Dude, Where’s My Counter?



Get ready for another trip into the self-defeating mind of our favorite doofusy monarch. His latest endeavor is an attempt to remove the word “counterargument” from the English language (as it is spoken/written on the pigskin football continent). In today’s MMQB Tuesday Edition, Peter King responds to an emailer who questions his contention that Vikings defensive end Jared Allen is the best defensive player in football. The original email reads as follows:

“How in the same article can you make the claim that there is no better defensive player in football than Jared Allen and also say that Aaron Rodgers takes too many sacks? There is no doubt that he is an impact player, but when 7.5 of his 10.5 sacks came against Rodgers, he hasn’t had that much of a game-changing impact in the other Vikings games.”

King begins his “response” by acknowledging the validity of the emailer’s argument (“Good point”), but instead of responding, he chooses to reiterate his original stance and flaunt his credentials: “In my job at NBC and in covering one of the Minnesota’s  game [sic], I’ve seen at least 50 percent of the Vikings’ defensive snaps this year, and he’s the best defensive player I’ve seen.” Loosely translated from King-speak to English: “I’m smarter than you, pesky emailer, and I know more about football. I work for NBC, dammit! Leave me alone so I can drink my Starbucks latte and watch more Favre highlights.”

The emailer brings up two problems he/she has with King’s stance on Jared Allen: one, over 70% of Allen’s sacks have come in two games against the same team; two, according to King’s own logic (he admits that Rodgers takes too many sacks), Allen’s sack total has to be considered somewhat inflated. King has two thought-provoking points in front of him, but chooses to ignore both of them. Consider the rest of his response: “Even if Rodgers threw the ball away on two of those plays, or three, that’s Allen-related impact resulting in incomplete passes. His impact is about more than sacks, too.” The logical way for King to respond to the emailer’s argument would be by bringing in an example of Allen’s impact against a different opponent; instead, he chooses to stand by his original stance that Allen’s play against the Packers best exemplifies his worth. Since he is so knowledgeable in the field of Vikings game film (having watched “at least 50 percent of [their] snaps” and all), one would expect him to have an insightful, well-researched point to make about how opposing offensive lines and quarterbacks are impacted by Allen; instead, he leaves us with one of those clichéd blanket statements normally reserved for bad sports announcers struggling for a talking point: “His impact is about more than sacks.” Great, but what is the impact? Working hard, having intangibles, giving 110 percent? Your Majesty, don’t print emails that challenge your logic if you’re not up to the challenge of constructing a counterargument…


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: