Covering football and MMQB

Just reading today's Monday Morning Quarterback, and I notice Peter King goes into pretty specific detail about some of the plays the Patriots were running. I don't have a lot of experience covering NFL camps, but when I did some Pats coverage last year, I was told that such specifics were frowned upon. Now, obviously I'm no Peter King, but is this over the line? Or was I just too easily cowed because of my inexperience?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/06/11/mmqb/index.html

 

Yes, Peter king is frowned upon...

 

I am sure the NCAA frowns upon it, so Mr. King should bow to them.

 

It wasn't really that in depth. I'm sure Belichick isn't pissed at him. Every team in the NFL runs four receiver sets. King didn't tell any defensive coordinator out there anything he wouldn't know from watching film.

 

Yeah, as much as I'd like to goof on Peter King just because it's fun and often deserved, this is pretty standard.

Now if he had described Brady throwing a WR screen that was really a lateral to Welker 3 yards behind the line, and Welker faked throwing to Brady running a short pattern but threw instead to Moss in the end zone, that would be a different story. Trick plays aren't supposed to be reported for obvious reasons, although I've known at least one veteran NFL scribe who screwed up during spring mini-camp and reported one.

 

This is the part that gave me a moment of pause:

"Matt Leinart may yet prove he's a pretty fair quarterback, but so far in Phoenix some might say he's a better hitter than thrower. The other day he took batting practice at Chase Field -- 330 down the lines, 374 to the power alleys -- and hit three out of the ballpark."

Indeed, hopefully a guy who did just about everything you can do in college and had a solid rookie year can someday prove he's a "pretty fair" QB. Or maybe King was just joking, I don't know . . . . .

And his Sopranos stuff . . . . . now I see it was just King messing himself over all the Jersey locations.