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

[Mooney]

Originally posted by CowboyzSuckAzz

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.

Well, first off, Cowboy, Art Monk played for some great teams. The '83, '84, '87 & '91 Redskins come to mind.

Which "1" of these teams would you consider "great"?

Second, read my post. Where did I throw the race card?

In this particular arguement, because all the possible stated reasons for keeping Monk out of the HOF are ridiculous, honestly ask yourself...."If Monk was white, would he be in the HOF?"

[cphil006]

Originally posted by smashmowf

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.

Good. I feel that Monk should get in before Irvin. I feel that Irvin is overrated who got away with a lot (ie push-offs and other non calls). Monk has more NFC Championship rings, same number of SB rings. What impresses me more is that Monk did it with different players around him each time (ie, three different QBs and three different RBs). Irvin essentially had the same team. Monk's Redskins domination was over 12 seasons, Irvin's Cowboys, just about 5 seasons. Monk retired as the all-time receptions leader. I jsut don;t think Irvin should get in before Monk...if Irvin gets in at all, which I do not think he was good enough. His antics and showboating drew more attention to himself giving him more recognition than he deserved.

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by Mooney

Well, first off, Cowboy, Art Monk played for some great teams. The '83, '84, '87 & '91 Redskins come to mind.

Which "1" of these teams would you consider "great"?

Second, read my post. Where did I throw the race card?

In this particular arguement, because all the possible stated reasons for keeping Monk out of the HOF are ridiculous, honestly ask yourself...."If Monk was white, would he be in the HOF?"

1st, I see what you are saying about "some" great teams. My bad.

2nd, YOU didn't throw the race card, Hooper did. That's why the last part was to him. I meant to make the whole last part to him. :doh: Sorry.

BTW, please don't call me "Cowboy." CSA will suffice.

[cphil006]

Originally posted by Mooney

Well, first off, Cowboy, Art Monk played for some great teams. The '83, '84, '87 & '91 Redskins come to mind.

Which "1" of these teams would you consider "great"?

Second, read my post. Where did I throw the race card?

In this particular arguement, because all the possible stated reasons for keeping Monk out of the HOF are ridiculous, honestly ask yourself...."If Monk was white, would he be in the HOF?"

That wouldn't change anything. Peter King and others still would not vote Monk in. He didn't grant enough interviews for them. He was quiet and reserved, not flamboyant like Irvin. Monk was a class act. It is a shame that King helps control who goes in.

[Dan T.]

Originally posted by 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.

No one wants to tackle this one?

Without putting too fine a point on it, it's not to say there's direct racism AGAINST Monk, but that somehow race would favor a white guy with the same resume and record.

Of course, in my mind, if ANYONE had a career like Monk, in the era he played, he should be in.

[Mooney]

Originally posted by cphil006

That wouldn't change anything. Peter King and others still would not vote Monk in. He didn't grant enough interviews for them. He was quiet and reserved, not flamboyant like Irvin. Monk was a class act. It is a shame that King helps control who goes in.

I agree with everything you said, except... that it wouldnt change anything.

I believe that if Art Monk was white, he would be in the HOF, no questions asked.

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by Dan T.

No one wants to tackle this one?

No.

[cphil006]

Originally posted by Mooney

I agree with everything you said, except... that it wouldnt change anything.

I believe that if Art Monk was white, he would be in the HOF, no questions asked.

I still don't think he would. You do understand that only 7 or 8 voters didn't vote Monk in. One of them is Peter King. They gave reasons, which I don't buy, but I think if Monk were white, he would be looked at like Don Beebe, just a WR, had some good seasons, but not great. I think Monk is a lot better, but it seems he is being viewed that way.

[smashmowf]

Originally posted by cphil006

I still don't think he would. You do understand that only 7 or 8 voters didn't vote Monk in. One of them is Peter King. They gave reasons, which I don't buy, but I think if Monk were white, he would be looked at like Don Beebe, just a WR, had some good seasons, but not great. I think Monk is a lot better, but it seems he is being viewed that way.

Don Beebe?!?!.....come on man.

[redman]

Originally posted by Mooney

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.

Because you were responding to another post (CrazyZeb's) which asked, "Why did race come into play?" You speculated that it should because it was apparently the only difference you could think of that might justify keeping Monk out of the HoF to someone like Peter King. Any more questions?

I agree that Monk should be in the HoF. I just think your particular line of "reasoning" sucks.

[redman]

Originally posted by Mooney

I agree with everything you said, except... that it wouldnt change anything.

I believe that if Art Monk was white, he would be in the HOF, no questions asked.

No race card, eh?

[Mooney]

Originally posted by redman

Because you were responding to another post (CrazyZeb's) which asked, "Why did race come into play?" You speculated that it should because it was apparently the only difference you could think of that might justify keeping Monk out of the HoF to someone like Peter King. Any more questions?

Again, where in my original post did I speculate that it was apparent that race was the only difference?

I stand by my original assertion, that it is a question that needs to be asked.

[Dan T.]

Originally posted by cphil006

I still don't think he would. You do understand that only 7 or 8 voters didn't vote Monk in. One of them is Peter King. They gave reasons, which I don't buy, but I think if Monk were white, he would be looked at like Don Beebe, just a WR, had some good seasons, but not great. I think Monk is a lot better, but it seems he is being viewed that way.

Don Beebe? Don BEEBE? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Gasp. Whew.

Don Beebe?

[redman]

Originally posted by Mooney

Again, where in my original post did I speculate that it was apparent that race was the only difference?

I stand by my original assertion, that it is a question that needs to be asked.

And so far, it's the only question you've asked in this thread . . .

[Mooney]

Originally posted by redman

No race card, eh? [/QUO,TE]

No, no race card. My opinion, apparently shared by others.

And your constant harping on the "race card", interjected when you cannot or will not articulate a better argument, well, sucks.

Any more questions?

[visionary]

This whole race crap makes no sense, there are a bunch of white redskins getting the same treatment as Monk...it is just dumb, dumb, dumb to think that if Monk were white, he would be the Hall of Fame.

IMHO...

[Dallsux]

Nothing like hijacking a thread over 1 ill-advised comment to a reporter. :doh:

[Dan T.]

Originally posted by visionary

...it is just dumb, dumb, dumb to think that if Monk were white, he would be the Hall of Fame.

IMHO...

I would like to agree with you, but posing this question honestly to myself: Would a white WR who retired as the all time NFL leader in receptions, who held the record for most receptions in a season and for most consecutive games with a TD, and who was part of 3 Super Bowl teams, be elected into the Hall of Fame? I'm troubled by my answer.

CowboysSuckAzz, sorry to be a part of the highjacking. I do think it is an interesting question for everyone to confront though.

[redman]

Here's the reason why framing this issue as follows misses the point: If Monk were white, would he make the HoF?

It's off-target because we believe that no matter what his color is, he should be in the HoF! Therefore, no matter what race or color you insert into that question, the answer will always be "yes".

That fact, plus the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of King, Lenny, or Dr. Z, or any other hated columnist being a racist, means that this is total speculation that is based upon a very inflammatory subject. It's irresponsible to throw such banter around and to cheapen the importance of the subject of racism.

[theposse]

I don't think the race thing is a big aspect of this question. It's more about the fact that Monk wasn't that flashy a player and didn't have any TDs in the Super Bowls (although he had one that was incorrectly called out-of-bounds) so somehow people don't remember how important he was in getting them there and even in especially the Bills Super Bowl - early in the game he was carrying the team. But yeah, a ton of key 3rd down receptions for first downs and great blocking and never dropping the ball aren't as easy to remember as say a Lynn Swann spectacular catch in the Super Bowl.

However, those of you saying that race is not at all a factor are being a bit naive, in my opinion. When people talk about white WRs - they tend to compare them to other white WRs. And when a white WR does very well in the NFL - it stands out more because there are not that many successful white WRs these days. I do think there's a valid argument to saying why did Largent make it and not Monk, just as I can say why did Swann make it and not Monk. One is probably quite likely because Swann made some memorable Super Bowl TD catches. The other - maybe not as certainly - but I would buy that Largent was more of a shoe-in - because he was white. Because otherwise the Largent/Monk comparison is basically - Monk had more catches - Largent had more TDs, but Monk had 3 more SB rings. So if Largent makes it - then Monk should make it.

[Hooper]

For the record, I don't think Peter King or any of those other guys mentioned are racists. My "is it a skin color thing" question was added in jest to something I never thought Mortenson would post. From now on, I will stick to sending Lenny P questions like -- "Do you hate the Redskins because the Danny cut you off at the all you can eat press buffet?"

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by Dan T.

CowboysSuckAzz, sorry to be a part of the highjacking. I do think it is an interesting question for everyone to confront though.

I just really don't think it has anything to do with it. When I look at morons like Michael Irvin who are up this year for induction, & sportscasters making predictions that he could get in this year, I don't think it has anything to do with color. I honestly don't see where there could even be an argument here, either. It's not that I'm not sympathetic, because I am. In fact, believe me, if I felt there was injustice of that nature here, my voice would be heard. I'm not a quiet kind of person.

I know that the League has been trying to rid itself of anything remotely defined as racist so they go as far as fining teams (unwarrentedly if you ask me) $200,000 for not interviewing Black coach candidates.

So, when I look at things like that, it's very difficult for me to say, "You're right. It's a color thing." I see no reason to believe that until someone comes out & shows me evidence that I'm wrong. It's just how I feel about it. I just think it's silly for a thread to make it 4, 5, 6 pages soley based on one single sentence that in my opinion, is out of bounds.

It can NEVER be a RACE issue, as we are ALL human beings, the only RACE there is.

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by Hooper

For the record, I don't think Peter King or any of those other guys mentioned are racists. My "is it a skin color thing" question was added in jest to something I never thought Mortenson would post. From now on, I will stick to sending Lenny P questions like -- "Do you hate the Redskins because the Danny cut you off at the all you can eat press buffet?"

:laugh:

[Mooney]

Originally posted by redman

Here's the reason why framing this issue as follows misses the point: If Monk were white, would he make the HoF?

It's off-target because we believe that no matter what his color is, he should be in the HoF! Therefore, no matter what race or color you insert into that question, the answer will always be "yes".

That fact, plus the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of King, Lenny, or Dr. Z, or any other hated columnist being a racist, means that this is total speculation that is based upon a very inflammatory subject. It's irresponsible to throw such banter around and to cheapen the importance of the subject of racism.

Agree with you, Monk should be in the HoF, no matter what his color is. So, going through your exercise and inserting race/color into your specific question and answer:

"If Monk were black, would he make the HoF?"

So far, the answer is no.

"If Monk were white, would he make the HoF?

My opinion, he would already be in.

No one is accusing, hinting or speculating that those 3 stooges are racists. Not in one post. Just looking for a valid explanation why Monk is not yet in the HoF, aside from Redskin bias and Kings lame excuses.

Discussing matters of race is neither irresponsible or cheapening to the subject of racism. Running around screaming "race card" at every discussion is.

[jimster]

Reasons Micheal Irvin will get in:

- He is now a member of the media - he's friends with many of the people who vote.

- He was loud, obnoxious and a showboat when he played - hard not to notice.

- He has a couple of Rings because of the team that was around him, though still an important part of those teams

A few weeks ago I watched one of the games from '91, and one of the things that the commentators kept praising Monk about, in addition to his on the field work ethic, was how hard he had to train in the off-season because he was 10 years older than all the other "great" receivers of that time, and because of that off-season work ethic was able to outplay his opponents even at the noticable age difference.

Between that, 3 rings with 3 different QB's and RB's, held 2 records at the time he retired, and set a stellar example off the field, he so deserves to be in before Irvin should even be seriously considered.