Peter King question

[Gunzlingr]

What does this guy have against Art Monk? In his MMQB today he said he will never vote for Monk to get in the hall of fame. What gives?

[hammerbillsfan]

Peter King is a fat tub of ****. :fat:

[Gunzlingr]

I am beginning to think so.

[helmetguy]

I am beginning to think so.
I always have thought so.

[ICE74129]

Peter King is a fat tub of ****. :fat:

Ok you now have two vids of the boob chick. Fess up and provide a link damn it!

[tat2dmike77]

Peter King needs to just :stfu:

[LifetimeBillsFan]

What does this guy have against Art Monk? In his MMQB today he said he will never vote for Monk to get in the hall of fame. What gives?

I saw him interviewed on YES by Chris Russo and Mike Francesa for their "Mike and the Mad Dog" show on WFAN last week in Detroit and King addressed this issue in some depth.

King's objections to Monk basically boil down to this:
1.) Monk was not one of the dominant wide receivers of his era in comparison to the leading receivers in the NFL during his career

2.) For significant portions of his career, Monk was not primary producer/option in his team's offense

and, most importantly for King:

3.) Monk was a "complier" of statistics who stuck around well past his prime and the time when he was a major contributor to his team just to break certain records. King objects to the way that baseball's HOF rewards players who reach certain statistical criteria (300 wins, 500 HRs) but who were not dominant players in their era (ie Phil Niekro, Don Sutton, etc.). King feels that the pro football HOF should only admit players who were dominant players in their time, even if they had a short career (Earl Campbell was an example that was used in the interview) and should absolutely not admit players, like Monk, who stuck around at the end of their careers simply to compile statistics and break records. King is adamantly opposed to Monk being elected to the HOF in part because he doesn't feel that Monk was a dominant enough player to warrant election, but also to set an example or precedent to discourage players from playing long after their primes in order to break records or gain admission to the HOF (the sad sight of Willie Mays in his last years as a Met were cited).

But, most of all, King cites:

4.) Only once in his career did Monk lead his own team in receptions. (I'm not sure if I heard this correctly or not, but I also think that King cited Monk's season by season TD and yardage numbers saying that he did not, in King's opinion, have a sufficient number of dominant seasons, by comparison to other leading WRs of his era, to merit being a HOFer.


From various things that I have picked up in articles about the Pro Football HOF over the years, I believe that King and a significant number of voters and others associated with the HOF want their Hall and the criteria that they use for selection to be different from baseball's HOF. King mentioned the difference in the length of football players' careers in comparison to baseball players' careers and the greater likelihood of injury as a reason to emphasize the player's dominance and impact on the game in his era over career statistics. While I happen to disagree with him about Monk, King made a fairly convincing argument against Monk based on the criteria that he feels that the PF Hall of Fame should use as its standard for admission. I could see his point--it wasn't a totally stupid or personality based rationale--even though I think that he underestimates the impact that Monk had by placing too much emphasis on Monk's annual numbers (for example, IMO Monk did not appear to have dominant seasons when, in my view, Washington's opponents saw him as such a threat that they made defensing him such a major priority that, in concentrating on taking him out of the game, they were unable to defense other players in that offense as effectively as they could have had Monk not posed such a threat--which meant that the ball did not go to Monk as much as it would have otherwise and his seasonal stats did not reflect his value to the offense or impact on the game).

That's what I got from listening to King talk about Monk and some of the other HOF candidates and his philosophy about voting players into the HOF. I hope that helps to answer your question.

[Throne Logic]

I think that he underestimates the impact that Monk had by placing too much emphasis on Monk's annual numbers (for example, IMO Monk did not appear to have dominant seasons when, in my view, Washington's opponents saw him as such a threat that they made defensing him such a major priority that, in concentrating on taking him out of the game, they were unable to defense other players in that offense as effectively as they could have had Monk not posed such a threat--which meant that the ball did not go to Monk as much as it would have otherwise and his seasonal stats did not reflect his value to the offense or impact on the game).

This is the point that should be emphasized. King sees fit to discount the stats accumulated over an over-extended career. Fine, I get his point, although I don't entire agree with it. Conversely, he places high emphasis on individual stats within a season or era. Not too sure how he can justify having this argument go both ways. How is King judging "dominence"? It sounds as if he's looking at seasonal stats for that. Sure Monk played with a whole lot of elite WR's. In 15 years, we'll run into the same thing again when the current bunch of top-flight WR's hit that HOF voting age. Don't shun him because he was a great WR in an era featuring some really great ones.

The HOF should be for the elite players that, during the course of any given game, made every teammate on the field a better player. Stats should be taken into account, but not be used as the major factor in the ultimate voting process. Those who are selected to vote, and many are just plain not worthy of the honor, should take the time to watch film of each and every candidate to see just how gameplans were or were not altered by opponents because of that candidate's presence on the field. You should also toss in the "off the field" presence. Was he a leader or a troublemaker? Did he bring his A-game to practice? Did he represent his team and the NFL in a positive manner? The entire package.

[Devin]

Interesting points I was unaware of.

[Dozerdog]

I agree with King on this one.


Baseball ruined their hall of fame by electing a lot of ok, marginal players.


Like I said in an earlier post- Monk was never the best WR on his own team most years- and It's not like he had Jerry Rice and Andre Reed on the roster ahead of him.


It's funny- people want Monk in (as a "compiler") but the same people don't like Warren Moon for the same reason. Lots of years, lots of yardage- no HoF?

[Devin]

yeah its sort of difficult to argue this one.

[Dozerdog]

Art Monk

WR -- Syracuse

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>Playing Stats

<TABLE><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=middle><TH rowSpan=2>Season</TH><TH rowSpan=2>Team(s)</TH><TH rowSpan=2>Games</TH><TH bgColor=#dfdfff colSpan=4>Receiving</TH><TH bgColor=#ffdfdf colSpan=4>Rushing</TH><TH rowSpan=2>Fumbles</TH><TH rowSpan=2>Total
Points</TH></TR><TR vAlign=center><TH>Rec</TH><TH>Yds</TH><TH>Avg</TH><TH>TD</TH><TH>Rush</TH><TH>Yds</TH><TH>Avg</TH><TH>TD</TH></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1980</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1980-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>58</TD><TD>797</TD><TD>13.7</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>18</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1981</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1981-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>56</TD><TD>894</TD><TD>16.0</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>-5</TD><TD>-5.0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>36</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1982</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1982-was)</TD><TD align=middle>9</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>447</TD><TD>12.8</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>21</TD><TD>3.0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>6</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1983</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1983-was)</TD><TD align=middle>12</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>746</TD><TD>15.9</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>-19</TD><TD>-6.3</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>30</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1984</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1984-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>106</TD><TD>1,372</TD><TD>12.9</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>9.0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>42</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1985</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1985-was)</TD><TD align=middle>15</TD><TD>91</TD><TD>1,226</TD><TD>13.5</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>51</TD><TD>7.3</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>12</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1986</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1986-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>73</TD><TD>1,068</TD><TD>14.6</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>27</TD><TD>6.8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>24</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1987</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1987-was)</TD><TD align=middle>9</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>483</TD><TD>12.7</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>63</TD><TD>10.5</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>36</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1988</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1988-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>72</TD><TD>946</TD><TD>13.1</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>6.6</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>30</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1989</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1989-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>86</TD><TD>1,186</TD><TD>13.8</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>2.7</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>48</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1990</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1990-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>68</TD><TD>770</TD><TD>11.3</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>59</TD><TD>8.4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>30</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1991</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1991-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>71</TD><TD>1,049</TD><TD>14.8</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>19</TD><TD>2.1</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>48</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1992</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1992-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>644</TD><TD>14.0</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>7.5</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>18</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1993</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1993-was)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>398</TD><TD>9.7</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>-1</TD><TD>-1.0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>12</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1994</TD><TD align=middle>NYJ (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1994-nyj)</TD><TD align=middle>16</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>581</TD><TD>12.6</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>18</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1995</TD><TD align=middle>PHI (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1995-phi)</TD><TD align=middle>3</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>114</TD><TD>19.0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TH align=middle colSpan=2>Career</TH><TH align=middle>224</TH><TH>940</TH><TH>12,721</TH><TH>13.5</TH><TH>68</TH><TH>63</TH><TH>332</TH><TH>5.3</TH><TH>0</TH><TH>13</TH><TH>408</TH></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=middle><TH rowSpan=2>Season</TH><TH rowSpan=2>Team(s)</TH><TH bgColor=#dfdfff colSpan=4>Punt Ret.</TH><TH bgColor=#ffdfdf colSpan=4>Kick Ret.</TH><TR vAlign=center><TH>PR</TH><TH>Yds</TH><TH>Avg</TH><TH>TD</TH><TH>KR</TH><TH>Yds</TH><TH>Avg</TH><TH>TD</TH></TR><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1980</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1980-was)</TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD>1</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.0</TD><TD>0</TD><TR vAlign=center align=right><TH align=middle colSpan=2>Career</TH><TH>0</TH><TH>0</TH><TH>0.0</TH><TH>0</TH><TH>1</TH><TH>0</TH><TH>0.0</TH><TH>0</TH></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=middle><TH>Season</TH><TH>Team(s)</TH><TH align=left>Other Stats</TH><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1983</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1983-was)</TD><TD align=left>Pass: 1-1,46yds</TD><TR vAlign=center align=right><TD align=middle>1988</TD><TD align=middle>WAS (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1988-was)</TD><TD align=left>Pass: 0-1</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>These stats are brutal.

5 seasons out of 16 with over 1000 yards?

The guy averaged 60 yards recieving a game, and one touchdown every 3 games.

[Throne Logic]

I agree with King on this one.


Baseball ruined their hall of fame by electing a lot of ok, marginal players.


Like I said in an earlier post- Monk was never the best WR on his own team most years- and It's not like he had Jerry Rice and Andre Reed on the roster ahead of him.


It's funny- people want Monk in (as a "compiler") but the same people don't like Warren Moon for the same reason. Lots of years, lots of yardage- no HoF?


I agree. I wasn't trying to argue that Monk should be in the HOF. I was arguing against King's "reasons" for not wanting him.

And yes, I love Warren Moon, but I just don't see how you vote him in just based upon his Stats. You'll see Drew Bledsoe in that category pretty soon. I definitely don't think he's worth of the HOF, but he'll be on the ballet because he amassed a ton of mostly useless yards and he does have a SB ring, which you could argue he earned best via an early season scramble up the sideline.

[YardRat]

All HOF's are watered down.

If they weren't, though, people would stop caring about them altogether.

[Philagape]

When I think of great receivers, I don't think of Art Monk. He was solid but unspectacular and played a long time. He's the Vinny Testaverde of receivers.

The HOF should be about greatness. About quality, not quantity. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats.

[Spiderweb]

Ok you now have two vids of the boob chick. Fess up and provide a link damn it!
Huh, did anyone say anything? I'm sitting here, minding my own business, daydreaming about a well built young lady who's bouncing her twins happily for all to see, and then.......

[Ingtar33]

i agree with Peter King.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

I can understand the arguments both ways, which is why I see Art Monk being a very close call. I don't like guys like Sutton, etc., getting into the baseball HOF either, so I'm glad that the PF Hall is trying to be stricter with its standards. My feelings about Monk are a lot more mixed than King's are and I definitely believe that Moon belongs.

Perhaps I'm a bit prejudiced in Monk's favor because I watched the Giants a lot during his heyday and recall how much respect and fear they had for Monk as a weapon at the time. When they went up against Washington, they would go out of their way in adjusting their defenses to insure that Monk didn't beat them and then they would defense the rest of the Washington offense. But, I also recall his last couple of years when it seemed like he was just hanging onto a roster spot to get to break the records--and that did remind me of Willie Mays, too. As I said, I have really mixed feelings about his qualifications for the HOF.

In Moon's case I will admit to being extremely biased in his favor by all of the games that I saw him play in Canada (in the early days of cable TV, my local cable provider had a channel on its basic menu that showed a LOT of Canadian football, but very little baseball, so I watched Canadian football). I HATED the Edmonton Eskimos and, in particular, Warren Moon--because he and they were so utterly dominant. A lot of people say that he doesn't deserve to be in the HOF because he didn't win anything in the NFL, but he didn't just win in Canada, he won ALL of the time! Now, I know that it is easy to write off Grey Cups like minor league championships, but a lot of people used to look at the AFL teams and players that way, too. And, this isn't the NFL Hall of Fame, but the PRO FOOTBALL Hall of Fame and, because it is the latter and not the former, Moon's career accomplishments in both the NFL and Canada have to be taken into consideration in evaluating his career. When you look at him that way--with six Grey Cup wins to his credit--he is definitely HOF worthy.

And, that's not taking into consideration Moon's impact on the game off-of-the-field. It is easy, perhaps even fashionable, these days to discount the very real role that racism played in pro football in those days and to even say that race, as a consideration, always plays in favor of the black person/athlete. But, the real fact of the matter--the God's honest truth--is that racism--both overt and unspoken--was a factor that worked very much to the detriment of black athletes, especially quarterbacks, in that era: in the mid-1960s black athletes playing games in the South were not allowed to stay in the same hotels as their white teammates (Buffalo's Jack Kemp got the white AFL All-Stars to join the black All-Stars to force the league to move its All-Star game from a segregated Southern city or face a boycott of all of the players one year because of this very issue); prior to the formation of the AFL, NFL teams did, indeed, have an unspoken quota of black players which Paul Brown of Cleveland was vilified for breaking when the AFL began signing more black players to its teams than the NFL would allow; there were NO black quarterbacks in either league until Denver, whose QBs were horrible and banged up, finally decided to let Marlin Briscoe, who had been signed to play wide receiver, take over as their starting QB on what they called an emergency basis. Briscoe later started for the Bills at QB. James Harris of Grambling (currently the Jags VP of Player Personnel) was the first black QB drafted by an NFL team to play QB, not WR, DB or RB, when the Bills drafted him in the 8th Round in 1969. Harris never really got much of a chance to start for the Bills, who let him go, after the 1971 season, to the LA Rams, where he went to the Super Bowl. While Joe Gilliam, drafted as a WR, did get some playing time for the Steelers, it wasn't until NINE years after Harris was drafted that another NFL team took a chance on drafting a black QB specifically to play the QB position, when Tampa Bay drafted Grambling's Doug Williams in 1978. While Williams did ultimately go on to be the MVP of Super Bowl XXII ten years later, those were 10 rocky years and during which Williams had, at best an up and down career. Moon, who was in the same graduating class as Williams, was told that he would have to switch to another position to play in the NFL--nine years after its first true black QB had failed to develop into a star, in 1978 there was still just room for only ONE young black QB in the NFL and that was going to be Doug Williams. Warren Moon refused to accept the NFL's quota on black QBs and signed with Edmonton. His accomplishments in Canada forced the NFL to reassess not only its attitude towards him, but towards black quarterbacks in general.

Even in 1984, Moon was not exactly warmly welcomed into the NFL. The overt racism of the 1960s was gone, but the media still openly questioned whether a black QB could read defenses or lead white players on offense. Moon's regular season success, even more so than Williams' Super Bowl MVP performance (which some wrote off as a one-time deal or the product of Joe Gibbs' coaching), is what convinced NFL owners that a black man could be a successful QB and team leader in the NFL, which opened the doors for today's generation of black QBs. That door was not only not open before Warren Moon entered the NFL in 1984, it was shut in his face in 1978 because the NFL simply would not allow more than one black man to even have a chance at proving that he could do that job. Warren Moon went to Canada, where he was a superstar, and, then, returned home to the US to have a successful career as QB in the NFL not because he was the beneficiary of some racial quota that was supposed to give him a leg up, but in spite of the fact that he was handcuffed by and had to overcome a racial quota that was supposed to prevent him and other black men from even having a chance to prove whether he could even play the quarterback position. (Yes, Virginia, for Warren Moon, racism was very real and truly existed! It was not some liberal fantasy.)

If one of the qualifications for entrance into the PF Hall of Fame stated as being a player's impact on the game, the presence of Michael Vick, Daunte Culpepper, Donovan McNabb and every other black quarterback presently on an NFL roster is evidence of the impact that Warren Moon had on the game. That alone should be enough to justify his election to the Hall of Fame. When you couple that with his career accomplishments in both Canada and the NFL as a QB on the field--which, combined, in and of themselves, are HOF worthy, then there should be no argument about Warren Moon's qualifications to be a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame isn't just about the NFL nor is it just about a player's statistics or how many Super Bowls or conference titles a player has won. When you take Warren Moon's whole playing career and his impact on the game as a whole into consideration, rather than focusing on his performances in individual games when he was in the NFL, IMHO Moon definitely belongs in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

[Ickybaluky]

I agree with King as well. Monk made a career out of running 12-yard hitch routes. He was really good at that, but that doesn't make him a HOF.

[venis2k1]

The guy averaged 60 yards a game, and one touchdown every 3 games.

just like Mcgahee. :handball:

[The_Philster]

I see the point he's making..but don't completely agree with it.

[chernobylwraiths]

I have heard King many times on issues like this. I think he was even talking about Monk when has said that Monk was a very good player, but this isn't the Hall of Very Good, it is the Hall of Fame and to be in the HOF, you should be great.

Thurman still should have made it! :mad: :fury: