"Pee-turd" King = tool.

[Dukes and Skins]

I completely understand what you're saying. And maybe its because I caught Monk towards the end of his career so I couldn't appreciate all he meant to the team. I didn't like King's stance on Monk not getting in, but it doesn't take away the fact that I still enjoy King's work. Sure from time to time some of his stuff isn't good, but there aren't many better NFL writers out there.

Exactly how I am, is the man perfect? No and he did some things I dont agree with, but is he better than pretty much every other writer out there? Yes

[Rocky21]

I hold grudges, I will never like King or Wilbon. But I do understand you enjoy some of what he writes. I just can't let go of such a mis-deed as he pulled in Monks case. There seems to be no morals in journalism. Just because Monk was not making spectacular catches for highlight reels doesn't mean he was any less important to his team and the game. The way he carried himself on the field considering his performance is unheard of in today's games. He simply did what was asked of him, came through time and time again on third down, and blocked for the run game without ever complaining. He caught TD's and handed the ball back.

Peter King can run but he can't hide from his slanted injustice in regard to Monk's prolonged entry in the HOF.

:applause:

That guy was the beat reporter for the Giants in the late 80's and didn't even bother to hide his allegiances. It makes me sick actually.

[bobisimo]

Just because Monk was not making spectacular catches for highlight reels doesn't mean he was any less important to his team and the game. ... Peter King can run but he can't hide from his slanted injustice in regard to Monk's prolonged entry in the HOF.

This makes me feel awkward to say, because Monk (and Green) remain my favorite all-time Redskins. I even went to the AMFC (Art Monk Football Camp) and he spent time helping me (yes, he actually took time to talk with me alone) on routes, posed for a picture with my dad in it, and was an all-around hero.

But, again, King (and I don't mind people calling him Pee-turd, he's a public figure and they're all deserving of cheers and jeers, both at once usually) never said Monk was a bad player. If you can find a quote to the contrary, I'll reconsider my comments.

King had said, when he was not voting for Monk, that Monk was worthy of top-15 (and often made the top-15 in HoF voting), but getting into the top-10, or the Hall itself, was a more challenging numbers game with so many other great NFLers, equally deserving, waiting to get in.

Additionally, he said that Monk played on a team with a great running game, a fantastic offensive line, and even Gary Clark out there -- not to mention our defense and ST and depth. Shoot, people have been recently campaigning for Clark to make the HoF, and they're showing how his stats, over a period of time, beat Monk's, as their argument to get him in. To be honest, I think those comments validate King's original comments.

I think King had a point -- the Redskins were going to win with or without Monk. They were just a fantastic team. And I can understand why he would choose to vote for someone who, potentially, was more integral to their team (I am NOT AT ALL implying Monk wasn't integral, I just thinks Gibbs, and the talent, was enough to overcome Monk's absence) than Monk.

But I think King was right to relent; if Peyton Manning's Colts had gone 16-0 with Manning sitting out a year to rehab his neck, does that take away from Manning's HoF credentials? You have to consider it, but I don't think it takes away anything. Manning has still had a career worthy of HoF discussion, even if the team had gotten better without him (though, to be honest, I think it strengthens the argument in favor of Manning when the Colts collapsed without him. That's probably unfair of me, but whatever. I don't vote for the HoF, I'm not subject to that level of criticism, haha).

Likewise, Monk put up stellar numbers in an era where stellar numbers were not common. He was a huge contributor in so many wins. He was a classy guy, a hard worker, humble, and did everything he was asked on the field and off -- and made it all look easy. There's not a single thing bad you can say about the guy from the public perspective. I'm very happy he made the HoF and I fully believe he deserved it. I just won't disparage (again, I'm not complaining if anyone else want to, King is fair game) one specific voter, of the many voters (most of whom kept their mouths shut and never talked about their votes), who voted for someone else instead of Monk -- until he didn't.

[SWFLSkins]

Likewise, Monk put up stellar numbers in an era where stellar numbers were not common. He was a huge contributor in so many wins. He was a classy guy, a hard worker, humble, and did everything he was asked on the field and off. There's not a single thing bad you can say about the guy. I'm happy he made the HoF and I think he deserves it. I just won't disparage (again, I'm not complaining if anyone else want tos, King is fair game) one specific voter, of the many voters, who voted for someone else instead of Monk -- until he didn't.

.

That was very well said and obviously you took time in saying it. However if you remember correctly King was vocal and at times seemed to spearhead the roadblock that Monk faced early on. His opinion is his, and yes he is a good, not great writer. I have seen him say or write things that were either great or awful.

Art Monk to me represented every thing a HOF football player should be, not just productive, but also carried himself as a professional. And when overlooked he never complained. There is a good reason as a kid I thought so highly of him, he just did his job and did it well. I personally doubt that the Redskins would have been as successful as they were if not for Art Monk's clutch catches and clutch blocks. To say they would have won without him is naive and ignorant of his impact overall. I bet if you ask Joe Gibbs that question he would not quantify it with a response, but with his trademark chuckle. How does Gary Clark get the YAC without Monk's blocks? How does the running game dominant without the second tier blocking of Monk? I again think his impact is being downgraded. I watched Monk, I followed him closely, he was undervalued then, but not now, not by me, not at the HOF ceremonies, and not in the Hall.

I think King had a point -- the Redskins were going to win with or without Monk.

I don't think the Redskins players that played with him think this ^

[MrJL]

bobisimo- Art Monk caught over 100 passes in a season a decade before anyone else did it, on a team with a strong running game. Then he set the record for most catches career and consecutive games.

That's three league wide receiving records. THat says to me he always deserved to be in the Hall.

And honestly, it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Famous. To me it needs more people and events that might be forgotten instead of just players that are constantly promoted

[NoCalMike]

Art Monk regularly and unfairly gets compared to WRs who played in the following era. You are supposed to be judged by how you performed against your peers, not what players are doing a decade or even twenty years after you have retired. The rules in the NFL now are so skewed towards letting WRs fly down the field just about untouched besides some jamming at the line of scrimmage. If a CB even breathes on them they are getting a flag.

I think what soured me even more on making Monk wait so long was the fact that Michael Irvin got in the very first try, no questions asked, no arguments etc etc.....and it seemed like it had a lot to do with him being a broadcaster and still keeping his face fresh with the media. I'm not saying Irvin was not HOF worthy, and that he shouldn't have eventually made it in, but a lot of the same attributes Irvin had, Monk also displayed, while also producing better numbers over a longer period of time, yet Irvin was always heavily covered by the media for a myriad of reasons, some positive but often negative, however the fact is he was ALWAYS in the limelight, and that unfortunately seems to help players get in....LYNN SWAN anyone? I mean really?

It was kind of a slap in the face that Monk was passed up so many times, yet a WR that was very Monk-like, but with lesser stats gets voted right in with a red carpet right away. And then when Monk finally did get in it was almost like a "fine you 'Skins fans....here, ok? Now shut up"

[cphil006]

Peter King had single-handledly kept Art Monk out of the HoF for a while... he lobbied against him and persuaded other writers.

[Koolblue13]

I think the thing that hurt Monk the most was timing. If there had been a few more years between him and the next generation of WRs (that he led), he would have stood out as the greatest of an era. King didn't help to point that difference out, but he is still a good writer, just openly biased.

[pjfootballer]

Additionally, he said that Monk played on a team with a great running game, a fantastic offensive line, and even Gary Clark out there -- not to mention our defense and ST and depth. Shoot, people have been recently campaigning for Clark to make the HoF, and they're showing how his stats, over a period of time, beat Monk's, as their argument to get him in. To be honest, I think those comments validate King's original comments.I think King had a point -- the Redskins were going to win with or without Monk. They were just a fantastic team. And I can understand why he would choose to vote for someone who, potentially, was more integral to their team (I am NOT AT ALL implying Monk wasn't integral, I just thinks Gibbs, and the talent, was enough to overcome Monk's absence) than Monk.

But I think King was right to relent; if Peyton Manning's Colts had gone 16-0 with Manning sitting out a year to rehab his neck, does that take away from Manning's HoF credentials? You have to consider it, but I don't think it takes away anything. Manning has still had a career worthy of HoF discussion, even if the team had gotten better without him (though, to be honest, I think it strengthens the argument in favor of Manning when the Colts collapsed without him. That's probably unfair of me, but whatever. I don't vote for the HoF, I'm not subject to that level of criticism, haha).

I really think this invalidates his argument. If you look at WRs durning Monk's are, most teams had a #1 WR (Rice, Largent, Rison, T. Brown, A. Reed, etc) and those teams didn't have a viable #2. We essentially had three #1 WRs on our team. That means, while Montana and Young were feeding Rice the ball all the time and RIson, Reed, Brown, etc. were getting the ball fed to him, Monk had to "share" the ball with Clark and Sanders. That makes what he did even MORE amazing in an era where 100 catches was rare to none.

You cannot compare Manning to Monk. Manning is touching the ball on every play. A more apt comparison would be someone like Rice. The Niners could win without Rice, but not as much. They still had some WRs that could take catches like Dwight Clark, John Taylor and Terrell Owens, but they wouldn't have the dynamic that Rice had. Yes, the Redskins could still win without Monk and Sanders and Clark could take over, but like the Niners, I don't think they could just have gone on without him.

[LetThePointsSoar]

I hold grudges, I will never like King or Wilbon. But I do understand you enjoy some of what he writes. I just can't let go of such a mis-deed as he pulled in Monks case. There seems to be no morals in journalism. Just because Monk was not making spectacular catches for highlight reels doesn't mean he was any less important to his team and the game. The way he carried himself on the field considering his performance is unheard of in today's games. He simply did what was asked of him, came through time and time again on third down, and blocked for the run game without ever complaining. He caught TD's and handed the ball back.

Peter King can run but he can't hide from his slanted injustice in regard to Monk's prolonged entry in the HOF.

This puts it in perspective for me....I guess I never felt the same for PK simply because I didn't really live it (there was a stretch in high school/college where I was a casual fan & didn't pay much attn) & only read about it after Art was in so I didnt have the emotional connection. I just enjoy reading his articles. Wilbon on the other hand????!!!? Pisses me off weekly with his anti Redskins slant.....**** him.

[MustangSteve]

His name is Robert Griffin, or Bob Griiffin, or nic RGIII. Is it really a big deal for someone to call him by one of his names? So what if people call him Bob, it doesn't change a dayum thing in any situation. All that matters is he plays up to his expectations and doesn't end up another bust or joke, as many have in the past.

[ixcuincle]

I don't think there is any media personality the common fan likes anymore. It seems that the common fan has a bone to pick with any media individual, and it's sad. La Canfora is a hack, Peter King can't write, etc etc etc.

I've always said the two journalists you should criticize are Sharp and Whitlock. That's it. Everyone else does their job well.

[ouvan59]

I think King had a point -- the Redskins were going to win with or without Monk.

Sorry but that's just wrong. The Skins were able to win a big game or two without him but over time there is no way they would have been nearly as successful without him. He was the consummate team player (his work ethic is legendary) whose numbers were hurt by the team he played on not helped. That is underscored by his biggest years being the years when the Skins had no other options in the passing game. Any idea that other teams couldn't double him are completely undone by this fact. When other teams only had to worry about him they still couldn't stop him.

[SWFLSkins]

This puts it in perspective for me....I guess I never felt the same for PK simply because I didn't really live it (there was a stretch in high school/college where I was a casual fan & didn't pay much attn) & only read about it after Art was in so I didnt have the emotional connection. I just enjoy reading his articles. Wilbon on the other hand????!!!? Pisses me off weekly with his anti Redskins slant.....**** him.

If you had gotten to watch Monk as an adult and how they never really keyed on him too much, I put up a video where they had no choice, I do think you would feel the same as I do. Monk was a joy to watch, even when he did not get the ball he played extremely hard and until the whistle blew. If it was not for Monk the run game would not have gotten down the field as much. He also was the proverbial safety valve on third down, always made the tippy toe catch and not a yard or two short of the first. He did it like clock work, it was thing of beauty.

---------- Post added August-9th-2012 at 05:12 PM ----------

I don't think there is any media personality the common fan likes anymore. It seems that the common fan has a bone to pick with any media individual, and it's sad. La Canfora is a hack, Peter King can't write, etc etc etc.

I've always said the two journalists you should criticize are Sharp and Whitlock. That's it. Everyone else does their job well.

Peter Kink acted on a personal vendetta against Monk getting into the Hall of Fame. Wilbon made classless and useless comments regarding Sean Taylor after his murder. These are not men being judged for their writing abilities, they are being judged for acts of ignorance.

[RFKFedEx]

Peter King hates on the Redskins endlessly without warrant. How dare he trash RG3 in his debut.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/08/09/robert-griffin-iii-preseason-debut-redskins/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_wr_a1

[Skinlanta]

Am i the only one who cant stand the nickname "RG111"? Im partial to Robert, Robert Griffin 111, Griffin.......RG111 just sounds so damn cheesy to me, sounds more like a dietary supplement.....I also like "Bobby Griffin"....maybe it will grow on me tho

[pjfootballer]

RG one, one, one?

---------- Post added August-10th-2012 at 11:04 AM ----------

Peter King hates on the Redskins endlessly without warrant. How dare he trash RG3 in his debut.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/08/09/robert-griffin-iii-preseason-debut-redskins/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_wr_a1

Media constantly backtracks. If he has a bad outing next Saturday, he'll come up with something bad to say.

[Skinlanta]

RG one, one, one?

---------- Post added August-10th-2012 at 11:04 AM ----------

Media constantly backtracks. If he has a bad outing next Saturday, he'll come up with something bad to say.

funny PJ....."3's" like myself traditionally use roman numerals to denote "3rd"....and im not sure how to make the lines on top and bottom .....but rg one, one, one might just work...I like it!!!

[Byner21]

*slowly enters thread*

*looks around*

...

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/abandon-thread-snail.gif

This made my day.