Peter King's Mind-Melting Lack of Logic

[Cool Hand Loki]

It's laughable, really. Here is his argument for why Don Hutson and Otto Graham should be considered the best NFL players of all time:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/05/31/mmqbte/index.html

I'd put Green Bay wide receiver Don Hutson and Cleveland quarterback Otto Graham over Rice. I think you have to judge players against peers from their era, as well as against players from history. Hutson played from 1935 to '45 -- as the Packers made football an aerial game -- and when he retired he had approximately three times the number of catches, receiving yards and receiving touchdowns as anyone else of his era. [Endquote]

Can someone explain to me how this logic dictates that Art Monk doesn't deserve a spot in the HOF? Specifically the "I think you have to judge players against peers from their era, as well as against players from history" part? Monk retired with almost every major receiving record at the time, was a vital member of some of the winningest and most prolific offenses of his era, and was the consummate teammate and professional.

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but when this dolt claims to use one set of criteria for judging certain players, and then clearly ignores the parameters he's mapped out when judging other players, it makes my stomach turn.

EDITED for my inability to properly type endquote on the first attempt.

[G-Prime]

Peter King hates Redskins?

[wskin44]

Sammy Baugh would have to be considered as the top player of all time, based on queenie's criteria.

[Heavy Jumbo]

Originally posted by Cool Hand Loki

Can someone explain to me how this logic dictates that Art Monk doesn't deserve a spot in the HOF? Specifically the "I think you have to judge players against peers from their era, as well as against players from history" part?

But.....but..... Monk didn't go to the Pro Bowl enough so he COULDN"T have been has good as most of his peers. :doh:

[nace14]

funny how this is the exact argument that he REFUSSES to make for monk. if he applied these criterion toward monk he would change his mind in a second

oops, guess i didn't read your whole thread through, i got so irritated at king's comments that i had to post. looks like i posted exactly what you were saying.

[SkinsNatsFan]

Originally posted by wskin44

Sammy Baugh would have to be considered as the top player of all time, based on queenie's criteria.

Based on just about anyone else's criteria as well. :point2sky

[RabidFan]

Otto Graham's 10 straight titles or something like that was key....plus i have his football card

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Originally posted by wskin44

Sammy Baugh would have to be considered as the top player of all time, based on queenie's criteria.

If I'm not mistaken, he is.

[D Al]

Peter has a problem with DC teams. I recently heard him say "the Washington Wizards or whatever that team is called"

Dude is over the hill and probably jealous of Dan Snyder.

[cphil006]

Originally posted by wskin44

Sammy Baugh would have to be considered as the top player of all time, based on queenie's criteria.

Sammy Baugh was actually the FIRST PERSON elected to the Hall of Fame, because of the alphabet.

[PapaDRoc]

Originally posted by cphil006

Sammy Baugh was actually the FIRST PERSON elected to the Hall of Fame, because of the alphabet.

Did not know that.

[Monkart]

Originally posted by Cool Hand Loki

It's laughable, really. Here is his argument for why Don Hutson and Otto Graham should be considered the best NFL players of all time:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/05/31/mmqbte/index.html

I'd put Green Bay wide receiver Don Hutson and Cleveland quarterback Otto Graham over Rice. I think you have to judge players against peers from their era, as well as against players from history. Hutson played from 1935 to '45 -- as the Packers made football an aerial game -- and when he retired he had approximately three times the number of catches, receiving yards and receiving touchdowns as anyone else of his era. [Endquote]

Can someone explain to me how this logic dictates that Art Monk doesn't deserve a spot in the HOF? Specifically the "I think you have to judge players against peers from their era, as well as against players from history" part? Monk retired with almost every major receiving record at the time, was a vital member of some of the winningest and most prolific offenses of his era, and was the consummate teammate and professional.

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but when this dolt claims to use one set of criteria for judging certain players, and then clearly ignores the parameters he's mapped out when judging other players, it makes my stomach turn.

EDITED for my inability to properly type endquote on the first attempt.

Peter King, is "Dick King" Art Monk especially after that statement.

I think he's Smo King Crack with Don King. He is a peice of:crap:

[Henry]

It's well documented that I think Monk should have been a first year HOFer, but Hutson is in a class by himself. He was more dominant in his day than Jerry Rice. In ten years he was a nine time all-pro and when he retired his 488 receptions was 298 more than the next guy had. His 99 TDs stood as a career record for something like 40 years.

EDIT: Ok, I just read the link, and yeah, King's an idiot.