Do you really want Monk in the Hall?

[Thinking Skins]

I ask this beause I see this argument made a lot; that a lot of Redskisn who should be in the Hall are not in the Hall.

We as fans, the ones who believe strongly that the answer to this question is yes, should try to see what we can do to get this done.

I'm not sure what people are doing right now, but I was just thinking about telling guys like Peter King and all these HOF voters the same things we tell each other. THe comparisons we make with players who are already in the HOF, we should pose these comparisons to these writers; the talk about Monk being better than Irvin, we should tell them this talk, and make the good arguments I've seen posted in so many threads here. THose of us who are good with Flash and Swish should do what we can to promote these players.

How much do these writers know about the Redskins fans? How much do they hear from us? If I can get some email addresses, I've got no problem with letting them know these things. So if people are already doing this, I'm in. I want to make sure these writers know the player they just passed up on.

:helmet:

[jstape]

we all should flood the sportswriters with letters.. whos in?

[Beaudry]

I always thought Jacoby and Grimm were both better players than Monk. Sure, I think Monk deserves it, but I don't think it's the travesty of justice that many seem to believe.

[Mr. S]

well, I would want Monk, and any other potential Redskin to make it. However, the next few classes are looking strong, especially with both Bruce Smith and Darrell Green being eligible, and Reggie White is a shoo in next year.

These sportswriters are going to keep with their stances, especially if they do have the anti-skins bias.

[fuji869]

We do not have much representation in the Hall of Fame from our glory days just Riggo and Joe Gibbs.

Art Monk should have been in already! He put up big #s in a run oriented offense but idiots like Peter King wont put him in because was "boering".

[tr1]

As long as the NY bias in voting continues, we're not going to get many (if any) more players into the HOF.

[Bazooka Tooth]

When Gibbs gets us back to our winning ways, Monk and others will have an easier time getting in then they are right now IMO.

[boobiemiles]

The fact Monk isn't in the Hall yet is a travesty. It really calls the Hall of Fames Credibility into question in my eyes. Let me get this straight you have a guy like Steve Young go in on the first ballot, but a guy that stood for the integrity of the game, was drafted in the first round and exeeded his potential, had the first 100 catch season, won four Superbowls, and put a side his own desire for accolades to be a great team player leading to those superbowls, and they say your not qualified. The reason I bring up Steve Young is he only had one great year. All the other years he couldn't get the 49ers over the hump. But he goes in on the first ballot? How? The first ballot are reserved for those that changed the game, were the face of the NFL, embody the spirit of the NFL even if the may snort a little coke every once in a while, and dominated their position.....sounds like Art Monk to me. The NFL HoF is wrong on this one.

[Walking Deadman]

I would like to see many of the former Hogs in there including Jacoby, Grimm and Bostic.

Monk should be in there-- he was the all time reception leader when he retired (surpassed Steve Largent), made serious contibutions to the success of the Redskins "dynasty" during most of Gibbs' tenure (Yes, I called the Joe Gibbs era a dynasty-- don't like it---- tough! ). Despite the fact they may not be Sportscenter highlight catches they are the catches that keep drives alive and lead to TD's.

Green, I'm guessing will be the next Skin in the HOF; Bruce Smith is going to the hall, but as a Bill.

[HailSkinz1]

Just one note of caution. Don't send form letters to the HOF voters. They will actually hold that against you. If you do write them, send them your own personalized letters.

In an earlier post I mentioned that I heard from Woody Paige after I wrote a letter. He thought my letter was a form letter and told me it only hurts the cause.

Good luck!

Hail,

H

[HailSkinz1]

Found this regarding an allegedly Anti-Cowboy HOF Bias:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16118

Calling all conspiracy theorists

Peter King, SI.com

Sometimes a story gets legs and takes off. People accept it as fact and when someone disputes the premise, people look at the disputer like: "Are you nuts?''

Today's tale: There is an anti-Cowboys bias among Hall of Fame voters.

I aim to dispute it, but let's hear from our first e-mailer to kick off the festivities.

ARE THE COWBOYS GETTING JOBBED? From Bruce E. Sellers of Mapleton, Minn.: "I would assume it is only a matter of time before you address the latest hubbub surrounding Drew Pearson's comments about a bias in the media being the reason he and a number of other Cowboys from those '70s teams have been snubbed by the Hall of Fame (i.e., Pearson, Rayfield Wright, Cliff Harris). This conspiracy theory has been floating around for quite a few years now, and I never bought into it until recently. My change of heart really started when Michael Irvin didn't get in last year. I thought he was a sure first-ballot HOFer. I don't want to hear about his off-the-field exploits, because there are a lot of characters in the Hall with not-so-glowing resumes. Paul Zimmerman even wrote that Irvin didn't get in because some of the writers didn't like the way he appeared on ESPN in his role with Countdown. If this is true, then that is ridiculous because the voting should be about what happened on the field.''

This story gained some steam on Monday, when Dan Patrick devoted much of his afternoon radio show to the topic, and Pearson called in to rip the process that has excluded some Dallas stars from the Hall. It's the same thing I've been hearing for years as one of the 39 Hall voters: For some reason, we don't like the Cowboys, and so we're not electing a representative number of them to the Hall. Let me make three points:

1. I can't vouch for the other 38 voters. I can only tell you what I think, and I know I have no bias against any player or any team when it comes to Hall voting. "Bias'' is an interesting word. Just because I vote against Art Monk does not mean in any way that I'm biased against him. I just feel he belongs in the Hall of Very Good, not in Canton. Paul Zimmerman may have heard in the room that some voters are biased against Irvin for his off-the-field problems or for his bombastic role on ESPN, but that is something I didn't catch. We are told that only on-field exploits are open for judgment, not what happens to a guy at midnight during the week. Might some voters hold his wild off-field life against Irvin? Could be, but I never heard one of the 39 voters say his vote was going to be affected by it.

2. I don't believe the Cowboys, more than any other team, are under-represented in the Hall. I voted for Wright all the way last year, the same way I voted for Irvin all the way this year. But I've also voted for other guys who don't get in (Russ Grimm and Harry Carson being the most notable ones these days). The Cowboys made it to five Super Bowls in a nine-year period, and 10 people from those teams are in the Hall. Let's exclude the short-timers, like Herb Adderley, and say that seven bedrock Cowboys from those teams have made the Hall. Compare that to the team from the next generation that was as good, and maybe better historically, than Dallas. San Francisco, over a 14-year period, made it to five Super Bowls and has four people from that era in the Hall. So why don't I hear the same rabble-rousing from the Charles Haley, Randy Cross and Roger Craig advocates that I hear constantly from Dallas?

3. The only logical argument for more Cowboys is the epidemic of Steelers in the Hall. I can't defend some of the Pittsburgh choices, because quite frankly, I wasn't in favor of some of their players, like Lynn Swann. Just a personal feeling. But the Hall historically has favored players from Super Bowl winners. Pittsburgh was 4-0 in a six-season span. Dallas was 2-3 in a nine-year run. San Francisco was 5-0 in their 14-year spell, which makes the lack of Niners ever more noticeable. And look at Washington, 3-1 in Super Bowls in a 10-year run and just two Hall members -- John Riggins and Joe Gibbs. I'd buy the argument that Grimm, Joe Jacoby, Matt Millen and Darrell Green all deserve their day before our committee.

So, the fact that "only'' seven Cowboys are in the Hall from that era doesn't get much violin music from me.

There's hope for some of our heroes!

Hail,

H

[jrockster21]

Originally posted by boobiemiles

The fact Monk isn't in the Hall yet is a travesty. It really calls the Hall of Fames Credibility into question in my eyes. Let me get this straight you have a guy like Steve Young go in on the first ballot, but a guy that stood for the integrity of the game, was drafted in the first round and exeeded his potential, had the first 100 catch season, won four Superbowls, and put a side his own desire for accolades to be a great team player leading to those superbowls, and they say your not qualified. The reason I bring up Steve Young is he only had one great year. All the other years he couldn't get the 49ers over the hump. But he goes in on the first ballot? How? The first ballot are reserved for those that changed the game, were the face of the NFL, embody the spirit of the NFL even if the may snort a little coke every once in a while, and dominated their position.....sounds like Art Monk to me. The NFL HoF is wrong on this one.

Steve's numbers from 91-99:

| 1991 | 11 | 180 279 64.5 2517 9.0 17 8 | 66 415 4 |

| 1992 | 16 | 268 402 66.7 3465 8.6 25 7 | 76 537 4 |

| 1993 | 16 | 314 462 68.0 4023 8.7 29 16 | 69 407 2 |

| 1994 | 16 | 324 461 70.3 3969 8.6 35 10 | 58 293 7 |

| 1995 | 11 | 299 447 66.9 3200 7.2 20 11 | 50 250 3 |

| 1996 | 12 | 214 316 67.7 2410 7.6 14 6 | 52 310 4 |

| 1997 | 15 | 241 356 67.7 3029 8.5 19 6 | 50 199 3 |

| 1998 | 15 | 322 517 62.3 4170 8.1 36 12 | 70 454 6 |

| 1999 | 3 | 45 84 53.6 446 5.3 3 4 | 11 57 0 |

TOTAL| 169 | 2667 4149 64.3 33124 8.0 232 107| 722 4239 43

He only won one superbowl, but he got his team to the playoffs for 7 or 8 consecutive years. Plus, he had almost 4300 career rushing yards and 43 rushing TDs. That blows most other QBs out of the water. Young and Elway pretty much revolutionized the QB position, imo. He only had to 4000 yard seasons, and threw for 35+ TDs in both. I don't know....Steve Young may have been a media darling and that's why he got in, but you can definitely make a case for him.

[skinstzar]

This argument makes me so mad I want to punch someone. It burns me to the core that Art Monk is not in the hall of fame. Most of us on this board have forgotten more about football than Peter "Tub of ****" King will ever know. He obviously never really watched Art Monk play or else there would be no decision to be made. The goal of a reciever is to catch passes. At one point in his career Art Monk had caught more passes than anyone else who ever played the game. You cannot be any better than that. He has better numbers than Michael Irvin in almost every category. Not to mention the fact that Art Monk never got busted for coke. I want to do something. I want to organize. I really want to go to Canton on HOF weekend and cause a rucus. Allas Art Monk wouldn't want it that way.

[Chachie]

There is a growing stack of players who SHOULD be in the HOF that still are not. I personally believe Art (Monk, not our Art) should be in the Hall of Fame. However, should he go in BEFORE a Harry Carson or other players that played before Monk did that are still being snubbed?

There must be a ton of ex-players waiting to go in that should go before Monk, and by this logic Monk should go in LONG before Michael Irvin. I'm not saying Irvin shouldn't go in at all, just that if they are going to do all this the right way, there are plenty before Art and MILLIONS before Irvin.

[jrockster21]

Irvin's career statistics:

| 1988 dal | 14 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 32 654 20.4 5 |

| 1989 dal | 6 | 1 6 6.0 0 | 26 378 14.5 2 |

| 1990 dal | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 20 413 20.6 5 |

| 1991 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 93 1523 16.4 8 |

| 1992 dal | 16 | 1 -9 -9.0 0 | 78 1396 17.9 7 |

| 1993 dal | 16 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 88 1330 15.1 7 |

| 1994 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 79 1241 15.7 6 |

| 1995 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 111 1603 14.4 10 |

| 1996 dal | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 64 962 15.0 2 |

| 1997 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 75 1180 15.7 9 |

| 1998 dal | 16 | 1 1 1.0 0 | 74 1057 14.3 1 |

| 1999 dal | 4 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 10 167 16.7 3 |

| TOTAL | 159 | 6 6 1.0 0 | 750 11904 15.9 65 |

Monk's career statistics:

| 1980 was | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 58 797 13.7 3 |

| 1981 was | 16 | 1 -5 -5.0 0 | 56 894 16.0 6 |

| 1982 was | 9 | 7 21 3.0 0 | 35 447 12.8 1 |

| 1983 was | 12 | 3 -19 -6.3 0 | 47 746 15.9 5 |

| 1984 was | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 106 1372 12.9 7 |

| 1985 was | 15 | 7 51 7.3 0 | 91 1226 13.5 2 |

| 1986 was | 16 | 4 27 6.8 0 | 73 1068 14.6 4 |

| 1987 was | 9 | 6 63 10.5 0 | 38 483 12.7 6 |

| 1988 was | 16 | 7 46 6.6 0 | 72 946 13.1 5 |

| 1989 was | 16 | 3 8 2.7 0 | 86 1186 13.8 8 |

| 1990 was | 16 | 7 59 8.4 0 | 68 770 11.3 5 |

| 1991 was | 16 | 9 19 2.1 0 | 71 1049 14.8 8 |

| 1992 was | 16 | 6 45 7.5 0 | 46 644 14.0 3 |

| 1993 was | 16 | 1 -1 -1.0 0 | 41 398 9.7 2 |

| 1994 nyj | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 46 581 12.6 3 |

| 1995 phi | 3 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 6 114 19.0 0 |

| TOTAL | 224 | 63 332 5.3 0 | 940 12721 13.5 68 |

He voted Irvin all the way through but doesn't think Monk deserves in? He has almost 200 more receptions than Irvin, 3 more TDs, and almost 1000 more career receiving yards. Granted, Monk played 4 more seasons than Irvin, but that durability should factor into the voting process, imo.

Monk just made the tough catches, and Irvin made the "spectacular" catches, the ones that get everyone's attention. So ignoramuses like Queen are going to continue to vote for Irvin and leave Monk out. Not that I don't think Irvin deserves to be in, but if he goes, Monk should definitely go.

[skinstzar]

And another thing. You know who they should ask about Art Monk. Ask the players who played in the secondaries in the NFC East durinig Monks tenure. Ask them what they think about Art Monk. I garauntee they will all tell you he is a no brainer for the Hall of Fame. or Hall of Farse as it currently exists.

[HailSkinz1]

I know I'm biased, but I don't see why Irvin has such a HOF support group. That team was 95 percent Emmitt. Irving benefitted from single coverage and 8 men in the box every down. And still he wasn't that damn good. My guess it's because he a media type now and the writers are so star struck.

Hail,

H

[Jay Master Jay]

Just think about John Stalworth and Lynn Swann both of them are in the HOF. Their numbers do not compare to Monk's in fact Monk is the only receiver ever to have the record of Most Catches Ever and not in the HOF. He'll get in we'll be 75 or 80 years old but he will get in. Just like the 2 guys going in this year with Young and Marino.

[HailSkinz1]

Originally posted by Jay Master Jay

Just think about John Stalworth and Lynn Swann both of them are in the HOF. Their numbers do not compare to Monk's in fact Monk is the only receiver ever to have the record of Most Catches Ever and not in the HOF. He'll get in we'll be 75 or 80 years old but he will get in. Just like the 2 guys going in this year with Young and Marino.

You're exactly right. If there was a HOF for Super Bowls, then Lynn gets in. But he's in because he's a media darling. And once Lynn got in Stalworth had to get in because his numbers are better than Lynn's.

Hail,

H

[Westbrook36]

When he retired, he had the most catches in NFL history and was critical on 3 Superbowl teams. I don't even see what the argument is.

[skins0128]

Originally posted by Westbrook36

When he retired, he had the most catches in NFL history and was critical on 3 Superbowl teams. I don't even see what the argument is.

Damn I think I need a shower, I agree with WB36 on something. I feel so dirty now. :laugh:

[Rocky21]

I think Monk is suffering from the misperception that because he didn't do self-promotion and hold court for reporters outside his locker after big games, that he was anti-media. Of course Redskins fans old enough to have watched Monk play know he was just an incredible team player who lead by action, not words.

When he retired he had more receptions than any player in the history of the National Football League.

He has more catches than every receiver already inducted in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

If that isn't a travesty, I don't know what is.

[Walking Deadman]

Originally posted by Westbrook36

When he retired, he had the most catches in NFL history and was critical on 3 Superbowl teams. I don't even see what the argument is.

Props to WB36, even he knows that Monk should be there.....weird that King and Pastabelly don't get it.

[TheREALJBird]

Monk should of been in the hall the first year he was eligible, and im saying this as someone who is an avid football fan, not a skins fan. anyone who doesn't believe he should be in is just stupid

[jimster]

He has the better numbers in several categories then anyone else currently in the HOF.