Art Monk takes it in stride. We don't.

[Spence]

It bothers us more than him and that seems strangely appropriate. Art Monk, the great receiver who always remained cool on the field, remains cool off it when the subject turns to his incomprehensible exclusion from the NFL Hall of Fame. He caught 940 passes for 12,721 yards and 68 touchdowns, but still the Hall has no place for him. At his annual football camp at McDaniel College in Maryland, the 49-year-old Monk spoke about the way his fans take it harder than he does.Read it all! (http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=27)

[helimech24]

Read it all! (http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=27)
Great article Spence, and I 100% agree. The voters have no real reason to keep him out of the HOF other than for revenge!

[firehawk157]

LOUD NOISES!!!

[redwolf1218]

that was a very well-written argument for Monk getting the Hall. The Hall of Fame is a joke...dead to me, until he gets in. it's nothing short of outrageous that he's not in. it sickens me that Irvin gets in before Monk.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I think we should all take the Monk route and stop caring. We've done all we can and more, and so has Monk. And it's been more than enough. But since obviously that is not the case for reasons that have nothing to do with football, then the best thing to do is just ignore the Hall Of Fame.

[wewantdallas]

Nice to hear some recent comments from the man.

I have some new strategies for this next vote. Who knows what will happen, but there is more ammo left in the chamber.

The whole process is indeed sickening and borderline corrupt.

I personally don't think it's a vendetta against the man so much as the fact that a lot of the writers/voters are simply too lazy to do their real homework on him. Those of us who watched him KNOW what he did for the team and what kind of player he was, but he was SO QUIET and shunned the glory SO MUCH that those who didn't follow the Redskins are much less informed, hence they're more easily swayed by the complete idiots who make their "name his signature catch" arguments (see the buffoon Adam Shankter from NFL Network).

When I submitted my video last year, a lot of voters thanked me for "opening their eyes" up to what Monk did. It changed some minds, but I guess not enough. Actually, I don't even believe everyone WATCHED the piece. Again, just too lazy, too set in their ways. I learned that the committee isn't allowed to show a video during their official discussion/presentation, so it was up to each individual voter to take the initiative to simply pop the DVD into a player and watch it. I guess that was too much to ask for some of them.

We'll try again in a few months.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Nice to hear some recent comments from the man.

I have some new strategies for this next vote. Who knows what will happen, but there is more ammo left in the chamber.

The whole process is indeed sickening and borderline corrupt.

I personally don't think it's a vendetta against the man so much as the fact that a lot of the writers/voters are simply too lazy to do their real homework on him. Those of us who watched him KNOW what he did for the team and what kind of player he was, but he was SO QUIET and shunned the glory SO MUCH that those who didn't follow the Redskins are much less informed, hence they're more easily swayed by the complete idiots who make their "name his signature catch" arguments (see the buffoon Adam Shankter from NFL Network).

When I submitted my video last year, a lot of voters thanked me for "opening their eyes" up to what Monk did. It changed some minds, but I guess not enough. Actually, I don't even believe everyone WATCHED the piece. Again, just too lazy, too set in their ways. I learned that the committee isn't allowed to show a video during their official discussion/presentation, so it was up to each individual voter to take the initiative to simply pop the DVD into a player and watch it. I guess that was too much to ask for some of them.

We'll try again in a few months.
This is why we should stop caring. If the voters need the help of fans to realize how good a player (and not just any player..this guy played very well for a long long time) was, then the whole process is seriously screwed up beyond hope.

[wewantdallas]

This is why we should stop caring. If the voters need the help of fans to realize how good a player (and not just any player..this guy played very well for a long long time) was, then the whole process is seriously screwed up beyond hope.

I agree, but I can't help it. Lost causes are my specialty.

Besides, you have already helped the next offensive with some of those good stats you provided awhile back. :bsmile:

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I agree, but I can't help it. Lost causes are my specialty.

Besides, you have already helped the next offensive with some of those good stats you provided awhile back. :bsmile:

I said we should stop caring...not that I will stop caring. ;)

[Spence]

Sorry, I don't think it is laziness. Monk is a pretty well-known player and every voter for the Hall would have seen him play. I don't think ignorance or laziness is the problem. Football sports writers don't like Art Monk. Some even admit it.

[shally]

Read it all! (http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=27)

that is his public face.. inside, i think it matters a lot to him

[shally]

Nice to hear some recent comments from the man.

I have some new strategies for this next vote. Who knows what will happen, but there is more ammo left in the chamber.

The whole process is indeed sickening and borderline corrupt.

I personally don't think it's a vendetta against the man so much as the fact that a lot of the writers/voters are simply too lazy to do their real homework on him. Those of us who watched him KNOW what he did for the team and what kind of player he was, but he was SO QUIET and shunned the glory SO MUCH that those who didn't follow the Redskins are much less informed, hence they're more easily swayed by the complete idiots who make their "name his signature catch" arguments (see the buffoon Adam Shankter from NFL Network).

When I submitted my video last year, a lot of voters thanked me for "opening their eyes" up to what Monk did. It changed some minds, but I guess not enough. Actually, I don't even believe everyone WATCHED the piece. Again, just too lazy, too set in their ways. I learned that the committee isn't allowed to show a video during their official discussion/presentation, so it was up to each individual voter to take the initiative to simply pop the DVD into a player and watch it. I guess that was too much to ask for some of them.

We'll try again in a few months.

i disagree about it not being intentional, but just laziness. i think it IS personal with som eof the voters. whether it is because monk never talked to them when he was aplayer, or whether it is because he played for the redskins i cannot answer. but it is personal. king alluded to that many times saying he didnt think that monk was worthy of the HOF.. that is the mentality out there
keep up the good fight

[wewantdallas]

that is his public face.. inside, i think it matters a lot to him

I think it does, too. In fact, I heard this directly from a friend of his, Brig Owens.

As for the "laziness" thing, I truly DO think it plays a part, and that's based on direct contact with some of these writers last year and hearing from some of their peers. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some anti-Redskin bias that helps, too, but I can't confirm that.

It's the kind of laziness that makes them (and we're talking about a minority here, but enough to make a difference) much less willing to consider more subtle reasons that make a player worthy vs. the types of players who may have that huge Super Bowl catch or have a huge resume of great sound bytes or have a lot of past big name players come out to support them (like the cowgirl contingent that showed up for that big cokeheaded baby Irvin this year). In other words, some are much more easily swayed by style over substance, which strikes me as lazy, especially when you consider the obligation they have in that position to make the right choices.

I mean, admittedly Art is not a "sexy" pick. He has no sound bytes, he doesn't have that one catch that you always remember, his face isn't always (or EVER) on tv, he never went into broadcasting. The word "consistency" doesn't always get people excited, but there was never a better example of that than Art. You have to put in a little more effort to see just WHY he is so deserving of the Hall, and after doing that, it becomes obvious that he is IS worthy. In fact, he is WAY overqualified for that dump in Canton.

If you have any quotes of writers admitting they don't like Monk, I would honestly love to see them, because I would use that in anything I work on for the next vote.

[shally]

I think it does, too. In fact, I heard this directly from a friend of his, Brig Owens.

As for the "laziness" thing, I truly DO think it plays a part, and that's based on direct contact with some of these writers last year and hearing from some of their peers.

It's the kind of laziness that makes them (and we're talking about a minority here, but enough to make a difference) much less willing to consider more subtle reasons that make a player worthy vs. the types of players who may have that huge Super Bowl catch or have a huge resume of great sound bytes or have a lot of past big name players come out to support them (like the cowgirl contingent that showed up for that big cokeheaded baby Irvin this year). In other words, some are much more easily swayed by style over substance, which strikes me as lazy, especially when you consider the obligation they have in that position to make the right choices.

I mean, admittedly Art is not a "sexy" pick. He has no sound bytes, he doesn't have that one catch that you always remember, his face isn't always (or EVER) on tv, he never went into broadcasting. The word "consistency" doesn't always get people excited, but there was never a better example of that than Art. You have to put in a little more effort to see just WHY he is so deserving of the Hall, and after doing that, it becomes obvious that he is IS worthy. In fact, he is WAY overqualified for that dump in Canton.

If you have any quotes of writers admitting they don't like Monk, I would honestly love to see them, because I would use that in anything I work on for the next vote.

hasnt king written on that repeatedly ?? although maybe now he is "converted"

as for subtle performers, i say, crap !! harry carson got in and he is for certain that type of player.. there is more going on here than on the surface..

[wewantdallas]

hasnt king written on that repeatedly ?? although maybe now he is "converted"

as for subtle performers, i say, crap !! harry carson got in and he is for certain that type of player.. there is more going on here than on the surface..

Yeah, King "wrote on that repeatedly," and then FINALLY CAME AROUND. Now, people can question his motives on that, but I see it as him doing some extra work (talking to Gibbs, talking to others, actually LISTENING for a change) and FINALLY making the right decision. If only others would do the same.

As for Carson, yes, he IS very similar to Monk, and look how long it took him to get in. AND, he made lots of public noise by saying he wanted his name REMOVED from consideration because he was so sick of being shunned. AND he had a huge (literally huge) supporter in King who lobbied VERY hard for him for years (I think harder than anyone on our side has lobbied for Monk).

It definitely is harder for the less-flashy players to get in.

[shally]

Yeah, King "wrote on that repeatedly," and then FINALLY CAME AROUND. Now, people can question his motives on that, but I see it as him doing some extra work (talking to Gibbs, talking to others, actually LISTENING for a change) and FINALLY making the right decision. If only others would do the same.

As for Carson, yes, he IS very similar to Monk, and look how long it took him to get in. AND, he made lots of public noise by saying he wanted his name REMOVED from consideration because he was so sick of being shunned. AND he had a huge (literally huge) supporter in King who lobbied VERY hard for him for years (I think harder than anyone on our side has lobbied for Monk).

It definitely is harder for the less-flashy players to get in.

and then there is the ny bias.. i still believe it exists

[Spence]

that is his public face.. inside, i think it matters a lot to himOf course it bothers him privately, but, as I wrote, he remains cool about it, even though his fans do not. That's entirely in character for Monk. He's not going to let anyone see him whine or sweat. He once said that the more pain he felt after a hit, the faster he'd get off the ground. He'd never show his enemies any weakness.

Cool off the field. Cool on the field. That's Art Monk for you.

[Skins7ny]

I don't go ga-ga over athletes, but I have more respect for Art Monk than for any player who has put on a Redskins uniform. If Monk does not belong in the HOF, then no one does. I have had the Monk v. Carson discussion with my buddy Phil the die-hard Giants fan (we did a NFL show together in college) for many years. I am not knocking Carson and am not opposed to his being in the Hall, but Monk was a better WR than Carson was a LB. Yes, Carson had more Pro Bowls, but he didn't retire with any big statistical records like Monk did.

Anyway, I know it shouldn't bother me, but it does. It is a complete injustice to him and to all Redskins fans. I think besides the other factors others have so ably mentioned here, there also has been a very unfair perception around the country that Joe Gibbs won his Super Bowls with inferior talent. It is untrue but pervasive. I think this is really working against Monk. Monk doesn't need a signature catch, he was Joe Gibbs' signature player, the model that set the mold for all of Gibbs' success with the team. He was the guy who out-worked, out-practiced and out-classed everybody, and yes, he was also extremely talented. He was the guy Gibbs pointed to when new players would come in to mold in the Redskins way, which enabled him to win 3 SB's with a somewhat rotating cast. Monk was the one constant that entire era. He set a new mold across the league for the bigger receiver, setting the table for Rice, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, and countless others in an age of smurfs. There is a reason why Monk's # is the only receiver # that we don't give out anymore (even in training camp!).

Spence, congratulations on a great article! And WWD, keep fighting the good fight!

[bergiemoore]

I stopped caring about the HoF once they let in that coke-head receiver who made his name by pushing off the DBs.

[bgforever]

http://web.wireimage.com/images/tnm/10872806.jpg

This is just ONE of the many pictures of Art Monk taking on a SECONDARY
in his most bodacious outing in the playoffs ever, also in 1987, he did the same! He literally lit up the field in both playoff series in 1991 and 1987. It allowed Joe Gibbs to cleverly use Monk in OTHER situations to free up receivers, in the Superbowl, whether they were good or not!

If Marvin Harrison is allowed to get in based on his performance in the latest SB, then Art Monk should have been in from day one! Harrison is used the same way. Point, when Stokely got hurt, and they let him go, Why take a marginal #3 reciever from Ohio? Because many will shun him on that premise, because Harrison and Wayne will warrant more attention. Its soooo simple. The same was done with Arthur Monk in his stretch from 1982(injured early on ) to 1992! (Culminating with a drive DOMINATED BY ART MONK AGAINST THE Buffalo Bills in a CRITICAL juncture of the game(SB for the 91 season).
In 1987, Art Monk, Darrell Green (Special Teams PR) and Kelvin Bryant were larger than life, facing some nasty, fast and suffocating defenses to fight injuries, setbacks by their teammates, to simply smash the defenses and offenses against them. Monk's tough, in the face of LB after LB, LT, Carson, W. Marshall, Singletary, etc, safeties, Lott, Duerson, (Atwater and Smith in the SB, both DUPED by Monk on moves and outsmarting them to commit, so D. Williams would tear Denver apart!)

There he was with the Long, medium and short catches. The run, the block. Vintage MONK, clearly emmulating his mentor, Charley Taylor, a HOF coach of his throughout a good portion of his career!

[RedskinsDave]

Well done!

[MikeBass]

Art Monk was the consumate team player and I do not think that the attitude has changed because he has retired from the game. The SB's that he helped his team win is probably as gratifying as being selected to the HoF. I am sure that he is going to cherish the moment when he does achieve this accomplishment but until that moment happens, like he said, I do not think it is bothering him as much as it is us.

As far as the Hall goes, to me, it is just a building with ex-players statues and has lost a lot of it's allure. Until it starts recognizing the truly great players who made the game what it is today such as an Art Monk who made the bigger receiver who can get the tough yardage mod and changed the way some offenses was, and still is, constructed, the selection process will continue to be scrutinized and the building itself will decrease as an attraction . "Signature catches" and all that crap that people try to come up with is just a way to keep deserving people from being selected because of personal vendettas.

[Meatsnack]

I said years ago that the HOF needs Art Monk a lot more than Art needs it. And, frankly, if the voters can't see that they diminish the meaning of the HOF by keeping him out then they are even less informed than I give them credit for. And I give them about enough credit to buy a used condom on 5th avenue after the Rise Up! parade.

A Hall of Fame without Art Monk is a travesty because Art embodies world class performance with all-world character. He played the game the way it was meant to played and conducted himself as a man in a way that made you proud to have him on your team. I will continue to boycott the NFL HOF and bad-mouth it at every turn unless and until they right the wrongs they have done by admitting Art Monk and removing that crack dealer from Dallas.

[James F. Quinn]

Art Monk was the consumate team player and I do not think that the attitude has changed because he has retired from the game. The SB's that he helped his team win is probably as gratifying as being selected to the HoF. I am sure that he is going to cherish the moment when he does achieve this accomplishment but until that moment happens, like he said, I do not think it is bothering him as much as it is us.

As far as the Hall goes, to me, it is just a building with ex-players statues and has lost a lot of it's allure. Until it starts recognizing the truly great players who made the game what it is today such as an Art Monk who made the bigger receiver who can get the tough yardage mod and changed the way some offenses was, and still is, constructed, the selection process will continue to be scrutinized and the building itself will decrease as an attraction . "Signature catches" and all that crap that people try to come up with is just a way to keep deserving people from being selected because of personal vendettas.

I'll repeat myself. It says a lot about the HOF when there are so many aware fans asking "Why is Art Monk NOT in the Hall, when (fill in the flashy name ) is?"

[native skin]

that was a very well-written argument for Monk getting the Hall. The Hall of Fame is a joke...dead to me, until he gets in. it's nothing short of outrageous that he's not in. it sickens me that Irvin gets in before Monk.

I agree. The Hall is joke. Monk was one of greatests skins I ever saw play. He was incredible. We have not had someone of his caliber since. Yes, we have had wannabes but not the real deal. It is a great insult to everyone that watched him play. To ignore greatness is to be blind.

:typeR2:

[native skin]

that is his public face.. inside, i think it matters a lot to him

Of course, he gave his body and life to the game and came out to be one of the greatest to play. I have to admit, even though I wish he was more vocal about it, I have always admired how humble he is. That man has great character. He did his talking by making plays, unlike some people that I won't mention--Carlos Rogers. Oops. He talks smack even after he completely screws up. I miss players like Monk.

[ac/DC_Fan]

Of course, he gave his body and life to the game and came out to be one of the greatest to play. I have to admit, even though I wish he was more vocal about it, I have always admired how humble he is. That man has great character. He did his talking by making plays, unlike some people that I won't mention--Carlos Rogers. Oops. He talks smack even after he completely screws up. I miss players like Monk.


Second that motion. I don't mind new school, but sometimes there is just too much of it. Monk has always been a favorite for me.

[flave1969]

Art Monk interviewed post Superbowl 22. Class Act as ever giving Doug his props.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1j1EIGSiTE&mode=related&search=

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

NFL Total Access just showed a great clip (about 4 min.) of Art Monk, debating that he should be in the HOF. They even disputed almost all of the arguments one by one. This was in Week in Review, so I'm not sure if it will air again.