Salisbury Love, King Hatred Continues

[Henry]

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.

First of all, that' not true. He wasn't eligible for 64 of those spots, because they belonged to the AFC. So knock those out. Then from 1985 on he was competing against the Best Wide Receiver to Ever Play the Game, namely, Jerry Rice. So, given that Rice was getting a guaranteed spot from 1986-1996 (which covers ten years of Monk's career) and would have against any other WR that ever played the game, that's another 10 spots he or any other player would never get.

In fact, I'd love for King to find ANY WR from the 80s who consistantly made the pro-bowl heads-up against Jerry Rice. You won't find one.

[topdog]

[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]

Thats B.S Art Monk has already gotten his numbers and 3 Super Bowl Rings to boot and these other players have not.How can you justify comparing past player stats to future player stats or future stats for present players for HOF voting.His reasoning sucks lame excuse just to get Redskin fans off his *****.

[GaryClark4Canton]

Dick Edds and Bigyim expressed exactly how I feel about the whole monk for the hof debacle. Great posts!

[bubba9497]

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.

The Pro Bowl Argument is not valid, it is basically a popularity contest, and there are several WR in the HOF with the same number or fewer Pro- Bowl appearances.

And as Henry cleasrly pointed out is numbers don't add up. To me it means he has to purposely skew his argument because he knows it is illogical, and has to cover up the truth, of his bias.

[Birdlives]

Maybe someone should just send him this thread.

I still can't believe he uses the probowl argument, much less the AP all pro argument. If Monk wasn't popular with the press then, why would that be a factor in determining things now.

I hate how he doesn't take into account that Monk was on a run first team in a run first era.

The fact that he was the first WR to EVER get over 100 catches in a season, while still having a stellar all around career should be enough to get him in. How about the fact that Monk was a WR and he caught more passes than anybody else. Isn't that what WR's are supposed to do? Wouldn't that make him the best WR? The weak arguments this guy puts up are just insulting. Monk must have run over his dog or something.

And what about character. With the proliferation of obnoxious WR's in the NFL you'd think a quiet workmanlike guy like Art Monk might be the right message to send the league and its players, but no, he plugs Irvin instead. The godfather of obnoxious coke-headed WR's.

I truly think this guy should be fired and SI should be embarrassed he is the face of their NFL section.

[Larry]

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.

OK, so according to this (expletive deleted), the #1 reason he voted against Monk 7 years ago is because it's likely that a few "also ran"s will break his record, several years from now.

I wonder how many people will break Emmit's record, 25 years from now.

[Midnight Judges]

1. Stop comparing Monk's career to revievers whose careers started when Monk's ended. It's a different era...and Jimmy Smith ain't going to make 900 catches.

2. It's about winning. Monk won.

3. The pro bowl is not everything.

[The 12th Commandment]

I'm gonna put this out there just as food for thought. Not necessarily my opinion. So go ahead and tell me how it's wrong.

But Petey has said that Monk was just a possession receiver. Ok, for the sake of argument say that's all he was. If he was then he was without doubt the best possession receiver to ever play the game. How does that not warrant consideration on it's own? He impacted his team to a huge degree, set records and won Superbowl's.

I mean they pick RB's that were pounders, like Riggo, and ones that were elusive like Dorsett.

He goes back and forth so often on his reasons for considering some and discounting others as to be ridiculous.

[feeshta]

The main flaw in King's argument is his belief that Probowl appearances should count for anything. Monk didn't go to many probowls because people overlooked him, not because he didn't deserve to go. His game wasn't always the most exciting to watch, but he was an absolute master of his craft. Ask any player that ever played with him what he did for his team. He was selfless, and now he is being ignored again, simply because he is not a vicarious personality.

I can guarantee you this. If Art Monk behaved like a star off the field, he would have been in on the first ballot.

[PCS]

Good grief. Signs that the apocolypse is upon us. I'm going to say You tell them Sean.

:paranoid:

[MaddogCT]

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.

Peter King does not have an argument. Only an agenda.

Read my sig and then look at the numbers.

http://www.savefile.com/files.php?fid=8373910

It has also been argued Monk "compiled" his stats over a long carrer. Completely un-true. Largent reached 819 receptions in 200 games. Monk reached 819 and 820 in 177.

This is the main knock on Monk for Mike Francessa of WFAN in New York. I can't wait to blast him with that one next time I get to talk to him.

ThatGuy did a lot of research and came up with this fun tidbit:

Of all the people who have caught 106 passes in a season, Monk is the only one to have done that prior to 1992.

See his four part series on Monk and the Hall of Fame:

http://www.theredskinreport.com/2006/01/28/is-art-monk-a-hall-of-famer-part-one-introduction/

More info on Monk:

http://artmonk.wordpress.com/

:logo:

[Khun Kao]

Not that this will make any difference to Penelope Queen, but just to add an exclamation point to how important a player Art Monk was, his team created the "Fun Bunch" Celebration to honor him!

You know.... the "Fun Bunch" Celebration that was rated as THE NUMBER ONE endzone celebration in Football? Yeah! THAT one!