Peter King comes around.....(Art Monk) ???

[DCGloryYears828791]

Rethinking the receivers
Irvin, Monk, Reed present Hall of Fame dilemma
Posted: Monday November 27, 2006 8:52AM; Updated: Monday November 27, 2006 9:42AM

NEW YORK -- It's that time of year of again. Time to get bashed by every Tom, Dick and Bill (Polian, just below) about the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process, now that the Hall has announced the 25 semifinalists for the 2007 class. Who's in, who's not, who we screwed up on. Going by the annual noise I hear, the selection committee has been wrong about everyone from A (Art Monk) to Z (Zimmerman, Gary).

I made some calls to take the temperature of some voters and league people about the Hall, and discovered that what raises the ire of most is the wide receiver position. Here's why: We're in the Aerial Era of NFL history, and of the 50 men enshrined in the Hall of Fame in the last 10 years, the same number of receivers (four) as guards have been elected. Three of the four receivers weren't active past 1987. One of those was the long-forgotten Tommy McDonald, the other two were ex-Steelers Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. (The last wideout to gain entry was James Lofton in 2003.)

Receivers with at least 750 career catches -- Andre Reed (951), Art Monk (940), Irving Fryar (851), Henry Ellard (814) and Michael Irvin (750) -- have been on the doorstep for years, unable to get in. Add up the total catches of Swann and Stallworth, 873, and you still don't get to either Reed or Monk.

There are 39 selectors from the news media for the Hall -- one hometown media person representing each of the 32 franchises, the president of the Pro Football Writers of America and six at-large reps (including me and Paul Zimmerman from Sports Illustrated). We vote by Dec. 15 for 15 of the 25 semifinalists, and we'll discuss the final 15 plus the two Senior Committee nominees (Detroit tight end Charlie Sanders and Cleveland guard Gene Hickerson) at the voting session on Feb. 3 in Miami. Of those 17 candidates, we can vote in a minimum of three and a max of six.

It seems to me that the receiver discourse is handcuffing us, because we can't figure out what a Hall of Fame receiver is anymore. Either that or we don't think the five guys with more catches than almost every Hall of Fame wideout ever are Hall-worthy.

"You guys are running the risk of becoming irrelevant,'' Colts GM Bill Polian told me. As general manager of the Bills in their glory years, Polian saw Reed's importance to Buffalo's four Super Bowl Bills teams, and he calls it "disgraceful'' that Reed hasn't been elected. "You're just like the U.S. Congress, with all the bickering and infighting and 'if this guy doesn't get in I won't vote for that guy' stuff. You can't get the right thing done.''

I mentioned this to Zimmerman and fully expected a full-frontal rip job on the Indy GM Polian. What I got from Dr. Z was this: "He might be right. Sometimes we get so involved with inner-sanctum nonsense that we lose sight of the big picture. It's good to have an outsider knock us on our ass every now and then.''

With Tim Brown, Cris Carter and Jerry Rice -- each of whom have caught more than 1,000 passes -- coming up for election in the next four years, my feeling is it's incumbent on us to break the logjam. This would be the year to do it. It's not a strong year for new candidates, with Bruce Matthews, Terrell Davis and Randall McDaniel the best of the newcomers.

I'd say over the last five years, receiver-wrangling has taken up more than its fair share of time in the meetings. We just can't agree on who belongs. I forget which year it was, but we spent 46 minutes debating the merits of Monk in one meeting. That's the longest debate I recall in my decade-and-a-half at this post.

"The Hall of Fame is about impact, not statistics,'' said one of the most responsible and conscientious voters in the room, longtime NFL writer Rick Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News. "Sometimes it's tricky separating the two. You can debate Monk, Irvin and Reed into the night. And we have. Clearly we haven't been able to come up with a consensus opinion on their impact in the game and where they fit historically. That doesn't mean the door has been closed on any of them.''

Many voters, including me, would like to see the 32-person panel increased to include long-time coaching and front-office authorities, and some current writers who aren't now on the panel. Not just head coaches or big-name GMs either. I'd love to see Ron Wolf and Don Shula in the room for their decades of expertise, but two other names I'd propose are the advance pro scouts who critically analyzed players from their teams' next games for years: Tim Rooney of the Giants and Bob Ferguson, the former Bills and Seahawks general manager. We'd be a better panel with those four men in the room, along with some veteran and sage football analysts like Vito Stellino and John Czarnecki, both of whom have chronicled the game with a critical eye for over 30 years. The number we work with now is sensible, I suppose. But why not make it an even 50? "Bringing in outsiders would inject new ideas into the discussion,'' said veteran San Francisco scribe and voter Ira Miller. Here, here.

Back to the wideout question. The recent historical evenness of guards and wide receivers drives Polian crazy.

"I'm as old-school as football gets,'' Polian said. "I love offensive linemen. But no defensive coordinator ever made a gameplan that said, 'We've got to stop this guard to be able to win this game.' Defensive coordinators often say that about receivers and design gameplans to stop them. If you eliminated Irvin, Reed or Monk from any game, or you eliminated a guard for the same game, which do you think would be more impactful on the offense that day? Missing the receiver, of course. I'm simply incredulous as a football man that these receivers can't get in. There's no question in my mind they all should be in.''

We've enshrined most of the great eligible quarterbacks from 1980 and on -- Dan Fouts, Joe Montana, Jim Kelly, John Elway, Dan Marino, Steve Young, Warren Moon, Troy Aikman. We've enshrined exactly one of the receivers who played his way into the Hall for what he did after 1980, James Lofton. Eight quarterbacks, one receiver. Isn't that unjust?

In some ways, I've been part of the problem. Even though Monk retired with the all-time receptions record, I've historically been anti-Monk for several reasons. He played 16 seasons and led his own team in receiving six times; only once was he voted first-team All-Pro. I questioned his impact on a team where the running game and Gary Clark, for many years, were the prime targets to stop by opposing defensive coordinators. I know. I watched the Giants do it nine times over four years against Washington. But last year, after a man I'd advocated got in (Harry Carson), veteran NFL writer Len Shapiro from the Washington Post e-mailed me and reminded me that everything Carson meant to the Giants, Monk meant to Washington. The leadership, the selflessness, the durable productivity ... all the same. I decided I should re-think my position.

As I made my rounds of training camps this year, I asked veteran coaches about Monk and the one word that kept coming up was "unselfish.'' His downfield blocking prowess kept coming up. His long-term numbers were almost Yastrzemski-like (one or two great years, lots of productive ones, very reliable). But when I talked to Joe Gibbs on Friday, the one thing that stood out was the body of work we don't see -- the downfield blocking, the quiet leadership, and this: Unlike his louder receiving mates Clark and Ricky Sanders, Monk, according to Gibbs, never once said he wanted the ball more. "We used him almost as a tight end a lot,'' said Gibbs, "and not only did he do it willingly, he was a great blocker for us. If he'd been a squeaky wheel, who knows how many catches Art would have had. But he cared about one thing -- the team.''

So many of the things Carson did can't be quantified. Similarly, Monk led the NFL in all-time receptions when he retired, and he blocked superbly and he was the most important locker-room influence on a three-time Super Bowl champion. I'm voting for him.

I'll support Monk and Irvin -- the most important locker-room guy and a constant offensive weapon on a three-time champion -- in my voting. I remain unconvinced about Reed. I saw a lot of the Bills in their Super Bowl prime, and I'm squarely in the corner of Thurman Thomas as the other offensive weapon that deserves entry. Does Reed belong when all the other mega-catchers -- Carter, Brown, Rice and, down the line, Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens and Randy Moss -- come before the committee in the coming years?

Let the e-mails begin. It's that time of year.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Dude, you beat me to it. lol

[SkinsFreak]

Peter King is still a homer.

[Mursilis]

Finally!! A great man and a great player finally gets the respect he deserves. Sad that one of the things that made Monk great (his unselfishness) hurt his chances for the Hall. Good to see Peter King finally gets it!!

[roybus14]

It's about time..... But if Monk get's in, it's still not going to solve the problem of WR's getting in. What's the standard going to be for them to get in? 1,000 catches or more and 25,000+ receiving yards????

It's funny how some of the bone-heads on this panel talk about how impact and not stats are the deciding factor. If that's the case, then our own Director of Player Development, John Jefferson as well as his teammates in San Diego (Kellen Winslow, Charlie Joiner, Wes Chandler) should all be in. They were this era's version of the "Greatest Show on Turf" and the Colts. San Diego with Dan Fouts and J.J. and the other receivers were the most exciting passing team back then, hence the "Air Coryell" monicker.

The bottomline is this: there are guys like Swann and Stallworth (who I was a big fan of) with fewer catches than Monk, Reed, etc. that are in, but Monk and those others can't get a sniff.....

[redskindave]

Damn, Its about time, I hope Art gets in, This is just plain nuts that hes not already in

[JansenFan]

Big ups to Len Shapiro for finally painting Monk in the proper light. Granted, this is only one vote.

[joebagadonuts]

Wow. I'm going out to buy a ton of blankets because Hell has officially frozen over.

Seriously, I agree that it's time for the HOF to reevaluate who is in charge of voting for these guys. Sports journalists have lost a huge amount of credibility from the olden days to now, and when they consistantly hold out guys who should obviously be in, they only further damage themselves. It makes average fans wonder 'Who put these guys in charge?!?'

[DCGloryYears828791]

But when I talked to Joe Gibbs on Friday, the one thing that stood out was the body of work we don't see -- the downfield blocking, the quiet leadership, and this: Unlike his louder receiving mates Clark and Ricky Sanders, Monk, according to Gibbs, never once said he wanted the ball more. "We used him almost as a tight end a lot,'' said Gibbs, "and not only did he do it willingly, he was a great blocker for us. If he'd been a squeaky wheel, who knows how many catches Art would have had. But he cared about one thing -- the team.''

I think his part really stood out to me. Kudos to Gibbs to help TEACH Pete King what makes a total football player.

When he mentions Friday, does that mean the King was in town this past week, or was he referring to training camp, cuz i remember he said he was going to visit with Coach at some point during the season and this was probably a good week to get Coach Gibbs talking about the old days and Redskin Football.

[ATV]

Yes, about time. Yes, he's still a homer, but you have to give King credit for standing up and basically saying he was wrong. That's an honorable thing to do.

[skinsfan#33]

Good news that Pizza Face King has come to around, but the thing that that never gets mentioned when it comes to Monk no one every seems to mention the quality of QBs Monk had to deal with. I was a huge Rypien fan but let's be real, he was the best of an extremely average group of QBs to throw him passes.
Would Reed or even Rice have the same stats with the bunch of junk the Redskins had under center. It is amazing how many pass a top flight WR can catch when they have a HOF QB playing pitch and catch with them (or two HOF QB's in Rice's case). Irvin with only 750 catches with Aikman throwing to him is not nearly as impressive as Clark with 700 when Clark had Rypien, Schaeder, Williams, Conklin, Rutledge, Humphreys, and some other Bum I can't remember.
Plus factor in the system (West Coast is extremely receiver friendly) and the time periord. In the 80's, top WRs caught more passes than WRs in the 70's and recievers in the 90's caught 30% passes than receivers in the 80's. So Irvin (not even counting the HOF QB factor) should have caught about 1200 balls to be on par with Monk.

I would just love someone to stand up in the HOF voting and say, "For Monk to even have 500 catches with the bums that threw to him would have been amazing, but 940 is just god like!"

[UK Skins Fan]

I applaud King for realising the error of his ways, but let's remember: he's not the only one in the room that's been voting against Monk. We can't think that Monk is home and dry at this point, but this is a big step.

Monk getting into the HOF would be like a Redskins Superbowl to me. The guy was and still is everything that defines a great football player and a great man.

[Redskin in Canada]

In case you are really interested, I wrote a Blog about this development:

A response to Peter King: It is time to right a wrong on Art Monk

[hkiss444]

I am happy to see Monk finally get his just do, as a complete football player.

As I read the article, it seems the main reason PK has changed his view is that he wants to vote Irvin in but couldn't justify including Irvin and excluding Monk.

[John Manfreda]

Peter King forgot to add that Art Monk was the best reciever on a great recieving core and that he was the best player on a great offense, and the best player on some great teams.

[John Manfreda]

Good news that Pizza Face King has come to around, but the thing that that never gets mentioned when it comes to Monk no one every seems to mention the quality of QBs Monk had to deal with. I was a huge Rypien fan but let's be real, he was the best of an extremely average group of QBs to throw him passes.
Would Reed or even Rice have the same stats with the bunch of junk the Redskins had under center. It is amazing how many pass a top flight WR can catch when they have a HOF QB playing pitch and catch with them (or two HOF QB's in Rice's case). Irvin with only 750 catches with Aikman throwing to him is not nearly as impressive as Clark with 700 when Clark had Rypien, Schaeder, Williams, Conklin, Rutledge, Humphreys, and some other Bum I can't remember.
Plus factor in the system (West Coast is extremely receiver friendly) and the time periord. In the 80's, top WRs caught more passes than WRs in the 70's and recievers in the 90's caught 30% passes than receivers in the 80's. So Irvin (not even counting the HOF QB factor) should have caught about 1200 balls to be on par with Monk.

I would just love someone to stand up in the HOF voting and say, "For Monk to even have 500 catches with the bums that threw to him would have been amazing, but 940 is just god like!"

One can also counter that arguement that Monk had a great offensive line which gave him all day to get open.