Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Another Example of Peter King being a horrible person.(Fugged Cam Newton good)


Kurb

Recommended Posts

I really don't think context is the issue, but you asked for it, so here it is. A few of you, some angrily, have asked for the story behind the tweet that launched a thousand reactions the other day -- this stand-alone quote from Cam Newton: "I see myself not only as a football player, but an entertainer and icon.''

I'll explain.

A publicist for Under Armour, the outfitter that signed Newton to an endorsement contract, called me to say the company had Newton available to speak to four members of the media for 15 minutes each. Since I was going to write about Newton at the combine (I didn't know what exactly, and I didn't know if it would be for the magazine or for this column), I said yes. And so I spent 15 minutes on the phone with Newton Tuesday.

I was first in the batting order; I assume three others followed me for 15 minutes each. Newton talked about his work with quarterback coach Whitfield and his combine preparation, some of which I detailed above. After about 12 or 13 minutes, I asked him about his deal with Under Armour; I don't remember my exact question, but it was something about what he expected the deal to do for him. And he said one of the things he wanted to stress was that he saw himself not only as a football player, but also an entertainer and icon.

I had thought all along that I wouldn't use anything from our conversation until this week, after I had seen him at the combine and, hopefully, got to spend a little more time with him. When we got off the phone, I began to think about what he'd said. I knew it would be something that would raise eyebrows among NFL teams, who like their prospects to be single-minded, not entering the league thinking about anything except being the best player they can be. I thought if anyone else in the lineup asked him about the Under Armour deal, he'd probably say the same "entertainer and icon'' thing. I didn't want to make a news story out of it, but I did want to get it out that he'd told me this, so I sent it out to my 510,000 followers on Twitter.

Reaction was swift, and negative. One of his representatives called the next day to tell me, basically, that I'd sabotaged Newton just before the combine, and it was going to damage him, and if I'd written this as part of a larger story with context, no one would have seen the quote as very troublesome. I told him you're kidding yourself; if this were in a long story about combine prep and the deal with Under Armour, the media at large would have plucked out the quote and run with it the exact same way. And teams would have wondered about Newton's commitment to the game. How does the context of the quote change the impact? To me, not at all.

Did any of Newton's reps -- agent Bus Cook or his marketing people or father -- say to him, "That's a bad thing to say at any point of a young career, never mind just before the combine?'' I certainly hope so, or they don't have his best interests at heart. I found Newton to be an amiable enough person, though how much can you really tell by a 15-minute phone conversation? And I was encouraged by a couple of things at the combine.

One: He never said the quote wasn't accurate; I've heard enough players, with me and other reporters, backtrack out of a bad situation by saying they were victimized by an invented quote. Two: Combine godfather Gil Brandt of the NFL told me he spent time with Newton in Indianapolis and the player said he'd put his foot in his mouth and planned to apologize for it to the press and to teams. He pretty much did that to the assembled press, though he said several times he felt he was misunderstood.

On NFL Network Sunday, Newton said of our conversation: "My response was, I view myself as that due to the fact that I'm not only going to just be selling football cleats, I'm going to be selling lifestyle apparel -- everything else ... I could have picked way more [different] words to express what I really wanted to say. I want to personally apologize to everybody who was offended about it."

As I wrote higher in this column, I definitely wouldn't eliminate Newton as a possible high pick because of one sentence. He's had a checkered past, obviously, and this doesn't help. As I write in SI this coming week, teams are going to do lots of homework on Newton to make sure they're comfortable with him as a player and person and comfortable with his desire to make football the highest priority in his life. He's such a great prospect, with charisma to match, that I expect him to get picked very high, as high as number one, to Carolina. But teams have miles to go before they can say with certainty they're comfortable with building their team around him.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/02/28/combine/index.html#ixzz1FH8trYbh

Basically: He talked to Newton, Asked him about Under Armor deal, got a juicy quote, didn't want to make a story about it, so quoted it 100% out of context to 500,000 twitter followers. King then has the dumbassery to say, "Context doesn't matter here" (paraphrased)

I have yet to jump on any 1st overall pick, but to say that the above quote isn't 100% damaging to a potential pick is absolute bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the context DID matter... "Yeah I am an entertaining and an icon because I'm selling lifestyle apparel"? lol.

Who cares about the context. He said the same thing either way. I just don't get the difference. Yeah he was asked the question - did anyone really think in an interview he just went on a tirade about him being an entertaining and an icon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually makes him a good writer...he got some pub and people read his articles. Sometimes those guys are just as shady as lawyers, but he did what he was supposed to do (like it or not).

Makes him a good article bait maker.

But I understand your point.

Even edited the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. It is out of context and it aint much, but it's just a little something more to add to the pile.

I don't think he's a bad person, just he has moments of not thinking.

Anyway you twist it, he did say he was an icon and an entertainer, then reaffirmed that when saying he is supposed to be a cleat and lifestyle seller. Is he going to do that? Of course, but there is no point even bringing it up because his mind should be 100% on the NFL.

Anyone else and people would jump on it, so no point in sweeping it under the rug just because it's Cam. Again, on it's own it's a lack of judgement, but when looking at the bigger picture he just appears to make errors of judgement from time to time.

Also, I am pretty sure this won't damage his standing with GM's. Those that put a premium on character will have their detective gloves on already, those that aren't too bothered will chalk it up to just a misinterpretation. Hardly character assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Exactly what I was going to say. Brady seems to be taking a page out of Olsen's playbook, which is probably a good thing. They'll probably get around to giving Brady an Emmy one day, and he should thank Olsen for giving him the blueprint for success.
    • In before: "XL sucks, there is no hope." "As long as we have Bryce, none of this matters." My response: "It's X, not XL...we're not discussing apparel sizes, or we'd have to consider XS."  
    • Alain Pierre provides some food for thought on Last Word On Sports regarding Xavier Legette, and his article, though specifically on X, kind of puts me in the mind of QBs being overdrafted and put into situations that they're not prepared for, some ultimately failing due to drafting missteps by front offices who don't necessarily view prospective players within the contextual importance that situations demand.  At this point, Legette looks like a failure in reference to expectations, of not only what a consistently productive NFL receiver looks like, but a first round pick (which he obviously should never have been). But the story on X isn't necessarily completely over. Damn. I seem to be experiencing deja vu...It wasn't X's fault that he was overdrafted, that was a choice by an FO that obviously downplayed actual realized skill vs outstanding measurables and upside. Sure, the FO was impressed by X's one-year feats during his senior season at South Carolina, but it was the NFL god, RAS (a.k.a. Raw Athletic Score), that had Dave Canales's and Dan Morgan's jaws dropping in amazement at the sight of X running around in underwear at the Combine...   "At 6-foot-3 and over 220 pounds, Legette brought rare athletic upside to the position. His breakout season at South Carolina showed flashes of dominance that NFL teams dream of. Projecting forward, many scouts compared his physical profile to D.K. Metcalf, and the Panthers clearly believed they could develop him into a true wide receiver 1 over time. The issue was never his talent. The issue was the timeline. Just a few picks later, the Chargers selected Ladd McConkey, a receiver who may have lacked Xavier Legette’s physical ceiling but entered the league far more technically refined. McConkey immediately showed advanced route discipline, leverage awareness, good pacing, and separation ability.  Bryce Young’s game has always depended on timing and anticipation. His best football at Alabama came with receivers capable of winning through precision rather than pure athleticism. Jameson Williams and John Metchie III were excellent route runners and were able to get drafted in 2022. McConkey naturally fit that style of play. Legette, meanwhile, needed significant development in the exact areas where Bryce Young needed help. The Panthers drafted traits when Bryce Young needed reliability."   Yes, the FO was guilty. The good thing is that the execs appear to be improving. Some of that may be attributed to the hiring of Eric Eager (who was hired right after the Xavier Legette draft). Eager seems to have helped the Panthers FO fine-tune their analytical progress, and, at least on paper, they acquired players with a lot of value during the last draft in regards to actually (what I'll refer to as) "underdrafting" talent relative to their position with value already built in.  Look at Chris Brazzell: He may be more of the quintessential project receiver who was arguably more or less just as raw as Legette was when he was drafted, and with a relatively high RAS as well. The notable difference is value, as Brazzell was a round three pick and Legette was a first rounder.    "Unlike the Xavier Legette situation, Carolina’s environment for Brazzell is completely different. "The Panthers are not asking a raw receiver prospect to stabilize this offense for Bryce Young. "Brazzell enters a much healthier developmental situation with far less pressure. With Tetairoa McMillan established as the primary target and Jalen Coker continuing to settle as the number 2 option...Xavier Legette, Metchie III, and Jimmy Horn Jr. are also still in this rotation, fighting for reps. "It gives Carolina something they failed to give Legette when they drafted him: A developmental runway. "Xavier Legette entered the league with expectations attached to a first-round pick and an offense desperate for answers. Brazzell enters a room where he can spend a year working on his route running, learning the playbook, and earning snaps gradually rather than being asked to become part of Bryce Young’s solution immediately. "And truthfully, Brazzell needs that time coming out of college. Despite his elite physical tools, many evaluators have several concerns about his overall polish as a receiver. "His route tree at Tennessee was viewed as fairly limited due to the type of offense that they run. The receivers are expected to run a lot of choice routes, which are dictated by the placement of the defenders. It doesn’t require technical route-running and an understanding of the playbook needed at the NFL level...   "Context changes significantly when expectations change. "The Panthers are not depending on Brazzell to save the offense. They can allow him to develop slowly, expand his route tree, improve his technical refinement, and learn behind a much more stable receiver room... "Traits become much easier to bet on when patience is built into the plan."   It's all about understanding your situation. I don't agree that it's an inherently difficult choice like the author is suggesting in the following excerpt. At the very least, I think that it should be easier as long as all parties involved stay levelheaded and true to their process.    "That is what makes these draft decisions so difficult. "Every front office believes it can find the next Metcalf, Owens, or Marshall. Sometimes they do. More often, they are betting on a development path that may take years to complete. "The challenge is understanding what your offense needs right now. "If a team has patience, stability, and a quarterback capable of carrying the offense while a receiver develops, betting on traits can make sense. But if a young quarterback needs immediate help, there is a strong argument for prioritizing the receiver who already knows how to separate, create throwing , and earn trust from day one. "That’s why the Xavier Legette-Ladd McConkey debate remains so fascinating. "It was never really a discussion about talent. It was a discussion about timing."   For me, Ladd McConkey was talented enough in his own right, that the gap--the upside--was never as big as people are suggesting between not only McConkey and Legette, but McConkey and other receivers drafted in the first round during that draft. The technique divide between Ladd and X was pretty stark though, as was the roughly 35 pounds, but the speed was identical, the maybe 1½ height difference isn't huge (6' and 6'1"), and it may surprise some that Ladd's RAS (9.34) was also enough to put him in the top 10 percent of receivers since 1987. There is an argument that he would've been a better pick for Bryce and the Panthers, regardless of timeline and talent. But, I still appreciate the thesis (if you will) of the article, as it still provides some hope--perhaps a glimmer at this point, that X's RAS may finally translate to the NFL given more time, but, perhaps more importantly, it explains how Dan Morgan and company are showing improvement, even if it appears somewhat understated. My hope is that continued improvement is palpable by this time next year. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2026/05/30/xavier-legette-draft-lessons/#google_vignette        
×
×
  • Create New...