Peter King still doesn't get it

The other thing Priscilla King doesn't mention is that, if Monk's peers were in charge of selecting HOF members, THEY WOULD VOTE MONK IN. PK's arguments are complete bunk. Unfortunately, he is one of those people who would rather defend an incorrect position to his grave than admit he might be wrong about something. It's unfortunate that Monk is the one getting hurt as a result.

The other thing that seems to be lost some in all of this is that King seems to be one of the more vocal writers on the issue, which leads me to believe perhaps he wields quite a bit of influence upon the other voters.

While he seems to deflect a lot of attention to his other so called peers who aren't voting Monk in as well, with the exception of a few, we really don't know who they are on a national level for the most part. But it is King, in my opinion, who arguably has one of the biggest platforms to voice his opinion from could very well sway others in their voting when it's all said and done.

The other thing that seems to be lost some in all of this is that King seems to be one of the more vocal writers on the issue, which leads me to believe perhaps he wields quite a bit of influence upon the other voters.

He is lying through his teeth when he says he has no influence. He and Pastabelly are the most (in)famous of the selectors.

The "at large" (I'm sure they mean "national", not "pant size") selectors are:
David Elfin
Jarrett Bell
Dave Goldberg
Peter King
Bob Oates
Len Pasquarelli
Mike Wilbon

I don't know any of the regional selectors other than John Clayton (and, of course, Shapiro):
Kent Somers
Furman Bisher
Scott Garceau
Mark Gaughan
Charles Chandler
Don Pierson
Chick Ludwig
Tony Grossi
Rick Gosselin
Jeff Legwold
Jerry Green
Cliff Christl
John McClain
Mike Chappell
Sam Kouvaris
Bob Gretz
Edwin Pope
Sid Hartman
Ron Borges
Pete Finney
Vinny DiTrani
Paul Zimmerman
Frank Cooney
Paul Domowitch
Ed Bouchette
Bernie Miklasz
Jerry Magee
Ira Miller
John Clayton
Ira Kaufman
David Climer
Len Shapiro

Usually I don't get too worked up about guys like King, but the Monk HOF debate seems to strike a cord with me. I actually ripped off this email after reading the article. Since King will never read it someone might as well, so here it is:




Dear Mr. King,



Let me begin by saying that I cannot believe I am writing this. Composing an email to a sports columnist is the absolute height of lunacy, but the cold shoulder the HOF voters give Art Monk frustrates me more than anything in sports. Even if you never read this, writing it should at least be cathartic for me. On to the crazy…



My first inclination is to shove statistics in front of a no vote for Monk. He set the record for single season receptions, career receptions, and consecutive games with a reception. I know that this tactic is of little use. Many no voters have said in the past that Monk clearly has the numbers.



The next thing I want to remind them that he was a winner, played for a winner, and enjoyed as much success on his team as almost any player in the history of the league. The team he played for won three Superbowls and four NFC Championships. They accomplished that with average quarterbacks. If their run had fallen neatly into one decade as opposed to stretching a year into the 90’s they would have to be in the argument with the Niners as the team of the 80’s. They went 16-5 in the postseason during that stretch.



The records and winning aside, the next thing I might have to remind the voters is that receivers were judged by a different ruler before Art came along. 100 catches or 1,000 yards before Art Monk were huge numbers and often unattainable. He was one of the first of today’s ‘big receivers.’ His records have fallen, but it cannot be ignored that they were his records for a time. He had more catches than any man before him. What else are you asking a great receiver to do?



Finally, you and many others acknowledge his numbers and the team success are there. It is impossible to argue that the offense he played for wasn’t one of the all time greats. In your response to emails before this you have said that his presence wasn’t enough on that offense to warrant the pick. In response to that let me say that to Redskins fans of that era, Art Monk was the man. More than Theismann, Riggins, Clark, Mann, Marshall, Bostic, Grimm, or Jacoby - Art Monk was beloved. As a kid who walked to RFK 7 or 8 times a year (and a few more most of those years), I wanted an Art Monk jersey. If you think there were many kids clamoring for a Gary Clark, Ricky Sanders, Gerald Riggs, or even a Doug Williams jersey over Art Monk, you weren’t paying attention. Do you think he needed to pretend to row a boat or dance an Irish jig after scoring to get your attention?



I cannot say for sure, but it feels like the man is punished for being quiet, working hard, and playing for a team that is now run by a guy the media generally dislikes. How else can you consistently not vote for the guy based on your ‘feeling’ about his impact? How many other guys in sports set the career mark for production at their position and have an uphill fight into the hall? Does that even make sense to you?

C.B. - welcome, and well said!

Usually I don't get too worked up about guys like King, but the Monk HOF debate seems to strike a cord with me. I actually ripped off this email after reading the article. Since King will never read it someone might as well, so here it is:




Dear Mr. King,



Let me begin by saying that I cannot believe I am writing this. Composing an email to a sports columnist is the absolute height of lunacy, but the cold shoulder the HOF voters give Art Monk frustrates me more than anything in sports. Even if you never read this, writing it should at least be cathartic for me. On to the crazy…



My first inclination is to shove statistics in front of a no vote for Monk. He set the record for single season receptions, career receptions, and consecutive games with a reception. I know that this tactic is of little use. Many no voters have said in the past that Monk clearly has the numbers.



The next thing I want to remind them that he was a winner, played for a winner, and enjoyed as much success on his team as almost any player in the history of the league. The team he played for won three Superbowls and four NFC Championships. They accomplished that with average quarterbacks. If their run had fallen neatly into one decade as opposed to stretching a year into the 90’s they would have to be in the argument with the Niners as the team of the 80’s. They went 16-5 in the postseason during that stretch.



The records and winning aside, the next thing I might have to remind the voters is that receivers were judged by a different ruler before Art came along. 100 catches or 1,000 yards before Art Monk were huge numbers and often unattainable. He was one of the first of today’s ‘big receivers.’ His records have fallen, but it cannot be ignored that they were his records for a time. He had more catches than any man before him. What else are you asking a great receiver to do?



Finally, you and many others acknowledge his numbers and the team success are there. It is impossible to argue that the offense he played for wasn’t one of the all time greats. In your response to emails before this you have said that his presence wasn’t enough on that offense to warrant the pick. In response to that let me say that to Redskins fans of that era, Art Monk was the man. More than Theismann, Riggins, Clark, Mann, Marshall, Bostic, Grimm, or Jacoby - Art Monk was beloved. As a kid who walked to RFK 7 or 8 times a year (and a few more most of those years), I wanted an Art Monk jersey. If you think there were many kids clamoring for a Gary Clark, Ricky Sanders, Gerald Riggs, or even a Doug Williams jersey over Art Monk, you weren’t paying attention. Do you think he needed to pretend to row a boat or dance an Irish jig after scoring to get your attention?



I cannot say for sure, but it feels like the man is punished for being quiet, working hard, and playing for a team that is now run by a guy the media generally dislikes. How else can you consistently not vote for the guy based on your ‘feeling’ about his impact? How many other guys in sports set the career mark for production at their position and have an uphill fight into the hall? Does that even make sense to you?

Good article. I do think when it's all said and done Monk will get in.
Even if the ghost of Jack Kent Cooke has to visit these guys!

It would be a shame, however, if Michael Irvin get's in before he does.

To me, it's interesting that King is making this out to be some battle between the "locals" and the voting media. But it's the same "locals" that really haven't gotten upset by the ommission of other deserving Redskins from the Hall; Not to the extent of Monk's.

He's funny, I think politics would serve him much better than covering sports, because he's such a good bullshitter!

I can't believe that Irvin and that god damned loser Thurman Thomas might get in over Art Monk. If Irvin gets in, I say we just send every member of the 93 Cowboys to the Hall.

I can't believe that Irvin and that god damned loser Thurman Thomas might get in over Art Monk. If Irvin gets in, I say we just send every member of the 93 Cowboys to the Hall.

That's what Peter King is probably working on.

I love how he fails to mention that Carson played in a 3-4 defense, which in itself dimishes his accomplishments as a run stopper.

I know this thread is about Art Monk and I agree with most of what others have said, but how does playing in a 3-4 defense dimish any MLB's accomplishments as a run stopper? It means you don't have two DT's eating up the Guards so they get a free run at you. Ask Ray Lewis how much he liked having to play in a 3-4 . . . or just check out that NFL films video where he keeps talking about how he is getting "double teamed," when in fact Will Shields was simply mopping the field with him (at least in part because he had no protection from the DT's). As another example, if Brian Urlacher played in a 3-4 he would be litterally eaten alive. Not trying to dimish all you said, but this dictum about the 3-4 is misplaced.

I know this thread is about Art Monk and I agree with most of what others have said, but how does playing in a 3-4 defense dimish any MLB's accomplishments as a run stopper? It means you don't have two DT's eating up the Guards so they get a free run at you. Ask Ray Lewis how much he liked having to play in a 3-4 . . . or just check out that NFL films video where he keeps talking about how he is getting "double teamed," when in fact Will Shields was simply mopping the field with him (at least in part because he had no protection from the DT's). As another example, if Brian Urlacher played in a 3-4 he would be litterally eaten alive. Not trying to dimish all you said, but this dictum about the 3-4 is misplaced.

I agree that a MLB in the 3-4 has to take on more blocks ,which was Ray-Ray's complaint. However, you don't have to cover as much of the field as a mike lb in a 4-3 does.