Peter Queen on the B-mitch show

[Rocky21]

I've actually heard from a number of the voters who have seen the video, and they've been very positive about it. One was so impressed that he gave me his personal list of the other voters' emails so I could contact them, which I did, reminding them that if they never received the DVDs of the MOnk piece, they could always watch it online on the Web site.

Good job Diss. Got my fingers crossed.

[Cincycowboy]

It's not just about numbers cincy, it's about impact. And one the Dallas writers who is a voter in the HOF is the one who said it. It has also been said that Art was Jerry Rice before there was a Jerry Rice. Certainly, where big, possession receivers are concerned, the same could easily be said about Art and Irvin. Art was Mike on the field before Mike ever got there. Now I have respect for Irvin as a player. Aside from his TD's, the man was a big, physical guy who would make the tough catches and was very good at downfield blocking. Coincidentally enough, so was Art. Before Mike. Keep that in mind before you say he was unnoticed in big games. There's much more to it than what you stated. And , just so you don't have to take it from me, try this.

Ronnie Lott, HOF inductee

"Art Monk was an example for Jerry Rice. That's what Jerry always told me."

"There's nothing negative to say. He has the numbers, the catches, the championships."

"You have a Hall of Fame for all it represents. I know he represents all that it's about. Integrity, love and passion for the game, community, what he gave back. Look how he conducted himself. Nobody I know deserves it more."

Bill Polian, President Indianapolis Colts

"I believe he's a Hall of Famer. I was a pro scout when he was playing, so it was my job to know who those guys were. I would put Art in that category, but apparently there are a lot of Hall of Fame voters who don't feel Art Monk was in that category. It's hard for me to believe they ever saw him play."

And this.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/11/26/hof.receivers/1.html

"The Hall of Fame is about impact, not statistics,'' said one of the most responsible and conscientious voters in the room, longtime NFL writer Rick Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News. "Sometimes it's tricky separating the two. You can debate Monk, Irvin and Reed into the night. And we have. Clearly we haven't been able to come up with a consensus opinion on their impact in the game and where they fit historically. That doesn't mean the door has been closed on any of them.''

"I'm as old-school as football gets,'' Polian said. "I love offensive linemen. But no defensive coordinator ever made a gameplan that said, 'We've got to stop this guard to be able to win this game.' Defensive coordinators often say that about receivers and design gameplans to stop them. If you eliminated Irvin, Reed or Monk from any game, or you eliminated a guard for the same game, which do you think would be more impactful on the offense that day? Missing the receiver, of course. I'm simply incredulous as a football man that these receivers can't get in. There's no question in my mind they all should be in.''

In some ways I've been part of the problem. Even though Monk retired with the all-time receptions record, I've historically been anti-Monk for several reasons. He played 16 seasons and led his own team in receiving six times; only once was he voted first-team All-Pro. I questioned his impact on a team where the running game and Gary Clark, for many years, were the prime targets to stop by opposing defensive coordinators. I know. I watched the Giants do it nine times over four years against Washington. But last year, after a man I'd advocated got in (Harry Carson), veteran NFL writer Len Shapiro from the Washington Post e-mailed me and reminded me that everything Carson meant to the Giants, Monk meant to Washington. The leadership, the selflessness, the durable productivity ... all the same. I decided I should re-think my position.

As I made my rounds of training camps this year, I asked veteran coaches about Monk and the one word that kept coming up was "unselfish.'' His downfield blocking prowess kept coming up. His long-term numbers were almost Yastrzemski-like (one or two great years, lots of productive ones, very reliable). But when I talked to Joe Gibbs on Friday, the one thing that stood out was the body of work we don't see -- the downfield blocking, the quiet leadership, and this: Unlike his louder receiving mates Clark and Ricky Sanders, Monk, according to Gibbs, never once said he wanted the ball more. "We used him almost as a tight end a lot,'' said Gibbs, "and not only did he do it willingly, he was a great blocker for us. If he'd been a squeaky wheel, who knows how many catches Art would have had. But he cared about one thing -- the team.''

So many of the things Carson did can't be quantified. Similarly with Monk. Not only did he lead the NFL in all-time receptions when he retired, but he blocked superbly and was the most important locker-room influence on a three-time Super Bowl champion. I'm voting for him.

There is more if you feel like brushing up.

I am not saying he is not HOF material. The guy I was responding to is acting like Irvin was nothing and Monk was far superior. I just don't believe that is the case. If one spot came down between the two, Irvin was better. Monk has the stats and deserves to be in, but objectively he was not as impactful as Irvin. That is just my opinion

[Shotgunner]

It's sounding more and more like Monk will be inducted.

Time to plan a road trip!!!!

[chuckflhp]

I am not saying he is not HOF material. The guy I was responding to is acting like Irvin was nothing and Monk was far superior. I just don't believe that is the case. If one spot came down between the two, Irvin was better. Monk has the stats and deserves to be in, but objectively he was not as impactful as Irvin. That is just my opinion

I wasn't calling irvin's numbers nothing. I was talking about him and his value as a human being, and as a role model.

You don't think that off the field behavior should be taken into consideration, in regards to the hall?

Hail :helmet:

[Rocky21]

I wasn't calling irvin's numbers nothing. I was talking about him and his value as a human being, and as a role model.

You don't think that off the field behavior should be taken into consideration, in regards to the hall?

Hail :helmet:

Funny you should ask.

Irvin's track record over the past 10 years….

1996: charged with misdemeanor possession of over an ounce of marijuana and felony possession of 10+ grams of cocaine

1997: accused by a 23-year-old Dallas woman of holding a gun to her head while teammate Erik Williams and a third unidentified man raped her

1998: sliced teammate Everett McIver's neck in a fight during training camp; McIver was said to have been paid off by Jerry Jones to not bring charges against Irvin

2000: charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana

2001: charged with felony possession of cocaine

2005: arrested on an outstanding warrant for speeding in Irving, TX after being pulled over for speeding in Plano, TX. Also charged with drug paraphernalia possession after police searched his car and found a drug pipe and plastic baggies with marijuana residue.

[Cincycowboy]

I wasn't calling irvin's numbers nothing. I was talking about him and his value as a human being, and as a role model.

You don't think that off the field behavior should be taken into consideration, in regards to the hall?

Hail :helmet:

No I don't. The Hall is about what happens on the field.

[Rocky21]

No I don't. The Hall is about what happens on the field.

No surprise after reading the post above.

[natsfan3]

I am not saying he is not HOF material. The guy I was responding to is acting like Irvin was nothing and Monk was far superior. I just don't believe that is the case. If one spot came down between the two, Irvin was better. Monk has the stats and deserves to be in, but objectively he was not as impactful as Irvin. That is just my opinion

And your entitled to your opinion, but it's incorrect.

[natsfan3]

No I don't. The Hall is about what happens on the field.

Tell that to Pete Rose

[redman]

No I don't. The Hall is about what happens on the field.

And right or wrong, the NFL has made clear that that is all it considers.

I think Irvin belongs in as does Monk. Both were key guys for their teams, and both were incredible at their positions. Obviously, their personalities couldn't be more different, but that's pretty much where the differences end.

[redman]

Tell that to Pete Rose

Baseball handles its Hall of Fame voting differently from the NFL. MLB takes off-field misconduct into account; the NFL doesn't.

[Cincycowboy]

Tell that to Pete Rose

Pete is out because he bet on baseball games as manager, meaning he could have thrown games to help himself, like the white sox did in 1919. That was on the field cheating.

[Jimbo]

If Monk and Grimm both get in, I will keep my word and not only send Petey a "THANK YOU" e-mail but I will even start a thread eschewing King's virtues. Having the thread immediately closed will be of little consequence.

[Diss]

I don't think Irvin should be kept OUT of the Hall because of his off the field antics, but I certainly believe that character, both on and off the field, should have something to do with the decision, especially with two receivers (Monk and Irvin) who are so close and basically in competition with each other.

To see Irvin go in before Monk would be a travesty. And yes, I base that on each player's character and off the field activities. If I was a voter, I couldn't help but use that as a sort of "tie-breaker" if I was considering these two guys.

Monk did so, so much that stats don't always show. His blocking was an integral part to the team's success, his LEADERSHIP was unequalled, and his play was selfless. He could show emotion without showing up the other team, he could celebrate a score without shining a big metaphorical spotlight on himself. He was - and IS - a role model in the best sense of the term.

And look at all the QBs who threw him the ball over the years. Theismann, Schroeder, Rutledge, Humphries, Williams, Rypien ... none of them Hall of Famers.

I'm not saying Irvin doesn't belong. He probably does. He was a great receiver, and he'll be the first to tell you that. But Monk belongs, too. And he belongs in first. Any other result is yet another slap in the face of sportsmanship, character, and class in professional sports.

[Henry]

With all due respect, Monk's numbers are only higher because he played alot more games than Irvin. The funny thing is he still didn't score more with all the extra games. Irvin's career was cut short due to a neck injury. If you compare the per game averages, Monk simply was not better than Irvin. To be honest with you, I was surprised that Monk was that high on the stat sheet because he really was un noticed in most big games. I know that will make al you guys mad, but that is the real reason he is not in. That is the reason he won't be in this year.

I swear I should save this somewhere so I can repost it every time a Cowboy fan comes over and repeats the "Irvin's averages were better" song and dance:

When you compare their first twelve seasons, you get:

Monk: 801 rec 10984 yds 60 TDs

Irvin: 750 rec 11904 yds 65 TDs

During those stretches, Irvin played during a much more pass-happy era.

In 1985, during the height of Monk's career, the top ten WRs averaged 80.8 receptions and 1168 yards.

In 1995, during the height of Irvin's career, the top ten WRs averaged 111.1 receptions and 1522 yards.

And then there's that whole thing about Irvin having a first-ballot HOFer throwing the ball to him for virtually his entire career.

Now, if you want to average all the numbers from Monk's 13th-16th season when he was playing for the Jets and Eagles you could conceivably come to the conclusion, based solely on statistics, that Monk was not as impactful a player as Irvin. However, those of us who watched the man play should know better.

[Henry]

No I don't. The Hall is about what happens on the field.

I agree. However, it should be noted that the year Irvin got busted for drug-related naughtiness, he missed four games. Does not being on the field for four games count as something that happens 'on the field'? Do you think it was mere coincidence that that year was the worst for Dallas in five years, and the team was never the same after that?

Off field shouldn't matter, I agree. Unless it affects what happens on the field.

[Jumbo]

The difference in QB-factor is very notable.

[Rocky21]

When you compare their first twelve seasons, you get:

Monk: 801 rec 10984 yds 60 TDs

Irvin: 750 rec 11904 yds 65 TDs

During those stretches, Irvin played during a much more pass-happy era.

In 1985, during the height of Monk's career, the top ten WRs averaged 80.8 receptions and 1168 yards.

In 1995, during the height of Irvin's career, the top ten WRs averaged 111.1 receptions and 1522 yards.

And then there's that whole thing about Irvin having a first-ballot HOFer throwing the ball to him for virtually his entire career.

Good point Henry. Hopefully all will be made right tommorrow.

[chuckflhp]

Sorry, I really feel that the Hall of Fame is about honoring those who played the game. And those who brought honor to the sport.

If oj had been found guilty, he should have been removed.

It sends the wrong message. You take a young kid in there and he's looking around to see the legends, and there's irvin. What do you say? Yep, good player, great numbers, helped teammates rape a woman, and never found a drug he didn't like?

There's very few cues I would say the NFL should take from MLB. But the off field conduct policy needs to be changed. When kids look and see a scumbag in the hall it tells them no matter how you conduct yourself off the field, all will be forgiven as long as you play well.

I also lost a lot of respect for Johnson and Aikeman for lobbying for this crud. I loved to hate those guys in their heyday. The slimeball irvin? You just hated for still being allowed to breathe.

I find it pretty amusing that when king and these other guys refer to Peyton and the other "locks" for the Hall. They make all kinds of references to the guy's character. Look at the whole Harry Carson debate.Until they get to this convict.

If positive conduct means you deserve it more, why doesn't detrimental conduct mean you deserve it less?

Hail, :helmet: :dallasuck

[DixieFlatline]

When do they usually make the announcement about the results?

[Phixius]

I doubt BOTH will go in together. I can't remember when 2 team mates went in the same year.

Never know it can happen, unless their is a rule stating it cant be done

[JoeKnowsBest]

All I have to say to Peter Qeen about his interview is....

As one Cuba Gooding Jr. once said, "SHOW ME THE MONEYYYY!"

and

"Where's the Quam?"

[JoeKnowsBest]

Seriously though, when you got guys already in the Hall calling for Art Monk to be in the Hall of Fame especially once as respected as Jim Brown, and you've also got future Hall of Famers like Rod Woodson and many respected game commentators saying Art Monk deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, how long can you deny the man? How long can you really deny greatness?

Especially in a year where there are no other nominees that really stand out. Art Monk has been shafted for far too long. He wasn't the all time recieving leader when he retired for nothing. And let's not forget that unlike most receivers, he dealt with having to catch passes from numerous rotating Quarterbacks year in an year out with no guaruntee of continuity the next season, and he made an MVP out of average QBs like Mark Rypien and Doug Williams. Let's also not forget in the myst of all the different QBs over the years, there was on constant in all of our FOUR Superbowl appearences through out that decade in the passing game and that was ART MONK.

Same with Jeff Bostic on the 0-line. Jeff Bostic has to be the most under rated of all the Hogs. Bostic was our QB basically through out all those years as he made the calls on the line and adjusted to the Blitzes, regardless if guys like Grimm were still there. (See a young Mark Shlereth) and regardless of you our QB was.

Oh, and ever notice how as soon as Bostic Retired our whole franchise went in the toilet? Same can be said about when Monk left the team. They left the Redskins about the same time as Bostic retired and Art Monk went to play for the New York Jets. And then in one year our whole team went from consistant winners to consistant losers. Ever wonder what caused that?

At any rate, give Peter Queen some credit if he actually means it. He's smart enough to re-evaluate what might be right for the game of football and the meaning of the Hall of Fame.

And integrity and intelligence of Micheal Wilbon is to credit for all of this. Let's hope good things are in store for his Bears Sunday!

I submit to the voting panel this video for evidence of why Art Monk deserves to be in the Hall of Fame...

And here is the part of the video to provide evidence to respectfully refute Peter Queens' number one arguement (that I've read from him) about Monk only being a reciever that caught short little hook passes.

As a matter of fact that video piece also backs up my previous point about all the different QBs monk had to deal with. I'm rewatching it again and in the first few seconds I hear about 4 or 5 different Redskins QB names being called, including one being Jay Shroeder. Jay who? Exactly. Let's also not forget about Stan Humpries.