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]

Re: Peter King question

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

[Gunzlingr]

Re: Peter King question

I am beginning to think so.

[helmetguy]

Re: Peter King question

I am beginning to think so.

I always have thought so.

[ICE74129]

Re: Peter King question

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]

Re: Peter King question

Peter King needs to just :stfu:

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Re: Peter King question

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]

Re: Peter King question

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]

Re: Peter King question

Interesting points I was unaware of.

[Dozerdog]

Re: Peter King question

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]

Re: Peter King question

yeah its sort of difficult to argue this one.

[Dozerdog]

Re: Peter King question

Art Monk

WR -- Syracuse

Playing Stats Season Team(s) Games Receiving Rushing Fumbles Total Points Rec Yds Avg TD Rush Yds Avg TD 1980 WAS 16 58 797 13.7 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 18 1981 WAS 16 56 894 16.0 6 1 -5 -5.0 0 0 36 1982 WAS 9 35 447 12.8 1 7 21 3.0 0 3 6 1983 WAS 12 47 746 15.9 5 3 -19 -6.3 0 0 30 1984 WAS 16 106 1,372 12.9 7 2 18 9.0 0 1 42 1985 WAS 15 91 1,226 13.5 2 7 51 7.3 0 2 12 1986 WAS 16 73 1,068 14.6 4 4 27 6.8 0 2 24 1987 WAS 9 38 483 12.7 6 6 63 10.5 0 0 36 1988 WAS 16 72 946 13.1 5 7 46 6.6 0 2 30 1989 WAS 16 86 1,186 13.8 8 3 8 2.7 0 0 48 1990 WAS 16 68 770 11.3 5 7 59 8.4 0 0 30 1991 WAS 16 71 1,049 14.8 8 9 19 2.1 0 2 48 1992 WAS 16 46 644 14.0 3 6 45 7.5 0 1 18 1993 WAS 16 41 398 9.7 2 1 -1 -1.0 0 0 12 1994 NYJ 16 46 581 12.6 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 18 1995 PHI 3 6 114 19.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 Career 224 940 12,721 13.5 68 63 332 5.3 0 13 408 Season Team(s) Punt Ret. Kick Ret. PR Yds Avg TD KR Yds Avg TD 1980 WAS 1 0 0.0 0 Career 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 0.0 0 Season Team(s) Other Stats 1983 WAS Pass: 1-1,46yds 1988 WAS Pass: 0-1

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]

Re: Peter King question

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]

Re: Peter King question

All HOF's are watered down.

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

[Philagape]

Re: Peter King question

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.