So Alex is a 6 on the intangible scale?

by Fooch on Jun 18, 2007 9:44 AM PDT in News

One of the sites I like to check out every day is FireJoeMorgan.com. While the site was initially created to mock and correct the commentary of Joe Morgan, they have expanded to address any newspaper article, radio broadcast or television broadcast in which someone makes an asinine comment. While checking today, they made a point to address Peter King's "QB Rankings." King's rankings include a variety of statistics that certainly seem applicable to measuring the best QBs: Wins, playoff wins, completion percentage, etc. However, the last "statistical measurement" is what has FJM in a lather:

Intangibles. You made a statistic...out of intangibles. You turned "intangibles" into a tangible.

I simply want to piggy back on FJM's comments. I understand the need to address intangibles when discussing quarterbacks in an abstract sense. People feel guys like Brady and Manning bring a certain extra quality that you can't quite measure. Here, we've got Peter King actually putting a point value on these intangibles. In this case, Tom Brady tops out at a 10 on the intangible scale, Charlie Frye brings up the rear at -8 and Alex Smith seems to be sitting pretty at 6. Huh?!?! King's explanation of the intangibles:

Finally, intangibles. Brady led all passers with a 10 on a 10-point scale, because he's a coach, an offseason facilitator, a free-agent recruiter -- and he does it while retaining respect from the guys he often has to lean on hard.

That's it...nothing else. What makes this even more amazing is that these are King's basic predictions on who will be the most productive QBs in the league this season. Apparently Alex Smith is the 25th best QB, or 8th worst, depending on how you look at it. Matt Schaub has never won a game and is joining the crap-tastic Houston Texans and he's ranked higher than Smith.

Maybe this is all just a way to stir up debate, which it certainly has and will. I'm not a big fan of SI in general so I don't read Peter King that often. This certainly is not helping my impressions in the least bit.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

King

I throw Peter King into the same bin as Pete Prisco in terms of "quality" of reporting. The guy, like most media-ists, isn't afraid to show his bias. While I have nothing against Tom Brady, I don't know if he's got more intangibles than say, Peyton Manning. Peyton's brain is probably the best (if not most desired) intangible any football player (especially quarterbacks) could have.

A 6 on a scale of 10 isn't bad at all, really. I can see it definitely going up on the scale further this year if he does as well as most fans are hoping he will. As for throwing Schaub into the rankings above Smith, thats just ridiculous. Thats just the media-hype that if it weren't for the writer's original bias, it would be the only "opinion" we (the readers) would get.

by sfgfan on Jun 18, 2007 10:20 AM PDT 0 recs

Wrong

Fooch, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Peter "The Tangible Maker of All Things Intangible" gave Charlie Frye a "Intangible Rating" of 5 (his TD/INT ratito was -8). At first I was wondering how someone could end up with a -8 without shanking a teammate or being involved in some indecorous locker room behavior. But I digres, so if Charlie Frye has a Intang. Rating of 5 is Alex Smith's rating of 6 not bad at all? No, it's somewhat bad, not super bad but not mediocrely good. Eli Manning and Tarvaris Jackson have the lowest ratings of 4. And something like 11 QBs have a lower Intang. Ratings than 6.

I think an Intang. Rating of 6 just means Peter King doesn't really know anything about you, good or bad. It means, you're probably not dating an attractive musical artist, racing motorcycles, fighting dogs, or losing superbowls. Look at his list, it looks like he got bored after handing out his 10 and 9s and started playing bolongia darts to assign the other ratings.

So basically what does this mean. Nothing, other than Peter King is almost as useless as the King of Spain.

But in saving grace he rated Alex Smith higher than Jason Campbell. How do you like Peter King now SkinPatrol?

by methodrampage on Jun 18, 2007 11:55 AM PDT 0 recs

correction

Thanks for the correction...I'll add an editor's note to the article. I'm guessing PacMan Jones would be a -8 if King was ranking DBs.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jun 18, 2007 12:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re:

But in saving grace he rated Alex Smith higher than Jason Campbell. How do you like Peter King now SkinPatrol?

I think this bodes very well for me and our bet.

I love Peter King as the sort of anti Magic 8 Ball. You simply have to ask its question and conclude the opposite of whatever it responds.

Thanks PK.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 18, 2007 12:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

I don't know...

I just looked at Campbell and Smith's respective AIARL (see below), and Campbell comes in with a clean +5, whereas Smith locks it down with a shiny +8.5.

Methinks things are looking good for Braekneck.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on Jun 18, 2007 4:57 PM PDT up 0 recs

Aw....

other than Peter King is almost as useless as the King of Spain.

What's wrong with Ashley Giles? He filled a very important role in the England team for a number of years, and was vital in recapturing the Ashes

by spikydavid on Jun 19, 2007 6:30 AM PDT up 0 recs

Uninformed

I just googled "most useless king" and something about the King of Spain showed up so I went with it.

by methodrampage on Jun 19, 2007 7:19 AM PDT up 0 recs

I don't take this stat to mean anything

Unless I see their League Adjusted Intangibles Above Replacement Level (AIARL).

We all know intangibles are a pretty worthless stat unless you contextualize them. For instance, we have to consider Intangible Opportunities and Performance Versus Opposing Intangibles.

King is just throwing around cherry picked stats out of context to prove some sick manlove point about Tom Brady over Peyton Manning. He's a total BradyWhore.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on Jun 18, 2007 4:53 PM PDT 0 recs

To clarify

The missing L in "League Adjusted" (AIARL), would have broken the unwritten rule of acronym stats with more than 5 letters are too long for the layperson to care. So they dropped the otherwise implied L to make it a more accessibe stat.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on Jun 18, 2007 5:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

Brady over Manning?

The only problem here is that he ranked Manning #1 overall in terms of everything...Is he cheating on Brady now?!?!?!?! Considering he could have made whomever he wanted number 1 with his ass-backwards rankings, I would think Tom would be pretty displeased with King right now...especially considering how valuable I'm sure he considers these rankings to be.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jun 18, 2007 6:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

Dang

I should really read links to fact check. My bad.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on Jun 18, 2007 10:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

No Worries

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jun 19, 2007 9:51 AM PDT up 0 recs

Peter King is a crazy person...

I think Peter King is having a little writers block and having hard time finding things to actually write about of any interest regarding the NFL these days. I mean, from now until the beginning of training camp, there just isn't much going on in the NFL news-wise. The QB ranking list was just something to fill space in his column.

That said, I really didn't have much of a problem with his rankings...except for Jay Cutler at #10! WTF?! He's saying a guy that won 2 games last year (the only 2 in his NFL career) is the 10th best QB in football? That's a bit of a reach.

I mean, Shanahan is the best offensive coach in football but still. A little too high too early. That was the one that really threw me the most. (Although, Young and Kitna also being in the top 10 was a little strange to look at)

Later in his column, Peter King notes this about D-Jax and his toe injury...(this could also explain why he has Alex Smith all the way down at 25th)

"I think -- uh-oh for San Francisco -- that Darrell Jackson is still hobbled by the same toe injury that caused him to miss so much practice and three games in Seattle last year. The Niners say he'll be ready for the July 29 start of training camp. I say I don't like the 49ers' depth at receiver. I don't like it at all."

by coachAJ on Jun 18, 2007 7:03 PM PDT 0 recs

WR

Speaking of receivers, I'm putting together a post about Brandon Williams. However, I thought Maiocco gave the impression that DJax was feeling much better by the end of the OTAs, even though he didn't take part. Obviously no Jackson hurts the wide receiver depth. But if he can just stay healthy I think he gives enough of a threat to keep defenses honest.

I'd assume he doesn't like our depth because of the question marks surrounding Jackson and Lelie and then the rest of our guys are quite young. Good thing I don't care what he has to say in this regard.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jun 18, 2007 7:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

If I'm not mistaken...

... I remember reading somewhere that during DJax's whole ordeal with the Seahawks, he received no treatment for that foot injury this offseason. That is the primary reason why he's still hobbled right now. Rest assured, though, that the 49ers are treating it and making sure he doesn't put too much stress on it before it gets remotely better.

by sfgfan on Jun 19, 2007 8:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

interesting

I hadn't read that, but that would certainly explain why he's waiting until training camp to test out his foot.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jun 19, 2007 9:52 AM PDT up 0 recs

Source

I may as well provide the source now that I've found it. Naturally, it comes courtesy of Matt Maiocco (post):

An update from yesterday's blog item about Darrell Jackson: Nolan said Jackson's rehab is going well. He ran some zig-zags, but nothing that would force his big toe to bend. Nolan said he expects Jackson to be ready for the first day of training camp.

Part of the problem with Jackson is that he was under no kind of rehabilitation schedule with the Seahawks. So from the end of the season until he was traded to the 49ers in April, he received no treatment for his "turf toe."

by sfgfan on Jun 19, 2007 10:19 AM PDT up 0 recs

thanks

Maiocco certainly continues to be the best source of insider info...lacking in my AMAZING ability to analyze useless info, but what are you gonna do right?

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jun 19, 2007 10:23 AM PDT up 0 recs

Maiocco

It seems that he genuinely loves what he does. He loves sitting down with players, coaches and the likes. He likes picking their brain and getting what he can from them. Most other beat reports sit back and let the other reporters ask all of the questions, and they just regurgitate the answers. Matt ASKS the questions.

Kevin Lynch is the only guy that comes close, but he's a distant second, IMHO.

Fooch, you're too hard on yourself. You bring up some interesting topics and discussion points. Don't sell yourself short.

by sfgfan on Jun 19, 2007 10:27 AM PDT up 0 recs

WHAT?!

Fooch, you suck, jackass! I'm taking my keyboard and going ... somewhere else.

No seriously, you've done a bang up job thus far. Although still pretty much in its infancy, this blog is more active and insightful, largely due to myself, than most of the other blogs. I mean, I don't see anyone else with a click-on-Mel-Kiper-Jr.'s-head-for-2007-NFL-Draft-Results-buttons, grade A in my book.

by methodrampage on Jun 19, 2007 1:23 PM PDT up 0 recs