic is bad logic no matter how it's used. 

 

You say, "I don’t like King for too many reasons to go into here. Only thing I shared was that opinion," and that's simply not true. You said, "For all those other outlets’ preseason rankings mean nothing, King’s mean less than nothing." You can't get more ad hominem than that, King said it so it's even less true than the rest.

 

Albert: Peter King says this.

Bruce: Peter King sucks.

 

Bruce is using an ad hominem argument there. As you did. The whole point of ad hominems is to avoid having to address the substance of an argument by shifting the ground using an attack the messenger strategy.

 

If you start a new thread about how you think Peter King sucks, that's not ad hominem. Joining a thread like this one and saying the same thing absolutely is. It's absolutely relentless here. A reporter says something seen as bad about the Bills and dozens of posters here talk about how he's past his peak, he's bald, he's a geek, he's ugly, he's got a squeaky voice, he's never played the game, he dresses like a high school chess club member, he's from a stupid state, he once covered a rival team so he must be bad, he once had a bad take on something ... it goes on and on and on. Same reporter says something seen as good about the Bills and suddenly there's no mention of the reporter himself, only his point and how correct it is.

 

Finally in your last paragraph a reasonable argument. But it's nonsense that the college guys don't have "prior relevant performance indicators." College ball is relevant as hell, it's a good indicator. It's not a mistake that more first rounders are successful than second rounders, more second rounders than third rounders and so on. That happens because college ball is a pretty decent indicator of how well a guy will play in the NFL and more so the earlier a guy is drafted. Far from perfect. But especially when you're talking about trading away a first rounder, the first 20 or 30 guys picked have played at a high enough level and showed enough that it absolutely is relevant. Pro experience may be a better indicator but there are a ton of cases where FAs who did well one place do much more poorly elsewhere and vice versa. Look at Jerry Hughes. Look at how this regime has done with their first rounders so far: Tre'Davious White, Josh Allen, Tremaine Edmunds, Ed Oliver. We don't know with Epenesa, and it's too early to know for sure with two or three, and that brush with the law didn't look good for Oliver, but so far you'd have to say that they've been choosing pretty well with what returns are in. That's largely because college ball really is a relevant performance indicator.

 

And yeah I'm "keenly focused on those attitude issues." You wanna ignore 'em because they don't fit your narrative, OK, but me, I'm keenly focused on all of his history, good and bad, incredible productivity and problems with not being thrown to enough by an offense that throws more than we do. All of it. Good, bad and mediocre. IMO that's the way we should all look at anything we're thinking seriously about, not throw out the things we don't find convenient, but looking at absolutely all of it.

 

Well, I've said enough. See you on the boards. I like a lot of your stuff.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Thurman#1

[78thealltimegreat]

Peter King hasn’t be relevant in like 15 years...Heck he even makes Pete Prisco look like a neurosurgeon