Peter King Challenge (no, not that other one)

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:03 am

Peter King is back at it again. He wrote -again- why he did not vote for Art Monk earlier this year. Well, let us take him to task:

Hall squall
Readers fight for Monk, have advice for big-name RBs

One thing I've learned in my 14 years as a Pro Football Hall of Fame voter: It's never the offseason.

If I wrote a column about why I voted a certain way in May, the e-mail box would be flooded. If I wrote it a week after the vote, the mail would roll in. And so here we go. Hall of Fame fever! Catch it!

NOW THAT CARSON'S IN, IT'S MONK TIME. From Stephen of Chantilly, Va.: "Peter, your article about Harry Carson was wonderful. You really understand how certain players who are extremely integral to super teams don't get recognized because they didn't get all the glamour stats or press. Which is why I really think you are not an honest voter. All the arguments and characteristics you praise about Carson in this article could also be made for Art Monk in relation to his Redskins super teams. From role player, coaching praise and teammate praise. If you just don't like Monk, just say you're biased and stop. Please don't make illogical reasons for him to not be in the Hall of Fame when you clearly recognize Carson-type accomplishments for the Giants. You really lose all credibility to me since you're not only a biased writer but one who likes to unfairly lower the accomplishments of a truly deserving player like Monk.''

Thanks for writing, Stephen. It's interesting being a voter. If I don't vote for a certain player, then I have some bias against him. You and the other Monk supporters should know -- not that you'll believe me -- that I have no bias whatsoever against Monk. He was a very good and unselfish football player. I have a lot of admiration for him.

There are quite a few differences between Carson and Monk, I believe. And not just in my opinion, but in their peers' opinions. Monk was voted to three Pro Bowls in 16 years. Just three times in 16 years did his peers consider him one of the four best receivers in his conference. Carson was voted to nine Pro Bowls in 13 years. Carson was the major reason why the Giants had the best run defense in the NFL for a seven- or eight-year period. I don't think you can say the presence of Monk on Washington's offense -- with a great deep threat like Gary Clark, with consistently good running backs, with a great offense line -- equated to Carson's impact on the Giants' D. Well, maybe you can, but I can't.

And for all of the Monk supporters who think I'm the guy keeping him out of the Hall of Fame, just know that there are at least eight of the 38 other voters who have not voted for him -- and I think it's quite a few more than that given that he can't make it through the cut from 15 to 10.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/w ... index.html

The funny thing about his column is that even when he gets the advantage to pick one among hundreds of messages, he also gets the advantage to write the last and final word. The original poster does not get a chance to respond to his lousy arguments.

I am on my way to attend an important meeting right now. I have literally no time to respond to this garbage but I will do so point by point, word by word later on.

In the meantime, have a look at a hypocrite in action.

RiC

PS I can not wait to get back at this... :twisted:

kkryan · Post by **kkryan** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:47 am

Im sure that LT, Gary Reasons, Pepper Johnson, Jim Burt, George Marshall, and Carl Banks didnt contribute anything to that Giant D...what an idiot

Redskins Rule · Post by **Redskins Rule** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:29 pm

Sounds like he's basing that Art Monk shouldn't be in the hall just because he didn't make the probowl nine or more times! Dang......I didn't think the probowl was really all that. If it was then Marcus Washington, Shawn Springs, and Sean Taylor would have made it. Ohh.....Clinton Portis would have made it too! You guys know that Clinton is up there with Barry Sanders as far as yards from scrimage in the first four years. Yet he didn't make the probowl in two years.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:56 pm

peter king should have his brain repossessed, 'cause he clearly isn't making the payments on it.

BadgerKing · Post by **BadgerKing** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:09 pm

This just freaks my mind..Across the pond I learned what Football was through the Skins and even to an absolute amateur it was clear what Monk brough to the team.

Independance Day II Time you guys kicked out another King!

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:14 pm

I'm sorry guys, I can't hold this in any more, and as a Redskins fan it's tough to even say aloud:

I don't think Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame.

He was a really, really good reciever for many years, but he didn't even have one season where he was really a superstar.

Gary Clark had a couple seasons of just eye popping numbers, he caught just 3 less TD's in over 50 less games, and he's not even in the Hall.

Monk was an above average WR for many, many years, but he just wasn't superstar enough to be anything more than a fringe canidate.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:20 pm

Huh?!

No, if you're the all-time record holder in something (catches, sacks, touchdowns, whatever), and you weren't just playing in the first couple or even ten, twenty seasons of the league, you've got to go in. This is the mark of a truly exceptional player.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:33 pm

"Peter, your article about Harry Carson was wonderful. You really understand how certain players who are extremely integral to super teams don't get recognized because they didn't get all the glamour stats or press. Which is why I really think you are not an honest voter. All the arguments and characteristics you praise about Carson in this article could also be made for Art Monk in relation to his Redskins super teams. From role player, coaching praise and teammate praise."

Well said Stephen. But this is -further- proof that he is not an honest voter and an honest person, period.

"If you just don't like Monk, just say you're biased and stop. Please don't make illogical reasons for him to not be in the Hall of Fame when you clearly recognize Carson-type accomplishments for the Giants. You really lose all credibility to me since you're not only a biased writer but one who likes to unfairly lower the accomplishments of a truly deserving player like Monk."

Come on, Stephen. That would require -honesty and -courage-. Both of which he sorely lacks. He can never acknowledge and accept his prejudices. Worse, he is too proud to accept that he has been WRONG for years.

Thanks for writing, Stephen. It's interesting being a voter. If I don't vote for a certain player, then I have some bias against him. You and the other Monk supporters should know -- not that you'll believe me -- that I have no bias whatsoever against Monk. He was a very good and unselfish football player. I have a lot of admiration for him.

You are right moron, none of us believe anything you write or say. Actions speak louder than words and your actions represent nothing but bias and prejudice. Please stop "expressing" your admiration (?) Hypocrite!

There are quite a few differences between Carson and Monk, I believe. And not just in my opinion, but in their peers' opinions. Monk was voted to three Pro Bowls in 16 years. Just three times in 16 years did his peers consider him one of the four best receivers in his conference. Carson was voted to nine Pro Bowls in 13 years.

Since when has the Pro bowl been a true measure of great play? How many players were insulted this year alone for not being the most popular, the most contentious, the biggest show-offs? Art just played great. He did his job admirably and he was not the first and certainly not be the last to not go to a Pro bowl because his style was not flashy or popular among the voters.

Carson was the major reason why the Giants had the best run defense in the NFL for a seven- or eight-year period.

Hello? A great run defense is the result of a system and a collective effort. Even Carson himself acknowledged that during several interviews carried out since his announcement was made.

I don't think you can say the presence of Monk on Washington's offense -- with a great deep threat like Gary Clark, with consistently good running backs, with a great offense line -- equated to Carson's impact on the Giants' D. Well, maybe you can, but I can't.

Of course, we can. And yes, of course you can't. THAT is the point. Art Monk made possible the deep balls to Clark and Sanders. He kept offenses alive. He got the tough first downs. Judging the ability and value of a receiver solely by becoming a "deep threat" misses the point entirely, as suspected and now confirmed. :roll:

So, Carson plays a great role to enable the best run defense but Monk had little if anything to do to enable the passing game (and setting up the running game) of the Redskins? Moron!

And for all of the Monk supporters who think I'm the guy keeping him out of the Hall of Fame, just know that there are at least eight of the 38 other voters who have not voted for him -- and I think it's quite a few more than that given that he can't make it through the cut from 15 to 10.

You and your Sports Illustrated buddies can run but you can not hide Peter. You can not dilute YOUR responsibility by telling us that others are doing this to Art too. It is YOUR responsibility. It is the responsibility of your Sports Illustrated Mafia with Paul Zimmerman and other biased voters. You are guilty. I wish you were man enough to face the facts. But you are not even that.

Redskins fans:

JOIN ME IN A CAMPAIGN TO DUMP SUBSCRIPTIONS TO SPORTS ILLUSTRATED FROM ALL OFFICES AND HOMES!

DUMP SI!

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:39 pm

ATV wrote:Huh?!

No, if you're the all-time record holder in something (catches, sacks, touchdowns, whatever), and you weren't just playing in the first couple or even ten, twenty seasons of the league, you've got to go in. This is the mark of a truly exceptional player.

Take this example...

Say you're a baseball player, you get roughly 550 AB a season and you get approximately 150 hits each year. You play good but not great defense as a catcher/shortstop/centerfielder/second baseman so that keeps you in the league each year...

If you lasted for 20 years in the majors you'd have 3,000 hits, and a .272 batting average.

You'd be a solid, but unspectacular player who was only able to accumulate 3,000 hits by being decent for a large span of time.

Monk had great durability and lasted an extremely long time in the NFL, but he was never a bonafide star.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:41 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:I'm sorry guys, I can't hold this in any more, and as a Redskins fan it's tough to even say aloud:

A Redskin fan? Your IGNORANT and STUPID POST are only a match to your newly acquired ego.

Your post is so IGNORANT and STUPID that it is not worth even discussing it.

Quite frankly, I do not even think that this has anything to do with Art. I do not think that you are even old enough to have watched his games.

I think that this post has to do with enhancing your personal ego and have an argument to try to bolster your self-esteem. You know what? I am not going to waste any posts or time with your posts anymore.

The day you begin to post intelligent and informed posts, I will respond to you. Right now, it is not worth my time or effort.

As somebody put it in Smack: Maybe you should go and spend a bit more time with Matt. No, actually a lot more time.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:42 pm

Cancelling your, or others, SI membership is one thing, but isn't SI aware how many online readers it has? Don't they know how many view King's articles? Of course, they bring in revenue from the advertisements on these web pages.

If so, then what if we were ALL to committ to not ever clicking to read his articles? What if someone on here would be responsible for simply cutting and pasting what he has to say, on a regular basis?

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:43 pm

Oh my God! Peter King PUBLISHED a letter where a guy tears him to shreds and then tried to defend his position and you jackals smell blood in the water and attack him some more.

Ridiculous, I on the other hand have a lot of respect for Peter King picking a letter like this to respond to, the guy trashed him and it takes guts to print that.

And RiC, usually you are very reserved it seems, and this just makes you come apart at the seems, surely you can see how SOME people don't think Monk is Hall worthy without questioning their manhood/integrity/worth as a human being.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:45 pm

SkinsFann55 - We're not talking about someone who accumulated just 3000 hits in his career. Art Monk shattered the all-time mark. Art Monk was the Pete Rose of his era (hey and now a new era, too).

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:46 pm

He was a really, really good reciever for many years, but he didn't even have one season where he was really a superstar.

Your response really saddens me. Along with being just plain wrong, it requires that I no longer give credence to your posts about Art. You have clearly not taken the time to inform yourself.

Art Monk's absence from the Hall of Fame is a travesty.
There are many lesser players entering the hall, even today.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:46 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:Monk had great durability and lasted an extremely long time in the NFL, but he was never a bonafide star.

Do you want to get an education about this and other topics in the SMACK forum?

Do you? :twisted:

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:56 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:And RiC, usually you are very reserved it seems, and this just makes you come apart at the seems, surely you can see how SOME people don't think Monk is Hall worthy without questioning their manhood/integrity/worth as a human being.

I am just getting started.

And you are right, few topics arise such anger and passion as this injustice. But I insist that you need an -education- given your propensity to express strong views without sufficient backing.

So, join me there if you want to LEARN why these have been somo of the MOST STUPID and UNINFORMED posts to date.

Shall we? :twisted:

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:57 pm

I just don't see it, sorry.

Much as I hate them, the Yankees of the mid to late 90's were an awesome team, but they will not produce many, if any, Hall of Famers.

That's like the Redskins, interchangeable parts, and guys like Monk, Clark, Rypien, Didier, Warren, Byner, Smith, Riggs, etc who were very GOOD players but none of them really great.

Monk was a good reciever, but I don't see how he achieved a level of greatness worthy of the Hall.

I also find it ridiculous that you can't even accept a differing opinion on the issue.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:03 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:Oh my God! Peter King PUBLISHED a letter where a guy tears him to shreds and then tried to defend his position and you jackals smell blood in the water and attack him some more.

Ridiculous, I on the other hand have a lot of respect for Peter King picking a letter like this to respond to, the guy trashed him and it takes guts to print that.

And RiC, usually you are very reserved it seems, and this just makes you come apart at the seems, surely you can see how SOME people don't think Monk is Hall worthy without questioning their manhood/integrity/worth as a human being.

I've seen better arguments in favor of Monk, and the writing in the letter wasn't all that persuasive. Heck, I can expect to see better arguments in favor of Monk in this thread than what Peter King published.

Say what you want about Peter King publishing a letter in which someone criticizes him, but he chose that letter because it wasn't that hard to defend. Notice how Stephen attributes King's voting to King's bias. Ad hominem attack, it assigns motives to King's decision rather than addressing the decision itself as effectively as possible.

As far as I can tell, Peter King has never fully addressed the fact that Monk retired with as many records as he held, the praise that he received during and after his career from coaches and teammates. Meanwhile, he keeps pointing to 3 ProBowls as his reason why Monk shouldn't get in the Hall. (Nevermind that Monk played a glory position in a blue collar way, which would have an obvious impact on ProBowl selections).

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:04 pm

Ridiculous, I on the other hand have a lot of respect for Peter King picking a letter like this to respond to

That, sir, is a ludicrous argument. King gets to respond, and to counterattack, all from within the armor of his high profile pulpit, knowing that he will never have to give that writer the opportunity to reply.

I found his response to be petulant, and highly defensive... the response of an individual who really doesn't have faith in the validity of his opinion.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:05 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote: I also find it ridiculous that you can't even accept a differing opinion on the issue.

You are disrespecting one of the greatest Redskins of ALL time.

I have kindly opened a thread in the Smack forum to follow up on your education there. You have the opinions.Let's see if you have the information and guts to defend your moronic views.

hkiss444 · Post by **hkiss444** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:17 pm

Since Peter King's only argument is Art Monk's 3 Pro Bowls, let me point out to Mr. King. 3 recent WR HOF inductees:
Charlie Joiner - 3 Pro Bowls
Lynn Swann - 3 Pro Bowls
John Stallworth - 4 Pro Bowls

Compare the stats.

You can go through the list and see there were two years John Taylor got in over Art Monk with less then stellar stats and one Year Ahmad Rashad got the nod with similar stats but Ahmad was at the end of his career so he got the nod. Pro Bowls were a popularity contest and still are to this day.

Redskins Rule · Post by **Redskins Rule** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:20 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:I'm sorry guys, I can't hold this in any more, and as a Redskins fan it's tough to even say aloud:

I don't think Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame.

He was a really, really good reciever for many years, but he didn't even have one season where he was really a superstar.

Gary Clark had a couple seasons of just eye popping numbers, he caught just 3 less TD's in over 50 less games, and he's not even in the Hall.

Monk was an above average WR for many, many years, but he just wasn't superstar enough to be anything more than a fringe canidate.

This is by far the dumbest post I've ever read on this site. Its even dumber then that guy saying Gibbs has to go!

Dude! Remember our last game against Seattle? When we were at 4th and 13 and HAD to go for it? With Art Monk all Brunnell would have done is lofted it up on Art's side of the field and Art would have done the rest! Art did that stuff for us. He did it with class and with style. And he just kept doing it on a very consistent basis.

Redskins Rule · Post by **Redskins Rule** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:23 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:
ATV wrote:Huh?!

No, if you're the all-time record holder in something (catches, sacks, touchdowns, whatever), and you weren't just playing in the first couple or even ten, twenty seasons of the league, you've got to go in. This is the mark of a truly exceptional player.

Take this example...

Say you're a baseball player, you get roughly 550 AB a season and you get approximately 150 hits each year. You play good but not great defense as a catcher/shortstop/centerfielder/second baseman so that keeps you in the league each year...

If you lasted for 20 years in the majors you'd have 3,000 hits, and a .272 batting average.

You'd be a solid, but unspectacular player who was only able to accumulate 3,000 hits by being decent for a large span of time.

Monk had great durability and lasted an extremely long time in the NFL, but he was never a bonafide star.

Thats your argument?!??!!? Dude....no offense....But Football and Baseball are two different sports. You really can't compare the two.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:23 pm

A LOT of -informed- discussions have been held in the past about this topic. For example:

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... e3810df9e9

I have a bad headache. I have to go. :evil:

hkiss444 · Post by **hkiss444** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:26 pm

Monk has more receptions, yards receiving, and Touchdowns then Joiner, Stallworth, and Swann. In fact Monk had Receptions then Stallworth and Swann combined.

I would love to debate Peter King on this topic.