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

I am ready to protest. The upcomming Hall of Fame Game would be a great time to protest considering the Skins are playing.

That is a good idea. Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame. It's fags like Dr.Z that vote against him. Why do sports writers get to vote on how is in the Hall anyway they don't know crap. It should be former coaches assigned by the NFL. Or former players assigned by the NFL not sports writers they don't know crap.

JDC, you'll have to wait in line. TCWest is leading the way. Oh wait, here he comes now...

Look out! You opened up TC's favorite can of worms!!

....and I'm goin' fishin, too. What a coincidence. James Arthur Monk is not in the HOF because he was not what you'd call a "media-friendly" player during his career. That is why the Kirby Pucketts get in instead of the Don Mattingly's. You have to be all toothy and smiley and interview-granting. Monk preferred to stay in the background, and to take the hard ones over the middle. He let Clark take the flashy ones, though, in a foot race, they'd be real close at the finish line. Once, Clark even said, "If I could, I'd drop my kids off at Art's house, and let him raise them until they were 18." What does that say about the man ?
Does it sound like I have feelings about this ? Huh. I never meant to come off that way. That's why I have Theismann in my avatar.

Thanks again, NC43. It's a real piece of work.

John Manfreda wrote: It's fags like Dr.Z that vote against him.

Johnny, you have got to get this "name-calling" under control. Take it to Smack. Boss is gonna censor you. I'd hate to miss out on your posts, brother. Don't get yourself banned.

Yo TCWest !!!!

I need some help for my Monk for the Hall sign i'm bringing to Canton in August.

Any ideas????????????

There have been many threads like this one, and most agree that Monk deserves enshrinement (except the pukes who think a track guy was better). Sportswriters will argue that Monk wasn't the breakaway threat. But someone was responsible for that prolific offense in the 80s. Why is it that they put up the most points in NFL history in 1983, and went to four Super Bowls, yet Riggo is the only HOFer. (Riggo wasn't exactly a breakaway threat either.) If not Monk, then someone else sure was scoring points. If that's their argument then there must have been a helluva running game (which there was) and that means maybe one or two of the hogs ought to be in as well.

It doesn't make any sense.

I really can't think of anything that angers me more. I'd love to be at the enshrinement ceremony raising Hell.

I think Wilbon has something to do with keeping Monk out. I remember reading an old column of his basically ripping Art and he is on the voting committee.

Wilbon has praised Monk many times. I've never heard him say anything negative about Monk. I've heard him speculate on the reasons he hasn't been inducted, but it seems that he thinks Monk should be in the Hall Of Fame.

Tx - I couldn't find the article I'm thinking of in the Post's archives, but Wilbon devalued Monk's contributions.

from what i've heard, wilbon argued for monk's admission into the HOF. jdc, i think you might be thinking of the chat session where wilbon tried to explain why other voters felt monk wasn't good enough to be considered. i don't believe wilbon himself feels that way.

Why hasn't Monk been selected?

This amounts to guessing the intentions of the sportswriters/voters, but I think they neglect him for all sorts of bad reasons:

- Monk was not flashy, "colorful" etc etc. Instead, Monk was a quiet player who focussed on the game. Bo Jackson ("Bo knows <etc>" and Neon Deion had themselves in TV commercials. Other players boasted all the time. Monk just played well.

- Monk never called attention to himself, except that everyone noticed the difference when he was hurt and could not play.

- I'm saying that sportswriters are superficial...

- Monk had no speed? Hold on now...Monk was a deep threat until the very end of his career. He was criticized for being "a step slower" than the Redskins had hoped, but he was certainly fast enough to go long, or to take a short pass and make it long. Recall the '86 playoff game against the Bears...the year after the Bears had won the Super Bowl with the all-out Buddy Ryan blitz. Smart sportswriters gave the Redskins no chance, but two or three times Monk took 10 yard passes behind that blitz and burned it for a TD. By the end of the game, the TV announcers were speechless.

- If Monk was too slow, or just a "possesion" receiver, he would not have lasted so long. In fact, I think he was the best receiver on the Skins in his last year. Was Desmond Howard, quick feet and all, as dangerous?

- (and on Riggins, don't forget that he had been the high school state champion sprinter. Before his '30s, he could turn a corner and out run defenders. In fact, he was still pretty fast late in his career...he would turn the corner and purposely run down defenders, rather than run around them. After a few Riggo-hits, most defensive backs gave ground a little before they tried to tackle him. Actually, it was more like they tried to slow him down...)

Leneord Shapiro was responsible for presenting Monk to the other members, not Wilbon. With two Washington reporters on the panel, something has to be up for Monk not getting in. Conspiracy theory time.

Gary Clark was so much better than Monk. Clark made Monk.
If I had a Hall Of Fame Ballot, Monk could write Gary Clark on it for me before I turned it in.

From what I've gathered in these posts, Wilbon might personally feel like Monk deserves to be in the hall of fame--and even 'makes an argument' for him; however he doesn't really go for it with as much conviction as he needs to. It's one thing to say "I think Monk should be in the hall of fame" and it's a totally separate matter to be saying "How on earth could it have taken them this long already!! Put the guy in!!" Obviously he doesn't need to be *that* forceful, but putting more effort behind what he thinks or believes couldn't hurt.

And I agree that our Unbiased Sportswriters(TM) on the HOF panel, such as Dr. Z, are given too much credit for their smarts when they simply write off Monk with a little phrase like "not a deep threat." When they act like it shouldn't even be discussed, it hurts Monks chances all the more because he wasn't a self-propogating freak like Neon Deion. Does the mere fact that they deem it a non-issue mean that he'll never have a chance at really being considered?

(And, on a personal level, I cringe every time I hear someone refer to Deion as "future hall of fame cornerback. . . .")

Oh, Magoo. You must be kidding.
Tell me you're kidding, please. Otherwise, you're going to get everything I have to give.
I'll wait on you before this goes any further.

Gary Clark was so much better than Monk. Clark made Monk.

I don't think so. Clark was a different player: smaller, fast, agile, could duck under a hit when he caught a pass over the middle, and very tough, so he could take a hit over the middle.

I can't criticize Gary Clark -- never -- but Art Monk was taller, stronger, almost as fast, had great hands, blocked harder, ran well after a catch, and played longer. Every one of those many years, Art Monk was the number 1 target. Remember what Joe Theisman said: "I looked good because I was throwing to Art Monk". (Of course, Joe looked good because he could hand off to Riggins, and stand behind the Hogs, and, oh because Joe was mighty good himself, but consider this: when Joe T. praises someone else, that guy must be stellar.)

Thanks, Welch. You done Art good. I'm gonna wait and see if Magoo was just foolin' about. I've got some feelings about this topic. I'm not coming out of my cave for some ribbing, though. It's got to be the real deal, and Magoo has to really believe in his heart that Gary Clark did more than Monk. Then, and only then, will I unleash the hounds on a fellow fan.
I'm serious. This is not something that I take lightly.

TC I've been quiet on this topic and here's why, when I think of Monk I don't think HOF. I don't know if it because he didn't have the intagibles that other WR have like, personality (which I'm glad he didn't have) or what?? But when I look at the numbers, it's a no brainer?? He just may be the victum of bad timing??? The game has really evolved as far as the passing game goes and WR are putting umonsterous numbers. I fear he may get loss in the shuffle...let's hope not!!

DE, I'm writing this off as you havin' a bad day again.
'Nuff said.

It been a bad week!!! But hey I stand by what I said!! I didn't say he doesn't deserve to be in, he is very deserving! Hey I'm up for it tonight I know I'm not Gambit ...bring it on!

Okay. Since you know I love you, give me something to work with here.
Who is more deseving, in your opinion ?

That's really hard because I know you want to compare position to position. Look at the players coming up...Elway,Marino,Sanders. I know a big arugement has been made for Bob Hayes.

No, I want to compare "Team with (dot-dot-dot) to Team without(dot-dot-dot).
What do you have for me along those lines, my man ?