bubba9497 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 from the TV show "Stories from the Hall of Fame" hosted by Howie Long, 2002 I never voted for Lynn Swan. I am one who does not feel Lynn Swan belongs in the HOF, because I feel a man has to put up some semblance of numbers. Swan is a guy, who for his career, averaged less than three catches a game More hypocrisy from the coffee nerd. One of his arguments against Art Monk has been, Numbers don't matter, he lacked the highlight catches in big games..... the very reason Swan was voted in despite only 9 years in the league, and so few catches. Exactly how many times have we heard King reverse his stance about voting for a WR in the HOF, when it comes to not voting for Monk.... yet he still claims it is nothing personal, that he campaigns against Art Monk! :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 from the TV show "Stories from the Hall of Fame" hosted by Howie Long, 2002More hypocrisy from the coffee nerd. One of his arguments against Art Monk has been, Numbers don't matter, he lacked the highlight catches in big games..... the very reason Swan was voted in despite only 9 years in the league, and so few catches. Exactly how many times have we heard King reverse his stance about voting for a WR in the HOF, when he comes to not voting for Monk.... yet he still claims it is nothing personal, why he campaigns against Art Monk! :mad: I just don't get that guys MO....at first I thought it was a reach that he would have something against Monk but now i'm almost certain of it, I just don't know why he's like that, but it pisses me off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I heard a local spots talk show here in J'ville and the guy, a spotrs writer who is a voting member, was commenting on the Monk situation and he said there is definately a block of writers who will never vote for a receiver to get into the hall unless Monk gets there first. I was glad to here it. F peter queen and his biased elitist BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I heard a local spots talk show here in J'ville and the guy, a spotrs writer who is a voting member, was commenting on the Monk situation and he said there is definately a block of writers who will never vote for a receiver to get into the hall unless Monk gets there first. I was glad to here it. F peter queen and his biased elitist BS. That's good to hear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I just don't get that guys MO....at first I thought it was a reach that he would have something against Monk but now i'm almost certain of it, I just don't know why he's like that, but it pisses me off King is a NY Giants homer,thus his bias against Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Bubba, I remember what you are talking about. A couple of years ago, King said something like "Monk had good numbers, but that he wasn't a playmaker". Every year King comes out with some kind of bull story why Monk isn't in the HOF. They were talking about HOF on Sirius yesterday, and how the only answer for Monk not being in must be personal reasons by some of the voters. There was some talk about Harry Carson not being in also for the same reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truskinsfan18 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 That guy is so stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Joe Hog Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I heard a local spots talk show here in J'ville and the guy, a spotrs writer who is a voting member, was commenting on the Monk situation and he said there is definately a block of writers who will never vote for a receiver to get into the hall unless Monk gets there first. I was glad to here it. F peter queen and his biased elitist BS. That is the best news I've heard on the Art Monk HOF situation for a long time. I hope it's a large enough block of voters to make a difference. Art Monk for HOF! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Amazing. Seems to me I do remember Peter saying something along those lines in the past. Now this. Man needs to be consistant or just get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grassyglen Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 What an idiot. Here's a quote from a past nfl.com article to shed some light on King: Peter King of Sports Illustrated was next off in May 2004, predicting Jacksonville would make the Super Bowl; the Jags did not make the playoffs. A few months after predicting Jax would reach the Super Bowl, King covered his bets by also predicting the team would finish 8-8. In spring 2004, King further declared that City of Tampa had the league's best offseason: "I'm not picking the Bucs to win the Super Bowl, but I won't be surprised if they do." Tampa finished 5-11. :doh: Taken from this article: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8197685 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I think he's made some comment recently about Bettis being a HOFer because he's been very good for a long time, the same reason he has denied Monk. I think I read that or someone posted it on here. Its just an outrage. The worst thing is you KNOW he knows about this site. We have heard stories about how some media members look at this site. Hell, if Pastabelly knows about us, you gotta believe Peter King does. You have to believe that someone's said "Hey, they're talking a lot of **** about you on this site, and it's a pretty big, popular board." I'd put money on the fact that that fat ****head has lurked on our board and read a decent share of the things we've said on here. **** YOU peter king, you biased *******. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Your're right Bubba. But that isn't the only time King has contradicted himself. I know that in past articles when King is talking about players he's advocating to be in the HoF, he'll mention that even though another has passed that player's accomplishments, that player he's advocating should be judged in his own era. Yet when it comes to Monk, and it's brought up about all the WRing records he held in his era, King dismisses that saying they've all been broken since then and that proves there are more worthy receivers than Monk. :doh: Funny how the "in thier era" argument goes right out the window when he talks about Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyf316 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I wish somebody would catch him on the street and slap him with a rotten fish. In all seriousness, what needs to be done to remove him from a voting position for the HoF? Who deemed him worthy to decide the fate of men much better than him, and how can we change that today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefPowhatan17 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I hate peder King.:logo::logo::logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asacks Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 This is all so frustrating. Pretty much every skins fan I've spoken to KNOWS that Monk belongs in the HOF---we all know how key he was to our 3 SBs with 3 different QBs (well, he was at least key for our final two, and he was there for all three). At what point does some of the supporting cast for those SBs get the recognition that it MUST have for carrying mediocre QBs through the title game?! Yes, Joe was great but without the supporting talent there is no way we could've won those titles! I've heard others speak about him not being the best reciever on his team (citing Gary Clark) and therefore not deserving---this is a preposterous argument based on the "spectacular catch" problem, when in fact, it was Monk that was there on the key 3rd downs when we needed 9 yards, we got 10, and we moved the chains and won the game. Now if Highlights are more important than wins, maybe there is an argument, but as a pure football player, Monk deserves to be in the HOF. The fact that Peter "one too many lattes" King is preventing this recognition goes so far as to make Canton pretty much irrelevant for the time being in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieJ Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Theismann really tore him a new one on Dan Patrick's radio show yesterday. Patrick said King's argument is that Monk wasn't the focus of the other team's D etc and Joe said "Peter doesn't know what he is talking about". Word for word that was Joe's first sentence. Joe said people don't vote for Monk because he didn't make the flashy unbelievable catches like Swann did, but in big games Monk put up numbers. Joe really went to bat for Monk. King's other argument is that Monk is an "accumulator" of numbers, yet he got on Swan for not accumulating. And can't we also say that Bettis is an "accumulator" because of his longevity. None of his arguments make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB44 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Theismann really tore him a new one on Dan Patrick's radio show yesterday. Patrick said King's argument is that Monk wasn't the focus of the other team's D etc and Joe said "Peter doesn't know what he is talking about". Word for word that was Joe's first sentence. Joe said people don't vote for Monk because he didn't make the flashy unbelievable catches like Swann did, but in big games Monk put up numbers. Joe really went to bat for Monk. King's other argument is that Monk is an "accumulator" of numbers, yet he got on Swan for not accumulating. And can't we also say that Bettis is an "accumulator" because of his longevity. None of his arguments make any sense. Yeah Joey T! You tell that fat *******!!!!!! Hail #7!!!!! :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I heard a local spots talk show here in J'ville and the guy, a spotrs writer who is a voting member, was commenting on the Monk situation and he said there is definately a block of writers who will never vote for a receiver to get into the hall unless Monk gets there first. I was glad to here it. F peter queen and his biased elitist BS. Good to hear. This issue (HOF writers) has been coming up quite often listening to local sports radio (WFAN-NY). The people in this area are more concerned with getting Harry Carson in than they are Art Monk, but they talk about the same things we do. Anyway, the discussions have revolved around the writers and their hatred for one another. It seems that within the "sacred room" there is a lot of division and strife. There always has been, but it seems to be intensifying as of late. These writers hold grudges and form alliances...and they vote against certain players not because of their stats/accomplishments...but because they dislike the guy who is presenting that player. The bickering was always kept in house, but starting last year some writers actually started calling out other writers (in print articles) with regards to this childish behavior. So there's a storm brewing.... This just shows me how petty these guys really are and they should have NO place in voting for the HOF. Personally, instead of writing letters to these guys lobbying for Art Monk - as I have done in the past - I'm writing to the NFL. I'm just going to express my desire to see the HOF voting process overhauled. I'm not sure if they should alternate writers - give them "term limits"? Or make their vote count for a smaller percentage - say their vote counts at 50% and owners/current HOF members get another 50%...or something along those lines??? But change is needed for sure... For crying out loud, these guys act like they are picking the next Nobel Prize winner. I don't see the need to be so "picky" about longevity and stats, defenses not being afraid of some guy and all this other crap. If a guy catches as many balls as Monk did - he deserves to be in - PERIOD. I don't care how many Super Bowls he won, how many spectacular catches he made, or whether he was the team's 1st string or 3rd string WR. With stats like that he should be in.... ...along the same lines, I think longevity DOES count for something irregardless of stats. If Darrell Green started at CB for 20 years in the NFL and never intercepted a pass I think he should still get in...you know how hard it is to last 20 years in the NFL? ....ugh....blood pressure is rising...I'm out...for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Master Jay Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 What do you expect from a GIANTS fan. Monk had to play with at least 6 different QBs for the Redskins. Drug head Michael Irvin had Troy Aikman damn near his entire career. Peter King needs to be slapped into reality that ART MONK belongs in the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natsfan3 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Good to hear.This issue (HOF writers) has been coming up quite often listening to local sports radio (WFAN-NY). The people in this area are more concerned with getting Harry Carson in than they are Art Monk, but they talk about the same things we do. Anyway, the discussions have revolved around the writers and their hatred for one another. It seems that within the "sacred room" there is a lot of division and strife. There always has been, but it seems to be intensifying as of late. These writers hold grudges and form alliances...and they vote against certain players not because of their stats/accomplishments...but because they dislike the guy who is presenting that player. The bickering was always kept in house, but starting last year some writers actually started calling out other writers (in print articles) with regards to this childish behavior. So there's a storm brewing.... This just shows me how petty these guys really are and they should have NO place in voting for the HOF. Personally, instead of writing letters to these guys lobbying for Art Monk - as I have done in the past - I'm writing to the NFL. I'm just going to express my desire to see the HOF voting process overhauled. I'm not sure if they should alternate writers - give them "term limits"? Or make their vote count for a smaller percentage - say their vote counts at 50% and owners/current HOF members get another 50%...or something along those lines??? But change is needed for sure... For crying out loud, these guys act like they are picking the next Nobel Prize winner. I don't see the need to be so "picky" about longevity and stats, defenses not being afraid of some guy and all this other crap. If a guy catches as many balls as Monk did - he deserves to be in - PERIOD. I don't care how many Super Bowls he won, how many spectacular catches he made, or whether he was the team's 1st string or 3rd string WR. With stats like that he should be in.... ...along the same lines, I think longevity DOES count for something irregardless of stats. If Darrell Green started at CB for 20 years in the NFL and never intercepted a pass I think he should still get in...you know how hard it is to last 20 years in the NFL? ....ugh....blood pressure is rising...I'm out...for now No disrespect to Carson, He was agreat player, but Art Monk retired as the ALL TIME leading reciever in league history. He needs to get in before Harry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB44 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 ...along the same lines, I think longevity DOES count for something irregardless of stats. If Darrell Green started at CB for 20 years in the NFL and never intercepted a pass I think he should still get in...you know how hard it is to last 20 years in the NFL? Dude, you know King is already writing a novel, "Darrell Green: Fast, but too short, too nice, and played too long to be in the HOF". :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkart Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 His Parents were visionary's to name him Peter King!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcarey032 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Yeah I pretty much think that Peter King is totally wrong and biased against Art Monk. To say that Art Monk is pretty much a washington local argument is a totally wrong perception. Mike Greenberg and others have said why isn't he in the hall of fame. I guess Peter King is against any redskin doing anything awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 will ray brown go to HOF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 What an idiot. Here's a quote from a past nfl.com article to shed some light on King: Peter King of Sports Illustrated was next off in May 2004, predicting Jacksonville would make the Super Bowl; the Jags did not make the playoffs. A few months after predicting Jax would reach the Super Bowl, King covered his bets by also predicting the team would finish 8-8. In spring 2004, King further declared that City of Tampa had the league's best offseason: "I'm not picking the Bucs to win the Super Bowl, but I won't be surprised if they do." Tampa finished 5-11. :doh: Taken from this article: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8197685 This doesn't really shed light on anything. All sports personalities predict wrong every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.