Peter King's lengthy profile of Goodell

Ok I will admit to being cagey in my post. I was aware that King was reporter. In fact he mentions it in his MMQB column.

I just always dislike the approach. It feels a bit dishonest and treats the reader like they are idiots. It seems a bit amateurish.

I prefer the approach that many writers of The New Yorker use - switching back and forth between first and third person.

If reader knows that it was King on trip, it give his observations more validity

 

I definitely agree with Boom on this one, as I've stated whenever the first-person debate comes up on threads about other pieces (notably Wright Thompson pieces, but others, as well).

 

I enjoyed the piece quite a bit, and who wrote it is of no consequence to me. As with any piece, read it, like it or leave it, and move on. Some of you critics think about stuff way too much, picking apart what other writers write. Time is better spent putting your own stuff under the microscope.

 

You must not have gotten the memo. We are trying to focus more on craft discussions as it relates to long form.

 

You're not giving his pop enough credit. He was a party leader in the House and a very active Congressman.

I don't know why on Earth it's so difficult to admit Goodell was the scion of a privileged family.

 

The story does have a vibe of Goodell pulling himself up by his boot straps. King - son of steel worker love that hard scrabble image.


Goodell living a tough life in Bronxville would be comparable to Lebron helping to poor children of Greenwich.

 

So what are you arguing?

Mike Shanahan's boy got a coordinator job in his 20s. Josh McDaniels' little brother got a job as a position coach a few years out of coaching at the high school level. Pat Shurmur is the son of a respected coach and just got the Cleveland job, inexplicably. Chris Polian's daddy is famous and the son is showing himself so far to be quite the pantload in Indy's front office. Goodell's the son of a visible congressman and used his connections to move up the ladder at the league office. This happens all over the league. Sure, they have their merits and, sure, they just work so gosh durned hard (like almost everybody we all know), but at least be honest with yourself about it.

 

Because that's what the league does best. From Pete Rozelle to Don Weiss to Jim Heffernan to Joe Browne, the NFL has always been unsurpassed at building its myth. It goes back to the tales of young p.r. man Pete Rozelle uniting the owners in revenue sharing, etc., etc. Each "Commish" is branded for the desired results and Goodell is no different.

So, actually, the King story is an enormous credit to the NFL's pr machine. Think about it: They placed a blow-job of a story about the CEO -- a story they had controlled from Day 1 -- into the leading sports magazine in the week before all attention turns to the league's labor showdown. The narrative was as scripted.

 

Excellent take on Goodell's cheap shot at Belichick:

http://www.golocalprov.com/sports/nfl-commissioner-calls-out-bill-belichick/

He delivered the punishment, and Hoodie and the Pats took it. But Goodell decided, while he had King's ear, that he wasn't done after all.

 

what exactly is a 'privileged' family? my sole objection to your insistence to tag roger as a spoiled rich kid who didn't have to get his nails dirty, that he was somehow born into becoming the nfl commissioner some day as if charles goodell was joe kennedy rigging the path, is the only source of my contention.

it's like you're arguing that no kid from a 'priveliged' family ever deserves any credit for their climb up the ladder. perhaps if roger had followed his dad into politics to become a congressman, then senator, then v.p., the freakin' potus, i'd be able to more clearly see you connect the dots... but in your view, roger and all other 'children of privilege' are damned if the do or don't...

but, hey, if from afar you've pre-judged roger as a spoiled child of privilege who lacks the requisite skills to be where he is, nothing i or anyone else can type is going to dissuade you.

and that's cool. truly. you have second-hand, distant knowledge of the man we're discussing. while you might contend my view is jaded because i have a relationship with him, nothing i can do about that, either.

my goal here is to educate those who aren't familiar with roger's story so no one simply takes your simplistic stance as the gospel. and then to allow them to decide for themselves, after learning more and more, whether it's as simple as you'd like everyone to believe.

'cause let's face it, the bottom line here is that by labeling roger a 'child of privilege' you are saying he is either not qualified for the job, or hasn't earned the job, or has risen to his position in life due to his style and/or name rather than substance.

again, nothing could be further from the truth. heck, his all-powerful dad passed away in '87, before roger's ascendance in the league office had really begun to take flight. and believe me, charles goodell's relationship with neither rozelle nor tagliabue was strong enough for anyone to argue that he was pulling the strings for his son from the grave.

but... i trust most of my SportsJournalists.com brethren can differentiate fact from fiction and make up their own minds as they learn more about the 'facts.'