Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

PK is an A-hole. Of course the home town of your team is going to be the most vocal. Plus it's not supposed to be a popularity contest. I'ts about what you did as a player. Plus he contradicts himself every other sentence. What a di-k.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

Anybody notice that Carson, Martin and Bruschii are guys from PK's neck of the woods? It's no wonder he makes crazy statements like "he hasn't heard of people outside of DC argue for his case". I use to read MMQB every week for about a year or so but he's blatant bias of Northeastern sports figures started to turn my stomach. I go to church expecting the minister to slip up and call Jesus by his true name "Tom Brady". Peter King is dead to me.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

Did anyone catch PK's last statement on Monk?

"If it were only me, Art Monk would be in the HOF. There are obviously other people on the committee, members who think he's a marginal candidate for the HOF."

What a cop-out. He still didn't provide a single valid reason for not voting for Monk.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Did anyone catch PK's last statement on Monk?

"If it were only me, Art Monk would be in the HOF. There are obviously other people on the committee, members who think he's a marginal candidate for the HOF."

What a cop-out. He still didn't provide a single valid reason for not voting for Monk.[/QUOTE]

yeah I noticed him saying that too, but it just speaks of what type of a pitiful person PK is that he has never voted for a guy he says if it was up to him Monk would be in. BS just contiously spews from his mouth and is another example of why the voting power of sports journalists needs to be reduced or all together removed.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=skinsfanthru&thru]yeah I noticed him saying that too, but it just speaks of what type of a pitiful person PK is that he has never voted for a guy he says if it was up to him Monk would be in. BS just contiously spews from his mouth and is another example of why the voting power of sports journalists needs to be reduced or all together removed.[/QUOTE]

I think the journalists are the best source for HOF voting because more so than any group, they are the most unbiased. Players are too caught up in their own world to see the league as a whole over time and letting fans vote would have the HOF end up like the MLB all-star game full of popular but maybe not great players. The HOF voting is not perfect by any means but its as good as it can be.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=irish]I think the journalists are the best source for HOF voting because more so than any group, they are the most unbiased. Players are too caught up in their own world to see the league as a whole over time and letting fans vote would have the HOF end up like the MLB all-star game full of popular but maybe not great players. The HOF voting is not perfect by any means but its as good as it can be.[/QUOTE]

Those are good points, but the process can be improved drastically with one change in the rules. Per the [url="http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.jsp"]HOF website[/url]:

[QUOTE][A]ll appointments [of the Board of Selectors] are of the open-end variety and can be terminated only by retirement or resignation, as long as the member continues to attend meetings regularly.[/QUOTE]

There is no reason Peter King (or anyone) needs to be on the Board for more than 3-5 years at a stretch.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Those are good points, but the process can be improved drastically with one change in the rules. Per the [url="http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.jsp"]HOF website[/url]:



There is no reason Peter King (or anyone) needs to be on the Board for more than 3-5 years at a stretch.[/QUOTE]

Why? I think having people on the board for longer periods of time provides the committee with members that have a sense of history and a better sense for comparison across eras. IMO, it seems that today most people think that nothing in sports happened before 2000.

AM's best bet is for old timers like King who actually saw him play as compared to newbees that think barry sanders is old-school.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=irish]Why? I think having people on the board for longer periods of time provides the committee with members that have a sense of history and a better sense for comparison across eras. IMO, it seems that today most people think that nothing in sports happened before 2000.

AM's best bet is for old timers like King who actually saw him play as compared to newbees that think barry sanders is old-school.[/QUOTE]

Huh? That doesn't make any sense - you think Peter King has a better sense of history than Tony Kornheiser or Mitch Albom? Neither of them is on the Board, but could be added if the selectors were limited to, say, 5 years. I'm not sure why you assume that anyone who is not currently on the Board would be lack the ability to draw comparisons across eras. (Of course, it is ironic that PK has no sense of history and is unable to appreciate the magnitude of Monk's pre-2000 accomplishments.)

The selectors should be replaced after a set term. Limits help to avoid crap like this, where certain members get bugs up their asses about certain players for no good reason and prevent them from getting into the Hall.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

To put in persepctive Monk's numbers.
He is currently 5th in all time Recs and 9th in Yards.
His 1984 season of 106 catches was the league record until 1992. After that there was an explosion of 100 recs years. He is currently 19th on that list. Of everyone else within the top 20(and I think the top 30) not one comes before 1990. Monk's 106 was so big that no one before or soon after challenged it. And PK thinks TO deserves HOF thought and Monk doesn't. Duh!

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=irish]I think the journalists are the best source for HOF voting because more so than any group, they are the most unbiased. Players are too caught up in their own world to see the league as a whole over time and letting fans vote would have the HOF end up like the MLB all-star game full of popular but maybe not great players. The HOF voting is not perfect by any means but its as good as it can be.[/QUOTE]


in my opinion media poeple should not be any part of the voting process. the voting should be done by fans and former players and/or coaches.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=wolfeskins]in my opinion media poeple should not be any part of the voting process. the voting should be done by fans and former players and/or coaches.[/QUOTE]

I do think coaches should have input, but are fans and players qualified to determine who the best players are? How many people here would vote for Aikman? Probably not 80%, but it doesn't mean he isn't HOF-worthy. As for players, I think they would lack the ability, as irish put it, to draw comparisons across the eras.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Huh? That doesn't make any sense - you think Peter King has a better sense of history than Tony Kornheiser or Mitch Albom? Neither of them is on the Board, but could be added if the selectors were limited to, say, 5 years. I'm not sure why you assume that anyone who is not currently on the Board would be lack the ability to draw comparisons across eras. (Of course, it is ironic that PK has no sense of history and is unable to appreciate the magnitude of Monk's pre-2000 accomplishments.)

The selectors should be replaced after a set term. Limits help to avoid crap like this, where certain members get bugs up their asses about certain players for no good reason and prevent them from getting into the Hall.[/QUOTE]

No, did I say he does? All I'm saying is that having long standing members of the committee provides a continuity that a constantly changing one would not.

What is amazing about this discussion is that it sounds like PK is the only vote keeping AM out. Obviously that is not true.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=irish]No, did I say he does? All I'm saying is that having long standing members of the committee provides a continuity that a constantly changing one would not.

What is amazing about this discussion is that it sounds like PK is the only vote keeping AM out. Obviously that is not true.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is what your prior post implied.

Thanks for the clarification, and I see your point. You are correct that it would provide continuity, but not all continuity is good. Case in point - a Board that continuously rejects Art Monk is not good.

PK is just the most vocal - has anyone heard any other member's rationale for not voting in Monk?

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Yes, that is what your prior post implied.

Thanks for the clarification, and I see your point. You are correct that it would provide continuity, but not all continuity is good. Case in point - a Board that continuously rejects Art Monk is not good.

PK is just the most vocal - has anyone heard any other member's rationale for not voting in Monk?[/QUOTE]

Not that I know of.

I think the reality is that if AM was going to get in he would be there already but unfortunately he's not. The longer he goes without getting in the less his chances become because he slips further down the records lists and further from memory. It a shame.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]I do think coaches should have input, but are fans and players qualified to determine who the best players are? How many people here would vote for Aikman? Probably not 80%, but it doesn't mean he isn't HOF-worthy. As for players, I think they would lack the ability, as irish put it, to draw comparisons across the eras.[/QUOTE]




former players would be the best poeple to do the voting, outside of coaches, they have played the game , they understand the worthiness a player can have to a team (which, in monks case, some media people don't realize how important he was. ex players do)

as far as fans go. fans would be great at voting (if they are truly fans of the nfl, not just someone who watches football casually) true fans recognize talented football players when they see them, regardless of the team he played for. i think, at least 80% of the people here would vote for aikman. i know i would. he was a damn good qb and won what, two superbowls, or was it three ?

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

I don't mean to take away from what Swann and Stallworth meant to the Super Steelers of the 1970s but I think that them getting inducted has screwed things for future potential Hall-of-Famers. Guys like Monk, Ellard, Reed, Fryar, even Gary Clark are on the outside looking in. Ellard and Fryar have better stats than Swann and Stallworth, but not the rings. Reed has as many SB appearances and better stats, but no rings.

Monk and Clark, however, have rings, better stats, more pro-bowl appearances (at least Clark does)

I don't know, the whole thing is just very frustrating.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

Everyone knows that Peter King has been gunning for Monk for years. Hell, it's even on the Wikipedia entry for Monk:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Monk[/url]

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"It's legalized theft, a crime, that Art Monk is not in the Hall of Fame. Those voters ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.''

-- ESPN football analyst Sean Salisbury.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=htownskinfan]QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"It's legalized theft, a crime, that Art Monk is not in the Hall of Fame. Those voters ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.''

-- ESPN football analyst Sean Salisbury.[/QUOTE]

Relying on Salisbury for support feels like an act of desperation ;)

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=Dirtbag]Everyone knows that Peter King has been gunning for Monk for years. Hell, it's even on the Wikipedia entry for Monk:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Monk[/url][/QUOTE]

Love the wikipedia entry on Peter King - Clearly the entry was written by a Skins fan.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_King_%28sportswriter%29[/url]
King's credibility has recently been damaged by his capricious and arbitrary opposition to allowing Washington Redskin great Art Monk into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. King's increasingly defensive and incoherent rants on the subject have led to accusations of geographical bias.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

Czaben has some decent posts on the topic. I like his response to King's ranking Ricky Sanders as a bigger threat than Monk:

[url="http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2006/01/index.html#000186"]http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2006/01/index.html#000186[/url]
[QUOTE]Peter King’s arguments against Monk include the following…. 1. “He was only voted to 3 Pro Bowls.” (Rebuttal: Fine, so was Charlie Joiner, Lynn Swann, and John Stallworth. It’s also worth noting, John Riggins only went to ONE Pro Bowl. Tells you what that’s worth.

2. “Modern wideout numbers are threatening to obliterate Monk’s catch total.” He cites Keenan McCardell, Jimmy Smith, Marvin Harrison as examples. Okay fine. But they aren’t Monk’s contemporaries. If you look up at Pro Football Reference the list of Most Catches in a Season, the staggering number of 100-plus catch years is amazing. Monk’s 106 in 1984 is notable however in one very important respect. It’s the ONLY such mark from the entire decade! Once 1993 rolled around, wideouts began racking up 100 catch seasons like it was nothing. Hell, even scrubs like Brett Perriman had 100-ball years!

3. “Monk was the 4th most dangerous weapon on those Redskin teams.” Please. Ricky Sanders, while a nice compliment wideout, could hardly be considered a “bigger weapon” than Monk. [u][b]Comments like this really make you question King’s ability to judge ANYTHING in regard to pro football[/b][/u].

Finally, I want to layout a pair of wide receiver numbers, and you tell me who is who.

Receiver A: 13 Seasons 5 Pro Bowls 743 Rec. 10,205 Yds 84 TD
Receiver B: 12 Seasons 5 Pro Bowls 750 Rec. 11,904 Yds 65 TD

Both receiver A and B were Top 10 in the league in Touchdowns (5 times each) and Catches (4 times each). The only significant difference is that Receiver A has just one Super Bowl ring, while B has three.

Who are they?

A = Andre Rison
B = Michael Irvin

And yet I don’t hear anybody banging the drum for Bad Moon for Canton, do you?[/QUOTE]

There's another one later on in the same page.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Relying on Salisbury for support feels like an act of desperation ;)[/QUOTE]
Uh oh. Salisbury is threatening to get off my crap list. I guess even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Czaben has some decent posts on the topic. I like his response to King's ranking Ricky Sanders as a bigger threat than Monk:

[url="http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2006/01/index.html#000186"]http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2006/01/index.html#000186[/url]


There's another one later on in the same page.[/QUOTE]

Interesting comment about the pro bowl selections in light of the fact that most people on this thread think players should vote for HOF. Obviously the players were not watching when Riggo was playing because they are the ones who vote for the pro bowl.

Like I said, as imperfect a system as it is, the sports writers are the best source for voting players into the HOF.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

I think it should be a four-pronged attack. Players, fans, coaches and current hall-of-famers.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

I have to go with irish on this one - I think fans and players are rather unqualified to determine "the best of all time". I think coaches could be a valuable addition to the process, though.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]I have to go with irish on this one - I think fans and players are rather unqualified to determine "the best of all time". I think coaches could be a valuable addition to the process, though.[/QUOTE]

I think the coaches are involved (and fans too) although not directly. The media is always talking to players, caoches & fans so they do not make their decision in a vacuum.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=irish]I think the coaches are involved (and fans too) although not directly. The media is always talking to players, caoches & fans so they do not make their decision in a vacuum.[/QUOTE]

I meant getting them directly involved might be helpful to the process. They, generally, know how to evaluate talent. That said, I'm not sure I want Mike Tice having input into the process...

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

Contract me will ya. I'll raise your contract another contract.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Love the wikipedia entry on Peter King - Clearly the entry was written by a Skins fan.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_King_%28sportswriter%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_King_%28sportswriter%29[/url]
King's credibility has recently been damaged by his capricious and arbitrary opposition to allowing Washington Redskin great Art Monk into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. King's increasingly defensive and incoherent rants on the subject have led to accusations of geographical bias.[/QUOTE]


I wonder what rascal did that? The style seem eerily familiar.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=irish]
Like I said, as imperfect a system as it is, the sports writers are the best source for voting players into the HOF.[/QUOTE]



i'd have to respectfully disagree with that statement just for the simple fact that it is the MEDIA voters that are keeping monk out of the hof. that fact alone, shows just how much out of touch the media is with the understanding of the game known as the NFL. seems like every FAN or EX PLAYER, when asked about monk not being in the hof , all say that it is a crime that he hasn't been voted in yet.
media people are too interrested in providing a "GOOD STORY" moreso than understanding the true interworkings of a successfull footbal team. media folk fall in love with players like micheal irving, dion sanders, etc....players that always give them something to write about. media folk don't recognize how good monk was or how much monk meant to the skins or how well monk played the game by doing the other things like blocking for a teammate or making a catch for a first down to keep a drive going or being a smart player by not commiting penalties or always knowing were the first down marker is.
media people have no clue to the importance and value that monk possessed. he never cared to speak with the media therfore the media payed no attention to him.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=wolfeskins]i'd have to respectfully disagree with that statement just for the simple fact that it is the MEDIA voters that are keeping monk out of the hof. that fact alone, shows just how much out of touch the media is with the understanding of the game known as the NFL. seems like every FAN or EX PLAYER, when asked about monk not being in the hof , all say that it is a crime that he hasn't been voted in yet.
media people are too interrested in providing a "GOOD STORY" moreso than understanding the true interworkings of a successfull footbal team. media folk fall in love with players like micheal irving, dion sanders, etc....players that always give them something to write about. media folk don't recognize how good monk was or how much monk meant to the skins or how well monk played the game by doing the other things like blocking for a teammate or making a catch for a first down to keep a drive going or being a smart player by not commiting penalties or always knowing were the first down marker is.
media people have no clue to the importance and value that monk possessed. he never cared to speak with the media therfore the media payed no attention to him.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, there aren't too many fans outside of DC who know that either. Or current players. We're talking the lesser evil here, and the media is it. As I have said before, I think the proper check on them is to limit the time people serve on the Board.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Unfortunately, there aren't too many fans outside of DC who know that either. Or current players. We're talking the lesser evil here, and the media is it. As I have said before, I think the proper check on them is to limit the time people serve on the Board.[/QUOTE]


any fan who was watching the nfl during the 80's knows who art monk is.
you may be correct about current players but thats why i suggested former players.
the only media people who know who art monk is are the ones that covered the redskins.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Unfortunately, there aren't too many fans outside of DC who know that either. Or current players. We're talking the lesser evil here, and the media is it. As I have said before, I think the proper check on them is to limit the time people serve on the Board.[/QUOTE]


are you a fan of football ? if so, can you not name the stars or important players from every team in the nfl ?

i live in the DC area but i can tell you who the stars are for every team in the nfl, not just the redskins.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Unfortunately, there aren't too many fans outside of DC who know that either. Or current players. We're talking the lesser evil here, and the media is it. As I have said before, I think the proper check on them is to limit the time people serve on the Board.[/QUOTE]

Believe me, anybody who watched football in the 80's knows who Art Monk is and what kind of football player he was. There's no excuses, he should've already been in the hall of fame.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Believe me, anybody who watched football in the 80's knows who Art Monk is and what kind of football player he was. There's no excuses, he should've already been in the hall of fame.[/QUOTE]


They know about Art. It is openly prejudicial against the Redskins and everything in B&G!

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Believe me, anybody who watched football in the 80's knows who Art Monk is and what kind of football player he was. There's no excuses, he should've already been in the hall of fame.[/QUOTE]

You nailed the exact problem with having fans vote. It's not "fans from the 80s" who are the problem. Monk wasn't eligible until 2000. That's a 10 year gap, and a lot of fans aren't big on history.

Look - Monk is the easy case. There is no legitimate argument for him not being in the Hall.

However, if we're talking about changing the rules, then you have to think about how those changes will affect the lower-visibility skill players and, more importantly, the non-skill positions. How many OL/DL would be in the Hall if fans did the voting? How many fans remember the top 10 linemen from the league 10 years ago? Some, I'm sure, but I sure don't.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

Well, we'll find out Monk's fate tomorrow.

I'm hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.

Aikman, White and Madden seem to be sure things, beyond that though it seems the remaining guys are all on the fence and the HOF voters could go either way.

I heard John Clayton say he thinks Monk has a pretty good chance this year so we'll see.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]You nailed the exact problem with having fans vote. It's not "fans from the 80s" who are the problem. Monk wasn't eligible until 2000. That's a 10 year gap, and a lot of fans aren't big on history.

Look - Monk is the easy case. There is no legitimate argument for him not being in the Hall.

However, if we're talking about changing the rules, then you have to think about how those changes will affect the lower-visibility skill players and, more importantly, the non-skill positions. How many OL/DL would be in the Hall if fans did the voting? How many fans remember the top 10 linemen from the league 10 years ago? Some, I'm sure, but I sure don't.[/QUOTE]

The ones who are making the decions know players from ten years ago....it just comes down to prejudice against certain players. Unfortunately, Art is on the receiving end.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]The ones who are making the decions know players from ten years ago....it just comes down to prejudice against certain players. Unfortunately, Art is on the receiving end.[/QUOTE]

I don't think I ever said anything contradictory to this statement.

Re: Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]I don't think I ever said anything contradictory to this statement.[/QUOTE]

Was just a general statement.