Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Its that time of year again....

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-17-2005, 03:12 PM   #1
Thank You, Sean.
 
Gmanc711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Age: 29
Posts: 7,505
Its that time of year again....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...qb.divisional/

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??
__________________
#21
Gmanc711 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-17-2005, 03:30 PM   #2
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,643
"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.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 04:51 PM   #3
Playmaker
 
cpayne5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,807
Art Monk was a career leader in numerous categories when he retired. It's absolutely rediculous that he isn't in the hall.
__________________
"It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."
cpayne5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 05:07 PM   #4
Impact Rookie
 
SkinsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crofton, MD
Age: 45
Posts: 907
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 have 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.
SkinsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 05:09 PM   #5
Special Teams
 
kingerock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Killeen, TX
Age: 38
Posts: 360
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.
__________________
Redskins fan lost in Texas for 20 years. Need a ride to D.C.
kingerock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 05:11 PM   #6
Impact Rookie
 
SkinsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crofton, MD
Age: 45
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
SkinsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 05:48 PM   #7
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,058
It can't be denied, he does make some good points.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 06:35 PM   #8
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 83,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
It can't be denied, he does make some good points.
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.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 09:08 PM   #9
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
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.
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 10:12 PM   #10
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,237
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!
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2005, 01:12 AM   #11
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 83,552
Vote for Monk on this poll, good to see he's leading Irvin

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sports...?event_id=1119
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2005, 04:18 AM   #12
Special Teams
 
Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 have 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.

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.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2005, 07:23 AM   #13
^21^
 
Luxorreb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Age: 42
Posts: 1,612
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.
__________________
GO SKINS!!! ^21^
Luxorreb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2005, 11:05 AM   #14
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 83,552
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.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2005, 12:01 PM   #15
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Absolutely...according to Kings logic most of the offensive players in the Hall of Fame should be removed.
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.28122 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25