Go Back   hailRedskins.com Fan Board > hailRedskins.com Fan Forums > the Cherokee Redskins Tribe

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #61  
Old 02-16-2005, 08:40 PM
akhhorus's Avatar
akhhorus akhhorus is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Monty Burns County
Posts: 61,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MONK_for_HOF
Let me correct you. I never said he is always 100% negative. I said "I am sure in his years of writing and reporting NOT everything is 100% negative towards skins" what I did say is in what I have read and heard personally from King is extremly negative towards skins and it seems spitefull. Honestly now I don't even read or listen to him anymore. I just wonder how he got his job thats all.
What you said:
"The anger comes from never hearing him say one positive thing about the redskins as a franchise or a redskins player".

He got his job because he's a great NFL columnist who talks to everyone. If you want to believe that he's out to get the skins, feel free to keep believing the lie. Nothing anyone says to you will convince you otherwise.
__________________
Thanks for everything Johnny White Guy.
Reply With Quote

  #62  
Old 02-16-2005, 08:51 PM
MONK_in_HOF's Avatar
MONK_in_HOF MONK_in_HOF is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akhhorus
I love Monk, he was one of my favs growing up: but he's not in the same class as Jerry Rice, Steve Largent, James Lofton, Charlie Taylor, Lynn Swann... he has good stats but I think he's a borderline HOFer.
I hate to keep disagreeing w/ you but Lynn Swann was no Art Monk. Not even close. He wasn't a better player, just more flashy. I know it isn't all about stats but he had only 50+ catches 2x (50,61) in his whole career. He couldn't block nearly as well as Monk. Plus the championship teams he played on were driven by their D mainly. The only reason people remember Swann is b/c he made many circus catches and a few came in championship games. I don't think he is a hall of famer at all, but that whole steelers team is in the hall so why not him and stallworth too. But he is better known in the media so I guess that counts for something. At least to the hall of fame.
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #63  
Old 02-16-2005, 08:54 PM
MONK_in_HOF's Avatar
MONK_in_HOF MONK_in_HOF is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,161
Default

And nobody is in the same class as Jerry Rice. And the fact he was destroying the record books right as Monk was ducking out hurts Monk as much as anything.
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #64  
Old 02-16-2005, 08:55 PM
colkurtz's Avatar
colkurtz colkurtz is offline
Spirit
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dublin, PA
Posts: 9,377
Default

PFT is rarely right about anything. Gibbs said the team is not interested in in over-priced FA WR's.

I'm not worried about this - I'm more concerned that we can't re-sign Pierce.
Reply With Quote

  #65  
Old 02-16-2005, 08:58 PM
akhhorus's Avatar
akhhorus akhhorus is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Monty Burns County
Posts: 61,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MONK_for_HOF
I hate to keep disagreeing w/ you but Lynn Swann was no Art Monk. Not even close. He wasn't a better player, just more flashy. I know it isn't all about stats but he had only 50+ catches 2x (50,61) in his whole career. He couldn't block nearly as well as Monk. Plus the championship teams he played on were driven by their D mainly. The only reason people remember Swann is b/c he made many circus catches and a few came in championship games. I don't think he is a hall of famer at all, but that whole steelers team is in the hall so why not him and stallworth too. But he is better known in the media so I guess that counts for something. At least to the hall of fame.
Swann benefits from playing on one of the greatest dynasties ever. I grant you that. Swann also made the All-Pro team(not the Pro Bowl) more than Monk. He was hyped, but he was great.
__________________
Thanks for everything Johnny White Guy.
Reply With Quote

  #66  
Old 02-16-2005, 09:08 PM
MONK_in_HOF's Avatar
MONK_in_HOF MONK_in_HOF is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,161
Default

and stallworth benefits from that and swann saying he couldn't have done any of it w/out him. So what happens the next year, surprise Stallworth gets in. What a joke. If you go to the HOF site you will notice that Stallworth's page contains a link to Swann's acceptance speech. It is a shame people like Jacoby and Monk may never get in while these guys are.
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #67  
Old 02-16-2005, 09:33 PM
Dexter72's Avatar
Dexter72 Dexter72 is offline
Brave
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,286
Default

The reason Monk is not in must be that 90% of the people casting the votes never saw more than a handful of the Skins games a year. Anyone who watched knew he was the best offensive player on an offensive-minded team that won 3 super bowls and went to a 4th.
Reply With Quote

  #68  
Old 02-16-2005, 10:03 PM
bgforever
 
Posts: n/a
Default

there's enough trash floating around on the net, among players, and in the papers for anyone to make the statement Joe Gibbs made. All agents say show me the money and everyone knows FA's want big bucks. Duuuuh!
Reply With Quote

  #69  
Old 02-16-2005, 11:50 PM
BIGSEF3's Avatar
BIGSEF3 BIGSEF3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,682
Default

anyone who thinks gibbs and the skins arent tampering is out of their mind. theres not a single nfl team that doesnt "talk" to players and agents before they are supposed to. sure, its against the rules, but how the heck else do so many deals get done midnight march 1st every year? ..... tampering

everyone does it. is it against the rules? yes. is it really that big of a deal? i dont think so. regardless of the rules, no player is "property." he's a human being with rights. if something is AGREED on when a player is under contract w/ another team, then i have a problem, but there is a little thing called free speech, and i have no doubt the redskins and every other nfl team talks to players they arent supposed to.

its like the speed limit. it says 65, but we all go over it. the cops will let us do 74 and not pull us over.

its against the rules, but everyone does it so its not policed. hence no one cares. thats a pessemistic view, for sure, but i think its a realistic one.

Last edited by BIGSEF3 : 02-17-2005 at 04:09 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #70  
Old 02-17-2005, 03:42 AM
flave1969's Avatar
flave1969 flave1969 is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 6,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akhhorus
I love Monk, he was one of my favs growing up: but he's not in the same class as Jerry Rice, Steve Largent, James Lofton, Charlie Taylor, Lynn Swann... he has good stats but I think he's a borderline HOFer.
Akh I do agree with you on many things but your assessment of Art Monk is extremely narrow in my opinion, and this is why. Firstly I cannot subscribe to the narrow view of what a wide receiver is supposed too be in the case of Art Monk. I cannot think of one receiver in the Hall or otherwise that was asked to play by his coach the way Joe Gibbs asked Art Monk to play.

Joe Gibbs used Art Monk as a blocker, he has stated it, watch any game film it is plain to see. That indicates a run first offense. That is not Monk's fault that is just the way it was. The fact that Monk was perhaps the greatest blocking receiver ever should be to his credit.

Is it not possible that Joe Gibbs was onto something good using Art Monk in the way he did rather than just playing that way because, he did not think Monk was a deep threat. When Gibbs played the three receiver set he would always send two guys long and one across the middle. Without that man going across the middle namely Monk, receivers like Brown, Sanders and Clark would have faced a lot more double coverage than they ever did. I think it is a misnomer when teams are said too not have considered Monk a threat because he was more often than not the man who drew double coverage and held the safety in place.

There was just two seasons when Monk was used as an orthodox receiver under Joe Gibbs 1984 and 1985. In 1984 Charlie Brown was hampered by injury all year. The Redskins replaced him with Calvin Muhammed who had a nice year, but he had just 42 catches. Art Monk was asked to carry the load and he responded with 106 catches. In 1985 we had Gary Clark in his rookie year produce good numbers but again Monk was the man who stepped up with 91 grabs. Also bare in mind that Redskin QB's had an awful time in 1985, in fact it was reminiscent of this year in many ways. Monk's ability as a down the field receiver were evident these years and he did produce.

After this time we picked up Sanders and the Possee was formed. Gibbs had a unique situation, three good receivers at wideout. He couldn't play Clark or Sanders in Monk's role so why even try. Also, one pertinent fact about the line up you never saw Monk out of the game if he was good to go. Sanders never deposed Monk as a starter. If the criteria for a wide receiver is that you should just be a deep threat and be able to blow by a defender then Sanders would have been the starter.

Is there a receiver in the hall who had better hands than Art Monk? Is their a receiver who ran better patterns than Art Monk in the hall? Did Art Monk make dozens of spectacular grabs in his career? Yes he was a very athletic man who made a living by going up and getting the ball. Could the receivers in the hall carry out the role that Art Monk was asked to play? I dont think so.

We cannot have the acid test and say what would Art Monk's career have been like had he played an orthodox receiver role. I have watched receivers become increasingly protected over the years and it has been purely for the benefit of the long bomb merchants. I dont see an Art Monk out there amongst receivers, if anything it is the Tight Ends of the league that remind me of him. I cannot countenance such a narrow view of what a receiver should be.

I feel Monk is punished for not being a speed guy, but not praised for being the best at what he did. Those that argue against Monk make it seem like what he did was easy but too me he had the most difficult role in the Joe Gibbs offense and frankly he excelled at what he did. There will always be football players that do not fit into the category of their position neatly, Marshall Faulk springs to mind. But they contribute hugely to their team and redefine what a player can do in that role, look at the evolution of the Tight End role.

I really truly honestly believe that Art Monk would have caught more passes, more TD's and had more yards had he been used as an orthodox receiver because he always had a burst in his numbers when he was asked too play that role. What Monk lacked in speed he made up in intelligence and he could get open in whatever part of the field he played.

Was Monk not considered a threat because of his role? Or because teams did not think he could beat them? It seems people like King, Dr Z and yourself think the latter. I think the former. You just dont get open as much as Monk, catch as many balls as Monk if you do not have supreme skill in what you do. Art Monk's would be dime a dozen otherwise. The way some people talk, Art Monk should have been the easiest player to stop, yet they never did.
__________________
D.C the place where QB's go to die.

Last edited by flave1969 : 02-17-2005 at 07:51 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #71  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:08 AM
NamVet4's Avatar
NamVet4 NamVet4 is offline
Shaman
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Heartland of the Jersey Shore!
Posts: 6,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flave1969
The way some people talk, Art Monk should have been the easiest player to stop, yet they never did.
There are no truer words or keener observations put this well about the man who made the Redskins a unique franchise; who reinvented the position of WR and who, to the undying shame of the NFL HOF, is not a member.

But this has been discussed again and againm and I'm afraid now that we will have to wait upon the "seniors' committee to make things right!

Sorry to have wandered off topic.........
__________________
"If you aren't fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm." Vincent Thomas Lombardi (1913 - 1970)
Reply With Quote

  #72  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:52 AM
flave1969's Avatar
flave1969 flave1969 is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 6,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NamVet4
There are no truer words or keener observations put this well about the man who made the Redskins a unique franchise; who reinvented the position of WR and who, to the undying shame of the NFL HOF, is not a member.

But this has been discussed again and againm and I'm afraid now that we will have to wait upon the "seniors' committee to make things right!

Sorry to have wandered off topic.........
Yes I am sorry to have gone off topic as well. But I will never stop campaigning for Monk, whereever the subject arises.
__________________
D.C the place where QB's go to die.
Reply With Quote

  #73  
Old 02-17-2005, 03:56 PM
chrisbcbu's Avatar
chrisbcbu chrisbcbu is offline
Spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 9,204
Default

http://www.buzzfans.com/sports/story...-4280720c.html

doesnt look like the NFL or Carolina cares about the so called "tampering".

Quote:
CHARLOTTE -- Though it seemed to be a clear, if not intentional, violation of league tampering rules, neither the Carolina Panthers nor the NFL sounded terribly bothered Wednesday by another team's ill-timed remarks.

Both parties downplayed the issue when asked about eyebrow-raising comments made by Washington coach Joe Gibbs.
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #74  
Old 02-17-2005, 04:01 PM
guinness4health's Avatar
guinness4health guinness4health is offline
Sentinel
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,680
Default

first of all muhammad's salary concerns are public knowledge...the fact that he is going to be cut is evident, i dont see anything happening with this, it is hard to tamper with a player if we are not interested in the first place.
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #75  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:19 PM
dj_stouty's Avatar
dj_stouty dj_stouty is offline
Chief Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGSEF3
regardless of the rules, no player is "property." he's a human being with rights. if something is AGREED on when a player is under contract w/ another team, then i have a problem, but there is a little thing called free speech, and i have no doubt the redskins and every other nfl team talks to players they arent supposed to.
Sorry...but those rules don't apply in private businesses such as the NFL. When a player signs himself over to a team...he is technically the property of that team. He can't just decide one day that he will do as he pleases, simply because the Constitution allows him to be "free". Either he follows the rules of his organization or he doesn't play football anymore. Also, the NFL is allowed to restrict a player's speech. If you talk about bad referreeing, you will get fined. If you "talk" to a player under contract of another team, you will be penalized and lose a draft pick. If you swear during a sideline interview on National TV, you may be fined an enormous amount.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 AM.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search | New Posts |