Rod woodson can't believe how ignorant Peter King is.

12thMan · 08-03-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish

When I saw this discussion I went and looked at Monks stats and can understand why King votes the way he does. Monk has good stats in receptions and receiving yards but Andre Reed and Chris Carter have more and I dont think those guys are HOF players either. Monk is way down on the TD list and he didnt do much in the post season and even less in the Super Bowls (with the exception of 1991 vs Buf). Unfortunately for Monk I think King may be correct.

Yes, Monk is way down on the list NOW. But it took a very long time for his receiving records to be broken. He was a 100 reception leader before it was really a big deal.

BrudLee · 08-03-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish

When I saw this discussion I went and looked at Monks stats and can understand why King votes the way he does. Monk has good stats in receptions and receiving yards but Andre Reed and Chris Carter have more and I dont think those guys are HOF players either. Monk is way down on the TD list and he didnt do much in the post season and even less in the Super Bowls (with the exception of 1991 vs Buf). Unfortunately for Monk I think King may be correct.

Must... control... urge to kill.

When Monk broke the all-time receptions record, it was 820 receptions. That was a measure of the way the game was played. By being the first to exceed that number (and by 120 catches), he was a trailblazer for the receivers of today. The first with a 100+ catch season, the consecutive games with a reception record holder at his retirement (since beaten by Rice) - these are the things that made Monk respected.

firstdown · 08-03-2006, 09:33 AM

King did say earlier this year that he would rethink his stance on Monk because of all the support he has received. King has stated his reasons and stood behind his decision which I do respect but disagree. If he is now willing to listen and rethink his view on Monk we do have to give him some credit. I'm not saying he was right only that he stood by how he felt even under the scrutiny he has received.

Hail2theskins · 08-03-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

we do have to give him some credit

bologna, i give him no credit, oh what everyones telling him how much of an idiot he is and he finally figured it out so he backtracked and said hed look it over again? no, the guys a moron, id give him credit if he stood by his post, but now hes just backtracking trying to save his butt from further scrutiny

irish · 08-03-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Must... control... urge to kill.

When Monk broke the all-time receptions record, it was 820 receptions. That was a measure of the way the game was played. By being the first to exceed that number (and by 120 catches), he was a trailblazer for the receivers of today. The first with a 100+ catch season, the consecutive games with a reception record holder at his retirement (since beaten by Rice) - these are the things that made Monk respected.

I hear what you are saying and agree the game was different back then. I think King's problem is that the record is for receptions, not TD receptions, and I think he is not quite certain that catching a lot of balls makes one a HOF receiver.

By the way, Monk is now 5th on the reception list behind Rice, Chris Carter, Time Brown & Andre Reed. Of that list I think only Rice is HOF material.

VTSkins897 · 08-03-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

:headbange

.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mattyk · 08-03-2006, 10:39 AM

Nice to see Woodson giving Monk some props. Monk needs more people speaking out like that for him.

BrudLee · 08-03-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

King did say earlier this year that he would rethink his stance on Monk because of all the support he has received. King has stated his reasons and stood behind his decision which I do respect but disagree. If he is now willing to listen and rethink his view on Monk we do have to give him some credit. I'm not saying he was right only that he stood by how he felt even under the scrutiny he has received.

Do we respect Peter King for saying he would rethink his stance on Monk this year, or do we excoriate him for walking into that meeting with his mind made up for each previous year?

That's right, I said "excoriate". Look it up.

firstdown · 08-03-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Do we respect Peter King for saying he would rethink his stance on Monk this year, or do we excoriate him for walking into that meeting with his mind made up for each previous year?

That's right, I said "excoriate". Look it up.

Any man that can use the word "excoriate" must be correct KIng is a jerk.

TheMalcolmConnection · 08-03-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

:headbange

.

Somewhere, someplace, BSB is shedding a tear.

dmek25 · 08-03-2006, 03:00 PM

well well well, good afternoon malcolm. its been a long time since the skins have had this much REAL excitement about this seasons football team. barring any major injuries, some of you younger folk may get to enjoy what some of the old timers already have, the sweet smell of redskin sucess and boy, does it smell sweet

TheMalcolmConnection · 08-03-2006, 03:02 PM

Good afternoon dmek. I think I speak for us all when I say, "WILL SATURDAY GET HERE ALREADY?!"

Riggo44 · 08-03-2006, 06:30 PM

[ Link was funny on there (mainly because his chair was 5x the size of everyone elses and it looked funny)
Agreed, I always got a good chuckel when they would show the empty chairs.

Defensewins · 08-03-2006, 08:11 PM

Sports writers should not be involved in the HOF selection process. I have said this several times on other threads, having a journalism degree and being a sports writer does not mean you know anything about football. Sports writers, like most fans that never played the game, only care about glamour stats like scoring, sacks or int's. They do not understand the game enough to appreciate other aspect of the game like physically beating your opponent on a run play. Art Monk was a big physical receiver and great run blocker, he frequently took on and handled DB's and LB's so Riggo and E. Byner and could get all the headlines. That does not show up on a stat sheet or in a Monday morning article.

08-03-2006, 09:33 AM	#18
firstdown Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: chesapeake, va Age: 49 Posts: 15,282	Re: Rod woodson can't believe how ignorant Peter King is. King did say earlier this year that he would rethink his stance on Monk because of all the support he has received. King has stated his reasons and stood behind his decision which I do respect but disagree. If he is now willing to listen and rethink his view on Monk we do have to give him some credit. I'm not saying he was right only that he stood by how he felt even under the scrutiny he has received.

08-03-2006, 10:39 AM	#22
Mattyk ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 73,204	Re: Rod woodson can't believe how ignorant Peter King is. Nice to see Woodson giving Monk some props. Monk needs more people speaking out like that for him. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

08-03-2006, 03:00 PM	#26
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 51 Posts: 10,450	Re: Rod woodson can't believe how ignorant Peter King is. well well well, good afternoon malcolm. its been a long time since the skins have had this much REAL excitement about this seasons football team. barring any major injuries, some of you younger folk may get to enjoy what some of the old timers already have, the sweet smell of redskin sucess and boy, does it smell sweet __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

08-03-2006, 03:02 PM	#27
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,134	Re: Rod woodson can't believe how ignorant Peter King is. Good afternoon dmek. I think I speak for us all when I say, "WILL SATURDAY GET HERE ALREADY?!" __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

08-03-2006, 06:30 PM	#28
Riggo44 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: San Clemente CA Age: 39 Posts: 2,380	Re: Rod woodson can't believe how ignorant Peter King is. [ Link was funny on there (mainly because his chair was 5x the size of everyone elses and it looked funny) Agreed, I always got a good chuckel when they would show the empty chairs. __________________ Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Benjamin Franklin

08-03-2006, 08:11 PM	#29
Defensewins Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 2,761	Re: Rod woodson can't believe how ignorant Peter King is. Sports writers should not be involved in the HOF selection process. I have said this several times on other threads, having a journalism degree and being a sports writer does not mean you know anything about football. Sports writers, like most fans that never played the game, only care about glamour stats like scoring, sacks or int's. They do not understand the game enough to appreciate other aspect of the game like physically beating your opponent on a run play. Art Monk was a big physical receiver and great run blocker, he frequently took on and handled DB's and LB's so Riggo and E. Byner and could get all the headlines. That does not show up on a stat sheet or in a Monday morning article.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Rod woodson can't believe how ignorant Peter King is.

Redskins Locker Room