The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

found a great link to peter king's justification of why art shouldn't be in the HOF. if this has already been posted, im sorry mods just delete it and its all good.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/w ... ivisional/

down near the middle of the page: ctrl+f art monk to jump right to it

This is the most ridiculous reasoning ever:

1. I think numbers should be considered significant, but shouldn't be the god of election to the Hall. And they should be put in perspective. This says everything about why statistics alone shouldn't put people in the Hall of Fame: The year Jerry Rice entered football, 1985, there were four players with 600 career catches in NFL history. Today there are 34. Monk led the NFL in receptions with 940 when he retired after the 1995 season. Since then, four receivers have passed him. One of them is Andre Reed, who I also consider to be a marginal Hall-of-Famer. In the next few years, others will get into the 900 range: Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, maybe even Keenan McCardell (755 now, and he wants to play two or three more years). Think of the receivers who haven't turned 32 yet who could get to 900ville: Terrell Owens (31, 669 catches), Eric Moulds (31, 594), Muhsin Muhammad (31, 578), Randy Moss (27, 574). Torry Holt's 28. He's got 517. Four more years in that offense, and he's in Monk's neighborhood statwise. In other words, in the 30-year window between 1980 and 2010, a dozen guys, or more, could pass 900 catches. We can't elect them all. There has to be some positional integrity to the Hall of Fame

PK talks about integrity of the HOF, and that there are a lot of guys playing right now that could reach or pass Monk's numbers. I thought getting inducted into the HOF was for the play that one performed during the time they performed it - NOT as a comparison of what future players might be able to do...

Yeah, I mean Marino's numbers are getting smashed by Manning, does that mean Marino shouldn't be there?! That's such a stupid argument! Monk is still in elite company. He's still fifth in history! At the end of his career he had the most receptions IN HISTORY! He was the first player to have 100 receptions in a year! I think he had the longest or one of the longest spans of consecutive games with a catch as well! How is that not worthy? What about all the old QBs and WRs that are in the Hall but had terrible numbers compared to today's players? The game changes all the time. Monk played in an era where the passing game was not as important as it is today and he still managed to put up numbers that nobody in the history of the game had ever managed. This is just such a stupid argument that is being put forward by a very stupid man!

amen my man--what king fails to realize is that the entire reason he is trying to defend his decision is that art monk is worthy of being there and shyould have been there a long time ago, and he's trying to make up for his shortsightedness by saying that the one thing that DOES matter (numbers) actually has no bearing on whether or not one gets in. in that case, let's induct Ryan Leaf and Tim Couch next season!! oh by the way, doesn't lynn swann have something like 300 some odd receptions, and he is in the HOF? yeah he won superbowls, but so did art monk. yeah he played on talented teams, but hey so did art monk. peter king is useless, and although i still subscribe to SI (sorry guys, have to have my Rick Reilly) i will skip peter king from now on.

With that reasoning, there wouldn't be anyone in the HOF because there is going to be someone better down the road at every position. Why don't we just have a "Potential Hall of Fame".

skinsfano28 wrote:amen my man--what king fails to realize is that the entire reason he is trying to defend his decision is that art monk is worthy of being there and shyould have been there a long time ago, and he's trying to make up for his shortsightedness by saying that the one thing that DOES matter (numbers) actually has no bearing on whether or not one gets in.

What Peter King fails to realize is that he is a big fat hurting.

We seem to have a Junkies fan.

skinsfano28 wrote:amen my man--what king fails to realize is that the entire reason he is trying to defend his decision is that art monk is worthy of being there and shyould have been there a long time ago

Exactly, Monk should be in and that is why King has to keep on trying to justify his opinion because his opinion is wrong. Many other people realize this but he has to keep stubbornly stating his case voer and over. I mean, Monk retired years ago and for some reason he still feels the need to write anti-Monk comments once every six months or so. What is his agenda here? What has Monk ever done to him? Why can't he just shut his fat piehole and let others decide whether Monk is worthy or not?

So, what King is saying is that since he was underrated as a player during his career he shouldn't be given credit for his achievements. Also, how does Michael Irvin make it farther in the voting that Art?

Calm down people. Remember, we are talking to the Peter King.

Well if that is the case, then the electors need to stop electing these old guys who wore leather helmets and played in the 20's, 30's and 40's who:

1. Would not stand a chance in today's NFL.
2. Have numbers that have long since been erased form the record books.

This is a personal thing really. Art Monk deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, there is no "hypothetical" excuse for why he should not be. That needs to be investigated by the responsible authority that oversees the selection committee to ensure that this type of stupidity is not included in the selection process.

Uhhh well Torry Holt may theoretically pass his mark in 2010 so we can't elect Monk??? That is ridiculous.

Art Monk=HOF plain and simple I cant what stupid Peter King has to say.

Hey guys, over at TheWarpath.net we have a online petition going on for Art's rightful induction into the Hall. Please feel free to sign it.

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Monk_To_Hall/

We have had one here as well for over a year now:

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10558

I do not believe that anybody can reason with Peter King. It is a matter of pride to him. He was wrong. He is wrong. And he will continue to be -knowingly- wrong.

The only solution is to DUMP your Sports Illustrated subscription and encourage others to do the same. That is the only language he )and his editors) might understand.

Look at my avatar and my signature. I am on a mission in support of Art for life.

An older proverb (I think from the middle east):

"Man does not attain everything he desires, and winds don’t always blow as the vessels wish."


I hope we see Art Monk in the hall one day, but don't know how much we personally are going to make a difference. While I do see people like Peter King making this harder, I still feel that whatever will be, will be.

Does Monk deserve to be in? Certainly.

Flash and hype is part of the selection process, and we can't really change that. As for me, I'll just continue to make noise every year until he's in there. But, at the same time, it seems like a waste of energy to fight Peter King on the issue--he's not going to change and ultimately he won't be the factor as to whether or not Monk gets in.

I believe Dr. Z has also been a vocal critic. In a recent article of his, however, he says Aeneas Williams and Derrick Brooks are HOF locks because of their "long and meritorious career" Seems kind of ridiculous to say that about them, but not Monk

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/w ... index.html

Aeneas Williams and Derrick Brooks

Who????

*

At least P. King gave us his reasons, and none of them were "splash", "sizzle", or "pop".

I think I said this in one of our previous imaginary debates with King (and, Warpath friends, as RiC says, we debate King and Dr Z and the other HOF voters about every six months, or less):

1. The center of King's argument seems to be that the Giants defense feared Clark / Sanders and the Redskins runners more than they feared Monk, at least from 85 - 88 when he covered the Giants.

That may well be. However, that only says that the players and scheme of the Giants defense had more problems with Gary Clark. It says nothing about other teams. The Giants played a 3-4, with tough, strong linebackers who couldn't cover the pass. L.Taylor rushed on every play; LT was quick, but he was also pretty bad in coverage. The Giants played a thick heavyweight zone, with the LB's fading back, DB's farther back, hoping that LT and the two tackles could get to the QB before someone got free. Their goal was to give up the three-yard underneath pass, but to get the QB before anything catastrophic happened behind them.

Clark was exactly the sort of small fast receiver who could dart past the zone. Exactly the sort of receiver who could make trouble for that particular defense.

They feared the runners, of course, because they couldn't blitz Taylor as freely if the Redskin OL and runners could smash through them.

Mostly, it worked for the Giants.

The same defense fell apart whenever they faced Randall Cunningham, even though the Eagles, in those years, had a really crude offense. The Redskins ususally had no trouble with Cunningham and the Eagles.

In that same 85-88 stretch, many teams were afraid of the Bears defense. In SB 20, the poor Patriots looked terrified. The following year, the Redskins bombed the Bears in the playoffs.

Who was the key receiver? Art Monk.

The Bears unleashed their famous 10, 12, or 14-man rush, and Art Monk kept catching little loop passes and running forever. If a ball was floated up, Monk was sure to rip it away from any Chicago DB. Once he had the ball, Monk became the old Syracuse University tailback again. He could outrun most guys, and he could run over almost anybody fast enough to catch him.

If King had covered a different team, he would have heard a different story.

2. Monk was not voted to all-whatver teams enough. Big deal. As others have said, Monk never campaigned for any award. He never talked much. He had no public relations manager. King makes an interesting argument, but flawed.

Does anyone around the site know an available email for Peter King or the people at SI, cuz this is sickening. PK tries to downplay the fact Monk only made the pro bowl twice and was an all pro once.....

HES GOT THE RINGS YOU IDIOT! The reason you can make the pro bowl 10 times and not make the hall is cuz YOU DONT HAVE THE RINGS!

Greetings from NYC: Peter King will never be confused wth Dick Young! Arthur Monk should have been in the HOF years ago!

Shouldn't this thread have been merged with Jake's post on 8/12/05 titled "The Future is Now" by Art Monk & Charles Mann? Seems like the two kind of go together.

king's argument seems to prove that monk should be in the HOF, not excluded from it.

it's true that many receivers will pass monk's career receptions mark in the coming years. but shouldn't that be a reason to vote him in? in his era, only a handful of receivers had more career receptions than him. in 20 years, rice's records will be crap, as will emmit smith's. s let's hold off on voting them in until we see how it plays out.

I'm sure that we would all agree that the qualifications and standards for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame differ somewhat than those for induction into the Fottball Hall of Fame. I was reading in this past Sunday's "Parade" magazine an article about David Vincent who also happens to be the official scorer for the Nats. In that article it mentioned that Home Run King Hank Aaron was well down the list in home run efficiency. His record of one home run every 16.3 times at bat was well behind the leader, Mark McGuire with one every 10.6 time at bat, and Babe Ruth with one every 11.8 time at bat. Seems like I also remember that he only played on one World Series Championship team during his career, The Milwaukee Braves in 1957, I believe. I may be wrong, but I also don't remember that he ever won the home run title in any single season either.

However, I'm sure that every one of us will agree that Hank Aaron certainly deserves to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame based on his character, his contributions to the game, and his longevity which allowed him to retire as the all-time leader in home runs, a record he still holds today.

I'm wondering if Dr. Z (Paul Zimmerman) and Peter King applied their same rationale and thinking regarding statisits, and their reasons why they don't think that Art Monk is deserving to be inducted into the Football Hall of Fame to Hank Aaron, they would probably also come up with the arguement that Hank Aaron doesn't deserve to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame either.

None of King's arguments seem to make any sense,
at least coming from a hall of fame voter.

As many of you have said, the "stats" that he deems so important have to be compared to the way the game was played at the time.

As we've all heard Joe Gibbs say, there's a lot of things Monk did that didn't show up on the stat sheet, like his tremendous run-blocking ability.

I'm not sure if this is a good thing to say, but you'd have to think that this guy is out there campaigning against Art because of something personal. None of the rest of it makes any sense, including his writing a page and a half of an explanation in a article mostly made up of "blurbs" about teams and players.

You know, after this most current hall of fame induction, when Michael "The Most Annoying Guy On TV" Irvin didn't make it, I heard a lot about an Anti-Cowboy sentiment in the HOF voting. That, for me, evens it out.

Dude is a straight up fool. He needs to get a spot on Chapelles show in the haters club. Have the skins always been so hated on or just since the Danny bought the team?