Peter King Challenge (no, not that other one)

[skinpride1]

Mainly only Coaches and Quarter backs seem to make the Honor lately.I have been Hearing that Randall Cunningham is going to be a candidate next year.I will make a bet with anyone that if he does become a candidate that he will make the hall of fame.Randall will be the first choice on those sports writers mind to make the grade.They love Quarter backs and it will make a great story.This is the reason Monk will not go and it does not matter that Monk set records for wide reciever and has three golden ring around his finger.Monk just doesn't make a good story line.

[Hoss]

I think I'll repeat what Chris said, just for emphasis...and because I've said it in previous discussions of Monk. You had to see Monk play to know that he was a deep threat and a powerful guy who could rip a 50/50 ball away from a defender. He could then run over or around most defenders.

That is, he was big, fast, tough, strong, and had great hands.

Numbers don't tell much about a catch he made in his first year, in a lost-cause game against the Cowboys. Monk took a crossing pass about 15 yards over the middle. He turned toward the Cowboys safety, lowered his shoulder, and plowed into the stunned defender. The Cowboy got credit for a tackle, but he made it on his back, grabbing at Monk's knees. Monk had made no attempt to fake the defender or avoid a hit, as any other WR would have done. No. Monk was frustrated that the Redskins were losing badly, and demolished the first guy in his way.

Nor will stats tell about his one catch in SB 22, played when he had sprained his knee. You need a tape of the game, because it happened toward the end of the first quarter, when the announcers were praising the Broncos and joking about the Redskins. The Skins were stuck on about their own 20, 3rd and 10 or 15, and Dan Dierdorf said something like, "Well, if you're Joe Gibbs, you've got to go to any play you've got hidden in your playbook right now, because the way John Elway is burning your defense, you'd better get a first down or this game will be out of reach". Monk must have been in as H-back, and the Bronco's must have figured him as a decoy. He ran down the left about 15 yards, and Williams floated a pass perfectly to Monk's jumping height and above the defender. Monk snatched the ball away and ran another ten yards -- on the sprained knee, remember -- to push the ball out past the 40.

It doesn't make the NFL films, and neither does a block he made in the second quarter. Clark took a pass on the right side-line, and Monk, who was running a deeper route, came back to knock Tony Lilly six feet in the air, and out of the ballgame.

No stats...you have to see it.

Finally, I'll say that, having seen Monk, he would be a star today if you plucked him out of anytime before he was about 35. For comparison, imagine Terrell Owens with the heart of a football player. That was Monk in his prime: 6 foot 2, 210 pounds, great hands, great concentration, and all the moves and toughness that comes from having started at running back in college. When you gasp an Anguan Boldin, consider that you're watching a guy who is like Art Monk...except that Monk was near the top of the league in receptions every year.

No, I don't believe that someone is a traitor to motherhood, apple pie, and the "American" way of life just because they argue against Art Monk being in the Hall of Fame. I do believe that they are mistaken, and that stats often talk silliness.

welch,

as one who has witnessed Art in action,
may i say i approve of this post....

anyone who has seen art play knows he deserves the hof.
art was the ULTIMATE gibbs player. period!

[skinsfan#33]

So wait, are you saying the sportswritters who haven't voted Monk in and have made compelling arguments for their actions are qualified because they are old enough to have seen Monk play?

So then you respect the dicision of the voters?

DR.Z and Peter King are both Giants fans, and openly anti-Redskins. I question their objectivity.

Monk played with the greatest group of WRs in NFL history. There has never been a more productive trio of WR than the Posse and they did it with flat out bumbs at QB. Usually when a top flight WR has another top flight WR next to him he ends up with less catches than he would have had if he was the only option.

One night when I was board I added up the number of catches by the top 10 WRs each year from 1980-89 and 1990-99. And the 90s WRs caught 30% more passes. Weather that was from rules or system changes I don't know, but the fact remains if Monk had played in his prime during the 90s his 940 catch could have easily been 1222 (940 X 1.3). How about if he had had a HOF QF tossing him the ball. He didn't have Bradshaw, Montana, Young, or even Aikman throwing to him. He had Joey. T (at the end of his carreer), Carry Conklin, Mark Rypien, Jeff Rutledge, Stan Humphrys, Jay Scheider(sp?), and the most over hyped QB in Redskins history Doug Williams. Any HOFers on THAT list? Yet he still set THREE NFL RECORDS.

[Redskin in Canada]

I think I'll repeat what Chris said, just for emphasis...and because I've said it in previous discussions of Monk. You had to see Monk play to know that he was a deep threat and a powerful guy who could rip a 50/50 ball away from a defender. He could then run over or around most defenders.

Thank for this post Welch. Anecdotes like these ones help explain the terms "quality yards" that TCWest and myself have referred to in our posts. Thanks for also putting these qualities in terms that statistics can not possibly reflect.

I have argued in another thread entitled "Danny on the Prowl" the persuasive nature of the media:

That IS the point, RIC. Sally Jenkins is not the public. The Washington Post is not the public.

The coin has two sides. Some people will tell you that even bad publicity is "good" publicity.

My take is different. You obviously speak of a discerning public. One beyond and far above the power of persuasion and influence. If this was the case, Coca cola and the Washington Post would have gone out of business LONG time ago.

I feel that you underestimate the power of the media, which while not infinite it certainly is very considerable. One of the subjects that I am familiar with is the power of the media, its role to form public opinion in the world, and its responsibility to engage and promote resolution of national and international disputes.

You would be surprised to hear a few anecdotes, some of them in our own countries, as to how little it takes to spread a lie, a distortion, a spin, or a misrepresentation (partial or total) of the facts. It is so easy that sometimes you ask if we EVER get the facts straight.

How long has it taken to Joe to clarify time and time again that he is not retiring before the end of his contract? It took ONE joke placed out of context and presented in a sensationalist manner to create a lasting negative effect that is felt TO THIS DAY. Hear some of the latest interviews by Joe at the end of the season.

There is a famous quote often attributed to Joseph Goebbels:

"Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth."

What we have witnessed in this thread is nothing but the result of the power of persuasion on some young fans who did not watch Art Monk play and who are now judging his career based on the articles published over and over again by Peter King and Paul Zimmerman. That is their perception of "reality". Furthermore, some are arguing that lack of direct personal knowledge gives them greater "advantage".

Ignorance about the real circumstances and the facts surrounding a case can never be used as an excuse to judge any circumstances with greater insight and knowledge on any subject. Art Monk is no exception.

For all of those who feel that the power of the media can not penetrate the minds of -all- discerning Redskins fans, you have living proof here that at least in the minds of -some- young fans such is NOT the case.

[Redskin in Canada]

This is the reason Monk will not go and it does not matter that Monk set records for wide reciever and has three golden ring around his finger.Monk just doesn't make a good story line.

I am sure and I hope that the first sentence is wrong but, sadly, it might be right. Several of us completely agree with the second sentence. The Quiet Hero did not make headlines with rants and showmanship. He did his job well and with great humility.

[spenser]

Hey RIC... I'm not meaning to be a jerk.. I just thought mabye you reacted a little harsh to SkinsFan original post, no biggie. I am in agreement that he should definatly be in the hall, so we're definatly in agreement there. Anyway, just thought the bickering has gone on long enough.. we both ultimatly want the same thing.

[Redskin in Canada]

Hey RIC... I'm not meaning to be a jerk.. I just thought mabye you reacted a little harsh to SkinsFan original post, no biggie. I am in agreement that he should definatly be in the hall, so we're definatly in agreement there. Anyway, just thought the bickering has gone on long enough.. we both ultimatly want the same thing.

Kool. We are fine.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Michael Irvin when asked who should be in the HOF that currently isnt said without hesitation and very emphatically....."ART MONK!" ...."When he retired he was the NFL All-time leader in receptions!"

I found this on ES. It apparently was from Cold Pizza on ESPN. I couldn't resist posting this. Im a pot stirrer, shame on me.

[UK Skins Fan]

I think I'll repeat what Chris said, just for emphasis...and because I've said it in previous discussions of Monk. You had to see Monk play to know that he was a deep threat and a powerful guy who could rip a 50/50 ball away from a defender. He could then run over or around most defenders.

That is, he was big, fast, tough, strong, and had great hands.

Numbers don't tell much about a catch he made in his first year, in a lost-cause game against the Cowboys. Monk took a crossing pass about 15 yards over the middle. He turned toward the Cowboys safety, lowered his shoulder, and plowed into the stunned defender. The Cowboy got credit for a tackle, but he made it on his back, grabbing at Monk's knees. Monk had made no attempt to fake the defender or avoid a hit, as any other WR would have done. No. Monk was frustrated that the Redskins were losing badly, and demolished the first guy in his way.

Nor will stats tell about his one catch in SB 22, played when he had sprained his knee. You need a tape of the game, because it happened toward the end of the first quarter, when the announcers were praising the Broncos and joking about the Redskins. The Skins were stuck on about their own 20, 3rd and 10 or 15, and Dan Dierdorf said something like, "Well, if you're Joe Gibbs, you've got to go to any play you've got hidden in your playbook right now, because the way John Elway is burning your defense, you'd better get a first down or this game will be out of reach". Monk must have been in as H-back, and the Bronco's must have figured him as a decoy. He ran down the left about 15 yards, and Williams floated a pass perfectly to Monk's jumping height and above the defender. Monk snatched the ball away and ran another ten yards -- on the sprained knee, remember -- to push the ball out past the 40.

It doesn't make the NFL films, and neither does a block he made in the second quarter. Clark took a pass on the right side-line, and Monk, who was running a deeper route, came back to knock Tony Lilly six feet in the air, and out of the ballgame.

No stats...you have to see it.

Finally, I'll say that, having seen Monk, he would be a star today if you plucked him out of anytime before he was about 35. For comparison, imagine Terrell Owens with the heart of a football player. That was Monk in his prime: 6 foot 2, 210 pounds, great hands, great concentration, and all the moves and toughness that comes from having started at running back in college. When you gasp an Anguan Boldin, consider that you're watching a guy who is like Art Monk...except that Monk was near the top of the league in receptions every year.

No, I don't believe that someone is a traitor to motherhood, apple pie, and the "American" way of life just because they argue against Art Monk being in the Hall of Fame. I do believe that they are mistaken, and that stats often talk silliness.

Thanks for the reminder welch. If there is one play that I'll remember Monk for, it's that catch against the Broncos. That was the point that the offence started to take over the game. There was a big play from Dave Butz also that got the defence going, but the catch and run by Monk was the big one on offence. This was the biggest game that he did it in, but every game he ever played featured Art Monk catching and running, making plays when they were needed. Not plays to pad his stats, but plays where the Redskins needed one. Joe Gibbs knew it, Joe Theismann knew it - if the Redskins need a play, we have to throw it to Monk.

When will the HOF voters learn - a big reception doesn't always go for 60 yards and a TD. Art Monk made big plays every single week.

[Redskin in Canada]

I found this on ES. It apparently was from Cold Pizza on ESPN. I couldn't resist posting this. Im a pot stirrer, shame on me.

I never put too much credibility on Pukes or former Pukes.
I do not trust them.

If, and it is an if, he said so, he could change his tune if that increases his chances next season. Pukes look after Pukes. We should not expect any sympathy there.

[Chris Luva Luva]

I found this on ES. It apparently was from Cold Pizza on ESPN. I couldn't resist posting this. Im a pot stirrer, shame on me.

I never put too much credibility on Pukes or former Pukes.
I do not trust them.

If, and it is an if, he said so, he could change his tune if that increases his chances next season. Pukes look after Pukes. We should not expect any sympathy there.

My intent with that post was jokingly malacious. I wasn't serious about his faith in Monk.

[ATV]

James Thrash isn't an Art Monk but will his stats ever show how much he meant to this squad? 15 years from now someone will look at his stats and call him a bun when he actually is one of our prized players.

Which reminds me, wasn't Monk also a GREAT blocker?

You know, this whole argument demonstrates that it's possible to rationalize anything ("but he wasn't even the best reciever on his team"). There are people out there that believe the holocaust never happened. Some may argue the sky isn't blue. Opinions my ***, Art Monk simply belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Well, I have the new numbers after adjusting for the run-heavy/pass-heavy problem. Interesting results.

Again, I know this statistic can't capture a reciever's entire worth (a player's blocking ability is an excellent example).

PLAYER (PYPG/aLYPG(r/p))
Lance Alworth (.401)
Paul Warfield (.338)
Dante Lavelli (.338)
Elroy Hirsch (.333)
Pete Pihos (.313)
John Stallworth (.307)
Tom Fears (.294)
Fred Biletnikoff (.294)
Don Maynard (.294)
Lynn Swann (.292)
Steve Largent (.290)
Charley Taylor (.284)
Raymond Berry (.283)
Art Monk (.279)
James Lofton (.269)
Bobby Mitchell (.239)
Tommy McDonald (.231)
Charlie Joiner (.202)

Ten players were helped by the adjustment, including our own Art Monk, with Dante Lavelli (of the run-heavy Browns) getting the biggest boost (.071). Nine players suffed with Charlie Joiner taking the biggest hit (.054). Notice the huge jumps for Lynn Swann and John Stallworth.

On a side note, Lance Alworth's scores are just unreal. In 1965, he had a score of .762 - that translates to an adjusted yardage total of 2213.9. I'll be adding Jerry Rice's numbers at some point - it will be interesting to see how he measures up with Bambi.

Anyway, there are still some adjustments to be made. It wasn't Monk's fault that the NFL went on strike in 1982 and 1987, so those numbers need to be adjusted to a full 16 games season. The same thing would apply for players who were playing when the league made the switch from 12 to 14 to 16 games. I'll look into trying to adjust for strength of opponent.

[Countertrey]

If I had grown up watching Monk win 2 Superbowls with the Redskins I wouldn't have more "appreciation" for his game or a better "understanding" of what he meant to the team I'd have a pair of rose colored glasses like a certain Canadian based Redskins fan.

This is among the most arrogant, and bigoted posts I have ever seen. "rose colored glasses"??? More likely, your constricted and nearsighted view. You didn't see him. That's a real problem.

Art Monk was the only Redskins offensive "skill" player to start in every Gibbs era Superbowl season. There is not a quarterback who did that. There is no running back who did that. No H back. No kicker. No long snapper. No other receiver. Only Monk. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, inflated to superhuman size by RIC's rose colored glasses.
That Monk retired with several major NFL records in hand is really not important.

That Monk... much like Portis today... never took a play off... not important. That many catches were made and yards gained by players such as Charlie Brown, Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders because Monk was on the field drawing attention or throwing blocks way down field has not bearing. Running backs, including Riggo, owe some of their success to Monk as well. Not important.

The problem is that some people are so stubborn, so invested and so shocked by a contrary opinion

Nah... I think the real problem here is that you don't like RIC... and your whole purpose here is to BE contrary within a thread that he started about a topic he cares deeply about. To bait him, to pester him, to push his buttons. Sad.

[skinpride1]

This is the reason Monk will not go and it does not matter that Monk set records for wide reciever and has three golden ring around his finger.Monk just doesn't make a good story line.

I am sure and I hope that the first sentence is wrong but, sadly, it might be right. Several of us completely agree with the second sentence. The Quiet Hero did not make headlines with rants and showmanship. He did his job well and with great humility.

Sad but true my friend.