1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dr Z vs Peter King

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Boom_70, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    It appears that Dr Z and Peter King are at odds over Paul Taglibue nomination for HOF. Interesting stuff in their respective SI.com columns:

    DR Z wrote :

    • Blood was flowing at the Hall of Fame enshrinement meeting Saturday morning. I don't want to go too deeply into this thing because there were heavy repercussions. The Paul Tagliabue discussion set a record of 58 minutes. Two speakers began matters by endorsing him. I was the first of the anti voices. One of my points was that under his stewardship, and without his intervention, the rights of the press were eroded almost beyond recognition. Later I was told that I was a bit over the top. Maybe so. He didn't, as you know, reach level two, composed of 11 candidates.

    Peter King wrote:

    Now for the bad: I'm one of 40 electors, and I was asked to present Paul Tagliabue's case for election. I failed miserably. We are prohibited from discussing publicly what was said in the room about the candidates, so I can't tell you exactly what I said or what Tagliabue's detractors said. What I can tell you is how intense a period his debate was. It lasted 57 minutes, the longest in my 15 years on the panel.

    There seems to be a movement to wait a year or two or six to judge Tagliabue's tenure and maybe he wasn't the great facilitator and leader of the most prosperous sports league on the planet that for years the public has believed him to be. Waiting for perspective on Tagliabue is odd, seeing that Hall voters installed Pete Rozelle in 1985, with four years left in his term. Had they waited until the end of his term, voters, after putting Rozelle in, would have seen a strike, replacement games, flat TV contracts for three straight years to consider with him. Even if the current labor deal falls apart, there will be football until 2010, four years after Tagliabue left office.

    I've got very strong feelings on this, which I can't share. I'm pleased to see six deserving players get in the Hall, so I can't grouse too much about Tagliabue not making it. But as a group, we'll look pretty silly, I believe, if we keep one of the best two or three commissioners in NFL history out of the Hall for very long

  2. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Um, haven't there only been three past commissioners (Bell, Rozelle and Tagliabue)? King's not making much of a case with his last sentence.
  3. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Maybe Pete didn't count the minute it took to drain his latte

    And you want PK to be factual or vote for his boy Tags... geez, Dools...
  4. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    I would have loved to have been fly on wall - NFL suck up vs NFL curmugion.

    It appears the curmugion won.
  5. My rule?
    When in doubt, nobody wearing a suit.
  6. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Well, what'd he do? Make the sure the league didn't have a strike? Boy...
  7. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Did Peter King just mention Tagliabue, who purely rode the tidal wave that was the NFL when he took over, to Pete Fucking Rozelle?
  8. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    You don't want to mess with Dr. Z on how long things take -- this is a guy who charts the time that it takes to sing the National Anthem. I bet that he's got the timing of the debate going back 30 years.

    The "I can't share" line from PK is very strange. My first thought was that Tagliaube had some health issue. Otherwise, why the rush to elect a man in his mid-60s?
  9. Trouser_Buddah

    Trouser_Buddah Active Member


    So since King testified before the Gestapo regarding his support for Tagliabue, he's never allowed to discuss his opinions about Tagliabue in public again? ::)
  10. Oz

    Oz Active Member

    Dr. Z > Peter King
  11. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    I think, of course, he can share his public feelings. But if he laid them on the buffet table at the meeting, he can't reveal them because of the vow of silence...
  12. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    Red Wine > Coffee
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page