Peter King still doesn't get it
 

Another anti-Art Monk for the Hall article by, you guessed it, Peter King.
[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/02/14/mmqbte/index.html"]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/02/14/mmqbte/index.html[/url]

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

The Pro Bowl defense doesn't cut it with me. He points out that Carson had 9 Pro Bowls in 13 seasons and I will again point out that Chris Hanburger had 9 Pro Bowls in 14 seasons. Does anyone ever remember Chris being touted for the hall. There are posters on this site who are saying "Chris Who?" even as they read this. King should just come out and say that he's giving bonus points for New York.

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

I have a chris Hanburger autograph. :D

King is also a d-bag

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

I clicked on the link and after reading half the article I came to the conclusion that the best thing I can say is that King is a really fat guy.

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

I have to laugh that he gives Carson all this credit for the Giants being this great run stopping defense, he wasen't even on the best defensive team of his era, that honor goes to the Bears, as well as whom was considered the best MLB of that era? Mike Singletary. Now he want's to use a popularity contest in the pro-bowl, as if we don't see year after year players left off the pro-bowl roster who clearly deserve it above others who are voted in.

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. As he stated Monk had Clark who was very good, but I wouldn't call him great, yet he fails to mention that Carson was the benefactor of LT on his defense occupying 2-3 players constantly, correct me if I am wrong but LT is THE greatest OLB to ever play the game. Pepper Johnson stepped in and played tremendous for the Giants, along with plenty of other MLB's during Carsons era, it's funny he doesn't give Parcells and Belechik the credit for Carsons limited success, reason I say that is both have proven to make star's out of less than physically gifted players, Carson is riding the success of a defensive concept which plenty of other MLB's have had a lot of Success, some more than Carson, his name? Teddy Brusci. As well a strong case can be made that Carson was 3rd best LB on his own team behind Taylor and Banks.


Then perhaps the biggest argument that can be made which you will never hear coming out of Kings convoluted mouth is this, the Wr position especially a possesion WR like Monk is far more difficult, and requires far more skills than a MLB of a 3-4 defense, so in itself by position Monk IMO deserves the nod over Carson, even if Carson was on an even plain with Monk, but that's just not so, Monk broke several NFL records. Carson is lucky if he holds any Giant records. And yes Monk has a hall of fame coach signing his praises with more SB rings than the guy who was signing Carsons praises!

The guy is a hypocrite, who has limited knowledge of how the game truley breaks down!

Bottom line Monk was the primary reciever on the most prolific offense in NFL history, Carson? Well he wasen't even on the best defense of his era. END OF STORY!

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

He's an idiot and the reason why HOF voting should not be left to the writers. One point is that Monk is a very quiet guy an dprobably didn't grant the fat A** an interview at some point. Second don't the fans do the voting for the Pro Bowl. So Monk wasn't voted to a lote of PBs so what back then the internet wasn't available for people to vote sorry a**e* like M. Vick to the PB. They had to do it at the stadium. RFK was sold out every game by the same fans and they probably only filled out the ballot once and then away games it was always Monk who killed their hopes on 3rd and long. Back to M. Vick if you use fat a**es method of voting M. Vick has been to the PB, I believe, every year of his career. This year he threw for like 2400 yards and was rated, I think 26/27 QB in the NFL. But I guess since he went to the PB he had a HOF season.

Peter King is full of it. Here are the numbers:
Rank Yrs Catches Yards Avg TD
1(1)[b]JERRY RICE[/b]NFL[center]20[/center]
[right][b]1,549[/b]
22,895
14.8
197[/right]

5(5)Art MonkNFL[center]16[/center]
[right][b]940[/b]
12,721
13.5
68[/right]

9(8)[i]Steve Largent *[/i]NFL[center]14[/center]
[right][b]819[/b]
13,089
16.0
100[/right]


14(11)[i]James Lofton *[/i]NFL[center]16[/center]
[right][b]764[/b]
14,004
18.3
75[/right]
16T(13T)Michael IrvinNFL[center]12[/center]
[right][b]750[/b]
11,904
15.9
65[/right]

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=Dirtbag359]Another anti-Art Monk for the Hall article by, you guessed it, Peter King.
[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/02/14/mmqbte/index.html"]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/02/14/mmqbte/index.html[/url][/QUOTE]


the only positive thing you can say is if he keeps having to defend his position he is getting heat for it.

but he is right that there are others who feel the same way he does

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]The Pro Bowl defense doesn't cut it with me. He points out that Carson had 9 Pro Bowls in 13 seasons and I will again point out that Chris Hanburger had 9 Pro Bowls in 14 seasons. Does anyone ever remember Chris being touted for the hall. There are posters on this site who are saying "Chris Who?" even as they read this. King should just come out and say that he's giving bonus points for New York.[/QUOTE]

if carson plays anywhere else other than ny he never gets inthe hall of fame

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=gusbus]He's an idiot and the reason why HOF voting should not be left to the writers. One point is that Monk is a very quiet guy an dprobably didn't grant the fat A** an interview at some point. Second don't the fans do the voting for the Pro Bowl. So Monk wasn't voted to a lote of PBs so what back then the internet wasn't available for people to vote sorry a**e* like M. Vick to the PB. They had to do it at the stadium. RFK was sold out every game by the same fans and they probably only filled out the ballot once and then away games it was always Monk who killed their hopes on 3rd and long. Back to M. Vick if you use fat a**es method of voting M. Vick has been to the PB, I believe, every year of his career. This year he threw for like 2400 yards and was rated, I think 26/27 QB in the NFL. But I guess since he went to the PB he had a HOF season.

Peter King is full of it. Here are the numbers:
Rank Yrs Catches Yards Avg TD
1(1)[b]JERRY RICE[/b]NFL[center]20[/center]
[right][b]1,549[/b]
22,895
14.8
197[/right]

5(5)Art MonkNFL[center]16[/center]
[right][b]940[/b]
12,721
13.5
68[/right]

9(8)[i]Steve Largent *[/i]NFL[center]14[/center]
[right][b]819[/b]
13,089
16.0
100[/right]


14(11)[i]James Lofton *[/i]NFL[center]16[/center]
[right][b]764[/b]
14,004
18.3
75[/right]
16T(13T)Michael IrvinNFL[center]12[/center]
[right][b]750[/b]
11,904
15.9
65[/right][/QUOTE]


Great Post! The Statistics do not lie!

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

Monk definitely deserves HOF. He is just so soft-spoken and has no big ego, that most non-skins fans don't recognize his greatness.

Re: 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.

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

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.

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

[QUOTE=12thMan]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.[/QUOTE]

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 [b]any[/b] 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

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

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] [/size][/font]

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

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

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

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

[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]

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

[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] [/size][/font]

[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]

Re: Peter King still doesn't get it
 

C.B. - welcome, and well said!

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 ;)