Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Dr. Z - Art Monk comments (nobody will like this)


sableholic

Recommended Posts

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/07/06/hall.of.fame/2.html

"Now we come to a point that I've answered, oh, maybe, 5,000 times, but for the sake of poetic integrity, let me repeat the e-mail that Jimmy, who learned his trade from the Marquis de Sade, saw fit to torment me with ... make that with which to torment me. "I hate you with a passion so deep, and I will continue to do so until you come to your senile senses, quit writing about wine in a sports magazine and put Art Monk in the hall." Dear Dan of Silver Spring, Md. --Catching 800, eight-yard hooks does not make a Hall of Famer, which is the same reply I've given your two or three other correspondences ... you remember, the ones you wrote on toilet paper in crayon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anybody looking at the stats below tell me how the heck he can even argue that? Avg ypc is above a 8 for all the years

		|          Rushing         |        Receiving        |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 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 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Whats his email address? I'd like to send him this and see what he says about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anybody looking at the stats below tell me how the heck he can even argue that? Avg ypc is above a 8 for all the years

		|          Rushing         |        Receiving        |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 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 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Whats his email address? I'd like to send him this and see what he says about that.

Think about it this way. Lynn Swann is in the HOF. He never had a 1,000 yard season. These guys only put an importance on stats when they talk about Monk. 3 superbowl wins, being a team leader, and 740 receptions made Michael Irving a lock for the hall of fame in Peter King's eyes. Monk was all of those plus 200 catches. It seems 1 seconds certian stats and accomplishments mean everything, and some stats mean nothing, then the next its completely reversed in their reasoning just so they can let in somebody else they liked more than Monk who wasnt necessairily better. The media hates Redskins but even more they hate us, the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, each year the logic being used by the anti-Monk crowd gets more and more ludicrious...more and more reasonable football fans see the flawed logic and its swiss cheese-like appearance, and I can't help but think that it's becoming obvious to people other than Redskins fans that Monk is far more deserving of the HOF than these toeheads will allow themselves to admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, each year the logic being used by the anti-Monk crowd gets more and more ludicrious...more and more reasonable football fans see the flawed logic and its swiss cheese-like appearance, and I can't help but think that it's becoming obvious to people other than Redskins fans that Monk is far more deserving of the HOF than these toeheads will allow themselves to admit.

Fans vote for the Pro-Bowl, how about giving the fans 1 HOF vote every year, conducted by the guys in Canton with whatever stipulations they want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if he thinks that Marvin Harrison, whose ypc is less than Monk, deserves a HOF nod?

I can't speak for Paul "Dr Z" Zimmerman, but I think Marvin Harrison is putting up some great numbers and will definitely be a HOF candidate if he keeps it going at the current rate. Of course, this is all the more reason that Art Monk should be in the HOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if he thinks that Marvin Harrison, whose ypc is less than Monk, deserves a HOF nod?

Agreed, I sent him this.

"Dr Z, all due respect but I do not understand this Art Monk thing. First, how does one average 13.5 yards a catch catching 800 8 yard hooks? Does this mean that you won't consider Marvin Harrison a potential HOFer because, obviously, since he's averaged 13.3 per catch he's just a possession WR? Not to mention that he's only getting that small average in an era where WRs are given run of the field unobstructed.

I'd also like to point out, and I wish I could find the reference, but I've seen you argue for a WR getting into the Hall because he played in an era where WRs were mugged consistently so his possesion type catches were that much more valuable. Would the same not be true of Art Monk? We're talking about one of the truly great people, not to mention WRs, to ever play the game of football.

There has to be some other reason than the 800 8 yard hook cop out you use why you don't think he's deserving. Is it because he wasn't flashy enough? Didn't talk to the media enough, didn't give you guys any sound bites? Should he have done more endzone dances to garner attention, maybe thrown some temper tantrums? As someone who thoroughly agreed with your disgust over Thurman Thomas not being MVP of the Bills first SB (or getting in the Hall) because they didn't win (wasn't his fault) I find it awfully contradictory that many disrespect Art's accomplishments based on his lack of flair. I just don't see how you can play a 16 year career, win 3 SBs, retire with almost every record for your position, always carry yourself in the most professional of manners and not be considered HOF worthy. What's the criteria here? It seems to me you voters are actually encouraging TO type antics to get attention, apparently that's what gets respect these days. Obviously, just going out and doing your job as well as anyone ever did, sacrificing for the team and being a winner aren't good enough anymore. Please shed some light, beyond the ridiculous 8 yard hook claim, as to why this man doesn't deserve to be in.

Adam"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for Paul "Dr Z" Zimmerman, but I think Marvin Harrison is putting up some great numbers and will definitely be a HOF candidate if he keeps it going at the current rate. Of course, this is all the more reason that Art Monk should be in the HOF.

I see his point, but lets not compare the two. Harrison is a shoe in for the HOF (7 years in a row with 1000+ seasons). Irregardless, Monk should be in the Hall and his arguements against it are becoming insane.

Also very well said dcsportsfan53

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, I sent him this.

"Dr Z, all due respect but I do not understand this Art Monk thing. First, how does one average 13.5 yards a catch catching 800 8 yard hooks? Does this mean that you won't consider Marvin Harrison a potential HOFer because, obviously, since he's averaged 13.3 per catch he's just a possession WR? Not to mention that he's only getting that small average in an era where WRs are given run of the field unobstructed.

I'd also like to point out, and I wish I could find the reference, but I've seen you argue for a WR getting into the Hall because he played in an era where WRs were mugged consistently so his possesion type catches were that much more valuable. Would the same not be true of Art Monk? We're talking about one of the truly great people, not to mention WRs, to ever play the game of football.

There has to be some other reason than the 800 8 yard hook cop out you use why you don't think he's deserving. Is it because he wasn't flashy enough? Didn't talk to the media enough, didn't give you guys any sound bites? Should he have done more endzone dances to garner attention, maybe thrown some temper tantrums? As someone who thoroughly agreed with your disgust over Thurman Thomas not being MVP of the Bills first SB (or getting in the Hall) because they didn't win (wasn't his fault) I find it awfully contradictory that many disrespect Art's accomplishments based on his lack of flair. I just don't see how you can play a 16 year career, win 3 SBs, retire with almost every record for your position, always carry yourself in the most professional of manners and not be considered HOF worthy. What's the criteria here? It seems to me you voters are actually encouraging TO type antics to get attention, apparently that's what gets respect these days. Obviously, just going out and doing your job as well as anyone ever did, sacrificing for the team and being a winner aren't good enough anymore. Please shed some light, beyond the ridiculous 8 yard hook claim, as to why this man doesn't deserve to be in.

Adam"

Well said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it this way. Lynn Swann is in the HOF. He never had a 1,000 yard season. These guys only put an importance on stats when they talk about Monk. 3 superbowl wins, being a team leader, and 740 receptions made Michael Irving a lock for the hall of fame in Peter King's eyes. Monk was all of those plus 200 catches. It seems 1 seconds certian stats and accomplishments mean everything, and some stats mean nothing, then the next its completely reversed in their reasoning just so they can let in somebody else they liked more than Monk who wasnt necessairily better. The media hates Redskins but even more they hate us, the fans.

Monk wasn't as good a reciever as Irvin was. Sure Monk had more receptions, and yrds, but also played longer. Irvin was a top 3 rec, in his day, Monk wasn't. There is a huge difference between the two.

That isn't to say Monk dosen't deserve in, but you are only lashing out at Irvin because he is a Cowboy. The fact of the matter is that Irvin should be in already, should have gone in his first year, was denied, missed out last year and had better get in this year. Ole, Zimmy already said he wasn't voting for Irvin or Monk this year, but is voting for an average rb like Thurman Thomas. That is what should piss you off. Not that a wr like Irvin who was a better rec, better team leader, better football player period getting in the Hall of Fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have never understood the SI attraction, do what i do dont even bother with them. F em they are jerks and the more we talk about them good or bad the more power they seize....this is the information age and SI gives opinions (not very good ones either) there are numerous ports for info these days SI is obsolete. to hell with SI boycot them !!!!! i really do wish someone would rip out kings throat though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also if you guys want to claim media Bias against your team getting players into the Hall of Fame, you have no room to talk, when guys like Chuck Howley, Bob Hayes, Micheal Irvin, Cliff Harris, Drew Pearson, and Ed Jones have been ignored thus far and none of those players but Irvin will ever get in... I was shocked as hell when Wright and Aikman got in last year, I fully expected that Aikman or Wright wouldn't get in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wont get a response. He will instead find someone sumbitted by a skins fan that says like: "DERE DOCTUR Z, YOU ARE A JERK ART MONK IS THE GREETEST WR EVER! PUT HIM IN THE HOF!"

and he will write something like: you crazy skins fans keep pestering me, I already told you 800 8 yard hooks, etc, etc.

Oh and to the cowboys fan that posted above meL

Not a single one of those players retired as the top player statistically in the history of their position. Art Monk did. You want to argue injustices. How many Hogs made the HOF? Is Joe Theismann even mentioned in the same sentance as HOF? Nah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monk wasn't as good a reciever as Irvin was. Sure Monk had more receptions, and yrds, but also played longer. Irvin was a top 3 rec, in his day, Monk wasn't. There is a huge difference between the two.

That isn't to say Monk dosen't deserve in, but you are only lashing out at Irvin because he is a Cowboy. The fact of the matter is that Irvin should be in already, should have gone in his first year, was denied, missed out last year and had better get in this year. Ole, Zimmy already said he wasn't voting for Irvin or Monk this year, but is voting for an average rb like Thurman Thomas. That is what should piss you off. Not that a wr like Irvin who was a better rec, better team leader, better football player period getting in the Hall of Fame.

"after the break we will find out what Mike Irvin would trade in all 3 of his superbowl rings for" Chris Berman "COCAINE!!!!!!" the entire sports nation:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Irvin smoked his arguement for the hall. maybe you should take your blue colored glasses off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monk wasn't as good a reciever as Irvin was. Sure Monk had more receptions, and yrds, but also played longer. Irvin was a top 3 rec, in his day, Monk wasn't. There is a huge difference between the two.

.

Is that why Irvin was only in the top 3 in receptions twice in his career, top 3 in receiving yards three times in his career and never in the top 3 in receiving TDs in his career? Just because he stood up and gyrated making sure you noticed every single thing he did doesn't make him a top 3 receiver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that why Irvin was only in the top 3 in receptions twice in his career, top 3 in receiving yards three times in his career and never in the top 3 in receiving TDs in his career? Just because he stood up and gyrated making sure you noticed every single thing he did doesn't make him a top 3 receiver.

good point..nice work:applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, I sent him this.

"Dr Z, all due respect but I do not understand this Art Monk thing. First, how does one average 13.5 yards a catch catching 800 8 yard hooks? Does this mean that you won't consider Marvin Harrison a potential HOFer because, obviously, since he's averaged 13.3 per catch he's just a possession WR? Not to mention that he's only getting that small average in an era where WRs are given run of the field unobstructed.

I'd also like to point out, and I wish I could find the reference, but I've seen you argue for a WR getting into the Hall because he played in an era where WRs were mugged consistently so his possesion type catches were that much more valuable. Would the same not be true of Art Monk? We're talking about one of the truly great people, not to mention WRs, to ever play the game of football.

There has to be some other reason than the 800 8 yard hook cop out you use why you don't think he's deserving. Is it because he wasn't flashy enough? Didn't talk to the media enough, didn't give you guys any sound bites? Should he have done more endzone dances to garner attention, maybe thrown some temper tantrums? As someone who thoroughly agreed with your disgust over Thurman Thomas not being MVP of the Bills first SB (or getting in the Hall) because they didn't win (wasn't his fault) I find it awfully contradictory that many disrespect Art's accomplishments based on his lack of flair. I just don't see how you can play a 16 year career, win 3 SBs, retire with almost every record for your position, always carry yourself in the most professional of manners and not be considered HOF worthy. What's the criteria here? It seems to me you voters are actually encouraging TO type antics to get attention, apparently that's what gets respect these days. Obviously, just going out and doing your job as well as anyone ever did, sacrificing for the team and being a winner aren't good enough anymore. Please shed some light, beyond the ridiculous 8 yard hook claim, as to why this man doesn't deserve to be in.

Adam"

Adam......You are the man. Great email. Do you guys think Dr. Z will reply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...