Salisbury Love, King Hatred Continues

[Cambl2Moss]

From SI.com....not sure if its been posted...Didnt find anything in the search. Delete if it has...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/01/17/mmqb.divisional/

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"It's legalized theft, a crime, that Art Monk is not in the Hall of Fame. Those voters ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.''

-- ESPN football analyst Sean Salisbury.

POSTSCRIPT TO QUOTE OF THE WEEK

I'm one of the voters, Sean. And I'm not ashamed at all. Over the past few years, there's been significant outrage over Monk not getting into the Hall of Fame. Salisbury's feelings are shared by many. Mel Kiper has raked me over the coals a time or two on this one. How can the 39 guys who sit in judgment of the merit of retired players think that Monk didn't do enough to earn a spot in the Hall of Fame, particularly when he had more receptions than any of the 17 current receivers enshrined in the Hall?

Since I get a lot of mail on this particular issue every year, I want to spend a couple of minutes going over Monk's case. At the end, you may think I'm wrong, but at least you'll know my reasoning.

It's a complicated situation, at least from my standpoint, but I'll start by explaining a couple of things about the voting system. Monk is one of the 15 finalists for the Hall this year, as he has been the last several years. We elect a minimum of three and a maximum of six to the Hall each year. There is a winnowing process that cuts the list to six in the room, and then the 39 voters are asked to vote yes or no on the final six. To make it, a player either has to have 80 percent of the vote, or in the event that fewer than three get 80 percent of the vote, the players with the most votes up to three are then elected. And so, if Monk makes it to the final six, basically, he needs to have at least 31 of the voters go his way. Eight no votes can squash a finalist, and obviously, he's had at least eight no votes every year he's come before the board of selectors. I am certainly not the gatekeeper. I have voted yes on Monk when the Hall asks us to cut the list from 25, and then to 15, in advance of the meeting, because I do think he is worthy of discussion, and I think he's one of 15 most deserving candidates in a given year -- which is different from thinking he's a Hall of Famer. But I have voted no on Monk each year he has gotten to the final six. These are the reasons:

1. I think numbers should be considered significant, but shouldn't be the god of election to the Hall. And they should be put in perspective. This says everything about why statistics alone shouldn't put people in the Hall of Fame: The year Jerry Rice entered football, 1985, there were four players with 600 career catches in NFL history. Today there are 34. Monk led the NFL in receptions with 940 when he retired after the 1995 season. Since then, four receivers have passed him. One of them is Andre Reed, who I also consider to be a marginal Hall-of-Famer. In the next few years, others will get into the 900 range: Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, maybe even Keenan McCardell (755 now, and he wants to play two or three more years). Think of the receivers who haven't turned 32 yet who could get to 900ville: Terrell Owens (31, 669 catches), Eric Moulds (31, 594), Muhsin Muhammad (31, 578), Randy Moss (27, 574). Torry Holt's 28. He's got 517. Four more years in that offense, and he's in Monk's neighborhood statwise. In other words, in the 30-year window between 1980 and 2010, a dozen guys, or more, could pass 900 catches. We can't elect them all. There has to be some positional integrity to the Hall of Fame. I believe that Redskins-era team, for instance, should have three offensive Hall-of-Famers: Russ Grimm, Joe Jacoby and John Riggins (though Riggins was obviously on the early side of that era), along with the offensive mastermind, Joe Gibbs. Two are in now. I hope at least one of the linemen makes it.

2. Monk was about the fourth-most dangerous skill player on those teams. I covered the New York Giants for Newsday from 1985-'88, and I remember covering a lot of those great Giants-Redskins games. And the guys in that locker room really respected Monk as a consistent player who gave a great effort on every play. But they feared Gary Clark. To a lesser degree, they feared Ricky Sanders. And they feared the run game, whoever was toting it on that particular day. If you stopped the run, and you stopped the fast, quick guys on the outside, the Giants felt, you'd beat the Redskins every time. I started covering the NFL in 1984, and I saw much of Monk's career. Some of what he did was unseen and important to the success of that offense. He was an excellent blocker downfield. That helps his candidacy. It doesn't get it over the top, at least not to me.

3. Monk was the not considered one of the very best receivers of his era either by his peers or the media. He played 16 years. Twice he made the AP's All-Pro Team, which honors the top two receivers in football. He never made the second-team. So twice in 16 years the media considered Monk to have had one of the top four seasons by a receiver in football. Three times he was named to the Pro Bowl. That means three times in 16 years his peers thought he'd had one of the top four seasons by a receiver in the NFC. Those facts are significant to me. We're saying no to guys who made 10 Pro Bowls. Mick Tinglehoff was an All-Pro center seven times, more than any center in history, and five times more than enshrinee Jim Langer ... and that guy can't come close. Think of it this way: Eight wide receivers go to the Pro Bowl every year. In three of 16 NFL seasons Monk was judged to be one of the top eight. Is a Hall of Fame player one considered one of the top eight at his job three times in 16 seasons?

One of the interesting things this time of year is listening to the passion of people advocating for their favorites for the Hall of Fame. I respect the opinions of the Monk side very much, but I don't believe he was a Hall of Fame football player. I just thought you'd like to know the feelings of one of the 39 people in that room.

[talk show host]

I hate to say it, but Kings third argument is pretty valid. Only 3 times in 16 years was he considered a top 8 receiver. That means of 128 spots for a receiver in the pro-bowl, Monk was included 3 times. 3 out of 128.

I also think this - King basically admitted Monk was on par with any receiver currently in the hall of fame. (He has more catches than any of them). Reading between the lines, King might be alluding to the fact that he doesn't feel any of those receivers deserve to be there either. Basically, King is saying that the bar is being raised. If they let monk in, then they have to let all these other "mediocre" receivers in, when really, they aren't as deserving.

[CPstretch]

salisbury suddenly loves the skins

[Cambl2Moss]

salisbury suddenly loves the skins

I wouldnt say suddenly loves us, this article is pretty old. I think hes just showing love where love is due, and that is to Art Monk

[RDSCNZ20]

then what about King's argument for having H. Carson in the HOF.. he wasn't the best LB the G-men had.. LT did a lot to help him in the HOF..

[Zen-like Todd]

I hate to say it, but Kings third argument is pretty valid. Only 3 times in 16 years was he considered a top 8 receiver. That means of 128 spots for a receiver in the pro-bowl, Monk was included 3 times. 3 out of 128.

I also think this - King basically admitted Monk was on par with any receiver currently in the hall of fame. (He has more catches than any of them). Reading between the lines, King might be alluding to the fact that he doesn't feel any of those receivers deserve to be there either. Basically, King is saying that the bar is being raised. If they let monk in, then they have to let all these other "mediocre" receivers in, when really, they aren't as deserving.

Except its not valid. Its not a pool of spots for the entire NFL, its divided up by conference. That cuts the number of slots in half. And when Jerry Rice is playing in your conference, that cuts down your numbers even further. Additionally, in any given year, Art could only occupy a single spot. If he went to the Pro Bowl EVERY SINGLE year throughout his entire career, he would occupy "16 out of 128" spots, using your flawed math. To say nothing of the fact that Pro Bowl popularity contests are a horrible indicator of HOF talent.

[MVPWilliams17]

The argument that the numbers of all those current receivers will eventually surpass Monk's is dumb. Everyone knows that the game has changed since the 80's and there is a whole lot more passing-oriented offenses around lately than back in the day. Besides who knows how their careers will actually end up. You're gonna hold out one of the greatest from the hall because of a bunch of "what-if" scenarios?

That logic is flawed because the numbers are increasing across the board for many positions. The fact of the matter was that Monk wasn't AS popular or "media-friendly" as some of the the other receivers of his time, but the man was a great receiver who broke records and played an integral part on Super Bowl teams.

Hang in there Art! Your day will come!

[MVPWilliams17]

Except its not valid. Its not a pool of spots for the entire NFL, its divided up by conference. That cuts the number of slots in half. And when Jerry Rice is playing in your conference, that cuts down your numbers even further. Additionally, in any given year, Art could only occupy a single spot. If he went to the Pro Bowl EVERY SINGLE year throughout his entire career, he would occupy "16 out of 128" spots, using your flawed math. To say nothing of the fact that Pro Bowl popularity contests are a horrible indicator of HOF talent.

Excellent point! :applause:

I was going to post the same thing. He just used that number to help bolster his flawed argument and to make him not look so much like an A-hole. (which he really is being!)

[PiLfan]

i notice he makes no mention of the concept of how the game has changed and how stats for WRs -- as they are for most position players -- will inevitably change over different eras.

Monk played in the run-first era and on a run-first team....one of the last ones as it turns out, but it doesn't change the fact that the stats Monk put up, while they are seen more regularly in today's current era, where UNHEARD OF in the 80s. Hence all the records he broke.

then came the 90s, and the game veered into a pass-happy era, where numbers became inflated for lesser receivers, and subsequent to Monk's retirement, the monster numbers he put in the 80s were dwarfed by accomplishments of those in the late 90s and 00s.

so it stands to reason, if Monk played in an era that was run first, yet he put up comparable numbers to those benefiting from today's pass first NFL, why does he get no credit for that?

or better yet, how come receivers like Swann, Stallworth, Joiner get in with the nod that their receptions, while no where near the numbers put up today, were nevertheless at or near the top for the era they played in.......but this same logic is never used for Monk. Monk is almost always -- at least by people like King -- compared to TODAY's receivers in TODAY's era. Which is bullcrap, because Monk never played with today's receivers or in today's era.

seems to make sense to me anyways....but i have yet to hear King explain this in any of his anti-Monk campaign manifestos.

[Cambl2Moss]

Receiving Rec. Yards Avg. Long TD

1980 58 797 13.7 54 3

1981 56 894 16.0 79 6

1982 35 447 12.8 43 1

1983 47 746 15.9 43 5

1984 106 1,372 12.9 72 7

1985 91 1,226 13.5 53 2

1986 73 1,068 14.6 69 4

1987 38 483 12.7 58 6

1988 72 946 13.1 46 5

1989 86 1,186 13.8 60 8

1990 68 770 11.3 44 5

1991 71 1,049 14.8 64 8

1992 46 644 14.0 49 3

1993 41 398 9.7 29 2

1994 46 581 12.3 N/A 3

1995 6 114 19.0 N/A 0

Total 940 12,721 13.5 79 68

Seasons among the league's top 10

Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t

Receiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10

Receiving TDs: 1991-9t

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 5

Receiving yards: 9

Receiving TDs: 29t

Yards from scrimmage: 26

Consecutive games with at least one reception: 2(183)

All-Rookie: 1980

3-time Pro Bowler: 1984, 1985, 1986

2-time All-Pro: 1984, 1985

183 straight Games with a reception should alone merit his nod....thats unheard of nowadays

[Zen-like Todd]

Incidentally, since I just noticed, I should point out to everyone that this article is old... its from January 2005. I'm not sure why it was posted now.

[Dick Edds]

I hate to say it, but Kings third argument is pretty valid. Only 3 times in 16 years was he considered a top 8 receiver. That means of 128 spots for a receiver in the pro-bowl, Monk was included 3 times. 3 out of 128.

I also think this - King basically admitted Monk was on par with any receiver currently in the hall of fame. (He has more catches than any of them). Reading between the lines, King might be alluding to the fact that he doesn't feel any of those receivers deserve to be there either. Basically, King is saying that the bar is being raised. If they let monk in, then they have to let all these other "mediocre" receivers in, when really, they aren't as deserving.

First off, we know that the Pro-bowl voting is a popularity contest i today's game. Maybe it wasn't back then, but it also wasn't as big of a deal. Many players have made the HOF on stats alone. Look at Marino, there is no arguing how many games he helped his team win, how many yards and TD's he passed for, and how he revolutionized the the QB position "during his era" . . . but he also has no SB rings - which the football Gods hold as the highest achievment, be it luck or what have you.

As for using the stats as a backboard for not allowing players to make it in to the HOF, I ask then why are stats such an issue with WR's today? King has for so long stood by his lone methodology for evaulating a players deserving to get in the HOF that he is unwilling to listen to new reasonings and new arguments as the game has changed - to actually find the capital "T" truth.

A voter needs to undertsand the context of the word "era" and needs to continuoulsy reevaluate what that means to today's game, and the generations of players who have come before and since that player.

Rules have changed to favor the offense as of recent days. When Monk played there were not as many advanatges, most notably the "no contact after 5 yards" rule that alot of today's current players have beneifitted from.

Any argument can be deconstructed in a way to be made lesss valid. Plato and Aristotle taught this in their teachings, most notably Aritstotle's "On Rhetoric" . . . it is those words, sentences (or in this case stats and eras of players used to describe a physical performace) that can be separated out from the overall meaning (Monk's career) to be made less significant.

Keep all of those factors/situations tied together and it shows his work favorably as a whole and higher than any individual achievement or record that will eventually be broken. SB victories can never be outdone, records and stats are broken every year.

Bottom line, this is a man who refuses to re-evaluate his own criteria, his own rhetoric, his own words, etc . . . due to that little evil we call "pride".

King likes to think of himslef as an expert (some think he is and some do not), no expert wants to be told their theories, methodoligies are wrong or have less meaning. He is uncapabale of separating himself from that mentaltiy, that era that he witneesed with his own eyes and with his own bias agaist an opposing team. He is unable to be objective any longer because of all the complaints and arguments made against his case. Pride will make him less likely to change his views, or to actually try to accept other points of views. This man is tainted and there ain't no turning back to him. he would rather go down swinging as they say than ever admit he may have not "looked at it" differently.

Monk's best chace is that some of the other voters and sport journalist and colleagues can put aside what they "think" to actually open their minds and evaluate the total body of work (Monks career as a whole) and to keep in mind the nuances and rule changes of the games, the changes in offensive and defensive philosophies and the ever changing, increased, and excelling nature of athletes from one generation to the next.

RETIRING #81 would be more significant than any other acolade he could recieve that this point. And what it would do would show that an entire organization, an entire city, and one of the greatest traditions in the NFL recognizes what King refuses to admit.

[bigyim]

2 Other thoughs that have been brought up numerous times:

1. By the "pro-bowl" logic, Riggins wouldn't have made it into the HOF, since he was all-pro only once. King believes (rightly) that Riggins should be in, yet he has yet to justify why he thinks so "despite" only going to the pro Bowl once.

2. Comparing a WR who started in 1980 to WRs who started in the late '80s and '90s is ridiculous--esp. after 1996 with the holding/PI rules modifications. All of the recievers named by him benefitted from the 1996 rules change (incl. Reed), while Monk had already retired. He also played part of his career not only in a run-first offense, but a run-first league. Only TE Todd Christenson had more than 89 receptions from 1980-1985, at 92. With the West Coast offense starting to proliferate outside of SF, the number of receptions for league leaders increased substantially in 1986, and 100-receptions foe league leaders became the norm since 1990.

Utterly ridiculous & arbitrary logic used by King...the only justification he has left is that bitter ex-Giants players used to poor-mouth Monk as a feared weapon. I don't think anyone considers that a reliable barometer for a HOF career.

[Mania]

His stat argument isn't valid at all. Monk had 940. Most of these catches came with the Skins (a run first team). Teams didn't pass the ball as much in the 80's and early 90's as they do today. So a receiver that has over 900 catches in todays era doesn't compare to the Receivers in the 80's that had over 900 catches.

If he is alluding to the fact that if they let Monk in because of his 900 catches then they have to let all receivers in with 900 catches then he is ABSOLUTELY wrong, because there is NO comparison.

[PleaseGoForTheWin]

Whatever. King will never support him, but at least he took the time to flesh out his arguments, even if they are wrong.

[neilolkewicz]

i think king does make a couple of good points, but for me it boils down to this.

Peter King has repeatedly said that you have to judge a hall of fame carreer against the player's peers. not before or after. Given this, how can Art Monk retire with the record for receptions in a season and a carreer, and not be a hall of famer?!

[redman]

1. I think numbers should be considered significant, but shouldn't be the god of election to the Hall. And they should be put in perspective. This says everything about why statistics alone shouldn't put people in the Hall of Fame: The year Jerry Rice entered football, 1985, there were four players with 600 career catches in NFL history. Today there are 34. Monk led the NFL in receptions with 940 when he retired after the 1995 season. Since then, four receivers have passed him. One of them is Andre Reed, who I also consider to be a marginal Hall-of-Famer. In the next few years, others will get into the 900 range: Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, maybe even Keenan McCardell (755 now, and he wants to play two or three more years). Think of the receivers who haven't turned 32 yet who could get to 900ville: Terrell Owens (31, 669 catches), Eric Moulds (31, 594), Muhsin Muhammad (31, 578), Randy Moss (27, 574). Torry Holt's 28. He's got 517. Four more years in that offense, and he's in Monk's neighborhood statwise. In other words, in the 30-year window between 1980 and 2010, a dozen guys, or more, could pass 900 catches. We can't elect them all. There has to be some positional integrity to the Hall of Fame. I believe that Redskins-era team, for instance, should have three offensive Hall-of-Famers: Russ Grimm, Joe Jacoby and John Riggins (though Riggins was obviously on the early side of that era), along with the offensive mastermind, Joe Gibbs. Two are in now. I hope at least one of the linemen makes it.

This argument makes no sense. Don't you adjust for era when considering what a guy's accomplishments are? Besides, where is this quota rule coming from? Anyway, he's saying that all total receptions statistics are equal at the same time that he's saying that statistics don't tell the whole story. Do you really think that Muhsin Muhammed is on Monk's level even if he does end up matching Monk's receptions?

The bottom line here is that you should consider each player on his own merits rather than comparing him to other players and thinking about whether they'll get in, especially when those players played in eras when different schemes were being used.

2. Monk was about the fourth-most dangerous skill player on those teams. I covered the New York Giants for Newsday from 1985-'88, and I remember covering a lot of those great Giants-Redskins games. And the guys in that locker room really respected Monk as a consistent player who gave a great effort on every play. But they feared Gary Clark. To a lesser degree, they feared Ricky Sanders. And they feared the run game, whoever was toting it on that particular day. If you stopped the run, and you stopped the fast, quick guys on the outside, the Giants felt, you'd beat the Redskins every time. I started covering the NFL in 1984, and I saw much of Monk's career. Some of what he did was unseen and important to the success of that offense. He was an excellent blocker downfield. That helps his candidacy. It doesn't get it over the top, at least not to me.

Of all the arguments he makes, this is the most valid, but it still comes up short. "Dangerous" apparently means "big play" as to the other WR's; it means something else when discussing the RB's who benefitted from a run-first scheme. I see nobody diminishing these modern receivers' statistics because they've benefitted from playing in a pass-happy era in pass-first schemes, and often with Hall of Fame QB's throwing to them. Monk had none of that.

I happen to believe that Gary Clark should get consideration for the HoF too, especially when guys like Stallworth and Swann have gotten in. To say that Monk wasn't as "dangerous" as Gary Clark is no insult. But such statements also ignore the scheme and how he was being used versus Clark's role. If you needed a critical 3rd down conversion, Monk was your man. There was no one better than him at that when he was in his prime. No one.

Don't you think that that played a large role in Gary Clark's success? Why are we only discussing this as if Gary Clark benefitted Monk, and not the other way around? If you want evidence of Monk not needing Clark, check out his 1984 season when he became the first guy to get over 100 receptions . . . and he had no credible WR opposite him to take defensive attention away from him.

3. Monk was the not considered one of the very best receivers of his era either by his peers or the media. He played 16 years. Twice he made the AP's All-Pro Team, which honors the top two receivers in football. He never made the second-team. So twice in 16 years the media considered Monk to have had one of the top four seasons by a receiver in football. Three times he was named to the Pro Bowl. That means three times in 16 years his peers thought he'd had one of the top four seasons by a receiver in the NFC. Those facts are significant to me. We're saying no to guys who made 10 Pro Bowls. Mick Tinglehoff was an All-Pro center seven times, more than any center in history, and five times more than enshrinee Jim Langer ... and that guy can't come close. Think of it this way: Eight wide receivers go to the Pro Bowl every year. In three of 16 NFL seasons Monk was judged to be one of the top eight. Is a Hall of Fame player one considered one of the top eight at his job three times in 16 seasons?

For someone who is saying that statistics don't tell the story, this sure seems like a statistical argument to me. Moreover, of all the statistics to use, it's tenuous at best to rely upon Pro Bowl voting as a reliable statistic.

It's a popularity contest, plain and simple. We've seen many, many over-the-hill but popular players make multiple Pro Bowls despite not deserving it. Warren Sapp, Larry Allen, Michael Vick, are just a few that come to mind. Monk, who was quiet and understated by nature, is not going to typically come out well in a popularity contest.

You know why Jerome Mathis (Houston WR) made it last year? It's because the league is compelled to include one player from every team. In addition, the Pro Bowl rosters can only include a certain number of players in each position because they need to field a complete team. If Monk was the 7th best player in the entire league in a given year, he might not make the team if the voters thought that there were 5 WR's who were better than him.

You don't need to rely upon such broad arguments though. In 1989 Monk had 86 catches for 1186 yards and 8 TD's. The WR's who beat him out for the Pro Bowl that year were Mark Carrier - tam; Henry Ellard - ram; Jerry Rice - sfo; Sterling Sharpe - gnb; John Taylor - sfo. Were all of those guys better WR's than Monk? Only Rice clearly stands out as being superior, though Sharpe was pretty darn good until he was injured later in his career.

In 1991 Monk had 71/1049/8. The WR's who beat him out for the Pro Bowl that year were Gary Clark - was; Michael Irvin - dal; Jerry Rice - sfo; Andre Rison - atl. Were these guys all superior WR's to Monk?

At the end of the day, though, I have to look skeptically at anyone who distrusts career statistics as a primary basis for putting people in the Hall of Fame* and yet who accepts Pro Bowl balloting as being reliable. That makes zero sense.

*Of note, King argued the opposite when opposing Swann's election to the HoF, saying that his career stats didn't warrent admission.

[cavalry414]

i notice he makes no mention of the concept of how the game has changed and how stats for WRs -- as they are for most position players -- will inevitably change over different eras.

Monk played in the run-first era and on a run-first team....one of the last ones as it turns out, but it doesn't change the fact that the stats Monk put up, while they are seen more regularly in today's current era, where UNHEARD OF in the 80s. Hence all the records he broke.

then came the 90s, and the game veered into a pass-happy era, where numbers became inflated for lesser receivers, and subsequent to Monk's retirement, the monster numbers he put in the 80s were dwarfed by accomplishments of those in the late 90s and 00s.

so it stands to reason, if Monk played in an era that was run first, yet he put up comparable numbers to those benefiting from today's pass first NFL, why does he get no credit for that?

or better yet, how come receivers like Swann, Stallworth, Joiner get in with the nod that their receptions, while no where near the numbers put up today, were nevertheless at or near the top for the era they played in.......but this same logic is never used for Monk. Monk is almost always -- at least by people like King -- compared to TODAY's receivers in TODAY's era. Which is bullcrap, because Monk never played with today's receivers or in today's era.

seems to make sense to me anyways....but i have yet to hear King explain this in any of his anti-Monk campaign manifestos.

Yep. I have sent numerous emails to him with this argument, almost verbatim, and have yet to hear a response. I'm sure many of us have used this platform, which I'm sure goes unaswered as well, being that it is irrefutable, IMO.

I have heard the words "inexcusable," and "travesty" used to describe this situation by FORMER PLAYERS, on Sirius, ESPN, etc. Call me crazy, but former players hold more water than Peter King.

Go :helmet: .

[jimster]

His stat argument isn't valid at all. Monk had 940. Most of these catches came with the Skins (a run first team). Teams didn't pass the ball as much in the 80's and early 90's as they do today. So a receiver that has over 900 catches in todays era doesn't compare to the Receivers in the 80's that had over 900 catches.

If he is alluding to the fact that if they let Monk in because of his 900 catches then they have to let all receivers in with 900 catches then he is ABSOLUTELY wrong, because there is NO comparison.

absolutely true. - 30 years ago it was an acheivement for RB's to get to 1000 yards per season. - Now it's expected if you're a starter.

In the '80's and '90's it was rare to have 300-400 yard passing games. - Now it is common.

[ChiefBigMeat]

What I find especially ironic is how he opens his argument by downplaying the significance of stats and numbers, and THEN uses the stats of contemporary players to base his argument against Monk.

Not once did he mention anything about HOW Monk played the game. I think that is the point that must be made here. The man was pure money, and had the best hands of any receiver I've ever seen (and YES, that includes Rice). What he and the others fail to consider is that when the team needed some tough yards on 3rd down, you could just count on Art getting it done.

Instead of the usual stats, what voters need to see is a video of Monk demonstrating just how "clutch" he was. I may be a total homer, but in perfect honesty I've never seen another receiver get close to Monk in this category.

[TheLongshot]

I happen to believe that Gary Clark should get consideration for the HoF too, especially when guys like Stallworth and Swann have gotten in. To say that Monk wasn't as "dangerous" as Gary Clark is no insult. But such statements also ignore the scheme and how he was being used versus Clark's role. If you needed a critical 3rd down conversion, Monk was your man. There was no one better than him at that when he was in his prime. No one.

I think this argument by him undermines his point. Saying that the Redskins had more dangerous recievers, but yet he still out-caught them, tells me of Monk's worth.

You're argument is correct. When the Redskins needed a first down, when they needed to keep the chains moving, Monk was your guy. Yes, it isn't sexy, but that's how you win games, and it is what makes a great player.

I also agree that if you are going to include Swann, you really have to consider Clark under the same circumstances. Granted, Swann has two more super bowls than Clark did.

[Dexter's Better]

1. I think numbers should be considered significant, but shouldn't be the god of election to the Hall. And they should be put in perspective. This says everything about why statistics alone shouldn't put people in the Hall of Fame: The year Jerry Rice entered football, 1985, there were four players with 600 career catches in NFL history. Today there are 34. Monk led the NFL in receptions with 940 when he retired after the 1995 season. Since then, four receivers have passed him. One of them is Andre Reed, who I also consider to be a marginal Hall-of-Famer. In the next few years, others will get into the 900 range: Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, maybe even Keenan McCardell (755 now, and he wants to play two or three more years). Think of the receivers who haven't turned 32 yet who could get to 900ville: Terrell Owens (31, 669 catches), Eric Moulds (31, 594), Muhsin Muhammad (31, 578), Randy Moss (27, 574). Torry Holt's 28. He's got 517. Four more years in that offense, and he's in Monk's neighborhood statwise. In other words, in the 30-year window between 1980 and 2010, a dozen guys, or more, could pass 900 catches. We can't elect them all.

So offense matters when looking at those guys, but it doesn't what you look at Monk? This a complete joke -- another example of speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

The Redskins were mostly a run-first offense.

[zt155]

I hate to say it, but Kings third argument is pretty valid. Only 3 times in 16 years was he considered a top 8 receiver. That means of 128 spots for a receiver in the pro-bowl, Monk was included 3 times. 3 out of 128.

That is the stupidest logic I have ever seen. 3 out of 128? I guess Jerry Rice got 5 or 6 spots on the pro bowl roster every year. It's out of 16, genius. Not 128. :drool:

[Dick Edds]

This argument makes no sense. Don't you adjust for era when considering what a guy's accomplishments are? Besides, where is this quota rule coming from? Anyway, he's saying that all total receptions statistics are equal at the same time that he's saying that statistics don't tell the whole story. Do you really think that Muhsin Muhammed is on Monk's level even if he does end up matching Monk's receptions?

The bottom line here is that you should consider each player on his own merits rather than comparing him to other players and thinking about whether they'll get in, especially when those players played in eras when different schemes were being used.

Of all the arguments he makes, this is the most valid, but it still comes up short. "Dangerous" apparently means "big play" as to the other WR's; it means something else when discussing the RB's who benefitted from a run-first scheme. I see nobody diminishing these modern receivers' statistics because they've benefitted from playing in a pass-happy era in pass-first schemes, and often with Hall of Fame QB's throwing to them. Monk had none of that.

I happen to believe that Gary Clark should get consideration for the HoF too, especially when guys like Stallworth and Swann have gotten in. To say that Monk wasn't as "dangerous" as Gary Clark is no insult. But such statements also ignore the scheme and how he was being used versus Clark's role. If you needed a critical 3rd down conversion, Monk was your man. There was no one better than him at that when he was in his prime. No one.

Don't you think that that played a large role in Gary Clark's success? Why are we only discussing this as if Gary Clark benefitted Monk, and not the other way around? If you want evidence of Monk not needing Clark, check out his 1984 season when he became the first guy to get over 100 receptions . . . and he had no credible WR opposite him to take defensive attention away from him.

For someone who is saying that statistics don't tell the story, this sure seems like a statistical argument to me. Moreover, of all the statistics to use, it's tenuous at best to rely upon Pro Bowl voting as a reliable statistic.

It's a popularity contest, plain and simple. We've seen many, many over-the-hill but popular players make multiple Pro Bowls despite not deserving it. Warren Sapp, Larry Allen, Michael Vick, are just a few that come to mind. Monk, who was quiet and understated by nature, is not going to typically come out well in a popularity contest.

You know why Jerome Mathis (Houston WR) made it last year? It's because the league is compelled to include one player from every team. In addition, the Pro Bowl rosters can only include a certain number of players in each position because they need to field a complete team. If Monk was the 7th best player in the entire league in a given year, he might not make the team if the voters thought that there were 5 WR's who were better than him.

You don't need to rely upon such broad arguments though. In 1989 Monk had 86 catches for 1186 yards and 8 TD's. The WR's who beat him out for the Pro Bowl that year were Mark Carrier - tam; Henry Ellard - ram; Jerry Rice - sfo; Sterling Sharpe - gnb; John Taylor - sfo. Were all of those guys better WR's than Monk? Only Rice clearly stands out as being superior, though Sharpe was pretty darn good until he was injured later in his career.

In 1991 Monk had 71/1049/8. The WR's who beat him out for the Pro Bowl that year were Gary Clark - was; Michael Irvin - dal; Jerry Rice - sfo; Andre Rison - atl. Were these guys all superior WR's to Monk?

At the end of the day, though, I have to look skeptically at anyone who distrusts career statistics as a primary basis for putting people in the Hall of Fame* and yet who accepts Pro Bowl balloting as being reliable. That makes zero sense.

*Of note, King argued the opposite when opposing Swann's election to the HoF, saying that his career stats didn't warrent admission.

You hit the nail on the head. Se how easy it was to deconstruct King's argument. Whe you break them down and tear them apart they have no merit. Yet when they are thrown together as whole it makes for a compelling argument - to thios who are not already bias either way. While Peter King uses rhetoric as a baisis for his argument, the dialectic (aka debate) really hammers home what is really there. Your comments not only compeltly unravel everything King said, but it compleltly refutes everything Peter King uses in his defense.

It would be one thing if yours and our arguments were in any way lacking in substance and depth when refuting Peter Kings logic. But i see not even the tinieist shrivel of evidence to question our responses. King also cannot even remian consistant in his evaluation criteria and continually changes his logic based on which player he is discussing. Some would say, "well they are different players and they should not all be judged by the same criteria." If that's the case - Monks stats and accomplishment as an individual and a team make our case even stronger.

[MCnDaHouse]

OK, let me get this straight... Monk was catching all those passes, 106 in one season and he's (Peter King) trying to tell me that the opponent's defense wasn't trying to find a way to stop him? Sure you game planned to stop the big play players like Riggins, Charlie Brown, Gary Clark, etc but if you have someone making THAT many receptions you'd BETTER BE FEARING THEM and making some plans on how to stop them.

I don't buy his argument. Even a non-Redskins fan could look at the sheer number of receptions per season and see that. The man was there and made the clutch receptions when they needed them most. I also agree with the statements others made about you have to consider the era. Monk did this on a run first/run oriented offense. That makes it even more impressive.

MC