[max]

Which suggests King didn’t let McVay talk.

Which is nonsense.

I get it... people think King is a blowhard in this.

But this is two people who know a lot about football having a conversation.

The thing I found funny is that McVay did all that talking without really giving anything up.

Didn’t talk about any specific scheme things that he thought were wrong.... just talked about structures, concepts.. etc.

Vin was great at letting a moment breathe... those were great moments.
He also could fill time with anecdotes weaved throughly the play by play. The most famous one may be the Hrbek/Prince thing. I’m pretty sure Vin is a genius.

Nothing King has ever said or done makes me believe he knows a lot about football. He's a sports writer who has good people skills. Other than that, he knows far less than people on this board about the X's and O's of football.

[max]

And X & Os is all there is to football.

Certainly not, but what King provides is entertainment in the form of human interest stories. The actual football substance is elementary level.

I don’t get any sense of 2 guys talking football at a substantive level watching McVay and King. It was McVay politely listening to Kings repetition on the 6th play of the game and explaining how he could have done better. King added nothing that any random fan could have done.

King is not Paul Zimmerman.

[aeneas1]

here's mcvay's chat with florio that king mentioned, mvay actually said it was the 5th play but it wasn't (the rams went 3-out with their first possession, their first play on the next possession (i.e. their 4th play) was a jet to woods, their next play (5th) was a rollout pass to reynolds for 10 yards and a first.), so king got it right, it was the 6th play.

complete vid:

[moklerman]

Everyone is a critic.

And... none of that criticism has anything to do with the main point.

What you’re watching is process, not product. You don’t like his process or product? Fine. Just don’t confuse the two when you’re criticizing them... otherwise you’ll come off looking like Peter King talking X & Os....

What process are you talking about? King takes forever to get to a question for McVay. It shouldn't take as long as it did for King to ask what he wants and more importantly, King shouldn't be making suggestions about how McVay should answer the question.

King even says a couple of times that he's putting words in McVay's mouth. King isn't even coming up with some brilliant observation of his own, he's just playing off of what Florio already covered. It shouldn't have been such a chore for King to ask if he could watch the play with McVay and have McVay talk about what he saw, what he was thinking and why. Seems like interviewing 101 more than some elaborate process that King is employing.

Hard-hitting questions, insightful questions, technical questions...they're all fine but ask them and let the interviewee answer in their own words. King is doing a lot of leading and mind-reading and doesn't seem like such a great approach. McVay isn't Belichick and seems pretty transparent and willing.

King shouldn't have had to put any effort into guiding McVay. He just had to come up with good questions. Basing his interview on what another writer already talked to him about seems unusual.

[aeneas1]

What process are you talking about?

the process of king interviewing a high profile sports figure for his weekly pft/nbc printed sports column "peter king's football moring in america" - this wasn't a formal on-camera interview, it was a look at a writer interviewing (and recording) his subject for an article.

[/zn/]

🏻🏻🏻

Different opinion. Regardless of the intention King in the tape as shown is annoying.

IMO since it is annoying, regardless of the purpose or intention, it's a good example of why you don't release unedited "in process" tapes like this.

[Elvis]

Different opinion. Regardless of the intention King in the tape as shown is annoying.

IMO since it is annoying, regardless of the purpose or intention, it's a good example of why you don't release unedited "in process" tapes like this.

Think of it as an extra on a DVD. Why wouldn't you want it? Nobody's making you watch it...

[/zn/]

Think of it as an extra on a DVD. Why wouldn't you want it? Nobody's making you watch it...

And no one's making me like how King handles it either. (Though obviously McVay makes the most of it.)

There can be different opinions on a thing like that, right?

[Gareth]

I get that this wasn’t a formal interview but, nevertheless, King came across poorly in my opinion. It took him forever to actually ask the first question. And formal or not, he still seemed silly trying to make so much out of something (play 6)that McVay himself indicted was just one play in the game-no more significant than many others.

And, by the way, I am not a Peter King hater. In fact I’ve always enjoyed his column. But based on this, it seems to me his writing is far superior to his interviewing skills.

[max]

I listened to a King podcast with a Sam Farmer interview.

King is extremely opinionated and pushes Sam on what he wants to hear. So many leading questions. Then King pushed Sam on a story that Sam had playing golf with Trump years ago. All King cared about was trying to get Sam to say anything bad about Trump. It was like, “but Sam, Trump is a jerk, right?” after every sentence utter by Farmer.

King is a guy who tries very hard to get round pegs into square holes.