I Cannot Believe Mortenson Answered My Question About Peter King And Art Monk

[cphil006]

Peter King have his reasons, but Peter King is mixed up. The only 4 people who were on all 4 Super Bowl teams which won it three times were Grimm, Bostic, Jacoby, and....MONK...

Stats shouldn't matter unless it is a record and something no one else has done over a career, but when you are the ALL-TIME LEADER, it DOES matter. He also holds the record for most catches before the sissy rules came into effect.

[jrfriedm]

What ever!!! I still hate Mort!!!

[redman]

Originally posted by Hooper

For the third time, I was joking, Redman. There's nothing worse than crying racism in lieu of wolf.

That said, I do believe that Art Monk would already be in the hall of fame if he was white. It's changing, but a lot of sportswriters and fans just look at white athletes... well, differently.

The second paragraph disproves the claims in the first one . . .

[Mooney]

Originally posted by redman

Frankly it's more of a statement about you as to what "possible reasons" you look to first, than it is about them. If you see the world through race colored glasses, then I'd expect you to think that others would do the same.

You and Hooper should quit this debate while you're behind. You're looking worse and worse.

What the f.... are you talking about?

Re-read my post. I asked for any and all reasons why Largent is in and Monk isn't. If none, then give all "possible reasons" for the exclusion. You have yet to answer, just went into attacking me personally.

Race-colored glasses? How about open debate instead of innuendo and name calling?

The question is whether race is a valid question in this debate. Your only response/rebuttal is drivel.

[cphil006]

Originally posted by smashmowf

Monk and Irvin are not similar players...Largent and Monk are similar players.

Irvin played in more super bowls, Irvin has more super bowl rings.:2cents:

'

Monk played in more Super Bowls and has the same number of rings. Monk is more impressive because he did it with three different running backs and quarterbacks. Irvin did it with the same team, Aikman and Smith, and the O-line. Therefore Monk had more of an impact on the success of the Redskins over 12 seasons than Irvin did on the success of the Cowboys over 5 seasons.

Irvin might be more popular to you and other people because of his antics and loudmouth style along with many interviews. Monk rarely did interviews and didn't showboat. I judge these two based on on-the-field success. But, whether off-the-field or on-the-field, Monk was a greater man.

[smashmowf]

Originally posted by bubba9497

???

Monk played in 4 SB 3 rings, Irvin 3 SB 3 rings

Monk didnt play in the '82 super bowl, check the stats and the depth chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/1997/history/allart/xvii.htm

Therefore he only actual played in 2 Superbowl victories, one of which he unfortunately did not play a big role in.

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

This is a good reason why freaking reporters shouldn't pick the HOF. I don't know who should or shouldn't, but maybe a combination vote of owners and players already in the HOF.

[Hooper]

It's a subtle difference, Redman. I wasn't saying voters were keeping Monk out of the hall of fame because he was black -- I was saying (in my post, not my question to CM which was again, was a joke) that if Monk was white he would be in the hall of fame. Who knows, maybe I'm not getting my point across -- maybe I lost track of my point in the first place. At least we can all agree that Monk should be in the hall of fame. I just happen to believe he already would be if he was white.

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

Originally posted by smashmowf

Monk didnt play in the '82 super bowl, check the stats and the depth chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/1997/history/allart/xvii.htm

Therefore he only actual played in 2 Superbowl victories, one of which he unfortunately did not play a big role in.

But he does have the rings. Whether or not he earned stats I'm sure he had playing time. Despite that he had a signifigant role on the 1982 so he did earn a ring and he does have one.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by smashmowf

Monk didnt play in the '82 super bowl, check the stats and the depth chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/1997/history/allart/xvii.htm

Therefore he only actual played in 2 Superbowl victories, one of which he unfortunately did not play a big role in.

:doh: he played in 82, and led to the Skins to 4 SB, he didn't play in one due to injury, but was an important part of the team.

[CrazyZeb]

Originally posted by smashmowf

Monk didnt play in the '82 super bowl, check the stats and the depth chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/1997/history/allart/xvii.htm

Therefore he only actual played in 2 Superbowl victories, one of which he unfortunately did not play a big role in.

I think the point of judging someone based on Super Bowls is that they were part of a Super Bowl team, not how well they played in the actual game. And while he may not have played in one Super Bowl, he helped his team get there.

[smashmowf]

Originally posted by cphil006

'

Monk played in more Super Bowls and has the same number of rings. Monk is more impressive because he did it with three different running backs and quarterbacks. Irvin did it with the same team, Aikman and Smith, and the O-line. Therefore Monk had more of an impact on the success of the Redskins over 12 seasons than Irvin did on the success of the Cowboys over 5 seasons.

Irvin might be more popular to you and other people because of his antics and loudmouth style along with many interviews. Monk rarely did interviews and didn't showboat. I judge these two based on on-the-field success. But, whether off-the-field or on-the-field, Monk was a greater man.

Nope....Irvin is not more popular to me...I'm a Skins fan....Monk should be in. I'm simply pointing to ideas that people may have in their memory when voting on this stuff. In addition I honestly feel Monk and Irvin had different football styles/talents.....and my views are not tied to antics, interviews, news highlights.

[big z]

just wait a gotdamn second......Art Monk is Black???

:doh: :doh:

king, pasta, and dr. z are a-holes....

racists, i dunno,

but a-holes for sure.

[smashmowf]

Originally posted by bubba9497

:doh: he played in 82, and led to the Skins to 4 SB, he didn't play in one due to injury, but was an important part of the team.

Man....we are getting waaaay off topic here. Monk was an important part of the team I agree completely.....My point is when people (non redskins fans) look back in their memory who's super bowl plays will they going to remember the most?

The bottom line in my arguement is that comparing Largent to Monk is not the same as compare Irvin to Monk.

Would you compare Monk to Moss, Rice, Harrison?

[redman]

Originally posted by Hooper

It's a subtle difference, Redman. I wasn't saying voters were keeping Monk out of the hall of fame because he was black -- I was saying (in my post, not my question to CM which was again, was a joke) that if Monk was white he would be in the hall of fame. Who knows, maybe I'm not getting my point across -- maybe I lost track of my point in the first place. At least we can all agree that Monk should be in the hall of fame. I just happen to believe he already would be if he was white.

Any my point is, what is the effective difference between the two statements? They're two sides of the same race card if you will.

BTW, I accept that your initial statement to Mort was meant in jest. The problem is that this isn't a subject that can be joked about very well in general, much less in writing among strangers.

[smashmowf]

Originally posted by CrazyZeb

I think the point of judging someone based on Super Bowls is that they were part of a Super Bowl team, not how well they played in the actual game. And while he may not have played in one Super Bowl, he helped his team get there.

I can respect that opinion....but from my point of view the regular season is a big chunk..but the ultimate stage of post season play is the icing on the cake.

Look at Brady 8-0 in the post season thats serious stuff.

[redman]

Originally posted by Mooney

What the f.... are you talking about?

Re-read my post. I asked for any and all reasons why Largent is in and Monk isn't. If none, then give all "possible reasons" for the exclusion. You have yet to answer, just went into attacking me personally.

Race-colored glasses? How about open debate instead of innuendo and name calling?

The question is whether race is a valid question in this debate. Your only response/rebuttal is drivel.

It's fascinating to me that you can't even see the logic in my response. The fact that you first try to justify abject speculation about a total stranger's reasoning, and then first speculate that race is the determining factor, does indeed say more about you than it does Peter King.

Off the top of my head, here are some equally if not more plausible (and speculative) reasons why King disses Monk:

- maybe he actually believes what he says, notwithstanding how shaky we all think his reasoning is;

- he has it in for Monk because of Monk not speaking to the media all those years;

- he has an anti-Redskins bias from his days as a Giants beat reporter;

- this is the manifestation of a fued with other members of the HoF selection committee that is going on behind closed doors;

I'm sure I can come up with more. And yet you jump to race. Again, that's your thinking on display, not anyone else's.

[Charlie Murphaaay]

Originally posted by smashmowf

Man....we are getting waaaay off topic here. Monk was an important part of the team I agree completely.....My point is when people (non redskins fans) look back in their memory who's super bowl plays will they going to remember the most?

The bottom line in my arguement is that comparing Largent to Monk is not the same as compare Irvin to Monk.

Would you compare Monk to Moss, Rice, Harrison?

The most memorable thing about Arty to many of the non-skin fans i've spoken with is how he killed teams, especially at the ends of games. On 3rd downs, fans never felt comfortable with Monk on the field. He kept infinite drives alive and made big catches.

Some Superbowl memories are memorable as are the players who made great plays. However, a player that made big plays in a Superbowl cannot automatically create a legacy because of them.

Will Desmond Howard be remembered as Superbowl MVP (although Favre got most of the accolades) or as a 1st round bust, that never excelled in the NFL as a WR.

Mark Rypien (god bless him) had an awesome Superbowl, but should his Superbowl performance overshadow Monks consistency and clutch play over a 10 year period.

[mookie0720]

Originally posted by bubba9497

Bob (San Diego, CA): Mr. Mortensen - Any truth to the rumor of a Sean Taylor for Philip Rivers? Thanks!

Chris Mortensen: (11:50 AM ET ) No, I think you just started that rumor. Absoutlely no. !

:laugh:

Good to see the Chargers fans thinking intelligently :doh:

[Dan T.]

Hmmm, interesting rhetorical question. . .

A WHITE wide receiver finishes his career as the all time NFL leader in receptions, and holds the record for most receptions in a season and most consecutive games with at least one reception. He is an integral part of 3 Super Bowl teams.

Does he get a first ballot entry into the Hall of Fame? Somehow, I honestly think so.

I'm not suggesting there is racism against Monk. But flip this coin in the hypothetical scenario above, and are the results the same? BTW, in case anybody doesn't know, I am whiter than iodized salt.

[Mooney]

Originally posted by Mooney

Why wouldn't it?

Monks numbers are superior in most every way to Steve Largents. And, as Mort said, he was a star on some great teams. Largent was a star on some bad teams.

If all other factors are equal, what is the difference, aside from Redskin bias, between a first ballot and limbo?

Its a valid question.

redman,

Here is my post. Show me where I "tried to justify abject speculation about a total strangers reasoning".

Then show me where I first speculate that race was the "determining factor" in Monks exclusion.

Hell, just show me where I "jumped to race".

Otherwise, quit your grandstanding.

[smashmowf]

Originally posted by Charlie Murphaaay

The most memorable thing about Arty to many of the non-skin fans i've spoken with is how he killed teams, especially at the ends of games. On 3rd downs, fans never felt comfortable with Monk on the field. He kept infinite drives alive and made big catches.

Some Superbowl memories are memorable as are the players who made great plays. However, a player that made big plays in a Superbowl cannot automatically create a legacy because of them.

Will Desmond Howard be remembered as Superbowl MVP (although Favre got most of the accolades) or as a 1st round bust, that never excelled in the NFL as a WR.

Mark Rypien (god bless him) had an awesome Superbowl, but should his Superbowl performance overshadow Monks consistency and clutch play over a 10 year period.

I am not suggesting a person should make the Hall of Fame off of Super bowl appearances only (heck Timmy Smith would be automatic).....I am stating that it is part of the equation, its the icing on the cake but it is nothing without a solid career.

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by Mooney

Why wouldn't it?

Monks numbers are superior in most every way to Steve Largents. And, as Mort said, he was a star on some great teams. Largent was a star on some bad teams.

If all other factors are equal, what is the difference, aside from Redskin bias, between a first ballot and limbo?

Its a valid question.

Well, first off, Mooney, Art Monk played for 1 great team, not "some." Steve Largent played for 1 bad team, not "some."

Second, throwing the race card without merit is about the stupidest thing a person can do without accidentally killing himself, IMO.

No offense, Hooper, but that was stupid. I like the rest of it because I hate P.King & L.PastaBelly, but with all the other black athletes that have made it into the Hall, & are up for induction this year, I find it very, very difficult to believe that race would have ANYTHING to do with it.

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by smashmowf

Monk didnt play in the '82 super bowl, check the stats and the depth chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/1997/history/allart/xvii.htm

Therefore he only actual played in 2 Superbowl victories, one of which he unfortunately did not play a big role in.

Yeah, he was injured in 81 with a broken leg. That was when the "Fun Bunch" started. It was for Monk. He didn't get to play until I think the 5th game of the next season.

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by big z

just wait a gotdamn second......Art Monk is Black???

:doh: :doh:

king, pasta, and dr. z are a-holes....

racists, i dunno,

but a-holes for sure.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: