southeast jerome Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 DC is a town where a lot of people make a living trying to find ways to dig up dirt on other people in an effort to ruin their career. As far as I know, the only reason Art Monk is not in the Hall of Fame (not like he used to hold the all time receiving yards record or anything) is because of Peter King. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Flog him until he admits his secret man-crush on Monk? :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsRoll05 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I didn't know that Peter King had anything to do with it but it is a freakin crime that Art Monk is not already in the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southeast jerome Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 To my understanding he is the only one on the committe that will not vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southeast jerome Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 Wow Batman, I just realized that you're only 16. That's about the funniest thing I've heard all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demicidal Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I agree with Batman...FLOG HIM!!!! "I'll flOg until he loves me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 To my understanding he is the only one on the committe that will not vote for him. If that was the case, AM would be in the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demicidal Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 o.o My editing skills are un-rivaled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyf316 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Peter King isn't the only one, but he's the most vocal. Pretty much the pack leader against Monk. Every reason I've heard him give has been very weak. His big one is that so many people today are poised to overtake 1000 catches, the number alone can't be the only thing getting him into the hall. Mr. King fails to realize that nearly all of Monk's catches came from a time when the NFL was very much run-heavy. To have over 950 catches from that time period is outstanding, and that was represented by the fact that he retired as the active leader in catches. So what if Rice passed him later? By applying Mr. King's false logic, no statistics should ever count, because eventually, somebody will surpass them. Peter King is a ridiculous ass who has no business deciding the future of a great player and great man like Art Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I didn't know that we could impeach someone besides el presidente Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsRoll05 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I didn't know that we could impeach someone besides el presidente Judges and other politicians can also be impeached Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsRoll05 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Peter King isn't the only one, but he's the most vocal. Pretty much the pack leader against Monk. Every reason I've heard him give has been very weak. His big one is that so many people today are poised to overtake 1000 catches, the number alone can't be the only thing getting him into the hall. Mr. King fails to realize that nearly all of Monk's catches came from a time when the NFL was very much run-heavy. To have over 950 catches from that time period is outstanding, and that was represented by the fact that he retired as the active leader in catches. So what if Rice passed him later? By applying Mr. King's false logic, no statistics should ever count, because eventually, somebody will surpass them. Peter King is a ridiculous ass who has no business deciding the future of a great player and great man like Art Monk. I totally agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I didn't know that Peter King had anything to do with it but it is a freakin crime that Art Monk is not already in the HOF. There are only 39 voters. Peter King presents his "evidence" during the discussion. He and Dr Z have publically stated that they did not vot for him in the past. You need 80% to get voted in, so they only need to get 7 votes to prevent Monk from getting in. Their lobby has become very stubborn, despite the evidence to the contrary. And Peter King and Dr. Z are voters for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 funny, that during last week's broadcast the network crew at halftime noted that Jerome Bettis is a 'sure-fire' Hall of Famer because he is the #5 rusher all-time....doesn't seem as if the 'pure numbers alone' argument is working against him it's not like he has 3 Super Bowl rings or anything :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFan63 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 To my understanding he is the only one on the committe that will not vote for him. What if he was assassinated??? Would that get Monk in? Hail!:point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigjumbo1971 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Peter King isn't the only one, but he's the most vocal. Pretty much the pack leader against Monk. Every reason I've heard him give has been very weak. His big one is that so many people today are poised to overtake 1000 catches, the number alone can't be the only thing getting him into the hall. Mr. King fails to realize that nearly all of Monk's catches came from a time when the NFL was very much run-heavy. To have over 950 catches from that time period is outstanding, and that was represented by the fact that he retired as the active leader in catches. So what if Rice passed him later? By applying Mr. King's false logic, no statistics should ever count, because eventually, somebody will surpass them. exactly...i dont understand how AM being in the hall is even debatable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spm Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Peter King logic cannot be explained by mere mortals. He bases his judgments of Monk on what others have told him. Never mind he was a football journalist during the bulk of Monk's productive years. Never mind that nearly everyone in the NFL thinks Monk should be in. He has admitted that he doesn't think the 91 skins were very good because he only watched the game against Cinncinnati and wasn't impressed (a football journalist only watches the best team in the NFL one time a year??? What about the super bowl and playoffs?). If he had his way the Pro Football Hall of Fame would be the Pro Football Hall of Patriots and Bettis. This guy is the worst football writer out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 King is one that stands up and speaks to the panel against Monk every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 funny, that during last week's broadcast the network crew at halftime noted that Jerome Bettis is a 'sure-fire' Hall of Famer because he is the #5 rusher all-time....doesn't seem as if the 'pure numbers alone' argument is working against him it's not like he has 3 Super Bowl rings or anything :laugh: Thats the **** that pisses me off. That and the fact that every other receiver that held the receiving record before Monk did is in the HOF, and not a single one of them has a Super Bowl win to their name. But Monk didn't have huge Super Bowls so that is held against him even though he did have some big plays in the playoffs. What the **** did Joiner or Largent do in the Super Bowls they played in? Oh, they didn't play in any, thats right. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricucci Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 :2cents: Wilbon should give his spot to TK. I think TK would have the Cahones to stand up to old Big Head. If not he could whine his head off until they had to vote Monk in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I will say this about King though...he went to the wall to try and get Russ Grimm in last year...will he do it again...who knows? Some possible signs of hope this year concerning Art Monk: 1) Dr. Z has said that he started to vote for Art because he is tierd of all the questions about it and all of the e-mail. 2) John Clayton of ESPN has said that Monk will get in sooner than later (he is a voter) 3) This year if Russ Grimm gets in and Monk doesn't do not be a bit surprised if Russ mentions this during his induction speech. (Hey Lynn Swann did it for John Stallworth and it got him in) 4) Peter King is not all powerful ...he tried for years to keep Lynn Swann out and he lost eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuji869 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 King was on Fox Sports Radio last season and said he was anti-Monk because did not: have the signature catch that took you breath away constantly rank in the to 5 in NFC Receivers when he played did not make many Pro Bowls. The host, Andrew Siciliano, replied when you retire and you are # 1 in all time receptions you deserve to go to the Hall of Fame. And to add fuel to the Fire King said he was Pro-Irvin. I say we tar and feather Peter King and throw him in the Potomac River. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomE Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Some interesting discussion and more links in this thread comparing the HOF credentials of Michael Irvin and Art Monk I particularly enjoyed this dialogue :laugh: Monk piled on those stats because he played nearly two full decades. What would Irvin had done if he had threatening receivers like Clark and Sanders to shade away coverage? Man that would be scary. Irvin's numbers are more remarkable in that he did not pad his stats in by deferring his retirement, and that he never had a true threat opposite to him. Hence, he built his numbers and TDs almost always against double coverage. See what happens when a lesser receiver does not have a true opposite threat to ward away coverage?...his numbers fade sharply (Moss anyone?) That never happened with Irvin. Thats why he special and I think is better than Monk Monk played 16 seasons. Just say that. Playing with the wording only makes your bias more obvious. I love how people try to point out Monk's longevity as if that's a BAD thing. Irvin couldn't do it as long as Monk. That's a knock on Irvin, not Monk. But just for kicks, let's look at each player's first 12 seasons (two of which were strike-shortened for Monk, by the way): Monk: 801 rec 10984 yds 60 TDs Irvin: 750 rec 11904 yds 65 TDs Wow. Irvin is insanely head and shoulders above Monk, isn't he? Of course Irvin had this HOF QB throwing to him his entire career. Maybe you've heard of him? I think his name's Troy Aikman. Monk had Theismann, then Jay Schroeder, then Doug Williams, then Mark Rypien, then Cary Conklin, then Rich Gannon, then some guy from the Jets, then some guy from the Eagles ... You wanna talk scary? Give Monk one of the most accurate QBs in the history of the game for twelve seasons. I guarantee you that would be more beneficial than having Gary Clark opposite him for half his career. Let's not pretend Irvin was the only option on that team. 5 time pro-bowler Novacek, 8 time pro-bowler Smith, 2 time pro-bowler Johnston ... consistant weapons other teams had to account for, playing together for a decade. Monk was the ONLY skill position player on the Redskins to go to all four Superbowls. The only one. Think about that for a second. Irvin was a great cog in a great machine. Monk was an outstanding individual player who excelled no matter who you put under center, no matter who lined up beside him. There is no way Irvin is a shoo-in if Monk isn't. :applause: : Some time ago, there was some discussion between GSF, Iheartskins and Henry about a combined effort to put together argument/article for Monk..... dunno if anything ever came of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangee7 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 How can James Lofton rank above Monk ? That's the one that floors me. I remember Lofton as an average, but not spectacular receiver. Maybe I was on hiatus when he was "tearing up" the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZ33 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Peter King isn't the only one, but he's the most vocal. Pretty much the pack leader against Monk. Every reason I've heard him give has been very weak. His big one is that so many people today are poised to overtake 1000 catches, the number alone can't be the only thing getting him into the hall. Mr. King fails to realize that nearly all of Monk's catches came from a time when the NFL was very much run-heavy. To have over 950 catches from that time period is outstanding, and that was represented by the fact that he retired as the active leader in catches. So what if Rice passed him later? By applying Mr. King's false logic, no statistics should ever count, because eventually, somebody will surpass them. Peter King is a ridiculous ass who has no business deciding the future of a great player and great man like Art Monk. Preach on!! :helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.