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

[12thMan]

It's getting to the point where King is constantly defending his position on why Monk isn't in the Hall. More than any other player being snubbed, Monk's name is now being mentioned almost immediately.

[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.

[12thMan]

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]

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.

[irish]

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.

[Defensewins]

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.