Peter King's Monday Morning QB [Merged]

[S.Taylor36]

I hated him before and I hate him more now. It is obvious that Art Monk got screwed once again, but Peter King really angers me. Read the comments in the Fine Fifteen section and then his arguements later on for Warren Moon getting into the HOF and his comments about Art Monk. Read this and tell me you don't wanna fight this guy.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/02/06/mmqb.super.bowl/index.html

[MoeRedskins]

Here is what was said

8. Washington (11-7). Dan Snyder put out a statement Saturday critical of Art Monk not getting into the Hall of Fame. That really helps, Dan.

I think Danny should be critical. Its crap that Monk isn't in there. At this point I am starting to believe that they won't be voting Monk in to spite Synder. Which is a total joke.

[Ibleedburgundy]

ugh. The guy is playing politics with his vote. How obnoxious.

[dj_stouty]

It amazes me that the voting committee actually takes fan emails and owner letters personally when it comes to voting.

He is biased...Its obvious.

[wewantdallas]

One of the things I found interesting is that he said he went into the room NOT expecting to vote for Moon, but that someone convinced him to. So, who's doing the campaigning for Monk in there and what's his problem???

But the "That really helps, Dan" reminds me of the comments to the emailers saying that all the emails from Monk were hurting his chances.

That is THE MOST DESPICABLE THING I've ever heard regarding the HOF vote, and that PROVES RIGHT THERE that they vote with bias. It makes me sick.

[Santheb]

Douchebag.

[BurgundyNGold]

One of the things I found interesting is that he said he went into the room NOT expecting to vote for Moon, but that someone convinced him to. So, who's doing the campaigning for Monk in there and what's his problem???

But the "That really helps, Dan" reminds me of the comments to the emailers saying that all the emails from Monk were hurting his chances.

That is THE MOST DESPICABLE THING I've ever heard regarding the HOF vote, and that PROVES RIGHT THERE that they vote with bias. It makes me sick.
I'm starting to think that our emails should not be directed at the voters but rather the hof itself. IMO, the voting process needs to be changed -- sportswriters shouldn't be making the decision. If anything, past and present coaches and players with a degree tenure should. However, I think we should, at a minimum, lobby to have Peter King removed as a voter. He has become the face of the process and the process stinks. It's time for the hof to show some backbone and at least fix that part of the problem. A letter campaign might help get that ball rolling.

[smoak]

I'm starting to think that our emails should not be directed at the voters but rather the hof itself. IMO, the voting process needs to be changed -- sportswriters shouldn't be making the decision. If anything, past and present coaches and players with a degree tenure should. However, I think we should, at a minimum, lobby to have Peter King removed as a voter. He has become the face of the process and the process stinks. It's time for the hof to show some backbone and at least fix that part of the problem. A letter campaign might help get that ball rolling.

Great idea! Also, I think the NFL execs needs to know how we feel.

[CFerro07]

g. Saw Michael Irvin Saturday after the vote. "You'll get in,'' I told him. He looked worried. Don't blame him. Everyone always said, Oh, Harry Carson will get in. He did, but it damn near killed him.


Thats what makes me more pissed off...

[RedskinsDave]

This jerk has made enough comments like this that it warrants taking his vote away. What qualifies these jokers anyways? Because they write about the game? I still think the best judge would be the guys who are in, period. The same goes with baseball. Sports writers are just too biased these days and get moreso because they have to respond to readers all the time unlike before when they got a few letters in the mail.

[BurgundyNGold]

g. Saw Michael Irvin Saturday after the vote. "You'll get in,'' I told him. He looked worried. Don't blame him. Everyone always said, Oh, Harry Carson will get in. He did, but it damn near killed him.

Thats what makes me more pissed off...
The only thing that Irvin should be getting into is rehab.

[OCSkinzFan]

I'm not even going to click on the link. The editors of SI probably think "Gee king sure is a butthead but look at all the people that read his articles!"

He's a Monday mourning self indulgent fat as a....:banghead:

[smoak]

g. Saw Michael Irvin Saturday after the vote. "You'll get in,'' I told him. He looked worried. Don't blame him. Everyone always said, Oh, Harry Carson will get in. He did, but it damn near killed him.


Thats what makes me more pissed off...

Yeah, PK just gushes over Irvin and I can't figure out why? Irvin, Aikman, and Smith probably all belong, but I would only consider Smith a "can't miss" mortal lock. Then again, we all know retiring as statistically the best at your position doesn't gaurantee anything.

[OCSkinzFan]

Douchebag.
He is the contents of said doushebag.

[Santheb]

By the way, I love how King writes in those fragmented, incomplete sentences. He's so great that he doesn't have to write his articles with correct grammar!

[Dolla Bill]

King should be removed from voting period. I also highly agree with emailing or writing the HOF itself. As long as you have proper evidence to support our cause, then anything is possible.

[sprcr]

You want to get back at Peter King?

Stop reacting to this douchbag every time he snaps his figers at us.

Understand that his job is to sell magazines and web page advertising. He does that by generating interest, of any sort. Pro, Con, doesnt matter. You click his link you PAY PETER KING via his employer.

We basicly got this same answer from the Post editors earlier this year regarding Sally Jenkins. Remember? Both of them are paid to generate "Buzz". Pissing off the most active fan base of the most lucrative sports franchise on the planet gives them everything they want if you snap over to SI.COM and see the newest add for Gillette's cold fusion mk6 14 bladed razor.

Abs

[becky]

d. Heard two media guys talking in the media center Sunday. Guy one: "Monk got screwed again. Ridiculous.'' Guy two: "I say it all the time -- if you screw guys in the press and don't talk to them and treat them like crap, it'll come back to haunt you.'' Absurd, absurd, absurd. No factor. In fact, Monk is admired for his dignity, soft-spokenness and class.

NO FACTOR? It is completely and 100% a factor to PK. It seems like everytime I read one of his articles, he is discussing how so-and-so is classy because they always return his calls/give the press plenty of face time. He is a sports writer, by definition, it is his job to talk to athletes. He is also human and I'm sorry but if someone snubs him, making his job more difficult, I simply do not trust him to not allow bias to creep into his thought process towards that person. In King's case, his bias against Art Monk and the Redskins organization has completely swallowed him whole and he has allowed it to IMO completely ruin the Hall of Fame, which should be respected and honored. The only thing absurd is the fact that he has so much power over the voting process. Oh look Peter, there's Harry Carson in the hall of fame.. you ignorant NY homer. What's your NEXT justification about how you "don't have any influence"?

[J-Rod]

I just might have some hatred for this puke! :banghead:

[HAWGZHEAD]

Somehow I tend not to believe he lobbied for Monk.

. For all of you who follow such things, I heard a "Hey, Peter'' Friday night at the hotel. I looked over and there was Joe Theismann. We've had a tad of a disagreement over Monk, and Theismann told Dan Patrick that I had too much control over the room. Totally silly, of course; I'm one of 39. Out of respect for Theismann's stature, I brought his main points about Monk into the room on Saturday morning. It did no good. Monk didn't make the cut from 15 to 10.

[dj_stouty]

It doesn't look like Monk will get into the HOF, regardless if us fans write venomous hate mail to the voting committee or not.

Don't let Len Shapiro scare you. I say "write away"!

[dj_stouty]

Here is what another SI writer (Don Banks) had to say...


• Does Redskins owner Daniel Snyder really think he helped Art Monk's Hall of Fame chances with his two-sentence fit of pique on Saturday, after the longtime Washington receiver again failed to garner the necessary votes for election to Canton?
Snyder issued a statement saying: "Art Monk has earned a place in the Hall of Fame. Redskins fans know it, NFL fans know it, and it is long overdue for the Hall of Fame electors to confirm it.''
Not a smart move. That won't win Monk any votes, but it might lose him a few.


Source (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/don_banks/02/05/snap.judgments/index.html)

So the committe, which is supposed to judge talent based on the football player alone, may or may not take into consideration what an owner may says 10 years after that player retires? This is crazy...

[RedskinsDave]

Here is what another SI writer (Don Banks) had to say...



Source (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/don_banks/02/05/snap.judgments/index.html)

So the committe, which is supposed to judge talent based on the football player alone, may or may not take into consideration what an owner may says 10 years after that player retires? This is crazy...

Now this is two guys who are commenting that Snyder doing this may cost Monk votes. If this were a court of law and these were jurors, this would call for a mistrial. These guys have no credibility when they make comments like this. NONE

[Dexter72]

And then Ward. Sorry, folks. He's one of those guys I cross the line for. There's so much about him I admire. Great guy, great call-returner, great love and loyalty for his mother

Great call-returner?? Great call-returner???

And cross what line for?? The line of being an objective journalist?? That's the only line I can think of.

Is it really any wonder why he would say this:
"Bettis is a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Among the players I've covered in 22 seasons, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Lawrence Taylor, Brett Favre and Anthony Munoz should get to the Hall before Bettis. That's it."
About a guy who is/pretends to be his buddy:
"I shadowed Bettis after the game. He stopped first at a party thrown in his honor by Magic Johnson..."

He'd put his Bettis in the Hall before Walter Payton...Nice.

[BandWagon]

Now this is two guys who are commenting that Snyder doing this may cost Monk votes. If this were a court of law and these were jurors, this would call for a mistrial. These guys have no credibility when they make comments like this. NONE
Ok, we've got to take a rational and strategic approach to this. I recommend this...we appoint a committee of hR folks, 5 tops, to come up with a strategy on what we should do....do in a very organized and deliberate fashion....Flave is one I would recommend right off the bat. Things that should be considered are options for petitions, letter campaigns, high-level endorsements of the campaign, etc. with a desired outcome....meeting with officials of the HOF for example. We should also coordinate with the Redskins Front Office and other sites as well. Get the input from some of the supporters like Shapiro...basically do this thing right!

[wewantdallas]

Here is what another SI writer (Don Banks) had to say...



Source (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/don_banks/02/05/snap.judgments/index.html)

So the committe, which is supposed to judge talent based on the football player alone, may or may not take into consideration what an owner may says 10 years after that player retires? This is crazy...

Wow. I'm stunned at this logic. These guys are absolute imbeciles. They don't even see how saying something like this completely diminishes whatever integrity they had.

Does anyone have an e-mail address for King or this guy?

[BurgundyNGold]

Ok, we've got to take a rational and strategic approach to this. I recommend this...we appoint a committee of hR folks, 5 tops, to come up with a strategy on what we should do....do in a very organized and deliberate fashion....Flave is one I would recommend right off the bat. Things that should be considered are options for petitions, letter campaigns, high-level endorsements of the campaign, etc. with a desired outcome....meeting with officials of the HOF for example. We should also coordinate with the Redskins Front Office and other sites as well. Get the input from some of the supporters like Shapiro...basically do this thing right!
I'll participate if asked.

BTW, what does Shapiro have to say about what happened? He should really chronicle the events in the paper or at least let us in on what happened. In any case, I think that Wilbon or Maske should present next year. Shapiro just isn't getting it done.

[Dexter72]

Ok, we've got to take a rational and strategic approach to this. I recommend this...we appoint a committee of hR folks, 5 tops, to come up with a strategy on what we should do....do in a very organized and deliberate fashion....Flave is one I would recommend right off the bat. Things that should be considered are options for petitions, letter campaigns, high-level endorsements of the campaign, etc. with a desired outcome....meeting with officials of the HOF for example. We should also coordinate with the Redskins Front Office and other sites as well. Get the input from some of the supporters like Shapiro...basically do this thing right!
I think the main thing to be done is to figure out who on the below list is screwing Monk over and then commence with persuasion, badgering, jury tampering, etc.

Arizona Kent Somers, Arizona Republic
Atlanta Furman Bisher, The Atlanta Journal
Baltimore Scott Garceau, WMAR-TV
Buffalo Mark Gaughan, Buffalo News
Carolina Charles Chandler, Charlotte Observer
Chicago Don Pierson, Chicago Tribune*
Cincinnati Chick Ludwig, Dayton Daily News
Cleveland Tony Grossi, Cleveland Plain Dealer
Dallas Rick Gosselin, Dallas Morning News*
Denver Jeff Legwold, Rocky Mountain News
Detroit Jerry Green, The Detroit News*
Green Bay Cliff Christl, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Houston John McClain, Houston Chronicle*
Indianapolis Mike Chappell, Indianapolis Star
Jacksonville Sam Kouvaris, WJXT-TV
Kansas City Bob Gretz, KCFX Overland Park, KS
Miami Edwin Pope, Miami Herald*
Minnesota Sid Hartman, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune
New England Ron Borges, Boston Globe
New Orleans Pete Finney, Times-Picayune
New York (Giants) Vinny DiTrani, Bergen Record
New York (Jets) Paul Zimmerman, Sports Illustrated
Oakland Frank Cooney, The Sports Xchange
Philadelphia Paul Domowitch, Philadelphia Daily News
Pittsburgh Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
St. Louis Bernie Miklasz, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
San Diego Jerry Magee, San Diego Union Tribune*
San Francisco Ira Miller, San Francisco Chronicle*
Seattle John Clayton, ESPN/ESPN Magazine
Tampa Bay Ira Kaufman, Tampa Tribune
Tennessee David Climer, The Tennessean
Washington Len Shapiro, Washington Post*
PFWA David Elfin, Washington Times
At Large Jarrett Bell, USA Today
At Large Dave Goldberg, Associated Press*
At Large Peter King, Sports Illustrated
At Large Bob Oates, Los Angeles Times
At Large Len Pasquarelli, ESPN.com
At Large Mike Wilbon, Washington Post

[HanburgerBum]

This jerk has made enough comments like this that it warrants taking his vote away. What qualifies these jokers anyways? Because they write about the game? I still think the best judge would be the guys who are in, period. The same goes with baseball. Sports writers are just too biased these days and get moreso because they have to respond to readers all the time unlike before when they got a few letters in the mail.


So you believe that actual HOF members should be doing the voting. What makes you think that they would be more objective? They would be voting on their buddies, or against someone with whom they had run-ins during their careers. Truth and objectivity are the creeds by which journalists live and function. Sure, you may get a bad apple here and there, but I would trust them to vote their conscious more than any other group of people.

I have always been a huge Art Monk fan and I truly believe that he belongs in the HOF. But, I am sure there are many fans in other cities who feel one of their heroes have been unjustifiably kept out also. And, I think this constant and vehement whining we fans do about HOF voting sheds a more unfavorably light upon us than upon the journalist who vote.

[Keino]

Ira Kaufmann wrote a Sunday Column about his thoughts. Seems he is on board with Monk.

Right now Im too pissed off to do anything besides contemplating what I would do to these guys if I had mob ties or an obscene amount of Money.

[RedskinsDave]

Truth and objectivity are the creeds by which journalists live and function.

You should do standup!!!!

And, I think this constant and vehement whining we fans do about HOF voting sheds a more unfavorably light upon us than upon the journalist who vote.

Excuse us for wanting a great guy and a great player to get his due. :rolleyes:

[BurgundyNGold]

So you believe that actual HOF members should be doing the voting. What makes you think that they would be more objective? They would be voting on their buddies, or against someone with whom they had run-ins during their careers. Truth and objectivity are the creeds by which journalists live and function. Sure, you may get a bad apple here and there, but I would trust them to vote their conscious more than any other group of people.

I have always been a huge Art Monk fan and I truly believe that he belongs in the HOF. But, I am sure there are many fans in other cities who feel one of their heroes have been unjustifiably kept out also. And, I think this constant and vehement whining we fans do about HOF voting sheds a more unfavorably light upon us than upon the journalist who vote.
Players and coaches might now like someone, but they respect them. IMO, they'll set personal difference aside to reward the feats of those in the trenches. Sportswriters know nothing of being in the trenches. In fact, when that fat chump Peter King even hears the word "trenches" he's off to Arthur Treacher's for lunch because of the mere entonation of the word.

[RedskinsDave]

I think the main thing to be done is to figure out who on the below list is screwing Monk over and then commence with persuasion, badgering, jury tampering, etc.

Arizona Kent Somers, Arizona Republic
Atlanta Furman Bisher, The Atlanta Journal
Baltimore Scott Garceau, WMAR-TV
Buffalo Mark Gaughan, Buffalo News
Carolina Charles Chandler, Charlotte Observer
Chicago Don Pierson, Chicago Tribune*
Cincinnati Chick Ludwig, Dayton Daily News
Cleveland Tony Grossi, Cleveland Plain Dealer
Dallas Rick Gosselin, Dallas Morning News*
Denver Jeff Legwold, Rocky Mountain News
Detroit Jerry Green, The Detroit News*
Green Bay Cliff Christl, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Houston John McClain, Houston Chronicle*
Indianapolis Mike Chappell, Indianapolis Star
Jacksonville Sam Kouvaris, WJXT-TV
Kansas City Bob Gretz, KCFX Overland Park, KS
Miami Edwin Pope, Miami Herald*
Minnesota Sid Hartman, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune
New England Ron Borges, Boston Globe
New Orleans Pete Finney, Times-Picayune
New York (Giants) Vinny DiTrani, Bergen Record
New York (Jets) Paul Zimmerman, Sports Illustrated
Oakland Frank Cooney, The Sports Xchange
Philadelphia Paul Domowitch, Philadelphia Daily News
Pittsburgh Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
St. Louis Bernie Miklasz, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
San Diego Jerry Magee, San Diego Union Tribune*
San Francisco Ira Miller, San Francisco Chronicle*
Seattle John Clayton, ESPN/ESPN Magazine
Tampa Bay Ira Kaufman, Tampa Tribune
Tennessee David Climer, The Tennessean
Washington Len Shapiro, Washington Post*
PFWA David Elfin, Washington Times
At Large Jarrett Bell, USA Today
At Large Dave Goldberg, Associated Press*
Large Peter King, Sports Illustrated
At Large Bob Oates, Los Angeles Times
Large Len Pasquarelli, ESPN.com
At Large Mike Wilbon, Washington Post

Edited for accuracy.

[RedskinsDave]

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?p=680105#post680105

[BurgundyNGold]

Edited for accuracy.
As long as we're being accurate, shouldn't you include Peter King's satellite "Dr. Z" alongside his name? They're technically part of the same planetary system.

[smoak]

Ira Kaufmann wrote a Sunday Column about his thoughts. Seems he is on board with Monk.

Right now Im too pissed off to do anything besides contemplating what I would do to these guys if I had mob ties or an obscene amount of Money.

I'm with Keino. I need a week or two to calm down before planning for '07. I will say this though. I believe in my heart that if Monk was a NY Giant, PK would have voted him in. I really do.

I am saddened and frustrated as we all are and I need a little time to calm down re: this very sore subject.

[flave1969]

The knot in Michael Irvin's tie is just wild. It looks to be roughly the size of a manhole cover. On the topic of Irvin, there's just no excuse for keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. Consider his credentials: 14th all-time in receiving yards, 18th all-time in receptions, 35th all-time in receiving TDs, 1,314 playoff receiving yards, five Pro Bowls, three Super Bowl rings. I understand all the peccadilloes and his occasional habit of running afoul of the law, but those standards are so inconsistently applied that it all but renders them meaningless. Vote him in already. And then give him a good old-fashioned single Windsor.

This was written by someone called Dayn Perry on Foxsports.

I sent him this email.

The fans of Art Monk are just wild. They wish Hall of Fame voters would fall down a manhole cover. On the topic of Art Monk, there's just no excuse for keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. Consider his credentials: 9th all-time in receiving yards, 5th all-time in receptions, 29th all-time in receiving TD's, 1062 playoff receiving yards, 69 playoff receptions, three Pro Bowls, All Pro twice, three Super Bowl rings. He has no off the field peccadilloes, has run football camps for Kids for years, and is a pillar of the community. If Art Monk cant get in, why should Michael Irvin?

[HanburgerBum]

Players and coaches might now like someone, but they respect them. IMO, they'll set personal difference aside to reward the feats of those in the trenches. Sportswriters know nothing of being in the trenches. In fact, when that fat chump Peter King even hears the word "trenches" he's off to Arthur Treacher's for lunch because of the mere entonation of the word.


But, will players and coaches be able to say "no" to a buddy or a colleague they deep down don't believe to be worthy of the Hall?

Look at it another way. What if the voters vote in a player you don't think deserves induction? Wouldn't that anger you? Let's say the player is Michael Irvin, who made a career of pushing off DBs and not getting called on it by the refs. Dallas fans no doubt would be clamoring for MI to get into the HOF. What if the voters bowed to Dallas fan pressure and voted him in? I know that would pi__ me off to no end. So, I want HOF voters to be independent and who would vote their conscious, and I want them to be "guardians" against undeserving candidates. I still think journalists would do a better of that than any other group of people.

[Keino]

But, will players and coaches be able to say "no" to a buddy or a colleague they deep down don't believe to be worthy of the Hall?

Look at it another way. What if the voters vote in a player you don't think deserves induction? Wouldn't that anger you? Let's say the player is Michael Irvin, who made a career of pushing off DBs and not getting called on it by the refs. Dallas fans no doubt would be clamoring for MI to get into the HOF. What if the voters bowed to Dallas fan pressure and voted him in? I know that would pi__ me off to no end. So, I want HOF voters to be independent and who would vote their conscious, and I want them to be "guardians" against undeserving candidates. I still think journalists would do a better of that than any other group of people.


If you think that, then you're name must be Rip Van Winkle and you just woke up, because Im not sure how any sane person can conclude that, in light of how they have voted (ie No Hogs, Aikman as a 1st ballot when Phil Simms has better numbers) these guys have a shred of objectivity and even worse, a shred of integrity. I would rely on the opinions of those who have played before the opinion of someone who didn't.

[HanburgerBum]

You should do standup!!!!



Excuse us for wanting a great guy and a great player to get his due. :rolleyes:


So, you don't respect journalists much. But, which group of people that is connected to pro football do you think would do a better job as voters? Owners, coaches, players (both present and former)? Fans? Upon reflection, I think you would come to realize that all these people would tend to be less objective than journalists.

And, of course, I don't object to your wanting to put Monk in the HOF. I want the same. But, I think we fans should just let the voters vote their conscious and let the chips fall where they may. This constant whining and arguing "fixes" against Art Monk, that should not be us. We should be better than that.

[BurgundyNGold]

But, will players and coaches be able to say "no" to a buddy or a colleague they deep down don't believe to be worthy of the Hall?
My Player/Coach system would be league wide and could only have coaches with at least 12 years tenure and players with at least 6. It would consist of players across all eras who get the same, single vote. It would also consist of players from across the league, not just a single team. So, a guy could have his whole team and coaches vote for him and it wouldn't be enough. You'd have to earn the respect of the whole league across more than one era to get in. That's a pretty elite burden.

So, yes, I'd say such a system would be better than watching the Emperor fanned by women and fed grapes to his lips once a year like we get from peter king every year now.

Look at it another way. What if the voters vote in a player you don't think deserves induction? Wouldn't that anger you? Let's say the player is Michael Irvin, who made a career of pushing off DBs and not getting called on it by the refs. Dallas fans no doubt would be clamoring for MI to get into the HOF. What if the voters bowed to Dallas fan pressure and voted him in? I know that would pi__ me off to no end. So, I want HOF voters to be independent and who would vote their conscious, and I want them to be "guardians" against undeserving candidates. I still think journalists would do a better of that than any other group of people.
If the players and coaches voted him in or left him out, I could accept that a whole hell of a lot easrier than a collection of donut eating sportswriters voted somebody in or out, I'll tell you that right now.

In the P/C system I advocated you get independence by the sheer number of voters. What you also get, however, is the legitimacy of votes by ones peers across more than one era.

[Meatsnack]

And, of course, I don't object to your wanting to put Monk in the HOF. I want the same. But, I think we fans should just let the voters vote their conscious and let the chips fall where they may. This constant whining and arguing "fixes" against Art Monk, that should not be us. We should be better than that.

Better than the truth? The SI Kornholy Trio of Banks, Z, and King and NY Homers/ Skins haters and unabashedly so. Should we deny that their open, almost defiant, bias doesn't exist?

[smoak]

HB - I really respect your argument, but there have been too many headscratchers for me to personally ignore (Keino mentions the selection of Aikman but there are many more). I personally feel it should be a committee that can and should have jornalists as members, but not be exclusive to them. Ex players are a better barometer for whether or not a guy should be in, but it should be long time veterans that wouldn't feel pressure to include/exclude certain players.

[bantu]

Ok, we've got to take a rational and strategic approach to this. I recommend this...we appoint a committee of hR folks, 5 tops, to come up with a strategy on what we should do....do in a very organized and deliberate fashion....Flave is one I would recommend right off the bat. Things that should be considered are options for petitions, letter campaigns, high-level endorsements of the campaign, etc. with a desired outcome....meeting with officials of the HOF for example. We should also coordinate with the Redskins Front Office and other sites as well. Get the input from some of the supporters like Shapiro...basically do this thing right!

I think doing anything is stupid. I am not acknowledging the Pro Football Hall of Fame anymore no matter how many Redskins they vote in from here on out. That whole institution is a farce and PK pretty much let the world know how lame the HOF and everything that has to do with it is by saying those things about Snyder.

We, as Redskins fans, need to understand that there is a national Redskins bias against us for whatever reason. The closest thing in sports I can relate this to is Kobe Bryant. I know, I know, but hear me out on this. Even pre-rape accusation, Kobe Bryant was perhaps the best player in basketball but far from the most beloved. Of course there were tons of fans for him, but there was always an underswelling of Kobe hating going on in the media. People just did not like him, despite him being so productive. I know its not exactly the same thing, but it feels like that to me. Almost like anything we try is futile.

So, I say, we should just live in our own little world of Burgandy Trees and Gold meadows, free from fat-ego driven douchebags like PK and the rest of the bunch.

[The Skinsinator]

It's one thing that King publically states he is against Monk being in the hof. It's something else completely to rub it in and dismiss our owner's contention. King is a jerk and can't wait to see his face when Monk does get in. He has lost all credibility (he already had litte) in my book.

[Dexter72]

If the players and coaches voted him in or left him out, I could accept that a whole hell of a lot easrier than a collection of donut eating sportswriters voted somebody in or out, I'll tell you that right now.

Completely agree -- If Marv Levy, Parcells, Ditka, Vermeil, Jimmy Johnson, Belichick, Buddy Ryan, George Seifert, Ronnie Lott, Rod Woodson, Steve Largent, Lynn Swann, etc. sat around a room -- with or without the writers (I'd be for keeping some in) and said no on Monk, I'd be surprised and disappointed but I would at least feel like the decision was made by a competent group of people -- the majority of whom know what it was like to play and gameplan against the guy.

[bgforever]

ugh. The guy is playing politics with his vote. How obnoxious.

God don't like ugly. Soon, PK will see that the current HOF is not the only recognizable venue for the greatest and famous players of the game. Right now the Superbowl is starting to gain steam and writers don't control it, since it is controlled by SPONSORSHIP, that is FANS< OWNERS and that means us and DAN! Not PK and his crew.

That means a secondary recognition consensus is growing in the grass roots, and it was mentioned not just for Monk, but others and its growing. Soon, soon we can laugh at the clown that thinks he knows Pro Football, but never played a day in his life!

[bgforever]

Completely agree -- If Marv Levy, Parcells, Ditka, Vermeil, Jimmy Johnson, Belichick, Buddy Ryan, George Seifert, Ronnie Lott, Rod Woodson, Steve Largent, Lynn Swann, etc. sat around a room -- with or without the writers (I'd be for keeping some in) and said no on Monk, I'd be surprised and disappointed but I would at least feel like the decision was made by a competent group of people -- the majority of whom know what it was like to play and gameplan against the guy.

Peers, Coaches and owners is the best way to go. Right now the team's ring of fame and the Superbow are gaining more steam to keep the recognition real. As the HOF is cheapend by weak excuses and lame political (no power) moves, the greater recognition will be with the people who honor the memories and accomplishments. The players seem to echo this and Bill Cowher at the Superbowl, during his interview and others. The mentioned TEAM, accomplishments and honor, and pretty much shunned the individualistic approach by the writers, who are known to divide just to have their name in lights for stories and beat their own chests.

Even Harry Carson, who finally got in, stated he NO LONGER WANTED TO BE CONSIDERED, because the process takes too long (translation = politics). Leave it to the writers to make it so. Players on the field and coaches don't have time for that crap!

[flave1969]

A Quote from one of the greatest Safeties ever.


Ronnie Lott, HOF inductee

"Art Monk was an example for Jerry Rice. That's what Jerry always told me."

"There's nothing negative to say. He has the numbers, the catches, the championships."

"You have a Hall of Fame for all it represents. I know he represents all that it's about. Integrity, love and passion for the game, community, what he gave back. Look how he conducted himself. Nobody I know deserves it more."

Quotes like this are not in isolation.

Take 39 contempories Team mate and Opponent alike, and I bet you Art Monk gets in.

[bgforever]

A Quote from one of the greatest Safeties ever.


Ronnie Lott, HOF inductee

"Art Monk was an example for Jerry Rice. That's what Jerry always told me."

"There's nothing negative to say. He has the numbers, the catches, the championships."

"You have a Hall of Fame for all it represents. I know he represents all that it's about. Integrity, love and passion for the game, community, what he gave back. Look how he conducted himself. Nobody I know deserves it more."

Quotes like this are not in isolation.

Take 39 contempories Team mate and Opponent alike, and I bet you Art Monk gets in.

I swear to you, I believe that it is THIS kind of voice from a player that knows and played against MONK almost every year! The statement by Joey T about talking to King, opinion from Joe Gibbs about speaking to someone, and then the famous HARRY CARSON statement.

Look at the names. OMG! Its obvious a NEW venue is on the way, barring writers, and those opinions won't matter, because FANS know their players BETTER than most writers anyway. They look on the field, like they do, and except some writers being former players, who normally aren't on the 39 member crew currently, It would be an alternative, like the NFL Network coming out of the blue, to have a venue financed by the OWNERS, PLAYERS and FANS.

Also house it in a larger city like NY, DC or Chicago where MORE fans and others can see the large museum. The focus will be on the players contributions but not limited to writer's opinions, but the players opinions of one another, coaches on coaches and owners on owners. Peer response negates backoffice politics from armchair askewed writers.

[RicFlairOne]

I'm not even going to click on the link. The editors of SI probably think "Gee king sure is a butthead but look at all the people that read his articles!"

He's a Monday mourning self indulgent fat as a....:banghead:

thank you - don't even waste my time on that site anymore. King, Banks, Zimmerman they all suck !

[wewantdallas]

I sent an email to everyone on that list that was posted here awhile back (the HOF committee) saying how despicable I thought it was that ANYONE'S vote could be influenced by fans' emails or by something Dan Snyder said.

I've gotten a few responses. Here's one from Edwin Pope:

"No bias as far as I'm concerned. I support
Monk, and Snyder's comments after Sat.'s
meeting would have nothing to do with my
vote no matter when Snyder made them. Monk
just can't seem to muster quite enough support.
Hope this will change, but Hall voting is
COMPLETELY unpredictable"

And here's another from Frank Cooney:

"I cannot speak for anybody else on the committee, but I will tell you that nothing ANYBODY on the outside says has any influence on my vote.
I consider the facts and my own observations -- I have covered the NFL since 1965 -- and draw my own conclusions.
This is an important decision for all of us and shouldn't be impacted by any type of agenda and certainly not by the opinion or statement made by anybody.....and I mean anybody. I mean consider that H. Carson said last year he didn't want to be in the HOF after missing in the finals for several years. Well not even he could make that decision.
The decision, according to HOF rules, is based ONLY on what a player does on the field of play....
Regards,
Frank Cooney"

At least I was able to vent my disgust at the Peter King-types among the committee. Hopefully they'll start to police themselves and try to weed out these dopes that WOULD let other things influence their vote.

I firmly believe Monk will get in at some point. It just may take some time.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

If I have that much power, Harry Carson will get in.
did carson get in? yes. one voter shouldnt have that much power over the rest of the voters. something needs to be investigating as far as the voting is concerned.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

A Quote from one of the greatest Safeties ever.


Ronnie Lott, HOF inductee

"Art Monk was an example for Jerry Rice. That's what Jerry always told me."

"There's nothing negative to say. He has the numbers, the catches, the championships."

"You have a Hall of Fame for all it represents. I know he represents all that it's about. Integrity, love and passion for the game, community, what he gave back. Look how he conducted himself. Nobody I know deserves it more."

Quotes like this are not in isolation.

Take 39 contempories Team mate and Opponent alike, and I bet you Art Monk gets in.
maybe this statement needs to be emailed to the voting committee.

[Skaggsrules]

I can't believe Peter King said that was one of the best national anthems in history.

[BurgundyNGold]

I can't believe Peter King said that was one of the best national anthems in history.
Why should that surprise you? The whole thread has been about the guy having no grip on reality.

[Emmanouel8]

Wow, if those voter's responses weren't bush league politics I don't know what is.

It's clear these guy's are spineless weaklings who can't just come out and say hey I didn't vote for Art. They have to hide under their desks and behind an owners reputation. Here's a monkey wrench to thier logic, since when does an owner standing behind a player warrant less votes?

If it were Rooney they'd give him kudos for standing behind his guy, if it were Al Davis he'd be called a nut who cares, if it were Jerry Jones they'd say what else is he supposed to say he's just pulling for his guy.

None of those owners would have hurt their guy doing the same thing Snyder did. If it were for Darrell Green it wouldn't have mattered. But for some reason these clowns, the few of them will grasp on to anything they can grab on to deflect their social inadequacies away from them. They are Art Monk haters!!!!

They blamed the 'locals?!' That's us?! We should lynch them for saying such tom-foolery. Who'd ever go against their guy? Why on earth would anybody in this town say hey Art is not worthy of HOF you better not put him in?! Sounds so stupid I can't believe no one called him out on it publicly!!!!!

Where are you now Wilbon or Kornheiser and your PTI shows?

And then to blame Snyder and bring him into the foray is just such a sleeze tactic it's beyond belief and only a veggie burger would buy that stuff (edited by a mod).

The best thing actually is to ignore these idiots. Everytime you click on thier links or but a magazine to read this junk or respond to this jerk their sponsers like it and you make them money and they could care less why you click on their links as long as you do. etc etc So ignoring this idiot will eventually erase this clown. Or cancel your subscriptions and tell them why.

:devil2:

[HanburgerBum]

If you think that, then you're name must be Rip Van Winkle and you just woke up, because Im not sure how any sane person can conclude that, in light of how they have voted (ie No Hogs, Aikman as a 1st ballot when Phil Simms has better numbers) these guys have a shred of objectivity and even worse, a shred of integrity. I would rely on the opinions of those who have played before the opinion of someone who didn't.


I am keenly aware that many of us in this forum feel strongly about the subject of Art Monk not being in the HOF, and that I am rubbing some people the wrong way when I am advocating reason instead of venom. But, I think we are getting carried away when we start accusing Hall voters to be part of a conspiracy led by Peter King to keep Monk out. We are letting our disappointment overwhelm our ability to reason.

Sure, PK has publically stated that he would not vote for Monk's induction and he has given his reasons (relatively low number of TDs, few pro bowl appearances and low yds/catch). While most of us, including me, don't feel his reasons are valid, I think King is sincere in his belief and his vote is not motivated by some ulterior motive. At least, there has been no evidence of it. As a Hall voter, PK is entitled to his opinion and entitled to vote his conscious. In fact, wouldn't you want every voter to vote that way? I know I surely don't want some voter to vote for Michael Irvin just because he happens to like MI.

Some in this forum think that PK exerts a disproportionate influence over other voters and causes them to also vote against Monk. King has repeatedly denied this to be the case, and he has said that no voter has any such power over any other voter. I have no basis and no reason to believe that King is lying about this.

If King is telling the truth, the conclusion must be that there are many Hall voters, not just him, who don't think Monk belongs. The composition of the voting committee presumably changes as time passes. Perhaps, some day, there will be enough enlightened voters who recognize how great a player Monk was. But, even if that doesn't occur, I think it is important that the Hall voters should always remain an independent group with their conscious being their guide.

[HanburgerBum]

HB - I really respect your argument, but there have been too many headscratchers for me to personally ignore (Keino mentions the selection of Aikman but there are many more). I personally feel it should be a committee that can and should have jornalists as members, but not be exclusive to them. Ex players are a better barometer for whether or not a guy should be in, but it should be long time veterans that wouldn't feel pressure to include/exclude certain players.


When the induction is based upon opinions of human beings, there are bound to be "headscratchers" from time to time. Unless there is evidence of a "conspiracy" or a "fix" to vote candidates in or keep candidates out (like the French and the Russian judges were doing in the Olympics), I think we just need to let the chips fall where they may. I am sure every city has its home town hero who the fans believe should be in the HOF but isn't.

I am not saying your idea of adding non-journalists to the committe is necessarily a bad one. I just need to be convinced that these added people would make the committee better (i.e. more independent and more objective).

[HanburgerBum]

Better than the truth? The SI Kornholy Trio of Banks, Z, and King and NY Homers/ Skins haters and unabashedly so. Should we deny that their open, almost defiant, bias doesn't exist?


Do you have any basis for your belief that Banks, Dr. Z and PK are in some sort of "conspiracy" against all Redskins HOF candidates? They obviously aren't all that powerful, since the Hall has many Redskins (Sonny, Charlie Taylor, Bobby Mitchell, George Marshall just to name a few).

My feeling is that when we make accusations against Hall voters who vote against Monk without proof to back them up, we are not doing Art, the Redskins organization, or the Redskins fans any favors. To the outside world, we just look like homers with blinders on. I know we are better than that.

[HanburgerBum]

Peers, Coaches and owners is the best way to go. Right now the team's ring of fame and the Superbow are gaining more steam to keep the recognition real. As the HOF is cheapend by weak excuses and lame political (no power) moves, the greater recognition will be with the people who honor the memories and accomplishments. The players seem to echo this and Bill Cowher at the Superbowl, during his interview and others. The mentioned TEAM, accomplishments and honor, and pretty much shunned the individualistic approach by the writers, who are known to divide just to have their name in lights for stories and beat their own chests.

Even Harry Carson, who finally got in, stated he NO LONGER WANTED TO BE CONSIDERED, because the process takes too long (translation = politics). Leave it to the writers to make it so. Players on the field and coaches don't have time for that crap!


I am not sure I buy the argument that the best people to make judgment about players are other players and coaches. These are the same people who vote for the pro bowl. I think most people believe that pro bowl participation has become a popularity contest.

I think journalist, who normally has an arms-length relationship with players, are more likely to be objective about them than colleagues and buddies.

[flave1969]

I am keenly aware that many of us in this forum feel strongly about the subject of Art Monk not being in the HOF, and that I am rubbing some people the wrong way when I am advocating reason instead of venom. But, I think we are getting carried away when we start accusing Hall voters to be part of a conspiracy led by Peter King to keep Monk out. We are letting our disappointment overwhelm our ability to reason.

Sure, PK has publically stated that he would not vote for Monk's induction and he has given his reasons (relatively low number of TDs, few pro bowl appearances and low yds/catch). While most of us, including me, don't feel his reasons are valid, I think King is sincere in his belief and his vote is not motivated by some ulterior motive. At least, there has been no evidence of it. As a Hall voter, PK is entitled to his opinion and entitled to vote his conscious. In fact, wouldn't you want every voter to vote that way? I know I surely don't want some voter to vote for Michael Irvin just because he happens to like MI.

Some in this forum think that PK exerts a disproportionate influence over other voters and causes them to also vote against Monk. King has repeatedly denied this to be the case, and he has said that no voter has any such power over any other voter. I have no basis and no reason to believe that King is lying about this.

If King is telling the truth, the conclusion must be that there are many Hall voters, not just him, who don't think Monk belongs. The composition of the voting committee presumably changes as time passes. Perhaps, some day, there will be enough enlightened voters who recognize how great a player Monk was. But, even if that doesn't occur, I think it is important that the Hall voters should always remain an independent group with their conscious being their guide.

We understand what you are saying HB but the current system has fundamental flaws and the nature of the people voting emphasises these flaws.

Peter King worked for Newsday from 1985-1988 reporting on the New York Giants. Week in and week out he would be at Giants games. This meant in the 4 year period he saw Art Monk play live six times and probably any Monday Night Games Monk played in. King likely missed a quarter of Monk's career because of his New York commitments. Monk played 56 games had 274Receptions and 3723 Yards in those 4 seasons. How does this qualify him to vote on the whole of Monk's career?

It is inherently unfair that 39 men who these days have a National soapbox because of the internet, can actively campaign for players in their articles, yet the players themselves have no such forum. King vocally told everyone in reach that he would support Harry Carson, why should he be allowed to do this?

The voting system allows no personal testimony from the players themselves, yet if they speak out about the whole process as Harry Carson has, they are often accused of coveting a place in the Hall by the very people who have complete freedom to say whatever they like, the media. It is a double standard and completely unfair.

Your arguments about bias are undermined by the way people like Dr. Z and Peter King behave in their articles. For instance Sean Salisbury said that he felt it was a disgrace that Art Monk was not in the Hall. King felt it was necessary to make a lengthy rebuttal of Salisbury, something Salisbury was not afforded. King's article pinned his colours to his mast and made clear that he would never be open to a different point of view. This is unacceptable, the voters should be open minded always.

The fact is journalists have complete license to say whatever they feel without ever having to face a response. If King is going to be so public with his views, he at least owes it to Art Monk to spend five minutes with the guy and hear his views on his career. I think that would be an uncomfortable five minutes for King.

For the journalists to criticise Snyder for speaking out is immensely hypocritical when they have total free reign to say what they feel. They should embrace other peoples feelings, and until they do, and openly acknowledge they have sought all opinion in making their decision, I will continue to be of the opinion that they are immensely unqualified to do the job.

If the voting is to be considered fair, I feel it should be statutory for each voter to interview at least a dozen team mates and opponents of each finalist and solicit their opinion. It could be totally private but would form a much truer picture. If they want the responsibility they should put in the time. Meeting the Saturday before the Superbowl is not good enough in my opinion.

If I repeat myself it is because I am sickened by the way this whole process works.

[smoak]

When the induction is based upon opinions of human beings, there are bound to be "headscratchers" from time to time. Unless there is evidence of a "conspiracy" or a "fix" to vote candidates in or keep candidates out (like the French and the Russian judges were doing in the Olympics), I think we just need to let the chips fall where they may. I am sure every city has its home town hero who the fans believe should be in the HOF but isn't.

I am not saying your idea of adding non-journalists to the committe is necessarily a bad one. I just need to be convinced that these added people would make the committee better (i.e. more independent and more objective).

I can not think of a player in ANY sport who retired as the statistical best at his postion who is not in the HOF for a specific reason (i.e. Rose is banned). Maybe fans and players would be biased, but the bias of the media is the worst b/c it pormotes loudmouth "sound bite" guys like Irvin to get in before quite leaders like Monk. The media doesn't like Monk b/c Monk never gave them the time of day and I am the LAST person to claim race, but he also played at a time when the media was more dominated by white males. Can you honestly tell me that Monk's not being in the HOF has NOTHING to do with the fact that he was an African American athlete who was perceived to snub a bunch of rich white writers? I am not crying foul, but rather suggesting that the committee contain both players, media, and special interest people.

Why not have one fan present from each team. I know the logistics are impossible, but as long as they fan proved to be worthy and knowledgeable, then I would be ok with it. The open public would be the WORST way to decide HOF, but c'mon the media is not the answer and they are proving it.

[smoak]

flave makes some excellent points as usual. Also, I think the fact that the vote is not public allows these guys to hide behind the skirt of "don't blame me I am a supporter". It makes me furious that they are allowed to have full reign until they decide to give up all the power. Why can't fans at least vote who they want to represent their city. What if Shapiro stepped down and Sally Jenkins was appointed?? There has to be accountability for the council and this "Supreme Court" of voters has none. It is a joke.

[dj_stouty]

Lets face it...

...Had Monk run his car into his wife, been arrested with a kilo of coke in his possession, punched a fan or bad-mouthed opponents week-in and week-out, he probably would have been enshrined by now.

If you are soft spoken, you are overlooked. Plain and simple.

It's sad.

[smoak]

Lets face it...

...Had Monk run his car into his wife, been arrested with a kilo of coke in his possession, punched a fan or bad-mouthed opponents week-in and week-out, he probably would have been enshrined by now.

If you are soft spoken, you are overlooked. Plain and simple.

It's sad.

Yeah and I'd love to hear from joethefan and other members who coach kids. I wonder if that perception that the brash loud sel promoter gets teh glory is passed on to kids? I would the answer is yes and that it creates a whole new generation of "Irvins" and kids don't get to see that you can be just as good if not better by doing it the opposite way.

[Keino]

I am keenly aware that many of us in this forum feel strongly about the subject of Art Monk not being in the HOF, and that I am rubbing some people the wrong way when I am advocating reason instead of venom. But, I think we are getting carried away when we start accusing Hall voters to be part of a conspiracy led by Peter King to keep Monk out. We are letting our disappointment overwhelm our ability to reason.

Sure, PK has publically stated that he would not vote for Monk's induction and he has given his reasons (relatively low number of TDs, few pro bowl appearances and low yds/catch). While most of us, including me, don't feel his reasons are valid, I think King is sincere in his belief and his vote is not motivated by some ulterior motive. At least, there has been no evidence of it. As a Hall voter, PK is entitled to his opinion and entitled to vote his conscious. In fact, wouldn't you want every voter to vote that way? I know I surely don't want some voter to vote for Michael Irvin just because he happens to like MI.

Some in this forum think that PK exerts a disproportionate influence over other voters and causes them to also vote against Monk. King has repeatedly denied this to be the case, and he has said that no voter has any such power over any other voter. I have no basis and no reason to believe that King is lying about this.

If King is telling the truth, the conclusion must be that there are many Hall voters, not just him, who don't think Monk belongs. The composition of the voting committee presumably changes as time passes. Perhaps, some day, there will be enough enlightened voters who recognize how great a player Monk was. But, even if that doesn't occur, I think it is important that the Hall voters should always remain an independent group with their conscious being their guide.

That he takes it upon himself to campaign against Monk is why King has shown he has not one ounce of Credibility nor integrity. I simply cannot believe a word that comes out of his mouth simply because of the way he conducts himself. When we hear things like "He always returns phone calls" and things along those lines, it shows that the amount of props you get amongst this groups is directly propostional to the amount of air-time and engaging interviews you give them. My Point, THEY ARE NOT INDEPENDENT, but rather, are slaves to their media agenda....ergo, getting a good story. Those players that coooperate to that end are rewarded and those that do not are not. End of Story. Your take of this group as an "Independent" group is misguided at worst and naive at best.

[darkwing99]

But look at the numbers, he is guaranteeing getting Irvin (crackhead) into the HOF, even though Monk has better number in almost all categories. I just want to say the whole process is crap and Peter King should just hope he never runs into me in a dark alley. That is all I got to say.

[wewantdallas]

I heard from Scott Garceau this morning. He's on the HOF voting committee and was (is?) a sportscaster for channel 2 in Baltimore years ago. He said he voted for Monk as well, and that he would never let outside influences colour his opinion of a candidate.

Also, I emailed Steve Czaban yesterday about the comments some people received personally from HOF voters saying that all the pro-Monk emails could HURT his chances (which is all you need to know to prove bias right there.)

He actually emailed me back and said that if he went on the air with the story if I could vouch for the emails. I told him I couldn't personally, since they didn't come to me, but I pointed him to this site and specifically to Bandwagon, who posted some of those responses from Shapiro and Jerome Green about all the Monk emails. Haven't heard back from him, but he did seem interested, and he REALLY blasted King and Banks last night on his show.

At this point, that's what pisses me off the most, the comments from Don Banks that what Snyder said could actually HURT Monk's chances and the comments from others that a pro-Monk email campaign could do the same. That to me is inexcusable.

[dj_stouty]

I heard from Scott Garceau this morning. He's on the HOF voting committee and was (is?) a sportscaster for channel 2 in Baltimore years ago. He said he voted for Monk as well, and that he would never let outside influences colour his opinion of a candidate.

Also, I emailed Steve Czaban yesterday about the comments some people received personally from HOF voters saying that all the pro-Monk emails could HURT his chances (which is all you need to know to prove bias right there.)

He actually emailed me back and said that if he went on the air with the story if I could vouch for the emails. I told him I couldn't personally, since they didn't come to me, but I pointed him to this site and specifically to Bandwagon, who posted some of those responses from Shapiro and Jerome Green about all the Monk emails. Haven't heard back from him, but he did seem interested, and he REALLY blasted King and Banks last night on his show.

At this point, that's what pisses me off the most, the comments from Don Banks that what Snyder said could actually HURT Monk's chances and the comments from others that a pro-Monk email campaign could do the same. That to me is inexcusable.

Whoever received those emails should forward them to Czaban. This is your chance to get this crap into the public eye.

Czaban, like him or not, would rip the committee a new one with informaton like this.

[smoak]

Whoever received those emails should forward them to Czaban. This is your chance to get this crap into the public eye.

Czaban, like him or not, would rip the committee a new one with informaton like this.

He already stareted ripping this morning and I expect it will continue today. Funny, this is the only time I have ever looked forward to his show. I'll occasionally tune it to hear if there are any updates, but I despise the guy (usually)... Here I am right on board with him and think he is absolutely 100% correct.

[wewantdallas]

He already stareted ripping this morning and I expect it will continue today. Funny, this is the only time I have ever looked forward to his show. I'll occasionally tune it to hear if there are any updates, but I despise the guy (usually)... Here I am right on board with him and think he is absolutely 100% correct.

Could anyone tell me what he actually said? We (Bandwagon and I) did forward Czaban the emails.

However, I've also gotten some real nice responses since then from some of the HOF committee guys, including this one from Len Shapiro:

"Thanks for the note. As the guy who has presented monk to the membership every year since he's been eligible, I also felt terribly about him not getting in. I would say to you that there is no conspiracy, no evil plot to keep him out, just a genuine difference of opinion that I keep chipping away at every year. I will tell you that the e-mail barrage, which does seem to be organized, has always been rather annoying. I get them all the time from cowboy fans, too. I can tell you point blank that it does not affect my vote one way or another, and I suspect all of my colleagues would say the same. Every one of the 39 selectors does their homework. They know the candidates, many of us have seen them play live and on television, and we take this job extremely seriously. Frankly, I also thought Snyder's statement was totally unecessary and surely won't sway any voter one way or the other. Keep the faith. We made some progress this year, and I still believe monk will make it. "

SOunds to me like the email campaigns are a waste of everyone's time anyway, at least if they are a continual barrage. I'm definitely going to work on my video over the next few months. Maybe it will help somehow if someone like Shapiro can use it as ammunition in the next meeting.

[smoak]

I don't remember specifics, but he ripped Peter King and said we should refer to the HOF as something like "The Hall of 39 Biased Sportswriters Opinions" (I forget his exact wording). He talked about the difference in personalities in Irvin and Monk and how Irvin is friends with Peter King and that is why PK is really pushing for Irvin. He talked about how the quiet leadership guy doesn't get respected by the media. He claimed Irvin's numbers are almost identical to Rison's and that MI is not a HOFer. He had guys calling in and one Cowboy fan was adamant by saying "we all knew where the Redskins were going on third down and we could NOT stop him". He was on fire and it really got me going.

Finally and maybe most importantly, he called for everyone to demand change of the system.

[helimech24]

flave makes some excellent points as usual. Also, I think the fact that the vote is not public allows these guys to hide behind the skirt of "don't blame me I am a supporter". It makes me furious that they are allowed to have full reign until they decide to give up all the power. Why can't fans at least vote who they want to represent their city. What if Shapiro stepped down and Sally Jenkins was appointed?? There has to be accountability for the council and this "Supreme Court" of voters has none. It is a joke.I think this is one of the biggest problems with the voting system. They have no accountability when voting.

[bosshog001]

One of the things I found interesting is that he said he went into the room NOT expecting to vote for Moon, but that someone convinced him to. So, who's doing the campaigning for Monk in there and what's his problem???

But the "That really helps, Dan" reminds me of the comments to the emailers saying that all the emails from Monk were hurting his chances.

That is THE MOST DESPICABLE THING I've ever heard regarding the HOF vote, and that PROVES RIGHT THERE that they vote with bias. It makes me sick.

THis guy really thinks he controls the world.

[smoak]

I think this is one of the biggest problems with the voting system. They have no accountability when voting.

The worst part is I am sure there are some great writers out there who make informed decisions based on fact, but you never know who to believe. I do give credit to PK for being honest about not voting for Monk, but I disbelieve his reasons. It stinks that people argue "leadership" for Irvin, but no voter has publicly made that argument for Monk. I have OFTEN read about how 1) b/c Monk never really spoke, when he did say something the ENTIRE team paid attention and responded. and 2) Monk almost always pulled young players aside and got them to workout outside of practice.

[helimech24]

The worst part is I am sure there are some great writers out there who make informed decisions based on fact, but you never know who to believe. I do give credit to PK for being honest about not voting for Monk, but I disbelieve his reasons. It stinks that people argue "leadership" for Irvin, but no voter has publicly made that argument for Monk. I have OFTEN read about how 1) b/c Monk never really spoke, when he did say something the ENTIRE team paid attention and responded. and 2) Monk almost always pulled young players aside and got them to workout outside of practice.I totally agree with you man. I think the only way anything is going to change is when HOF coaches and players get some sort of say in the process. A players interaction with the media shouldn't be a determining factor in his selection.

[BurgundyNGold]

"Thanks for the note. As the guy who has presented monk to the membership every year since he's been eligible, I also felt terribly about him not getting in. I would say to you that there is no conspiracy, no evil plot to keep him out, just a genuine difference of opinion that I keep chipping away at every year. I will tell you that the e-mail barrage, which does seem to be organized, has always been rather annoying. I get them all the time from cowboy fans, too. I can tell you point blank that it does not affect my vote one way or another, and I suspect all of my colleagues would say the same. Every one of the 39 selectors does their homework. They know the candidates, many of us have seen them play live and on television, and we take this job extremely seriously. Frankly, I also thought Snyder's statement was totally unecessary and surely won't sway any voter one way or the other. Keep the faith. We made some progress this year, and I still believe monk will make it. "
I think we have the source of the problem right there. Isn't it supposedly the definition of insanity when you do something over and over and over again expecting a different result each time? Shapiro is done. He's failed miserably and is getting run over roughshod in that room by those with stronger personalities every year.

Chipping away? What is there to chip away??? There shouldn't even be a discussion about Monk getting enshrined.

Time to bring in Wilbon.

[dj_stouty]

Wasn't Shapiro the same fellow who asked us two weeks ago to stop emailing the selection committee because it can only do more harm than good? Sounds like he is back pedaling a bit, which isn't wise since both King and Banks have BOTH claimed Danny's press release did nothing but "hurt" Monk's future chances.

This is really bogus.

[HanburgerBum]

That he takes it upon himself to campaign against Monk is why King has shown he has not one ounce of Credibility nor integrity. I simply cannot believe a word that comes out of his mouth simply because of the way he conducts himself. When we hear things like "He always returns phone calls" and things along those lines, it shows that the amount of props you get amongst this groups is directly propostional to the amount of air-time and engaging interviews you give them. My Point, THEY ARE NOT INDEPENDENT, but rather, are slaves to their media agenda....ergo, getting a good story. Those players that coooperate to that end are rewarded and those that do not are not. End of Story. Your take of this group as an "Independent" group is misguided at worst and naive at best.


It is certainly possible that PK is un-informed about Monk and has some kind of a bias against Art, but I think the Hall voters as a group are certainly independent. By independent, I mean free from external influences. I refer you to Len Shapiro's response posted by WWD (post No. 72 of this thread). Shapiro is someone I fully trust, and he states that there is no conspiracy to keep Monk out (just genuine difference of opinion).

LS further states that he finds the email barrage supporting Monk to be annoying. It is just human nature that one doesn't want to be told what to do. If a Washington journalist finds it annoying, you can imagine what out-of-town journalists must think. I personally believe these emails to be counter-productive for that reason. This is not a political campaign.

Shapiro also implies that Art has gained some ground this year. That's encouraging news. Maybe next year, when some of the voters are prepared to vote in Michael Irvin, they will be shamed into voting in Monk as well.

[HanburgerBum]

We understand what you are saying HB but the current system has fundamental flaws and the nature of the people voting emphasises these flaws.

Peter King worked for Newsday from 1985-1988 reporting on the New York Giants. Week in and week out he would be at Giants games. This meant in the 4 year period he saw Art Monk play live six times and probably any Monday Night Games Monk played in. King likely missed a quarter of Monk's career because of his New York commitments. Monk played 56 games had 274Receptions and 3723 Yards in those 4 seasons. How does this qualify him to vote on the whole of Monk's career?

It is inherently unfair that 39 men who these days have a National soapbox because of the internet, can actively campaign for players in their articles, yet the players themselves have no such forum. King vocally told everyone in reach that he would support Harry Carson, why should he be allowed to do this?

The voting system allows no personal testimony from the players themselves, yet if they speak out about the whole process as Harry Carson has, they are often accused of coveting a place in the Hall by the very people who have complete freedom to say whatever they like, the media. It is a double standard and completely unfair.

Your arguments about bias are undermined by the way people like Dr. Z and Peter King behave in their articles. For instance Sean Salisbury said that he felt it was a disgrace that Art Monk was not in the Hall. King felt it was necessary to make a lengthy rebuttal of Salisbury, something Salisbury was not afforded. King's article pinned his colours to his mast and made clear that he would never be open to a different point of view. This is unacceptable, the voters should be open minded always.

The fact is journalists have complete license to say whatever they feel without ever having to face a response. If King is going to be so public with his views, he at least owes it to Art Monk to spend five minutes with the guy and hear his views on his career. I think that would be an uncomfortable five minutes for King.

For the journalists to criticise Snyder for speaking out is immensely hypocritical when they have total free reign to say what they feel. They should embrace other peoples feelings, and until they do, and openly acknowledge they have sought all opinion in making their decision, I will continue to be of the opinion that they are immensely unqualified to do the job.

If the voting is to be considered fair, I feel it should be statutory for each voter to interview at least a dozen team mates and opponents of each finalist and solicit their opinion. It could be totally private but would form a much truer picture. If they want the responsibility they should put in the time. Meeting the Saturday before the Superbowl is not good enough in my opinion.

If I repeat myself it is because I am sickened by the way this whole process works.


I agree that this whole HOF election process leaves a lot to be desired. But, I have yet to hear of a better alternative.

You suggest that the voters interview at least a dozen teammates and opponents of each finalist. Aside from the fact that that is very time-consuming, I don't think it would improve the process. As I have posted previously, players vote for the pro bowl now and have turned that into a popularity contest in essence. If players get to vote, I fear that every liked candidate who is vaguely qualified would get in.

Is the Hall mistaken to keep out Art Monk? Absolutely. But, I think it would be compounding the mistake to change the voting process into something worse because the Hall has so far got it wrong about Art.

[BurgundyNGold]

I agree that this whole HOF election process leaves a lot to be desired. But, I have yet to hear of a better alternative.
What was wrong with my Player/Coach plan?

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=680271&postcount=41

I think you've heard better ideas put forward on this very thread but you choose to discount them in favor of your predetermined conclusion that the imperfect sportwriter system is the best. Most of us up here disagree with you and have even offered up alternatives.

[HanburgerBum]

I can not think of a player in ANY sport who retired as the statistical best at his postion who is not in the HOF for a specific reason (i.e. Rose is banned). Maybe fans and players would be biased, but the bias of the media is the worst b/c it pormotes loudmouth "sound bite" guys like Irvin to get in before quite leaders like Monk. The media doesn't like Monk b/c Monk never gave them the time of day and I am the LAST person to claim race, but he also played at a time when the media was more dominated by white males. Can you honestly tell me that Monk's not being in the HOF has NOTHING to do with the fact that he was an African American athlete who was perceived to snub a bunch of rich white writers? I am not crying foul, but rather suggesting that the committee contain both players, media, and special interest people.

Why not have one fan present from each team. I know the logistics are impossible, but as long as they fan proved to be worthy and knowledgeable, then I would be ok with it. The open public would be the WORST way to decide HOF, but c'mon the media is not the answer and they are proving it.


I can flat out state that I don't think RACE has anything to do with HOF voting as a whole. Sure, there may be an isolated racially-biased journalist here and there among the Hall voters. But, I can not conceive that in the year 2006 and with journalists being usually ahead of the curve when it comes to equal rights, that race may be a factor in the overall HOF voting.

I have reservations about Warren Moon being voted in, because a good chunk of his career was spent in the Canadian League. To me, accomplishments there shouldn't count. Otherwise, Joe Theismann may have a good claim for the Hall too. Yet, Moon was voted in in his first year of eligibiity.

As for your idea of enlarging the voting committee to include players, coaches and fans, I think that would make a less-than-ideal process now even less ideal. Players and coaches vote for the pro bowl and have turned that into a popularity contest. Fans tend to be hero worshipers and would probably be even worse. And, how many fans would be knowledgeable or would do the necessary homework?

[HanburgerBum]

flave makes some excellent points as usual. Also, I think the fact that the vote is not public allows these guys to hide behind the skirt of "don't blame me I am a supporter". It makes me furious that they are allowed to have full reign until they decide to give up all the power. Why can't fans at least vote who they want to represent their city. What if Shapiro stepped down and Sally Jenkins was appointed?? There has to be accountability for the council and this "Supreme Court" of voters has none. It is a joke.


Open ballot is a two-edge sword. On the one hand, it promotes accountability. On the other hand, it tends to hinder voters from voting their true feelings. I suspect the latter reason is why we in this country vote by secret ballot in political elections.

I am not sure which is better for the HOF voting. If push came to shove, I would probably choose secret ballot. I think that would shield the voters from external pressure and help them to vote their conscious.

[HanburgerBum]

Lets face it...

...Had Monk run his car into his wife, been arrested with a kilo of coke in his possession, punched a fan or bad-mouthed opponents week-in and week-out, he probably would have been enshrined by now.

If you are soft spoken, you are overlooked. Plain and simple.

It's sad.


I am hopeful when some HOF voters are going to vote for Michael Irvin in the future they would look in the mirror and be shamed into voting for Art Monk as well.

[HanburgerBum]

He already stareted ripping this morning and I expect it will continue today. Funny, this is the only time I have ever looked forward to his show. I'll occasionally tune it to hear if there are any updates, but I despise the guy (usually)... Here I am right on board with him and think he is absolutely 100% correct.


I don't think Czaban ripping the HOF voters on the air is going to help the cause. It would only serve to get their danders up. The voters don't want to be perceived as caving in to external pressure. Some, who are sitting on the fence, may now vote against Monk just to prove their independence.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't think Czaban ripping the HOF voters on the air is going to help the cause. It would only serve to get their danders up. The voters don't want to be perceived as caving in to external pressure. Some, who are sitting on the fence, may now vote against Monk just to prove their independence.
If that were the case, then:

1) Harry Carson would still be on the outside looking in, and
2) They would vote Monk in to avoid looking like the minions of peter king.

[dj_stouty]

I'm not sure if there is a viable alternative...

Coaches would probably be biased towards people they personally coached or famous alums from their franchise. Plus, with ZERO offseason in the NFL, do they really have the time to research which players are worthy or would they rather scout some unknown TE out of Utah State?

The current players have never played with 4/5ths of the guys on the final ballot, and they definitely didn't play against guys Carson or teams coached by John Madden. In fact, they would probably enshrine Madden b/c of his video game! If they were a factor in voting, rumors would be rampant that some WR was voted in b/c he threw the phatest party during the most recent super bowl.

The fans are the most biased of the bunch. Look what they do to the Pro Bowl.

Oh yeah...and the owners would all vote for themselves. ;)

The media is "supposed" to be unbiased, and that is why it is their duty to enshrine the most deserving canidates. Unfortunately, we are all starting to wonder exactly how biased/unbiased they really are.

The best solution is really to tweak the existing process. I say you force 1/3 of the voting committee OUT every year. Replace them. I don't know how...but you get rid of those who don't honor the system as well as they should.

[The Skinsinator]

I have OFTEN read about how 1) b/c Monk never really spoke, when he did say something the ENTIRE team paid attention and responded. and 2) Monk almost always pulled young players aside and got them to workout outside of practice.Great points Smoak. I think his shyness almost hurts him a bit in this "popularity" contest. I really doubt that Irvin "made" other younger players work out other than practice. Now, doing other things is a strong possiblity. :rolleyes:

[flave1969]

I agree that this whole HOF election process leaves a lot to be desired. But, I have yet to hear of a better alternative.

You suggest that the voters interview at least a dozen teammates and opponents of each finalist. Aside from the fact that that is very time-consuming, I don't think it would improve the process. As I have posted previously, players vote for the pro bowl now and have turned that into a popularity contest in essence. If players get to vote, I fear that every liked candidate who is vaguely qualified would get in.

Is the Hall mistaken to keep out Art Monk? Absolutely. But, I think it would be compounding the mistake to change the voting process into something worse because the Hall has so far got it wrong about Art.

The players who are up for election deserve better than the process offers. I believe that if you are going to hold the honour of voting you should have to put some effort in. Why this happens on one morning is beyond me.

I disagree that interviewing players and coaches would not help the process and I am only talking doing this for the final 15 here. The last fifteen are known from the beginning of November, the voters could submit questions in November with interviews conducted on their behalf and shown on video. There are many ways to involve player testimony without it dragging out forever.

My preferred method of voting would be to have a player/coach voting alongside each journalist who goes back far enough to have experienced play in a different decade. To my knowledge none of the voters have played Pro Football, yet there dozens of TV pundits/journalists who have played, perhaps it is time they started to form part of the voting process.

[BurgundyNGold]

Coaches would probably be biased towards people they personally coached or famous alums from their franchise. Plus, with ZERO offseason in the NFL, do they really have the time to research which players are worthy or would they rather scout some unknown TE out of Utah State?
They watch more film than anyone. I would certainly say they watch more film than most sportswriters, what with all of their TV commitments and all.

The current players have never played with 4/5ths of the guys on the final ballot, and they definitely didn't play against guys Carson or teams coached by John Madden. In fact, they would probably enshrine Madden b/c of his video game! If they were a factor in voting, rumors would be rampant that some WR was voted in b/c he threw the phatest party during the most recent super bowl.
But at least 1/5 of them would've played against the candidate. That's roughly 100% more than the sportwriters have played with or against them. I would take the chance that the players knew better. Plus, much of the league that would be voting in my scenario wouldn't be active players. Plus, if a player needed to have 6 years tenure to vote, that would rule out most of the party boys (read Rod Gardner who might not make it to 6). That would kill the "Phat Party" conspiracy.

The fans are the most biased of the bunch. Look what they do to the Pro Bowl.
Agreed. Just check out that Chunky Soup voting poll they did a while back to see how the fans can manipulate the process. Fans shouldn't get a vote.

Oh yeah...and the owners would all vote for themselves. ;)
Owners shouldn't get a vote either.

The media is "supposed" to be unbiased, and that is why it is their duty to enshrine the most deserving canidates. Unfortunately, we are all starting to wonder exactly how biased/unbiased they really are.
And yet, they aren't. Back in the day, the beat writers (like Jason La Canfora) would be on the committee. Now, it's all a bunhc of op-ed sportswriting "personalities". They get paid to have opinions and attitudes about topics. Sorry, but the fact that it has gotten to this point is just bunko.

The best solution is really to tweak the existing process. I say you force 1/3 of the voting committee OUT every year. I don't know how...but you get rid of those who don't honor the system as well as they should.
I disagree. I think a Player/Coach system would yield a fairer and better informed bunch of voters. I actually have another plan I'll introduce after we're done debating the merits of the Player/Coach system. ;)

[BurgundyNGold]

The players who are up for election deserve better than the process offers. I believe that if you are going to hold the honour of voting you should have to put some effort in. Why this happens on one morning is beyond me.

I disagree that interviewing players and coaches would not help the process and I am only talking doing this for the final 15 here. The last fifteen are known from the beginning of November, the voters could submit questions in November with interviews conducted on their behalf and shown on video. There are many ways to involve player testimony without it dragging out forever.

My preferred method of voting would be to have a player/coach voting alongside each journalist who goes back far enough to have experienced play in a different decade. To my knowledge none of the voters have played Pro Football, yet there dozens of TV pundits/journalists who have played, perhaps it is time they started to form part of the voting process.
Great post. I think that the hof committe is so resistent to change their closed minded little process is very telling.

[HanburgerBum]

What was wrong with my Player/Coach plan?

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=680271&postcount=41

I think you've heard better ideas put forward on this very thread but you choose to discount them in favor of your predetermined conclusion that the imperfect sportwriter system is the best. Most of us up here disagree with you and have even offered up alternatives.


I have considered your player/coach plan, and I thought I have addressed it. But, I will try to do so again.

Your player/coach plan is very similar to the system now in place for pro bowl voting. I think you will agree that in recent years pro bowl voting has become largely a popularity contest. Many worthy candidates are left out (e.g. Marcus Washington this season), and many others make it on reputation alone.

Do you honestly think pro bowl voting has been better than HOF voting? I think the latter, for all its faults, has been far superior than the former. The HOF should be a very exclusive club. If the voters were to err, they should err on the side of exclusion rather than inclusion. I would trust the journalists (who normally have an arms-length relationship with players) to do that job much more so than I would players and coaches who would be voting on their buddies and colleagues. I fear that if players/coaches get to vote, there would be a large increase in the number of inductees in the future. This would cheapen membership in the Hall. The inductees already there need to be protected from this type of unwarranted inflation.

[BurgundyNGold]

I have considered your player/coach plan, and I thought I have addressed it. But, I will try to do so again.

Your player/coach plan is very similar to the system now in place for pro bowl voting. I think you will agree that in recent years pro bowl voting has become largely a popularity contest. Many worthy candidates are left out (e.g. Marcus Washington this season), and many others make it on reputation alone.

Do you honestly think pro bowl voting has been better than HOF voting? I think the latter, for all its faults, has been far superior than the former. The HOF should be a very exclusive club. If the voters were to err, they should err on the side of exclusion rather than inclusion. I would trust the journalists (who normally have an arms-length relationship with players) to do that job much more so than I would players and coaches who would be voting on their buddies and colleagues. I fear that if players/coaches get to vote, there would be a large increase in the number of inductees in the future. This would cheapen membership in the Hall. The inductees already there need to be protected from this type of unwarranted inflation.
I heard your bit about the pro bowl, but I thought I had refuted that for you already. Here it is again:

If you think that the system I suggest is similar to the pro bowl voting then you're misinformed about both. The pro bowl accepts votes from CURRENT players, coaches and FANS. Granted, the weight of the fan vote is watered down to the point of a symbolic gesture, but they are still involved in the process.

My plan has three distinct differences. First, no fan voting. Second, both players and coaches much have tenure. That is 12 years for coaches and 6 years for players. So, a an opportunity to mature and acquire a reverence for the game can occur. Finally, former generations of players who have accrued tenure can still vote. This way, talent and numbers can be weighed more heavily than the votes of the current players. In essence, the 80 years of the NFL that made the hof what it is today still has its voice echo throughout the hof every year.

How exactly is that like pro bowl balloting or worse than letting Pastabelly have a vote and Bart Starr not have one?

[dj_stouty]

BNG - How about a hybrid approach?

The current Media Group/Veteran HOF Committee whittles it down to the top 15...and then the veteran coaches/players reps vote on the final 4-6?

That way, our coaches only have to research and make educated decisions on 15 players instead of pawning over dozens of players. Their time is too valuable...

However, each team still needs to be represented by at least one coach.

I'm still weary of letting the players vote. However I guess I would feel fairly comfortable with a guy like Shaun Springs or Jon Jansen being our representative.

[BurgundyNGold]

BNG - How about a hybrid approach?

The current Media Group/Veteran HOF Committee whittles it down to the top 15...and then the veteran coaches/players reps vote on the final 4-6?

That way, our coaches only have to research and make educated decisions on 15 players instead of pawning over dozens of players. Their time is too valuable...

However, each team still needs to be represented by at least one coach.

I'm still weary of letting the players vote. However I guess I would feel fairly comfortable with a guy like Shaun Springs or Jon Jansen being our representative.
I think that could work. The media would be involved in the process and then the actual players and coaches would go and vote on the finalists. I like it.

[BurgundyNGold]

BTW, my other idea was to have the members of the hof themselves be the ones to decide who was to join their exclusive club. That way, if they decided that a criminal like Irvin would tarnish the hof, they could keep him out and nobody could argue to the contrary. ;)

[Dexter72]

I can flat out state that I don't think RACE has anything to do with HOF voting as a whole. Sure, there may be an isolated racially-biased journalist here and there among the Hall voters. But, I can not conceive that in the year 2006 and with journalists being usually ahead of the curve when it comes to equal rights, that race may be a factor in the overall HOF voting.

From King's column Monday: "Moon's skin color did not enter the equation for me."

The fact that he mentions it makes you wonder...Does it for other voters? Does it for other candidates? Maybe not a conscious decision, but something that happens due to cultural differences/perceptions....

Personally, I would put Irvin in (based solely on play) ahead of Aikman. When Irvin's career ended, Aikman's might as well have been over as well -- his 2 yrs without Irvin he threw 24 TDs and 26 Ints, despite still being fairly young by QB standards (33).

And I think you could make an argument that Thurman Thomas might belong in the Hall ahead of Jim Kelly...The Bills weren't any good until Thomas' rookie year -- Kelly had a few years of USFL experience and went 4-12 and 6-6 as a starter his first 2 years, when Thomas showed up they went 12-4...And Thomas at least had one good Super Bowl game (unlike Kelly) -- 190 total yds and a TD against the Giants.

Maybe the fact that Kelly and Aikman were QBs were a big factor as well...but here a non-QB one:

Monk vs. Riggins. If you told me the Skins would only have 1 players from the 80s in the Hall, hands down I would take Monk -- he was a far bigger key for them than Riggins, as evidenced by the fact that he has 3 rings to Riggins 1.

[BurgundyNGold]

From King's column Monday: "Moon's skin color did not enter the equation for me."

The fact that he mentions it makes you wonder...Does it for other voters? Does it for other candidates? Maybe not a conscious decision, but something that happens due to cultural differences/perceptions....

Personally, I would put Irvin in (based solely on play) ahead of Aikman. When Irvin's career ended, Aikman's might as well have been over as well -- his 2 yrs without Irvin he threw 24 TDs and 26 Ints, despite still being fairly young by QB standards (33).

And I think you could make an argument that Thurman Thomas might belong in the Hall ahead of Jim Kelly...The Bills weren't any good until Thomas' rookie year -- Kelly had a few years of USFL experience and went 4-12 and 6-6 as a starter his first 2 years, when Thomas showed up they went 12-4...And Thomas at least had one good Super Bowl game (unlike Kelly) -- 190 total yds and a TD against the Giants.

Maybe the fact that Kelly and Aikman were QBs were a big factor as well...but here a non-QB one:

Monk vs. Riggins. If you told me the Skins would only have 1 players from the 80s in the Hall, hands down I would take Monk -- he was a far bigger key for them than Riggins, as evidenced by the fact that he has 3 rings to Riggins 1.
Moon's skin color entered the equation for him far earlier in his career. He silenced all of his bigoted critics long ago.

Oh, and Thurman Thomas doesn't belong in the HOF. Now way, no how.

[Dexter72]

Oh, and Thurman Thomas doesn't belong in the HOF. Now way, no how.

With Art Monk not in, I would say no to a lot of people including Thomas. If I forget about Monk's situation though, he is 8th all-time in yds from scrimmage -- the others in the Top 10 are all in -- so I think he certainly should be considered, and I'd put him ahead of guys like Bettis and Curtis Martin...but my main point is that he maybe deserves it more than Kelly.

[BurgundyNGold]

With Art Monk not in, I would say no to a lot of people including Thomas. If I forget about Monk's situation though, he is 8th all-time in yds from scrimmage -- the others in the Top 10 are all in -- so I think he certainly should be considered, and I'd put him ahead of guys like Bettis and Curtis Martin...but my main point is that he maybe deserves it more than Kelly.
I don't know that he led the league in rushing. Add in that his Superbowl choke jobs will infamously live in the annals of NFL lore forever and I just don't see how he makes it. Terrell Davis should get in before Thurman Thomas and I'm on the fence about TD.

[Dexter72]

I don't know that he led the league in rushing. Add in that his Superbowl choke jobs will infamously live in the annals of NFL lore forever and I just don't see how he makes it. Terrell Davis should get in before Thurman Thomas and I'm on the fence about TD.

Not sure about rushing but he led the league in yds from scrimmage 4 yrs in a row...Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he should definitely be in -- and I agree its a lot like TD -- but I think there are lesser guys who are in/considered HOF locks.

[BurgundyNGold]

Not sure about rushing but he led the league in yds from scrimmage 4 yrs in a row...Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he should definitely be in -- and I agree its a lot like TD -- but I think there are lesser guys who are in/considered HOF locks.
It all just seems so ludicrous to me when a guy who finished tops in career receptions and held other prostigious records (like the single season receiving mark) can't get in the hof but a poor man's Emmitt Smith like Thurman Thomas is not only garnering consideration but is making the cut ahead of Monk.

How exactly is Shapiro "chipping away" at anything if Monk can't even make it into the round of 10 anymore?

[DCGreys]

Do you have any basis for your belief that Banks, Dr. Z and PK are in some sort of "conspiracy" against all Redskins HOF candidates? They obviously aren't all that powerful, since the Hall has many Redskins (Sonny, Charlie Taylor, Bobby Mitchell, George Marshall just to name a few).

My feeling is that when we make accusations against Hall voters who vote against Monk without proof to back them up, we are not doing Art, the Redskins organization, or the Redskins fans any favors. To the outside world, we just look like homers with blinders on. I know we are better than that.
Well said. Also, I believe that Mr. Monk SHALL eventually be elected to the Hall of Fame. And you know, fellow fans of DC.. does it even matter? We watched the beauty of Mr. Monk; his artistry, his ball catching, his leadership, his routes, his clutch catches, his presence on the field that everyone rallied around. We know he is the best, along with Charley Taylor. Don't be so upset; we won all those Super Bowls and Art Monk has all those rings. He is great and we knew it long before anyone else agrees with us.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well said. Also, I believe that Mr. Monk SHALL eventually be elected to the Hall of Fame. And you know, fellow fans of DC.. does it even matter? We watched the beauty of Mr. Monk; his artistry, his ball catching, his leadership, his routes, his clutch catches, his presence on the field that everyone rallied around. We know he is the best, along with Charley Taylor. Don't be so upset; we won all those Super Bowls and Art Monk has all those rings. He is great and we knew it long before anyone else agrees with us.
That's like what they're saying in [blank] right now: I know we lost the Superbowl, but look that all we accomplished. We finshed 13-3 and we played well. We got to go to the Superbowl and be part of the history and the pageantry. I met Mick Jagger and had fondue. Does it really matter that much that we lost?

Yes, it does. And it does matter that 39 sportswriters led by the uber tool peter king is choosing to punish Monk for not being open to the media during his career.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot that I was only going to refer to that team out in Washington State as [blank] ever since they did that little bit with the Redskins name in their newspaper.

[helimech24]

BNG - How about a hybrid approach?

The current Media Group/Veteran HOF Committee whittles it down to the top 15...and then the veteran coaches/players reps vote on the final 4-6?

That way, our coaches only have to research and make educated decisions on 15 players instead of pawning over dozens of players. Their time is too valuable...

However, each team still needs to be represented by at least one coach.

I'm still weary of letting the players vote. However I guess I would feel fairly comfortable with a guy like Shaun Springs or Jon Jansen being our representative.
Exellent idea DJ. It brings every point of view in exept the stupid fans' votes. Great idea man.

[flave1969]

Well said. Also, I believe that Mr. Monk SHALL eventually be elected to the Hall of Fame. And you know, fellow fans of DC.. does it even matter? We watched the beauty of Mr. Monk; his artistry, his ball catching, his leadership, his routes, his clutch catches, his presence on the field that everyone rallied around. We know he is the best, along with Charley Taylor. Don't be so upset; we won all those Super Bowls and Art Monk has all those rings. He is great and we knew it long before anyone else agrees with us.


I am upset because players dignity is stripped away every year that they go through this process and when journalists pin their colours to the mast so openly it makes it worse.

Harry Carson in the Hall is a joke, not because he is not worthy. It is because he gets in on his third time in the final six. What has he done to make people vote him in now that he did not do on the football field? Nothing. He was as worthy his first time as this time, he should have been in then because he has done nothing new to get in except complain about the process. He was right to do so and maybe sympathy got him in this time. It is BS, selectivity is fine but dont you think it somewhat hypocritical that the same 39 men did not vote in Carson last time but they did this time. Where is the integrity in that.

[Keino]

Do you have any basis for your belief that Banks, Dr. Z and PK are in some sort of "conspiracy" against all Redskins HOF candidates? They obviously aren't all that powerful, since the Hall has many Redskins (Sonny, Charlie Taylor, Bobby Mitchell, George Marshall just to name a few).

My feeling is that when we make accusations against Hall voters who vote against Monk without proof to back them up, we are not doing Art, the Redskins organization, or the Redskins fans any favors. To the outside world, we just look like homers with blinders on. I know we are better than that.


Answer me this:

Did any of those guys (Banks, Zimmerman or King) have a HOF vote prior to 1986? Sonny, Charley Taylor, Bobby Mitchell, Sam Huff, Kenny Houston all were inducted in 1982 or later. The mere appearance of Redskins does not discount the notion that there is an Anti-Redskins bias amongst this group of clowns.

Doing nothing, in the face of such a blatent injustice except for shrugging your shoulders and saying "Well it's not perfect, but I haven't seen another proposed system that would work better" is worse that looking like a homer with bliders on. It is the intellectual equivalent of watching someone rob your neighbors house and not even bothering to call the police. It is a complacency that borders on immorality.

[BigPlayJay]

It amazes me that the voting committee actually takes fan emails and owner letters personally when it comes to voting.

He is biased...Its obvious.

They need to change how the Hall is voted in. Why should know-it-all, ego-driven media guys have all the say? They need to maybe split the selection power with the current Hall of Famers.

[techskinsfan]

They need to change how the Hall is voted in. Why should know-it-all, ego-driven media guys have all the say? They need to maybe split the selection power with the current Hall of Famers.
yea i agree...they always say that its a sort of fraternity, well then why shouldnt the members of the fraternity get to vote in some way for who gets to join them...plus they actually played against some of the players

[ChiefPowhatan17]

How does Chicago rank higher than us. We went one round further in the playoffs and beat them last year. This guy is a loser. Peter Queen.

[HanburgerBum]

I heard your bit about the pro bowl, but I thought I had refuted that for you already. Here it is again:

If you think that the system I suggest is similar to the pro bowl voting then you're misinformed about both. The pro bowl accepts votes from CURRENT players, coaches and FANS. Granted, the weight of the fan vote is watered down to the point of a symbolic gesture, but they are still involved in the process.

My plan has three distinct differences. First, no fan voting. Second, both players and coaches much have tenure. That is 12 years for coaches and 6 years for players. So, a an opportunity to mature and acquire a reverence for the game can occur. Finally, former generations of players who have accrued tenure can still vote. This way, talent and numbers can be weighed more heavily than the votes of the current players. In essence, the 80 years of the NFL that made the hof what it is today still has its voice echo throughout the hof every year.

How exactly is that like pro bowl balloting or worse than letting Pastabelly have a vote and Bart Starr not have one?


You can sliced, diced and window dressed it anyway you want, but when players and coaches (either former or present) are involved, the voting would tend to become less objective. Why, because they are all part of the same fraternity. They have played together, against each other, taken the same physical risks, experienced the ecstasy of victory and the agony of defeat, have gone thru the wars, etc. It is just human nature that they would feel like comrades in arms. Can you get one marine to say something bad about another marine even if they have never met?

True, other players and coaches would probably have more "expertise" as to just how good a player really was. But, I would rather have the independence of a group of journalists instead of the expertise of footballmen when it comes to HOF voting. Journalists by definition have an arms-length relationship with players and coaches. They don't need to worry about who they are going to pi__ off. It just stands to reason that they would be more objective.

Can you get a "biased" journalist here and there? Of course. But the committee is populated by 39 writers representing every corner of the country. So, any such "biased" journalist would likely have an insignificant influence.

I know it is the popular theory around these parts that somehow Peter King is able to impose his will on the other journalists and get them to vote against Monk. King has always denied this. More importantly, Len Shapiro confirmed that that is not the case in his email response to WWD. I fully trust Shapiro. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, I will presume that King is simply voting his conscious. We who think Monk deserves induction may not like his vote, but King is absolutely entitled to vote as he sees it.

[helimech24]

You can sliced, diced and window dressed it anyway you want, but when players and coaches (either former or present) are involved, the voting would tend to become less objective. Why, because they are all part of the same fraternity. They have played together, against each other, taken the same physical risks, experienced the ecstasy of victory and the agony of defeat, have gone thru the wars, etc. It is just human nature that they would feel like comrades in arms. Can you get one marine to say something bad about another marine even if they have never met?

True, other players and coaches would probably have more "expertise" as to just how good a player really was. But, I would rather have the independence of a group of journalists instead of the expertise of footballmen when it comes to HOF voting. Journalists by definition have an arms-length relationship with players and coaches. They don't need to worry about who they are going to pi__ off. It just stands to reason that they would be more objective.

Can you get a "biased" journalist here and there? Of course. But the committee is populated by 39 writers representing every corner of the country. So, any such "biased" journalist would likely have an insignificant influence.

I know it is the popular theory around these parts that somehow Peter King is able to impose his will on the other journalists and get them to vote against Monk. King has always denied this. More importantly, Len Shapiro confirmed that that is not the case in his email response to WWD. I fully trust Shapiro. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, I will presume that King is simply voting his conscious. We who think Monk deserves induction may not like his vote, but King is absolutely entitled to vote as he sees it.
But those same journalist are fans of players and teams. Do you think a Dallas Tribune writer is going to vote for Monk over Irvin? They are as bias with their writing and thinking as we are as fans.

If you don't think it works, then why does it work for the Heisman trophey. The Heisman winners get a say in the voting for the next Heisman winner, and it works pretty damn good. I think it should be those Hall of famers that vote and not the fans, I mean journalist.

[HanburgerBum]

The players who are up for election deserve better than the process offers. I believe that if you are going to hold the honour of voting you should have to put some effort in. Why this happens on one morning is beyond me.

I disagree that interviewing players and coaches would not help the process and I am only talking doing this for the final 15 here. The last fifteen are known from the beginning of November, the voters could submit questions in November with interviews conducted on their behalf and shown on video. There are many ways to involve player testimony without it dragging out forever.

My preferred method of voting would be to have a player/coach voting alongside each journalist who goes back far enough to have experienced play in a different decade. To my knowledge none of the voters have played Pro Football, yet there dozens of TV pundits/journalists who have played, perhaps it is time they started to form part of the voting process.


If you believe Len Shapiro, he stated in his email response to WWD that every voter takes his responsibility seriously. He said that they all do their homework. I don't know what exactly that would entail. But, I presume that they would at the very least study a candidate's record and maybe interview players/coaches who know him (I am not even sure such interviews are a good idea, but some on this board have suggested that as a way to go). So, I think it is not fair to suggest that the voters spend just one morning a year in this voting process.

[BurgundyNGold]

You can sliced, diced and window dressed it anyway you want, but when players and coaches (either former or present) are involved, the voting would tend to become less objective. Why, because they are all part of the same fraternity. They have played together, against each other, taken the same physical risks, experienced the ecstasy of victory and the agony of defeat, have gone thru the wars, etc. It is just human nature that they would feel like comrades in arms. Can you get one marine to say something bad about another marine even if they have never met?
That is a weak argument. The only thing you've done here is expressed that players and coaches actually know what they're talking about and you're theorizing that they will not be objective. Well, I might agree that the players and coaches on a candidate's team might not be objective. But there are 31 other teams who didn't play with or coach the guy and there are 40 or so years worth of players and coaches who didn't play with or coach him either. If they all see fit to vote in a player, I have to think that any bias from that one team will be dwarfed by the sheer numbers of other knowlegeable voters.

True, other players and coaches would probably have more "expertise" as to just how good a player really was. But, I would rather have the independence of a group of journalists instead of the expertise of footballmen when it comes to HOF voting. Journalists by definition have an arms-length relationship with players and coaches. They don't need to worry about who they are going to pi__ off. It just stands to reason that they would be more objective.

Can you get a "biased" journalist here and there? Of course. But the committee is populated by 39 writers representing every corner of the country. So, any such "biased" journalist would likely have an insignificant influence.
The panel of so called "journalists" are all op-ed people anymore. They're paid to have opinions and to have bias, not to report things. By the very definition of op-ed they have opinions and, therefore, there is very little independence. You can have your opinion, but you are in the minority up here for a reason.

I know it is the popular theory around these parts that somehow Peter King is able to impose his will on the other journalists and get them to vote against Monk. King has always denied this. More importantly, Len Shapiro confirmed that that is not the case in his email response to WWD. I fully trust Shapiro. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, I will presume that King is simply voting his conscious. We who think Monk deserves induction may not like his vote, but King is absolutely entitled to vote as he sees it.
That pompous clown peter king aside, my problem is with the hof induction process. I prefer my system of players and coaches voting, since the hof is about footbal players and coaches -- not sportwriters. Maybe they can vote for the Newsuem so that the torrent of 20 or so people a year who struggle through that tour might appreciate them. The other option is to allow the hof inductees themselves determine who can joing their club. there's a large and diverse enough group in place now for that to work. I can even live with DJ's idea of a combination of sportswriters doing the leg work while the players and coaches elect the final 4-6 from the group of 10-15. What won't fly, however, if the current system of diefying 39 otherwise wallpaper journalists by giving them the right to create or squash a hof life.

[Dexter72]

Can you get a "biased" journalist here and there? Of course. But the committee is populated by 39 writers representing every corner of the country. So, any such "biased" journalist would likely have an insignificant influence.

I am less concerned about bias and much more concerned about competency. How well do the electors understand the intricacies of the game? Do they break down film? If so, do they know what they are looking at? Do they understand the scheme that was being used/plays being called and can they put it in context with the time period in which the guy played? I highly, highly doubt that any of them has ever sat down and broke down film, especially of an interior lineman like Russ Grimm.

Last year before the draft, Peter King, the unofficial dean of the electors, wrote an article proclaiming Jason Campbell was going to be a tremendous pro...I believe he also gave his opinions on other QB prospects such as Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers. In that article, he mentioned that the previous weekend he had gone over to Phil Simms' and watched film on all of those guys with Simms. Do you think Peter King's column on Campbell was his independent assessment of JC? I certainly don't. I imagine he listened to Simms' comments on Campbell's mechanics, arm strength, ability to read defenses, etc., etc. -- things that only a former QB or QB coach really can fully understand -- and formed his opinion/wrote his column based on Simms column. If you don't fully understand the intricacies of the game, you aren't fully-qualified to select players for the Hall.

If players/coaches were voting and you limited the number of players that can get into the Hall on a yearly basis (like they do), you can severely limit the "cronyism".

[BurgundyNGold]

If you believe Len Shapiro, he stated in his email response to WWD that every voter takes his responsibility seriously. He said that they all do their homework. I don't know what exactly that would entail. But, I presume that they would at the very least study a candidate's record and maybe interview players/coaches who know him (I am not even sure such interviews are a good idea, but some on this board have suggested that as a way to go). So, I think it is not fair to suggest that the voters spend just one morning a year in this voting process.
Much like the returing robins each spring, Len Shapiro has failed to get Monk into the hof once again this year like clockwork. He needs to be fired from his job of presenting for Monk. I really don't care to hear any his arse covering assessments.

[HanburgerBum]

Answer me this:

Did any of those guys (Banks, Zimmerman or King) have a HOF vote prior to 1986? Sonny, Charley Taylor, Bobby Mitchell, Sam Huff, Kenny Houston all were inducted in 1982 or later. The mere appearance of Redskins does not discount the notion that there is an Anti-Redskins bias amongst this group of clowns.

Doing nothing, in the face of such a blatent injustice except for shrugging your shoulders and saying "Well it's not perfect, but I haven't seen another proposed system that would work better" is worse that looking like a homer with bliders on. It is the intellectual equivalent of watching someone rob your neighbors house and not even bothering to call the police. It is a complacency that borders on immorality.


I don't know if B, Z and K have HOF votes before 1986. But, I do know that at least Z and K had votes when Riggins got in. Besides, your theory that these three exert an undue influence over other voters is just that--a theory. Len Shapiro (Monk's sponsor) in his email response to WWD stated that there is no conspiracy to keep Art Monk out of the Hall (just honest difference of opinion). Surely, you don't question the right of B, Z and K to vote as they see it.

As for "doing nothing" in the face of injustice, I don't know if there is anything that any of us can do to get Art into the Hall. Shapiro also stated in the same email response that he found a barrage of fan emails supporting Monk's induction to be annoying and probably counter productive. If a Washington writer felt that way, how do you think the out-of-town Hall voters would react to it?

Yes, we in this city find it to be an "injustice" to keep AM out of the Hall. But, do you doubt that fans in every city have a similar player they feel the same way about? Just in this thread alone, there are people who think Michael Irvin should be in, some who think Irvin should be out, some who think Thurman Thomas should be in, others who think the opposite, some who think Ackman deserves it, others who don't. If the voting systems were to be changed to accommodate the fans of every city, we would surely run out of these systems very quickly. And, what happens if a change in the system still doesn't produce the result these fans want?

There are situations where an immediate solution simply doesn't exist. This may be one of those. Our constant whining just makes us look like homers with blinders on. Mike Holmgren is already getting on people's nerves. The composition of the voting committe will not stay the same, people's minds change, voters may be shamed into voting for Art when they are getting set to vote for Irvin. We just need to be patient.

[helimech24]

I don't know if B, Z and K have HOF votes before 1986. But, I do know that at least Z and K had votes when Riggins got in. Besides, your theory that these three exert an undue influence over other voters is just that--a theory. Len Shapiro (Monk's sponsor) in his email response to WWD stated that there is no conspiracy to keep Art Monk out of the Hall (just honest difference of opinion). Surely, you don't question the right of B, Z and K to vote as they see it.

As for "doing nothing" in the face of injustice, I don't know if there is anything that any of us can do to get Art into the Hall. Shapiro also stated in the same email response that he found a barrage of fan emails supporting Monk's induction to be annoying and probably counter productive. If a Washington writer felt that way, how do you think the out-of-town Hall voters would react to it?

Yes, we in this city find it to be an "injustice" to keep AM out of the Hall. But, do you doubt that fans in every city have a similar player they feel the same way about? Just in this thread alone, there are people who think Michael Irvin should be in, some who think Irvin should be out, some who think Thurman Thomas should be in, others who think the opposite, some who think Ackman deserves it, others who don't. If the voting systems were to be changed to accommodate the fans of every city, we would surely run out of these systems very quickly. And, what happens if a change in the system still doesn't produce the result these fans want?

There are situations where an immediate solution simply doesn't exist. This may be one of those. Our constant whining just makes us look like homers with blinders on. Mike Holmgren is already getting on people's nerves. The composition of the voting committe will not stay the same, people's minds change, voters may be shamed into voting for Art when they are getting set to vote for Irvin. We just need to be patient.
If a major newspaper journalist is getting pissed off about getting mail from fans, then he/she should 1)quit 0r 2)take their emails off of the newspaper's website because we are the audience of the newspaper. They write to entertain us, and we are not here for them. It is their job, not ours to read.

[skinfan43]

Peter Queen also has a very annoying nasal/nerdy voice, IMO...

[Keino]

I don't know if B, Z and K have HOF votes before 1986. But, I do know that at least Z and K had votes when Riggins got in. Besides, your theory that these three exert an undue influence over other voters is just that--a theory. Len Shapiro (Monk's sponsor) in his email response to WWD stated that there is no conspiracy to keep Art Monk out of the Hall (just honest difference of opinion). Surely, you don't question the right of B, Z and K to vote as they see it.

As for "doing nothing" in the face of injustice, I don't know if there is anything that any of us can do to get Art into the Hall. Shapiro also stated in the same email response that he found a barrage of fan emails supporting Monk's induction to be annoying and probably counter productive. If a Washington writer felt that way, how do you think the out-of-town Hall voters would react to it?

Yes, we in this city find it to be an "injustice" to keep AM out of the Hall. But, do you doubt that fans in every city have a similar player they feel the same way about? Just in this thread alone, there are people who think Michael Irvin should be in, some who think Irvin should be out, some who think Thurman Thomas should be in, others who think the opposite, some who think Ackman deserves it, others who don't. If the voting systems were to be changed to accommodate the fans of every city, we would surely run out of these systems very quickly. And, what happens if a change in the system still doesn't produce the result these fans want?

There are situations where an immediate solution simply doesn't exist. This may be one of those. Our constant whining just makes us look like homers with blinders on. Mike Holmgren is already getting on people's nerves. The composition of the voting committe will not stay the same, people's minds change, voters may be shamed into voting for Art when they are getting set to vote for Irvin. We just need to be patient.

I don't think I've ever advanced the theory that some voters have more infuluence over the process than others. What I have advanced is the notion that the 3 Writers in question Maliciously campaign against Monk in a manner that IMO adds undue prejudice to what is supposedly an objective voting process. Each one of these "men" has used their respective column to defend their ridiculous position, and the beauty of columns is that they do not allow for the opposite perspective to be presented.

I don't think advocating a change in the system whereby the decisions are no longer left in the hands of the same 39 voters on an annual basis is such an extreme position and is certainly not an accomodation to Redskins fans, but to Football fans. Besides Art Monk, Shouldn't Richard Dent be in the Hall? Shouldn't Phil Simms be there if Aikman's accomplishments warrant a first Ballot selection?

Please, lets call this what it is. The Washington Writer has a greater loyalty to preserving the status of Journalists being in control of the process than he is to seeing this injustice corrected. Keep in Mind, this is the same journalist who has been in charge of presenting Art's case to the rest of the voters since Art's elligibility. Again, I'd rather be perceived as a whining homer than someone who is content to sit back and hope the process rights itself and people are shamed into voting a certain way. These voters, especilly the 3 in question have no shame. None.

We are not the only ones who find this to be an injustice. Football fans accross the nation feel that way. I think there is evidence of that presented in this thread, but I can also point to other football forums where Dallas fans have stated that Art's exclusion is an injustice. That you believe this is just a washington regional perception is as flawed in my mind as the notion that we should sit back and wait for these morons to see the light, and frankly is very Peter King-esque of you.

[BigPlayJay]

We are not the only ones who find this to be an injustice. Football fans accross the nation feel that way. I think there is evidence of that presented in this thread, but I can also point to other football forums where Dallas fans have stated that Art's exclusion is an injustice. That you believe this is just a washington regional perception is as flawed in my mind as the notion that we should sit back and wait for these morons to see the light, and frankly is very Peter King-esque of you.

To back this up Mike Golic (Former Eagle and national sports guy)who usually is against all things Skins, has been saying for years that Monk unquestionably deserves to be in.

[HanburgerBum]

I don't think I've ever advanced the theory that some voters have more infuluence over the process than others. What I have advanced is the notion that the 3 Writers in question Maliciously campaign against Monk in a manner that IMO adds undue prejudice to what is supposedly an objective voting process. Each one of these "men" has used their respective column to defend their ridiculous position, and the beauty of columns is that they do not allow for the opposite perspective to be presented.

I don't think advocating a change in the system whereby the decisions are no longer left in the hands of the same 39 voters on an annual basis is such an extreme position and is certainly not an accomodation to Redskins fans, but to Football fans. Besides Art Monk, Shouldn't Richard Dent be in the Hall? Shouldn't Phil Simms be there if Aikman's accomplishments warrant a first Ballot selection?

Please, lets call this what it is. The Washington Writer has a greater loyalty to preserving the status of Journalists being in control of the process than he is to seeing this injustice corrected. Keep in Mind, this is the same journalist who has been in charge of presenting Art's case to the rest of the voters since Art's elligibility. Again, I'd rather be perceived as a whining homer than someone who is content to sit back and hope the process rights itself and people are shamed into voting a certain way. These voters, especilly the 3 in question have no shame. None.

We are not the only ones who find this to be an injustice. Football fans accross the nation feel that way. I think there is evidence of that presented in this thread, but I can also point to other football forums where Dallas fans have stated that Art's exclusion is an injustice. That you believe this is just a washington regional perception is as flawed in my mind as the notion that we should sit back and wait for these morons to see the light, and frankly is very Peter King-esque of you.


If you don't think the evil three exerted undue influence on the other HOF voters, the inescapable conclusion would be that most voters up to now don't think Art Monk belongs. As much as you and I may dislike that result,
I presume you don't quarrel with the notion that every voter has the right (in fact duty) to vote as he sees it.

As for the three in question writing publically about their reasons for voting against AM, I surely hope you don't think they have no right to do so. They are columnists, that's what they get paid to do. I know if I were a columnist, I would write why I don't think Michael Irvin belongs in the HOF. Here we have a WR who has made a whole career pushing off DBs and not getting called for it. And, I coudn't care less what Dallas fans might think of my columns.

So, you are now also unhappy with Len Shapiro. What is it that you think he should do that he hasn't already done. He states that he presents and champions AM's candidancy every year. Should he arm twist, brow-beat, or even bribe the other voters?

How exactly do you think constant whining about the voting process would advance AM's (or any other candidate's) cause? Is there an inkling that the Hall is listening or about to amend that process in response? Yes, AM absolutely belongs in the Hall, but constant whining from home town fans is not only not going to get that done, it will actually be counter-productive.

[HanburgerBum]

If a major newspaper journalist is getting pissed off about getting mail from fans, then he/she should 1)quit 0r 2)take their emails off of the newspaper's website because we are the audience of the newspaper. They write to entertain us, and we are not here for them. It is their job, not ours to read.


Journalists may not have the right to be annoyed by fan emails, but it is just human nature. Nobody likes being told what to do. For example, before you vote on a political election, what is your reaction to people who constantly bombard you with ads and phone calls trying to persuade you to vote a certain way?

[HanburgerBum]

To back this up Mike Golic (Former Eagle and national sports guy)who usually is against all things Skins, has been saying for years that Monk unquestionably deserves to be in.


There are no doubt many, many fans and media people across the country who think Art Monk belongs in the HOF, not just Washington fans. The issue is not really whether AM belongs, since I presume all of us on this forum think that. The issue is how we should conduct ourselves in the face of disappointment when the HOF voters don't agree with us, and whether the voting process should be amened. And, if so, how should the process be changed to actually improve it?

[HanburgerBum]

That is a weak argument. The only thing you've done here is expressed that players and coaches actually know what they're talking about and you're theorizing that they will not be objective. Well, I might agree that the players and coaches on a candidate's team might not be objective. But there are 31 other teams who didn't play with or coach the guy and there are 40 or so years worth of players and coaches who didn't play with or coach him either. If they all see fit to vote in a player, I have to think that any bias from that one team will be dwarfed by the sheer numbers of other knowlegeable voters.


The panel of so called "journalists" are all op-ed people anymore. They're paid to have opinions and to have bias, not to report things. By the very definition of op-ed they have opinions and, therefore, there is very little independence. You can have your opinion, but you are in the minority up here for a reason.


That pompous clown peter king aside, my problem is with the hof induction process. I prefer my system of players and coaches voting, since the hof is about footbal players and coaches -- not sportwriters. Maybe they can vote for the Newsuem so that the torrent of 20 or so people a year who struggle through that tour might appreciate them. The other option is to allow the hof inductees themselves determine who can joing their club. there's a large and diverse enough group in place now for that to work. I can even live with DJ's idea of a combination of sportswriters doing the leg work while the players and coaches elect the final 4-6 from the group of 10-15. What won't fly, however, if the current system of diefying 39 otherwise wallpaper journalists by giving them the right to create or squash a hof life.


Yes, columnists do have their own opinions ("bias", if you will), but so would players and coaches or for that matter any human being. As a group, I would still trust journalists to be more objective than any other group that I can think of as HOF voters.

As for the players and coaches having more expertise, I will presume that to be a given. But, that may not be a crucial factor. Take our Supreme Court, the justices are probably not experts in 99% of the cases brought before them. Yet, we trust them to make the right and fair decisions. We don't go get religion experts as justices when an issue of the separation of church and state is involved. We don't go get journalists as justices when an issue of freedom of the press presents itself.

If players and coaches get to vote, I fear that in the long run, the Hall would be bulging with undeserving members. I think we should not let our keen disappointment in one case (Art Monk) push us into calling for a new voting system that may be worse and still may not elect AM into the Hall.

[BurgundyNGold]

Yes, columnists do have their own opinions ("bias", if you will), but so would players and coaches or for that matter any human being. As a group, I would still trust journalists to be more objective than any other group that I can think of as HOF voters.
:sleep:

You should spend more time reading what other posters write and less time trying to defend your little square of illogic.

As for the players and coaches having more expertise, I will presume that to be a given. But, that may not be a crucial factor. Take our Supreme Court, the justices are probably not experts in 99% of the cases brought before them. Yet, we trust them to make the right and fair decisions. We don't go get religion experts as justices when an issue of the separation of church and state is involved. We don't go get journalists as justices when an issue of freedom of the press presents itself.
Another bad example. SCOTUS judges might not be experts in abortion or assisted suicide -- much like how an OT might not be an expert in route running -- but they are still supremely qualified (hence the name) in interpreting and applying law. Similarly, NFL players and coaches have equal supremecy in their knowlege of football over a bunch of English class nerds turned sportswriters. Try again.

If players and coaches get to vote, I fear that in the long run, the Hall would be bulging with undeserving members. I think we should not let our keen disappointment in one case (Art Monk) push us into calling for a new voting system that may be worse and still may not elect AM into the Hall.
As opposed to its current allotment of questionable members and absence of no brainers like Monk? We've tried it your way with the sportswriters and folks like Marcus Allen get in on the first ballot while folks like Art Monk can't make it past Thurman Thomas into the round of 10 on his 5th try. Try again.

You have been presented with several viable options up here and have failed to refute any of them successfully. Whether it's the Player/Coach model, the HOF membership model or some combination that might include sportswriters in the process, many of them had at least intriguing points, and yet you fail to see them. Your mind seems made up, which makes talking to you pointless.

Even if there was to remain a sportswriters method, I would think that having the same 39 mediots there year in and year out is counter productive. They should at least replace 1/3 of the membership every year with any single writer not allowed to serve more than 2 years in a 5 year block. That would keep the perspectives fresh.

Then again, I don't think it matters what is suggested up here to replace the current system. I think at this point that you are being obstinate merely for the sake of being so. I think the points have been adequately made up here for anyone not already in the tank for their own myopic point of view to see that the current system is a scam and that there are a multitude of better options out there.

[BurgundyNGold]

There are no doubt many, many fans and media people across the country who think Art Monk belongs in the HOF, not just Washington fans. The issue is not really whether AM belongs, since I presume all of us on this forum think that. The issue is how we should conduct ourselves in the face of disappointment when the HOF voters don't agree with us, and whether the voting process should be amened. And, if so, how should the process be changed to actually improve it?
And how would YOU suggest doing that? Aside from ardently defending the current system, how would you recommend changing it? I've heard nothing from you up here except defending the status quo.

Also, what would you have the fans do? We're Americans. We've all been born and bred to call out injustice where we see it. That's all that's happening with the emails. Would you suggest they paint some signs and go picket outside on the HOF? I'm sure that would be met with equally an much insolence from the HOF voting elite.

[whitskins]

I've gotta say, for all the hate that Peter King and Zimmerman get about Art Monk, at least they have the guts to come out and admit who they vote for and why.

This time of year King is on countless radio shows defending his position on Monk. While I think his reasoning is totally flawed, he could hide behind his right not to reveal who he votes for, like so many do. Instead, he takes the flack and states his case. I respect that and I think it's silly that so much of the Monk hate is geared specifically towards him.

There are 39 Hall of Fame voters and Monk didn't even make the cut from 15 down to 10. Obviously there are A LOT more voters who aren't voting for Monk either, but they're all in hiding. They'd rather let King defend their position and absord all the heat and venom that comes with it. Those guys are the true scum.

[helimech24]

I've gotta say, for all the hate that Peter King and Zimmerman get about Art Monk, at least they have the guts to come out and admit who they vote for and why.

This time of year King is on countless radio shows defending his position on Monk. While I think his reasoning is totally flawed, he could hide behind his right not to reveal who he votes for, like so many do. Instead, he takes the flack and states his case. I respect that and I think it's silly that so much of the Monk hate is geared specifically towards him.

There are 39 Hall of Fame voters and Monk didn't even make the cut from 15 down to 10. Obviously there are A LOT more voters who aren't voting for Monk either, but they're all in hiding. They'd rather let King defend their position and absord all the heat and venom that comes with it. Those guys are the true scum.
Your right about that. I always wonder who else is siding with PK and Zimmerman. You know that Dallas guy is. But it isn't hard to believe that the most of the media hates us, just look at the junk that is published about the Skins on a daily bases.

[flave1969]

I've gotta say, for all the hate that Peter King and Zimmerman get about Art Monk, at least they have the guts to come out and admit who they vote for and why.

This time of year King is on countless radio shows defending his position on Monk. While I think his reasoning is totally flawed, he could hide behind his right not to reveal who he votes for, like so many do. Instead, he takes the flack and states his case. I respect that and I think it's silly that so much of the Monk hate is geared specifically towards him.

There are 39 Hall of Fame voters and Monk didn't even make the cut from 15 down to 10. Obviously there are A LOT more voters who aren't voting for Monk either, but they're all in hiding. They'd rather let King defend their position and absord all the heat and venom that comes with it. Those guys are the true scum.

The point about King and Zimmerman is that whilst they are honest they make it plainly clear they are not open to argument, and that is fundamentally wrong when voting for the hall. There is little Democracy in a system that has unelected men presiding over a voting process.

When I listen to their arguments I set out to refute them by looking first whether I think they are correct and then setting up my arguments that I feel will refute them. this is not a process they have to undergo. I feel I have shown plenty of contextual evidence that shows Monk's greatness and that is not based on Monk's stats alone. How can I ever present my arguments to King, I cannot and I have no champion who would. Len Shapiro presents the case each year but how much does he solicit other views. Analysis brings up a wealth of evidence on just how good Monk is and you know what Video just confirms what we all feel but is it ever used?

This is not just about Art Monk, this is about a lot of players that are held out because of the process. Zimmerman and Grimm name me two better lineman, why are they held out continuously because flair players turn up every year. It is widely accepted even by the voters that they are worthy then why are they not in the Hall. Simms is widely quoted as being worthy. Harold Carmaichael was ahead in receptions yards and TD's of Charlie Joiner when he retired and a more dangerous receiver, does he deserve better. There are a lot of players with equal qualifications that stand up to comparison, Gary Clark to Irvin for instance, but they do not get a look in. Chris Hanburger was a nine time pro bowler, nine times in fourteen seasons. what more qualification do you need.

The Hall is a sham in its present format.

[Keino]

If you don't think the evil three exerted undue influence on the other HOF voters, the inescapable conclusion would be that most voters up to now don't think Art Monk belongs.

Why is that the inescapabable conclusion? You are aware it takes 32 of the 39 votes of "yay" even if you make it down to the Final 6 right? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Monk hasn't gotten the required 32 votes. No other conclusions can be drawn until all 39 voters say how they voted, which doesn't happen.



I presume you don't quarrel with the notion that every voter has the right (in fact duty) to vote as he sees it.

Sure. I just don't think it should be left up to the same 39 Aholes year in and year out. I think that players in the HOF should have a say in who joins their ranks beyond submitting a veteran committee name for consideration.

As for the three in question writing publically about their reasons for voting against AM, I surely hope you don't think they have no right to do so. They are columnists, that's what they get paid to do. I know if I were a columnist, I would write why I don't think Michael Irvin belongs in the HOF. Here we have a WR who has made a whole career pushing off DBs and not getting called for it. And, I coudn't care less what Dallas fans might think of my columns.

Sure they have the right, but what these 3 do is campaign. Again, they add undue prejudice to a what is supposed to be an objective process. Nothing you have added has refuted that point at all. A prosecutor wouldn't be allowed to make his case to the newspapers, because it would prejudice the judicial process.

So, you are now also unhappy with Len Shapiro. What is it that you think he should do that he hasn't already done. He states that he presents and champions AM's candidancy every year. Should he arm twist, brow-beat, or even bribe the other voters?

You make the assumption that his presentation is strong. I'm drawing te conculsion that his presentation has been ineffectual as evidenced by the lack of results he has gotten. His response to an e-mailer further solidifies, in my mind, the notion that he is more loyal to Journalists being in control of the process

How exactly do you think constant whining about the voting process would advance AM's (or any other candidate's) cause? Is there an inkling that the Hall is listening or about to amend that process in response? Yes, AM absolutely belongs in the Hall, but constant whining from home town fans is not only not going to get that done, it will actually be counter-productive.

How do you think sitting back and doing nothing helps Art's cause? An organized, well thought out scream of injustice could make a difference IMO. Much more so than not doing anything. We've seen how well that works.

[HanburgerBum]

:sleep:

You should spend more time reading what other posters write and less time trying to defend your little square of illogic.


Another bad example. SCOTUS judges might not be experts in abortion or assisted suicide -- much like how an OT might not be an expert in route running -- but they are still supremely qualified (hence the name) in interpreting and applying law. Similarly, NFL players and coaches have equal supremecy in their knowlege of football over a bunch of English class nerds turned sportswriters. Try again.


As opposed to its current allotment of questionable members and absence of no brainers like Monk? We've tried it your way with the sportswriters and folks like Marcus Allen get in on the first ballot while folks like Art Monk can't make it past Thurman Thomas into the round of 10 on his 5th try. Try again.

You have been presented with several viable options up here and have failed to refute any of them successfully. Whether it's the Player/Coach model, the HOF membership model or some combination that might include sportswriters in the process, many of them had at least intriguing points, and yet you fail to see them. Your mind seems made up, which makes talking to you pointless.

Even if there was to remain a sportswriters method, I would think that having the same 39 mediots there year in and year out is counter productive. They should at least replace 1/3 of the membership every year with any single writer not allowed to serve more than 2 years in a 5 year block. That would keep the perspectives fresh.

Then again, I don't think it matters what is suggested up here to replace the current system. I think at this point that you are being obstinate merely for the sake of being so. I think the points have been adequately made up here for anyone not already in the tank for their own myopic point of view to see that the current system is a scam and that there are a multitude of better options out there.


Actually, I have read every post on the instant thread, and I have considered all the alternative voting systems being proposed. Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I am obstinate. I simply haven't read one I liked so far.

But, your latest post changed that. I like your idea of turning over the composition of the voting committee more frequently. As I understand it, the voters change from time to time. But, it may just be due to attrition from death and retirement. There may not be a pre-determined term for service. The committee tends to get stale, and the same views (even when bad) tend to perpetuate. So, I am definitely for the idea of a journalist voter serving say a 6-year term with say 1/3 of the committee being scheduled to be replaced every two years (just like the US Senate).

You see, we can find some common ground.

[BurgundyNGold]

Actually, I have read every post on the instant thread, and I have considered all the alternative voting systems being proposed. Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I am obstinate. I simply haven't read one I liked so far.

But, your latest post changed that. I like your idea of turning over the composition of the voting committee more frequently. As I understand it, the voters change from time to time. But, it may just be due to attrition from death and retirement. There may not be a pre-determined term for service. The committee tends to get stale, and the same views (even when bad) tend to perpetuate. So, I am definitely for the idea of a journalist voter serving say a 6-year term with say 1/3 of the committee being scheduled to be replaced every two years (just like the US Senate).

You see, we can find some common ground.
Actually, the Senate is what gave me the idea on 1/3 turnover. However, I prefer something more like the House in the way of actual terms. Two year terms make turnover and fresh faces a lot more likely. That gives more people the chance to participate and it limits any possible power of tenure being wielded by any of the senior voters.

[HanburgerBum]

Why is that the inescapabable conclusion? You are aware it takes 32 of the 39 votes of "yay" even if you make it down to the Final 6 right? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Monk hasn't gotten the required 32 votes. No other conclusions can be drawn until all 39 voters say how they voted, which doesn't happen.





Sure. I just don't think it should be left up to the same 39 Aholes year in and year out. I think that players in the HOF should have a say in who joins their ranks beyond submitting a veteran committee name for consideration.



Sure they have the right, but what these 3 do is campaign. Again, they add undue prejudice to a what is supposed to be an objective process. Nothing you have added has refuted that point at all. A prosecutor wouldn't be allowed to make his case to the newspapers, because it would prejudice the judicial process.



You make the assumption that his presentation is strong. I'm drawing te conculsion that his presentation has been ineffectual as evidenced by the lack of results he has gotten. His response to an e-mailer further solidifies, in my mind, the notion that he is more loyal to Journalists being in control of the process



How do you think sitting back and doing nothing helps Art's cause? An organized, well thought out scream of injustice could make a difference IMO. Much more so than not doing anything. We've seen how well that works.


Actually, I didn't know how many votes it takes to get from one stage to the next. How many "yay" votes are needed to get from 15 to 10? If only a handful of votes are separating Art Monk from the Hall, there is realistic hope that even the present committee may vote him in (especially in a future year when the field of candidates may not be that strong).

As for King "campaigning" to keep Monk out, I am not sure exactly what you mean by that. King has stated repeatedly that he doesn't make any extra effort in that regard. He says he merely expresses his views on the subject when asked. If King is truthful, I think he is entitled to do that. In Whitskins latest post, he actually applauds King for having the guts to own up to his views instead of hiding behind the anonymity of the secret ballot.

As I just posted in reply to BNG, I like his latest proposal of turning over the HOF voters more quickly, with specific terms of service. That would get some fresh blood and fresh ideas onto the committee periodically and perhaps increase the chances of getting AM the induction he richly deserves. It would also serve to replace Len Shapiro when his term is up with someone who will be a more effective champion for AM, if LS is indeed not any good at that job. Do you have any ideas how we can get the Hall to adopt this proposal?

[HanburgerBum]

I've gotta say, for all the hate that Peter King and Zimmerman get about Art Monk, at least they have the guts to come out and admit who they vote for and why.

This time of year King is on countless radio shows defending his position on Monk. While I think his reasoning is totally flawed, he could hide behind his right not to reveal who he votes for, like so many do. Instead, he takes the flack and states his case. I respect that and I think it's silly that so much of the Monk hate is geared specifically towards him.

There are 39 Hall of Fame voters and Monk didn't even make the cut from 15 down to 10. Obviously there are A LOT more voters who aren't voting for Monk either, but they're all in hiding. They'd rather let King defend their position and absord all the heat and venom that comes with it. Those guys are the true scum.


Great point, Whitskins!

[HanburgerBum]

Actually, the Senate is what gave me the idea on 1/3 turnover. However, I prefer something more like the House in the way of actual terms. Two year terms make turnover and fresh faces a lot more likely. That gives more people the chance to participate and it limits any possible power of tenure being wielded by any of the senior voters.


The idea behind the House members is that they should reflect the most recent views of the voting public--a quick way for the voters to send a message to their representatives. The Senate on the other hand is a more stable, deliberative body for the longer term. While I prefer the Senate approach, I can certainly see a comprise of something like a 4-year term with a fourth of the members being replaced every year. If there comes a time when a shortage of qualified journalists occurs, those who have been "out" the longest can get back into the rotation.

Now, how to we get the Hall to adopt this?

[BurgundyNGold]

The idea behind the House members is that they should reflect the most recent views of the voting public--a quick way for the voters to send a message to their representatives. The Senate on the other hand is a more stable, deliberative body for the longer term. While I prefer the Senate approach, I can certainly see a comprise of something like a 4-year term with a fourth of the members being replaced every year. If there comes a time when a shortage of qualified journalists occurs, those who have been "out" the longest can get back into the rotation.
While I still prefer both the player/coach model, an HOF inductees model or some combination involving sportswriters, the 4 year plan you suggest with 1/4 turnover per year is an acceptable alternative to the current system, which obviously doesn't work.

Now, how to we get the Hall to adopt this?
Ask Bandwagon. He's the chair of the hR committee on the subject, lol.

[Brokenstriker]

King is sniping at the owner of the Redskins because he's openly upset that one of the greatest and most popular Redskins in one of the oldest NFL organizations has been overlooked for the Hall of Fame?


as if ... what? Does King actually think the Redskins organization should put something out praising the sports writers for once again snubbing one of the most reliable, record setting, consistent, professional, civic minded football players in his generation? Perhaps he wants them to quiver in the corner to intimidated to actually speak out against his (King's) awesome greatness?

King ... you are clearly so self-absorbed you don't understand that recognizing the most accomplished players in NFL history is about the player ... it has nothing ... nothing what so ever to do with kissing your big fat ass.

[skins4me]

King is basically a new york clown whose SI 'football' column usually includes babble about his daughters high school soccer team and his thoughts on the Red Sox along with the typical name dropping. When you read the list of HOF voters you can't help but ask how many times they watched Monk or any of the other eligable play; especially those from AFC cities.

As for emails and Dan Snyder hurting Monk's chances is pure nonsense. That statement seems to indicate that voters are looking at more than a players stats. and politics are alive and well.

Finally, Jim Kelly? Warren Moon? You call that a HOF?

[S.Taylor36]

This guy really frustrates me. But you gotta read it because he has a vote therefore his voice must be heard because others are listening. Of course I completely disagree with him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/02/14/mmqbte/index.html

[VTBob]

I've never spoke up on the Monk issue before because honestly, I never saw him play. I was too young at the time, when he was on the Skins I think I was probably 5 or so - but in any case, I disagree with King's stance on the Pro Bowl. The Pro Bowl ALONE is not what I'd consider a tilting factor for someone to make the HoF or not. There are plenty of great players who have been passed over for a spot on the Pro Bowl roster (Jansen, anyone?) and the Pro Bowl itself is a joke game (if you're going to only play it with a halfarse effort to avoid injury, don't bother playing it at all IMHO) so I do not consider it the leading factor for who makes it in and who doesn't. Its an important factor, but not the lead factor. King's arguement kind of makes me think along the lines of "oh, that guy never got a superbowl ring, so he doesn't deserve in."

It is a stupid arguement to base his claims upon, and I'd like to see him offer better reasoning behind why he doesn't feel Monk should be in.

[CarMike]

Hasn't this been beat to death by now? We all know that King is against Monk being voted into the HOF...

[HAWGZHEAD]

Hasn't this been beat to death by now? We all know that King is against Monk being voted into the HOF...I swear I don't want to hear this guys name again for at least 6 months. There is no changing this guy.

[S.Taylor36]

I think his reasoning is an absolute joke. Ark Monk, at his time was a dominating WR. To say that he was only in 3 Pro Bowls is a reason to keep this guy out is a joke. When Monk left the game, in many ways he was the benchmark for WR's. I'm just sick that guys like Peter King get a vote. Who gave him this power? Just the last staement he writes:

And for all of the Monk supporters who think I'm the guy keeping him out of the Hall of Fame, just know that there are at least eight of the 38 other voters who have not voted for him -- and I think it's quite a few more than that given that he can't make it through the cut from 15 to 10.

You can tell he's bitter because Redskins fans and Dan Snyder are vocal about this.

[LightsoutLA]

Its funny how King always brings up Clark a the deep threat in our offense. What the Giants Carson played opposite to to LT the last time I checked. So King argument is upserd.

[smoak]

I promised I would not comment, and the only thing I have to say would possibly lead to me being banned here at HR. If someone puts out a plan of action, I will fall in line, but I won't sit here and whine/complain any longer. PK is not worth my time!

[whitskins]

I think his reasoning is an absolute joke. Ark Monk, at his time was a dominating WR. To say that he was only in 3 Pro Bowls is a reason to keep this guy out is a joke. When Monk left the game, in many ways he was the benchmark for WR's. I'm just sick that guys like Peter King get a vote. Who gave him this power? Just the last staement he writes:

And for all of the Monk supporters who think I'm the guy keeping him out of the Hall of Fame, just know that there are at least eight of the 38 other voters who have not voted for him -- and I think it's quite a few more than that given that he can't make it through the cut from 15 to 10.

You can tell he's bitter because Redskins fans and Dan Snyder are vocal about this.

I think he's bitter that he's been made the leader of the Anti-Monk briggade when there are clearly many more voters who are keeping Monk out of the Hall as well who would prefer to remain anonymous and allow King to absorb all the heat from the fans and media instead of backing up their opinions publicly as well.

I think he is dead wrong about Monk, but I can't blame him for that.

[Meatsnack]

I think he's bitter that he's been made the leader of the Anti-Monk briggade when there are clearly many more voters who are keeping Monk out of the Hall as well who would prefer to remain anonymous and allow King to absorb all the heat from the fans and media instead of backing up their opinions publicly as well.

I think he is dead wrong about Monk, but I can't blame him for that.

Sure you can. :)

And probably should. When a man refuses to be convinced by the facts and his job as a journalist and HOF voter is to be impartial we have every reason to believe he has an axe to grind.

[Redskin4Life]

I think he's bitter that he's been made the leader of the Anti-Monk briggade when there are clearly many more voters who are keeping Monk out of the Hall as well who would prefer to remain anonymous and allow King to absorb all the heat from the fans and media instead of backing up their opinions publicly as well.

I think he is dead wrong about Monk, but I can't blame him for that.
How can someone that has 12,721 career receiving yards (9th all-time) and 940 career receptions (5th all-time) out of the HoF??? By the same comparision, most sportswriters wouldn't question Bettis or Martin getting in??? Why is that??? Cause of their career stats and longevity in the league??? Can't that same argument be made for Monk?

[hail2skins]

Threads merged. You had already created a thread on Peter King's thoughts on Monk. There was no need to create another. It was still on the first page of the board even though it was titled Peter King's Monday Morning QB.

[BurgundyNGold]

Can we stop talking about peter king now? His 15 minutes are up this year. I don't want to hear his name at all unless it involves a hunting trip with the VP.

[whitskins]

How can someone that has 12,721 career receiving yards (9th all-time) and 940 career receptions (5th all-time) out of the HoF??? By the same comparision, most sportswriters wouldn't question Bettis or Martin getting in??? Why is that??? Cause of their career stats and longevity in the league??? Can't that same argument be made for Monk?

I agree with what you're saying so I don't really know why you quoted my post. I said I think King is dead wrong about Monk, but I can't blame his obvious annoyance at being made the poster child for Monk's ill-fated candidacy when there are plenty of other writers who apparently feel the same way but don't have the guts to admit it publicly and would rather King take all the heat for them every year.

[whitskins]

Sure you can. :)

And probably should. When a man refuses to be convinced by the facts and his job as a journalist and HOF voter is to be impartial we have every reason to believe he has an axe to grind.

He either has an axe to grind or is ignorant, I don't know which one but that was beside my point.

I said I can't blame him for being annoyed at how he has been made the anti-Monk poster boy. I very much blame him for his stance on Monk's candidacy, which is clearly flawed.

[Keino]

I agree with what you're saying so I don't really know why you quoted my post. I said I think King is dead wrong about Monk, but I can't blame his obvious annoyance at being made the poster child for Monk's ill-fated candidacy when there are plenty of other writers who apparently feel the same way but don't have the guts to admit it publicly and would rather King take all the heat for them every year.

Well he brings it on himself. He made it a point a few years ago to make Monk the subject of one of his articles, written in December. It amounted to campaigning, and he is still doing it. It takes 32 of the 39 votes to get inducted, so the 3 SI writers who are now claiming that they don't have any influence are full of it. 5 More in that room would share their positions and we get the same results we've gotten over the course of time since Art has been elligible.

If it bothers him so much how he's perceived, he should do one of two things. 1. Give up his HOF vote. Or 2. Vote for Monk's induction, but also campaign as hard for him as he has against him. Either way he needs to STFU

[whitskins]

Well he brings it on himself. He made it a point a few years ago to make Monk the subject of one of his articles, written in December. It amounted to campaigning, and he is still doing it. It takes 32 of the 39 votes to get inducted, so the 3 SI writers who are now claiming that they don't have any influence are full of it. 5 More in that room would share their positions and we get the same results we've gotten over the course of time since Art has been elligible.

If it bothers him so much how he's perceived, he should do one of two things. 1. Give up his HOF vote. Or 2. Vote for Monk's induction, but also campaign as hard for him as he has against him. Either way he needs to STFU

He brings it on himself by defending his position publicly, which is what every journalist should be expected to do, but many clearly do not, since Monk is not even coming close to the necessary 32 votes because he can't even make the cut from 15 down to 10.

If King has influence or not, it is still the fault of the spineless followers for Monk being shut out year after year. King's comments don't amount to a campaign in my opinion, he is responding to constant criticism, that seems like something that a respectable journalist would do, no matter how misguided their logic is.

King probably would be best served by simply dropping the Monk topic and forcing another writer to step up and state their opinion on the matter instead, but I don't see that happening.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well he brings it on himself. He made it a point a few years ago to make Monk the subject of one of his articles, written in December. It amounted to campaigning, and he is still doing it. It takes 32 of the 39 votes to get inducted, so the 3 SI writers who are now claiming that they don't have any influence are full of it. 5 More in that room would share their positions and we get the same results we've gotten over the course of time since Art has been elligible.

If it bothers him so much how he's perceived, he should do one of two things. 1. Give up his HOF vote. Or 2. Vote for Monk's induction, but also campaign as hard for him as he has against him. Either way he needs to STFU
I'd like to see the votes made public as a matter of policy. If you're going to vote to keep someone with the numbers like Monk out, you should have to be man enough to defend your actions.

[bgforever]

I'd like to see the votes made public as a matter of policy. If you're going to vote to keep someone with the numbers like Monk out, you should have to be man enough to defend your actions.

I agree. In the US Congress and Senate, they do it, and they got a heck of lot more riding on their reputations than someone like PK!

[oldskinfan]

Anyone ever see an article from either of these guys on why they think Monk does not get in? Do *they* see it as politics (i.e. the we hate Danny so we'll deny Art Monk Redskins club).

Gibbs has always argued well that people don't seem to get past art's 13.5 Avg per catch. That's not his fault. He was one of they early consumate "possession" receivers...remember how many short hitches he caught for 4-8 yds simply because Gibbs trusted him for those yds sometimes more than running for them?

Two receivers, same # years played:
James Lofton (in HOF) at 764 catches, 14,004 yds, 18.3 avg, 75 TDs
Monk has 940 cathces, 12,721 yds, 13.5 avg., 68 TDs

Mr. King, how is 180 more CATCHES not compare to 1300 yds difference over 12 years?

Guess what Michael Irvin's stats are (and King says "you'll get in") over 12 years?
750 catches, 11,904 yds, 15.9 avg, 65 TDs.

And he gets in because of his big-a** mouth? Give me an effing break. Screw PK. Screw all of 'em.

I am boing to burst an artery.

[bgforever]

Anyone ever see an article from either of these guys on why they think Monk does not get in? Do *they* see it as politics (i.e. the we hate Danny so we'll deny Art Monk Redskins club).

Gibbs has always argued well that people don't seem to get past art's 13.5 Avg per catch. That's not his fault. He was one of they early consumate "possession" receivers...remember how many short hitches he caught for 4-8 yds simply because Gibbs trusted him for those yds sometimes more than running for them?

Two receivers, same # years played:
James Lofton (in HOF) at 764 catches, 14,004 yds, 18.3 avg, 75 TDs
Monk has 940 cathces, 12,721 yds, 13.5 avg., 68 TDs

Mr. King, how is 180 more CATCHES not compare to 1300 yds difference over 12 years?

Guess what Michael Irvin's stats are (and King says "you'll get in") over 12 years?
750 catches, 11,904 yds, 15.9 avg, 65 TDs.

And he gets in because of his big-a** mouth? Give me an effing break. Screw PK. Screw all of 'em.

I am boing to burst an artery.

too late, I already busted one, and some kid thought it was a straw with cherry juice running out of it. :)

[flave1969]

I have thought long and hard about this whole Art Monk argument and still cannot come up with a good reason why he should not be in the Hall. The Hall of Fame is about what you do in your career as a whole, but because career lengths vary and players play different amounts of games so looking at the bottom line stats can be misleading. This is where I think that Hall voters make an unconscious mistake when they look at Art Monk, because greater analysis shows that he contributed just as much in every single game he played as the receivers in the Hall of Fame.

If you look harder at the career stats of the following players in greater detail you get a remarkably uniform set of results.

I compared Art Monk to John Stallworth, Charlie Joiner, James Lofton and Steve Largent, all Hall of Famers. Let me start by saying Steve Largent was a fantastic receiver and is really the best of the bunch, but comparison does not do Art Monk any harm at all.

All the players listed played seasons 1980-1986. This is how their Stats brokedown. I list the total Receptions, Yards and TD's and then give a per game breakdown.

Lofton 104 Games, 430 Receptions, 7870 Yards, 39TD's
Largent 103 Games, 470 Receptions, 7376 Yards, 56 TD's
Monk 100 Games, 466 Receptions, 6550 Yards, 28 TD's
Joiner 104 Games, 396 Receptions, 5990 Yards, 29TD's
Stallworth 75 Games, 296 Receptions, 4089 Yards, 30TD's

Per Game Breakdown

Lofton 4.1 Catches, 75.7 Yards, 0.4TD's
Largent 4.6 Catches, 71.6 Yards, 0.5TD's
Monk 4.7 Catches, 65.5 Yards, 0.3TD's
Joiner 3.8 Catches, 57.6 Yards, 0.3TD's
Stallworth 3.9 Catches 62 Yards, 0.4TD's

In this period where the players were all contributing well to their teams, where is the huge difference between Monk and the rest? There isnt one. Lofton was obviously at the height of his powers and Largent was his remarkable self, but was Art Monk really any less effective during this period. The stats would suggest that he was playing at a high standard and was making a very healthy contribution in every game he played. Please remember he is in Hall of Fame company here.

These are the career per game breakdowns.

Lofton 3.3 Catches 60 Yards 0.3TD's
Largent 4.1 Catches, 65.4 Yards, 0.5 TD's
Monk 4.2 Catches, 56.8 Yards, 0.3TD's
Joiner 3.1 Catches, 50.8 Yards, 0.3TD's
Stallworth 3.3 Catches, 52.9 Yards, 0.4TD's

Again where is the marked difference between all these receivers. Largent is obviously the most productive all around receiver, but the rest are much the same in terms of per game production, and this is the key factor I feel is overlooked. Monk's consistency and reliability made up for what he lacked in speed. He was as likely to contribute significant amounts of yards each and every game as all the receivers. In fact he moved the chains more often than any of them and isn't that what Football is about. If you are as reliable at doing this as Hall of Fame players over a similar period of time, doesn't that qualify you. It may be a different set of qualifications but when the end result is the same productivity, it means that it is mere perception holding you back.

Do you know why I do all this? I do it because my perception tells me that Monk did things with excellence, and a reliability that showed excellence. All I here from the media are perceptions, and generally they are not evidence based. I have shown you the evidence that Monk was the equal of these guys with what he did on the field, because he did it a different way is irrelevant in my opinion. Is the ability to get 20 yards a catch really more important than a great ability to keep drives alive in tight situations, I don't think so. Speed is something you are blessed with. Great hands, toughness, work ethic are things you develop yourself. The most impressive record I think Monk held was catching the ball in 178 straight games, that is amazing consistency and it is actually rare in the NFL. Only Largent and Rice have got near.

If the Hall of Fame has no room for players like Monk then you should just call it the Hall of Clones. There is obviously no mileage in consistently getting it done on the Football field.

[techskinsfan]

Can we stop talking about peter king now? His 15 minutes are up this year. I don't want to hear his name at all unless it involves a hunting trip with the VP.
hahahaha...but yea seriously hes justified his moronism when he said the skins would get TO...ha yea right

[Redskin4Life]

I agree with what you're saying so I don't really know why you quoted my post. I said I think King is dead wrong about Monk, but I can't blame his obvious annoyance at being made the poster child for Monk's ill-fated candidacy when there are plenty of other writers who apparently feel the same way but don't have the guts to admit it publicly and would rather King take all the heat for them every year.
I hit the quick quote button after reading your post... my comments weren't directed to you, just rhetorical statements/questions.

[HAWGZHEAD]

Figured I would just put this here because there is no need for a new Monk thread, but Michael Irvin was just on first and ten on ESPN 2 and was asked who out of all the HOF inductees was the biggest snub including himself. His answer Art Monk. Even Irvin is smarter than PK.

[HanburgerBum]

Figured I would just put this here because there is no need for a new Monk thread, but Michael Irvin was just on first and ten on ESPN 2 and was asked who out of all the HOF inductees was the biggest snub including himself. His answer Art Monk. Even Irvin is smarter than PK.


I just saw that too. I have never been much of a Michael Irvin fan, but I will give him credit for this. In his unqualified praise of AM, Irvin definitely acted like a stand-up guy.

Then, Skip Bayliss went on a two-minute tirade as to why Irvin belongs in the Hall (and in Bayliss' opinion should been ahead of Ackman). The sucking up to MI sitting right there was sickening.

[Keino]

I just saw that too. I have never been much of a Michael Irvin fan, but I will give him credit for this. In his unqualified praise of AM, Irvin definitely acted like a stand-up guy.

Then, Skip Bayliss went on a two-minute tirade as to why Irvin belongs in the Hall (and in Bayliss' opinion should been ahead of Ackman). The sucking up to MI sitting right there was sickening.

WOW. I have to re-evaluate my Irvin Feelings.

However, I don't view the tirade a suck-up. Of the Triplets, Aikmen should've been the last inducted. Aikmen was not a 1st ballot performer. Before you argue the point though (If you disagree that is) go look up Phil Simms' career numbers versus Aikmen's and then remind yourself that Phil Simms played in an era that was tougher on Offenses in general, but also on QB's. Then ask yourself who Phil's offensive weapoons were. You will draw the conclusion that there is no way on God's green earth that Aikmen was a more deserving canidate than Phil Simms, who is not in the HOF.

[lakeskin]

Figured I would just put this here because there is no need for a new Monk thread, but Michael Irvin was just on first and ten on ESPN 2 and was asked who out of all the HOF inductees was the biggest snub including himself. His answer Art Monk. Even Irvin is smarter than PK.

Great recievers recognize fellow great recievers. A Cowboy propping up a Redskin. But I guess only Redskin fans and teammates think Art belongs in the Hall.:rolleyes:

[bgforever]

Great recievers recognize fellow great recievers. A Cowboy propping up a Redskin. But I guess only Redskin fans and teammates think Art belongs in the Hall.:rolleyes:


This is two prong.

First and foremost as many NFL HOF's and most recently "vocally" acknowledged as soon as he was in, Harry Carson stated that MOST important vote of all is the PEER vote. Irvin has echoed this after that statement.

Second, it works both ways for Irvin, as its possible Monk goes in next year, maybe, only God knows, it is a given that these receivers would give props back as well. They know what and when they did, but more importantly is the story behind each game, FROM A LOCKERROOM PERSPECTIVE. As the case of Darrell Green's injury and still finishing that run of a game changing pr in a playoff game. Or Emmitt Smith having his shoulder popped back in and finishing off a team to make it to the SB. These type of stories are mainly acknowledged by their peers and teammates, coaches.

I am sure one day, there will be props for others from unlikely or surprising sources, but really, these guys KNOW the reason so many plays clicked, because they were out there performing against them.

[HanburgerBum]

WOW. I have to re-evaluate my Irvin Feelings.

However, I don't view the tirade a suck-up. Of the Triplets, Aikmen should've been the last inducted. Aikmen was not a 1st ballot performer. Before you argue the point though (If you disagree that is) go look up Phil Simms' career numbers versus Aikmen's and then remind yourself that Phil Simms played in an era that was tougher on Offenses in general, but also on QB's. Then ask yourself who Phil's offensive weapoons were. You will draw the conclusion that there is no way on God's green earth that Aikmen was a more deserving canidate than Phil Simms, who is not in the HOF.


I do disagree somewhat. Of the Cowboys trio of Emmitt Smith, Troy Ackman and Michael Irvin, I would rank them in that order. I think there should be little debate about Smith being the most important and best player on those Dallas teams. As great as those teams were, they began 0-2 in the year Emmitt held out the first two games.

As between Ackman and Irvin, I will go with Troy. I looked at it this way. If Irvin had gone down with injuries, I think the Cowboys would have just plugged in a sub and still went on to accomplish most of the things they did. But, if Ackman were missing, I think Dallas would have had trouble winning any SB. In fact, I think the Cowboys' really bad slide began when Lavar ended Ackman's career. To this date, they have not been able to find a good replacement (Bledsoe the human statue is a joke!). Further, it has always been my impression that if the referees back then enforced the "push off" rule against receivers, Irvin would have been a much less effective player.

I think MI is a marginal HOF candidate. I would vote no, but I wouldn't jump off the roof if he made it either. In fact, it is my belief that in an ironically way MI is going to help Monk get into the Hall. When voters vote for Irvin, they will be shame into voting for AM also.

Incidentally, I believe Phil Simms belongs in the HOF.

[flave1969]

Hi Peter,

Firstly I want to apologise for all my brethren that abuse you via email on the subject of Art Monk. It does Art little good and I know you say it does not affect you, but I know the voters are getting sick of all the mail we send out..

Now to the matter at hand. Your recent MMQB and MMQB Tuesday edition articles concerning the Hall of Fame voting left me as well as many others feeling that your Defense of Harry Carson's candidacy is the same that could be made for Art Monk. You do highlight some of your perceived differences between Monk and Carson in the Tuesday Edition but closer analysis especially when looking at other Hall of Fame Receivers provides many alternative views too your arguments.

You talk about how the two players were perceived by their fellow Pros, but I do wonder whether you place too much emphasis on this matter. Harry Carson was a fine player and a worthy Hall of Famer who as you said went to nine Pro Bowls, yet there are players like Chris Hanburger who also went to nine Pro Bowls and never get mentioned in the voting process, so going to nine Pro Bowls in itself is a great feat but means little to a lot of people. Art Monk went to three Pro Bowls and did not get as much recognition as Carsonfrom his peers, but compare him to Joiner, Stallworth and Swann and Monk went to as many as they did. Playing in Pro Bowls is more important in recognising annual achievement than assessing career achievement and it is also notorius for throwing up odd selections. Take Ahmad Rashad for instance. He made the Pro Bowl four times, yet in his first in 78 he had an 11.7 yard per catch average and 769 yards, it may have been a good season that year but in context it is hardly astounding especially with Fran Tarkenton as your QB. In 1981 he didn't even finish first on his team in Receptions, Yards or Average, Sammy White had that honour. That year Art Monk's stat line was almost identical to Rashad's. J.T Smith made the Pro Bowl in 1988 with under a 1000 yards receiving and an 11.9 yard per catch average. He had better years the two previous years and made the Pro Bowl ahead of Ricky Sanders, Roy Green and Lionel Manuel who all had better years and over a 1000 yards. Was this a make up for previous snubs? Who knows but he was less worthy than three other receivers I mentioned that year and himself more worthy in his two previous seasons.

In 1989 Art Monk had 86 receptions for 1186 yards and 8TD's, a genuine Pro Bowl season that in any other year in the 80's would have seen him make it, but that year there was an explosion in 1000 yard receivers. The Redskins had three themselves and the men that went definately were the best that year. Mark Carrier and Brian Blades had career years and made their only Pro Bowls in 1989. This is what the Pro Bowl is about recognising annual achievement, they were never close again,.Add to that list Frank Lewis, Steve Watson, Pat Tilley, Jerry Butler all one time pro bowlers in the 80's who had a good year the year they made it but did little else in their career. Career years can keep players with great careers out of the Pro Bowl because slots are limited to eight players.

I assume because of his return abilities or the fact he was a 49er, John Taylor made the Pro Bowl squad in 1989, he had less yards and catches than all three Washington receivers, why should he have gone ahead of any of them. Taylor made it in 1988 because of his return skills, yet he reads as a two time Pro Bowler. Dwight Clark a much more important receiver in 49er history only made two Pro Bowls yet if Pro Bowls are an indicator under your terms, on paper they essentially are on a level. Mike Nelms and Billy Johnson each made three Pro Bowls as return men, are they on the same level as Monk because they made the same amount of Pro Bowls? Obviously not but they were recognised by their fellow pros as often, it just shows that making the Pro Bowl means little when assessing Hall voting. Washington's sole pro Bowl player of the Gibbs era John Riggins made just one Pro Bowl his whole career, is he unworthy?

Bottom line is that the Pro Bowl is really a recognition of annual achievement, as I have shown it is not unusual for players to have one off Pro Bowl appearances. It is not unusual for players to get voted in for what they did in previous years rather than what they did that year. It is not unusual for players who are high profile to make it in to the Pro Bowl simply because of their profile, Mike Vick springs to mind. I would rather look at the fact that in his career Monk had at least five Pro Bowl worthy seasons perhaps six or seven, the fact that there were years like 1989 when twenty receivers recorded 1000 yard seasons should not detract from Monk's achievements. Yet you put a lot of stock in being voted to the Pro Bowl. The competition between Receivers is far greater than between Middle Linebackers, I would contest Peter with only Mike Singletary as real annual competition for that position it is not a surprise Harry Carson made so many. That in itself is not enough. I would personally put more stock in the fact that Monk was voted to the 1980's All NFL team chosen by the Hall itself.

You alluded to your delight that Carson made it because he did something that few players get recognition for, stopping the run. As a correspondent pointed out Art Monk was great at converting those 2nd and 9's into first downs, a point you did not disagree with. This was not the only unsung thing did, there were many of them. The blocking is well known. You see how good a blocker Clinton Portis is today, well Monk was that good also, it should be recognised because he was asked to do it an awful lot. Monk caused an awful lot of chaos as a reciver with the patterns he ran and I am yet to see outside of Steve Largent and Jerry Rice a better route runner. It was those routes that allowed Gary Clark, Ricky Sanders and Charlie Brown to flourish, and none of these players were the same when not playing alongside Monk. Monk allowed these guys to play in a lot of single coverage situations. Monk allowed Joe Gibbs to use his tight ends to block because he operated magnificently in the land of the Tight Ends, Linebackers and Safeties. This is not where wide receivers traditionally flourish. If Monk did all the unsung things which you do not dispute, as well as retire the all time leading receiver that is surely something special. I have rarely seen a receiver given as big a role as Monk was.

Monk was surrounded by great players on the Washington Redskins. The Hogs were great, Gary Clark was a fine deep receiver there is no doubt but why does this detract from Monk in your mind. Look at the Steelers in the 1970's, Franco Harris, Terry Bradshaw and all the Hall of Famers they fielded, being surrounded by excellence didn't stop any of them making the Hall. By your argument neither Stallworth nor Swann should be in the Hall because they were surrounded by excellence. Michael Irvin who I know you support should not get in because he played with Aikman, Smith and perhaps the finest Offensive line of the 1990's. It cannot be argued both ways. Let me get one thing straight about Monk just like Carson was the leader on that New York D, Monk made the Washington offense click and was it's leader. Remove him from that role and Washington did not have anyone to fill it. Clark and Brown would have faced double coverage far more often. In 1984 and 1985 when Washington had the 20th and 24th ranked passing offense in the league, they would have had no passing offense but for Monk when he had 197 receptions and 2598 yards. Do you know that no passing offense ranked 20th or lower has produced a 1000 yard receiver since. Monk did it twice.

Peter I really think you do not look hard enough at this stuff. I admire your honesty in your voting but I find a lot of inconsistency in your positions. Promoting Tedy Bruschi as someone you feel should be in the Hall yet has made only one Pro Bowl, contradicts the lack of recognition you said Monk got from his peers. Either getting into the Pro Bowl matters or it does not, it can't be both ways. If you are voting purely on your perception then I hope you listen to others openly. I have much more to say but I understand how busy you are, hopefully time will present itself in the future.

I look forward to discussing this with you.

Regards
Andy Williams.
London, England.

Far to wordy but if I do not get this off my chest it is going to drive me wild.

[CNYSkinFan]

Far to wordy but if I do not get this off my chest it is going to drive me wild.

Andy, one of the best testimonials to Art Monkl I have ever seen. You deserve alot of thanks from all of us at hr!

[RicFlairOne]

Far to wordy but if I do not get this off my chest it is going to drive me wild.

Excellent points and excellent research. Unfortunately, King's bias will not change even though you make several great points in his inconsistent arguments. Monk will get in one day, but it is a travesty that he is not already in. I guess that we all will have to remain patient (although it really ticks me off).

[flave1969]

Excellent points and excellent research. Unfortunately, King's bias will not change even though you make several great points in his inconsistent arguments. Monk will get in one day, but it is a travesty that he is not already in. I guess that we all will have to remain patient (although it really ticks me off).

So many grammatical errors in there, it ruins my arguments. I would turn off just reading it. Really have got to get my act together. I need to stop writing at 11 at night.

[nmskin]

the amazin' thing is p.king actually gets paid for his dribble

[flave1969]

DjTj over at ES recommended buying this old article which I did. It was very interesting and shows how people considered Monk whilst he played and how he is perceived today.

It actually contains interviews with Monk so it is a rarity in itself and interestingly he alludes to what he could have done with some QB consistency in DC and like the man he is says that it does not matter..

The media of the day were in little doubt that Monk was Hall of Fame bound, we all were. It is proof that at the time he played he was perceived to be doing special things. Now that 4000 yard seasons and 100 catch seasons are commonplace it is cast in a different light. A little research would go a long way. There are doubters on this site but barring 1980 and 1981 I watched all that this man did throughout his career and it was indeed very special.

Read and Enjoy.

Washington Post
August 30, 1991
At 33, Monk Leads Redskins by the Numbers
Richard Justice

Art Monk went to Coach Joe Gibbs a few months ago and asked a favor. He told Gibbs that several of the Washington Redskins were doing more and more of their conditioning work at George Mason University, where they’d discovered a small mountain perfect for doing the toughest sprint work.

Monk explained that while treadmills and StairMasters were nice, there was nothing like the mountain for a tough workout, and he wanted to know if perhaps the Redskins could have a mountain of their own. Gibbs spoke to strength coach Dan Riley and then to team owner Jack Kent Cooke, and when the team moves to a new Redskin Park next summer, it’ll come complete with a man-made mountain for Monk and friends to climb.

That mountain and what it represents is the perfect analogy as Monk begins his 12th pro season when the Redskins meet the Detroit Lions at 8 p.m. Sunday at RFK Stadium.

Monk has climbed almost all of them, both symbolically and figuratively. He begins this season with numbers that are already certain of opening the doors of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and starts with a bit of history riding on every reception.

His 730 catches are the third-highest total ever and put him only 20 behind Charlie Joiner and 89 behind Steve Largent. Having averaged 66 catches per season, he seems certain of passing Joiner this season and should catch Largent in 1992. He also has caught at least one pass in 116 straight games — the fifth-highest total ever.

The numbers are amazing enough and the numbers may someday be how he’s remembered. They tell the story of a guy who was one of the most consistent performers in history, a guy who wasn’t flashy, who didn’t torch opponents. Instead, he was always there, almost never missing a game, almost never dropping a pass.

Someday the Redskins may remember the numbers. But today he’s still the prototype player, the one that Gibbs and Cooke measure all others against. He’s still the hardest worker, the one who most represents grace and dignity and intelligence, the one who is last to the interview room to talk about what he did, but the first to go over the middle and catch a 28-yard pass on third-and-nine in a playoff game at Veterans Stadium.

Monk did sit still for an interview today at Redskin Park. He said the records will mean something someday, but not now. He said he’s excited about this year’s team. He said that at 33, he has to work harder than ever, but that he’s still capable of being productive.

“I’m sure the records will mean a lot to me someday, but the impact of it really hasn’t hit me,” he said. “I don’t think it will until after I leave the game. Right now, I’m just having fun playing the game. I don’t know. I just don’t see it the way everybody else does right now. I’m more interested in playing the game and trying to win, doing what I can to help the team. I’m most proud of the fact that I’m out there every week, that I’m there when they call on me.”

He talked this summer about life in the NFL at 33. He said he has to be more careful about what he eats and more diligent about his conditioning. One of the most incredible moments of this training camp came on the final scrimmage at Carlisle High when Gary Clark and Monk were playing catch. They were talking and laughing and mostly trying to get their bodies ready for one more practice.

But in one instant, Clark threw a high pass, and while still carrying on a conversation, Monk leaped, caught the ball with one hand and pulled it to his chest. It was a dazzling moment and came from a player who is among the first on the practice field and among the last to leave. It’s not unusual for him to go through two hard practices, then go for a one- or two-mile run. During the summer, he lifted weights three times a week at Redskin Park and did some kind of running seven times a week at George Mason.

“Self-motivation is something I’ve always had because I know if you’re going to be good at something, no matter what it is, you have to work for it,” he said. “There’s an old saying I try to remember. It goes: ‘The days that you don’t work, your opponent is working.’ When the time comes that you two meet, he’s going to win because he worked harder. I take that approach. He’s out there working wherever he is, whoever he is. I have to do whatever I can to keep on that same pace.”

And because of that approach, Monk is the one the Redskins turn to when the game is on the line. “The great times are when you reach a point in a ballgame where I know they’re really looking at me to take control of a situation. Once you feel that, you just respond to it. It takes control of you. You get into a groove with the quarterback. He knows what I’m going to do, and I know what he’s going to do. You get a feeling that you can do just about anything you want to do. You can’t really describe it. It’s really hard to relate it to someone who hasn’t been out there and been through it.”

Gibbs seemed exasperated this week when a reporter pressed him on the question of leadership and why the Redskins didn’t have leaders. He meant there weren’t Redskins who gave passionate pregame speeches and who lead cheers or wave towels on the sideline.

Gibbs pointed toward Monk and Don Warren and Monte Coleman and said: “We’re a businesslike team. We play with emotion, but just because you don’t hear from guys doesn’t mean they’re not leaders.”

Gibbs said leadership comes in all forms, and it was Monk who called a players-only team meeting on the eve of the 12th game last season. The Redskins were 6-5 and about to play the Dolphins and Bears at home and they were about to find out if they were a legitimate playoff team or not.

The next day he caught 10 passes and scored twice in a 42-20 victory over Miami. The meetings became a weekly ritual as the Redskins won four of their last five, returned to the playoffs and defeated the Philadelphia Eagles in an NFC first-round game before losing to the San Francisco 49ers.

This season begins with the Redskins having been picked by many to win the NFC, but having looked terrible in preseason. “We’re a very talented team,” Monk said. “I think we’re a closer team than we were a couple of years ago. With the addition of a couple of new faces, we’ve grown closer together. We’re really excited about having a great season. I think we’ll have it as long as we stay healthy. We’ve got to win the games we’re supposed to win.”

Monk said he hasn’t once wondered what his career numbers would be if he’d played with only one quarterback. He has talked often about the magic relationship he had with Joe Theismann, but since then, there’s been Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Stan Humphries and Jeff Rutledge.

You can by old articles from the Post here. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/74731071.html?dids=74731071:74731071&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&fmac=&date=Aug+30%2C+1991&author=Richard+Justice&desc=At+33%2C+Monk+Leads+Redskins+by+the+Numbers

[flave1969]

Here are four or five pages on Monk again from Richard Justice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/book/pages/167.htm

[flave1969]

This one from the Editor in chief of NFL Publications.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/special1/article.adp?id=20051220183409990001&cid=1160

Monk's support is widespread, it simply needs channeling.

If you go to Art Monk's wikipedia page there are lots of article links at the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Monk

I am simply not satisfied that this argument is unwinnable and will not let up.

Hey it is funny my article is linked in at wikipedia.

[flave1969]

This was from Mike Wilbon's chat a couple of weeks ago.

Vienna, Va.: I know you field HOF questions frequently and here's another angle: I see real parallels with Art Monk's denial to Canton and Jim Rice's denial to Cooperstown. They seem to be similar athletes in terms of production (workhorses, un-flashy, excellent stats) and in terms of demeanor (quiet/taciturn, lead by example, etc.). Comments?

Michael Wilbon: I'm with you to a point. I think they're overt refusal to cooperate with the same media people that vote in Hall of Fame matters hurts them tremendously. Should it? No. Look, I have had social conversations with Monk, but NEVER talked to him for a story. Never. We've lived in the same town for 25 years and I've never talked to the guy with a notebook or a tape recorder. I don't talk to him now. I talk to Joe Gibbs about him, Russ Grim, Riggins, Sonny, Theismann, Parcells, Belichick...I've talked to Everson Walls about Monk, to Ronnie Lott...But Art Monk is invisible when it comes to dealing with media...So he ran the risk and so far is losing. Personally, I don't care if I ever talk to Monk about football or about his candidacy. He's deserving. He's over-the-top deserving. It's a no-brainer to me. But I suspect, though I've never heard it come out of anybody's mouth, that there are writers who whether they admit it to themselves or not hold it against Monk that he made it difficult for them to do their jobs.

So maybe there are consequences and Monk has himself to blame. Should it be that way? Absolutely not. Is it? Probably


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/02/03/DI2006020301709.html

[MONK_in_HOF]

Far to wordy but if I do not get this off my chest it is going to drive me wild.
Very well done. I share your passion and many of your points.

1. Peter King can't have it both ways. As I have said many times PK often uses the same criteria and positions to argue for the players he supports as he uses against the players he doesn't. That is contradictory and needs explanation by itself.

2. I couldn't agree more with all points made regarding the emphasis he places on pro bowl appearances (sometimes :rolleyes: ) with respect to HOF induction.

If PK even opened your message, which would surprise me, I am sure he would use the fact that it was not grammatically correct to undermine your intelligence. It would be nice if we could all have editors, especially me as my grammar/spelling are not strong.

1 last thing that really irks me, since I could go on all day, is the anecdotal argument he makes from his days as a reporter covering the Giants. He many times says Monk was not the WR on the Skins the Giants feared the most. I have 2 problems with this.

1. I highly doubt Parcells would openly share his opinions of opponents and how they factored into the Giants game plan with PK, or any media member for that matter, given Parcells confidential nature, especially in those days. There is a whole NFL films on Parcells which emphasizes how he tried to distance the media as much as possible.

2. Parcells was quoted a while back saying something along the lines of Art Monk is a man headed to the HOF downhill on roller skates. I believe this was right around the time of Monk’s retirement if I am not mistaken. I am going to search hard for this quote. That would kind of debunk King’s whole argument that the Parcells led Giants didn’t think Monk was a key player.

I also saw a very pro Art Monk quote from Ronnie Lott the other day, which basically said Monk was the consumate pro, and that Jerry Rice modeled himself after Monk. I think one of the best efforts we as fans can do for Monk is compile as many pro Art Monk quotes from former players and the source they came from. How can PK and other sports writers argue with his peers. Maybe when Jerry Rice gets in, if Monk isn't in already, he will include this tidbit about Monk in his speech and Monk will get in the following year. Kinda like what happened when Swann basically inducted Stallworth in his speech.
I gotta stop. Once again. I really enjoyed and agree with your take.

[MONK_in_HOF]

I know this isn't the exact, credible source but here is a link (http://www.thehogs.net/History/ArtMonk/) to the exact quotes I was referencing in my last post.

The fact that Monk isn't in the HOF and didn't get in at least by his 2nd time around is definitely a sham, and a serious blemish to the integrity of the HOF. Something seriously needs to be done about the process of 31 sportswriters determining which NFL players are worthy of the HOF. I will maintain that stance until it is changed, Monk or no Monk.

[MONK_in_HOF]

Here is an article followed by an even more interesting chat. I realize that there is no way to assess the football knowledge of the posters, however there appears to be a near unanimous opinion that Monk should be in. The most interesting aspect is that the majority of posts I have read thus far have been composed by fans of other teams, even a few Cowboys fans. I thought Peter King said on the Dan Patrick show a few weeks back that only people from DC thought Monk was deserving???? Maybe he should open his eyes and ears. There seems to be plenty of support for Monk's enshrinement outside of DC in most of the places I have seen or heard.

Read the opinions in the chat (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=59263)

[Farmer Ted]

[QUOTE=flave1969]Read and Enjoy.
QUOTE]

Great story, but I could've done without the reminder at the end that Jeff Rutledge spent time with the Skins. Of course, that got me thinking about other ex-Giant QB's that I hated who became Skins (Hostetler and Graham). It's funny how all three of those guys ended their career in DC.

I've got to get a better image in my head. Billy Kilmer! Billy Kilmer! Billy Kilmer!

That's better.:)

[nmskin]

he should be in.
that's it