Its that time of year again....
 

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/01/17/mmqb.divisional/[/url]

Check out the bottom of the Article...

I just want to know, if you guys think this is his year? There can be a max of 6 guys in the hall this year. I think three slots are as good as sealed (Young, Marino, Thomas) Do you guys think Monk can get in this year??

"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

Agreed. Those will also be the same people to vote IN Michael Irvin.

Art Monk was a career leader in numerous categories when he retired. It's absolutely rediculous that he isn't in the hall.

My comments to Mr. King:
1. So what if other WR's have matched or surpassed his numbers since? He was the first to break that plateau. The game has changed since his playing days. To me that accounts for something.
2. Do all WR's [I]have [/I] to be "feared"? No! Doesn't consistency and dependability stand for anything?
3. As for Monk "only" going to the Pro Bowl 3 times and "only" being named All-Pro twice in a 16 year career, Riggins is in the HOF after being named All-Pro and going to the Pro Bowl only ONCE each in a 14 year career!

I totally and completely agree with Salisbury.

I usually would say he is sure to miss it, but I've heard from several different places (PTI, around the horn, ESPN, NFL Network, etc...) talking about him and getting in this time, an active campaign for him to make the Hall of Fame. To me it may be enough to get the votes he needs to make it this year. I wouldn't be suprised if he is overlooked though.

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]"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

Agreed. Those will also be the same people to vote IN Michael Irvin.[/QUOTE]

Not this year....whether Monk gets in or not. I agree the Irvin will probably get in, but I think he'll have to wait a couple years. I'll admit that he was good, but he wasn't that good. Hopefully by then, Art will be there already.

It can't be denied, he does make some good points.

[QUOTE=saden1]It can't be denied, he does make some good points.[/QUOTE]

He does, but shouldn't we judge Monk's accomplishments on his acheivements at the time he retired?

If we're going to take a wait and see approach with players nobody would get in.

It's a joke he's not in. Monk played in the early 80's when catching 100 balls a year meant something. The fact that average players now are breaking his milestones speaks to the state of the game now not Monks ability. Perhaps Monk would have caught 2000 balls if he played his whole carreer in this era. I thought guys like Peter King are the ones that always preached not to compare eras.

And the Pro Bowl as a knock against him? Pullease!! The Pro Bowl is a popularity contest! Perhaps Monk never made many Pro Bowl appearances becasue he was a quiet reserved gentleman that let his play speak for itself. Pro Bowl votes...what a joke.

I must admit - ask most non-skins fans who was a bigger receiver. Monk or Irvin - you know who's name is coming out of their mouth. Not saying I agree, but many people don't hold Monk in the same regard we do as Redskins fans.

He's in our Ring of Fame at least!

Vote for Monk on this poll, good to see he's leading Irvin

[url]http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/ballot?event_id=1119[/url]

[QUOTE=SkinsRock]My comments to Mr. King:
1. So what if other WR's have matched or surpassed his numbers since? He was the first to break that plateau. The game has changed since his playing days. To me that accounts for something.
2. Do all WR's [I]have [/I] to be "feared"? No! Doesn't consistency and dependability stand for anything?
3. As for Monk "only" going to the Pro Bowl 3 times and "only" being named All-Pro twice in a 16 year career, Riggins is in the HOF after being named All-Pro and going to the Pro Bowl only ONCE each in a 14 year career!

I totally and completely agree with Salisbury.[/QUOTE]


Yes, Peter King's remarks are silly. Of course you measure a player in comparison to his peers and his era. To take it to an extreme, do we measure the stats of players from the 1930's against the stats of players today? Art Monk was a trailblazer.

You can't go on whether he was voted to the Pro Bowl x number of times either - its just a popularity contest, and what players may vote on is not taking into account the whole picture.

Yes, the feared thing is total bs. No, Monk wasnt as fast as Ricky Sanders, who may have been feared for his speed. So lets just put Renaldo Nehemiah in the Hall of Fame because someone feared his speed. And you don't say, well teams feared Gary Clark, so therefore you dont put Monk in the Hall. HUH? Monk is Monk - its got nothing to do with Gary Clark as to whether he should get in the Hall.

Peter King should be nowhere near the enshrinement process. Anyone on the NFL channel or ESPN is more objective! To not consider era that someone played in and support his argument against enshrinement with such meaningless stats as pro bowls to years played is ludicrous. There is bias everywhere unfortunately. And I have to admit Sean Salisbury is RIGHT ON!!!
Sometimes it seems like any voting process these days is quite suspect.

It's like the Hall voters are more concerned with building a case against Monk rather than for him.

When Monk retired, if you polled a sample of NFL fans I'd be willing to bet a large majority would say he had a Hall of Fame career.

For some reason it seems guys like King are intent on overanalyzing Monk's career and downplaying his accomplishments.

The bottom line to me is this, the guy caught 940 career passes, at the time he retired he owned the all-time receptions mark by a good margin over Steve Largent (819). His accomplishments should be compared with the era he played in, back then 100 catches was unheard of. And anytime you retire at the top of a list like the all-time receptions list, that's an acheivement that shouldn't be overlooked. Looking down the road to what future WR's will accomplish isn't fair in the least bit and that excuse doesn't hold much water with me.

Absolutely...according to Kings logic most of the offensive players in the Hall of Fame should be removed.

I find the discussion of how important it is to be "ffeared" here very interesting. "Fear" is not important when it is a factor that someone might use to keep a Redskin such as Art Monk out of the HoF. Warpath posters get really indignant about that.

However, if someone - OK, me - suggests that Sean Taylor is not a very good safety at the moment, everyone here says that's OK because it is important that he is an intimidator and puts fear in the opposition.

So, is striking fear in the hearts of your opponents really important - or not?

I would vote for Art Monk if I had a vote but I don't. But I don't think his absence from the HoF is nearly the biggest omission...

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon]I find the discussion of how important it is to be "ffeared" here very interesting. "Fear" is not important when it is a factor that someone might use to keep a Redskin such as Art Monk out of the HoF. Warpath posters get really indignant about that.

However, if someone - OK, me - suggests that Sean Taylor is not a very good safety at the moment, everyone here says that's OK because it is important that he is an intimidator and puts fear in the opposition.

So, is striking fear in the hearts of your opponents really important - or not?

I would vote for Art Monk if I had a vote but I don't. But I don't think his absence from the HoF is nearly the biggest omission...[/QUOTE]
I think that "fear" is something that can be important, but that it is not a prerequisite (sp?) to be put into the Hall. Different players have different roles. Monk's was to let the opponent fear the faster guys and to just make plays "under the radar," which he did exceptionally....to the extent of holding league records when he retired.
Also, as for the Sean Taylor point, it is a different type of fear....more on a personal level of a player fearing getting completely clocked when hit by a defender, rather than a team fearing getting burned by a player on offense. Both are important, but different.....and not a primary factor in determining whether a player deserves to be in the HoF, IMO.

SC: Fear, especially on defense, is a big part of the game and is important. Sean Taylor made some bad plays this year, but for the bad I think he more than made up for it on the good. For example, in that Cowboys game he floated a bit closer to Keyshawn isntead of the UDFA rookie. I think that's a mistake even veteran safeties will make. Will you work on their big receiver or their unheardof rookie?

The one you always bring up where he didn't tackle at the goal line, Marcus Washington missed the tackle there too. He went for the strip which isn't the best idea, but he's not the only one that missed it.

I feel Sean Taylor has a tremendous up side and you have to expect some growing pains from a young player, especially at the safety position. He has some off-the-field issues to work out, no denying, but he, as a rookie, played better than a lot of veteran FS's around the league.

I seriously cannot wait to see Taylor and Arrington on the field at the same time again next year.

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]I seriously cannot wait to see Taylor and Arrington on the field at the same time again next year.[/QUOTE]

Me too! We never saw them start a game together this year....by the time Taylor was starting, Lavar was hurt....so it should be pretty wild with both of them out there.

I said this right after the Skins drafted Taylor... we have to hope and pray that they never collide with each other!

Taylor had a pretty good rookie season, sometimes I wish I had some of what SC is smokin' :Smoker:

;)