peter king

[tnathan]

does anybody know the email address to contact SI's Peter King? i want to respond to something he said in his column this week, but can't find a way to write in. anyone?

here's what he said, which i thought was so stupid:

If not for a defense that ranks second in the league, Washington might be 0-6.

i mean, with that logic... if not for a strong offense, the rams might never have won the superbowl...
if not for a good coach, the patriots might be 0-6. i normally don't think he's that bad, but that line is just too dumb. i'm not one who thinks the skins are unappreciated, given that they're pretty weak right now, but come on. a good defense is part of the team... obviously the offense is bad. i mean, without a good defense, the ravens wouldn't have won the 2000 superbowl.

[Redskin Stouff]

Peter King blows.

There's a Mailbag section in his articles to e-mail him a question or response.

[DieselFan]

try peter.king@clownpenis.fart (old saturday night live reference)...

no, just kidding...go to this link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/peter_king/10/19/mmqb.te/index.html

then scroll down near the bottom. On the right you'll see a box called 'mailbag'. Input your comments there. Good luck.

[DeathByLinebacker#56]

Peter King is entitled to his opinon, no matter how misinformed he is.

[tnathan]

he is, and i'm entitled to tell him he's wrong.
obligated, even.

[PhillyHog]

Yea, and if not for an inept passing game the Skins could be 6-0.

[RagingRigginz]

Peter King

.... is garbage

kinda like Dr. Z. or Pasquerelli

[Texas Hog]

I agree, this guys an idiot and a Skin hater. It amazes me how King, Dr. Z and Pasq are all so anti-Skins. The idea of objective journalism means nothing to these clowns. I've got no use for any of the three. And as for King....who cares what your non-football thoughts are...I don't even care what your football thoughts are - all three are puke lovers, guarantee it!