Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=C.B.]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:




[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Dear Mr. King, [/size][/font]



[font=Times New Roman][size=3]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…[/size][/font]



[font=Times New Roman][size=3]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.[/size][/font]



[size=3][font=Times New Roman]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. [/font][/size]



[size=3][font=Times New Roman]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 [i]his[/i] records for a time. He had more catches than any man before him. What else are you asking a great receiver to do? [/font][/size]



[size=3][font=Times New Roman]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? [/font][/size]



[font=Times New Roman][size=3]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?[/size][/font][/QUOTE]

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!

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

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.

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=skindogger47]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.[/QUOTE]

That's what Peter King is probably working on.

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=offiss]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. [/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan]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.[/QUOTE]


Not really, a 4-3 MLB has to take on linemen as well, usually a center, and he's responsible for bothsides of the field, which also makes his ability to read a play more significant, in a 3-4 a LB is usually just going to cover his terroritory [his side of the field] which is less confusing, as well as being tougher to fool with misdirection, where as a 4-3 LB breaks the wrong way it's usually to late to recover.

The key with the 3-4 is the nose tackle and his ability to occupy 2 linemen, the center and a guard, essentially becoming a blocker for the LB on that side if yuou don't have a dominant force at nose guard then a LB will get hit, rest assured Carson didn't make his bones taking on guards all by his lonesome, and even if he did that wouldn't make him any better than an average D-tackle in a 4-3. A MLB has much more resposibility in a 4-3, rather than a 3-4, and they both have to fight off linemen, but the 3-4 LB has a backup plan with the other inside LB, a 4-3 LB is all alone in the middle.

You might want to ask Ray Ray how he would pan out playing under Parcells, or Belichik? Something tells me he wouldn't mis a beat in either of those 3-4 schemes.

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

As we've all said before...
Peter King is fat and Giants biased.
Art Monk belongs in the HOF!!!
Only other thing to say is the NFL should reevaluate who votes on the HOF. It's become obvious there is bias. Not because of off the filed drug use or dirty play or any legal situations or any league fines, punishments etc. We should all let the numbers and situational play decide who gets in and who doesn't. Art Monk had league records when he played as a previous poster stated,"what else could you want?"
The Fatso King theory of Pro Bowls is also INSANE. Let's take a look at our HOFers.
Nuff said.
F X X X YOU PETER KING and the fat check you cash. You're much like piece of doggy doo.
Next thing we know Phil McConkey will be up for the HOF.
Middle finger salute to the powers that be. It's a f'n travesty!
GO REDSKINS!!!

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

we all look very pathetic devoting 3+ pages to some fat ass that has something personal against art monk

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=dmek25]we all look very pathetic devoting 3+ pages to some fat ass that has something personal against art monk[/QUOTE]

If you change your preferences to 40 posts per page, then it's only 1 page ;)