Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio

PK is an A-hole. Of course the home town of your team is going to be the most vocal. Plus it's not supposed to be a popularity contest. I'ts about what you did as a player. Plus he contradicts himself every other sentence. What a di-k.

Anybody notice that Carson, Martin and Bruschii are guys from PK's neck of the woods? It's no wonder he makes crazy statements like "he hasn't heard of people outside of DC argue for his case". I use to read MMQB every week for about a year or so but he's blatant bias of Northeastern sports figures started to turn my stomach. I go to church expecting the minister to slip up and call Jesus by his true name "Tom Brady". Peter King is dead to me.

Did anyone catch PK's last statement on Monk?

"If it were only me, Art Monk would be in the HOF. There are obviously other people on the committee, members who think he's a marginal candidate for the HOF."

What a cop-out. He still didn't provide a single valid reason for not voting for Monk.

Did anyone catch PK's last statement on Monk?

"If it were only me, Art Monk would be in the HOF. There are obviously other people on the committee, members who think he's a marginal candidate for the HOF."

What a cop-out. He still didn't provide a single valid reason for not voting for Monk.

yeah I noticed him saying that too, but it just speaks of what type of a pitiful person PK is that he has never voted for a guy he says if it was up to him Monk would be in. BS just contiously spews from his mouth and is another example of why the voting power of sports journalists needs to be reduced or all together removed.

yeah I noticed him saying that too, but it just speaks of what type of a pitiful person PK is that he has never voted for a guy he says if it was up to him Monk would be in. BS just contiously spews from his mouth and is another example of why the voting power of sports journalists needs to be reduced or all together removed.

I think the journalists are the best source for HOF voting because more so than any group, they are the most unbiased. Players are too caught up in their own world to see the league as a whole over time and letting fans vote would have the HOF end up like the MLB all-star game full of popular but maybe not great players. The HOF voting is not perfect by any means but its as good as it can be.

I think the journalists are the best source for HOF voting because more so than any group, they are the most unbiased. Players are too caught up in their own world to see the league as a whole over time and letting fans vote would have the HOF end up like the MLB all-star game full of popular but maybe not great players. The HOF voting is not perfect by any means but its as good as it can be.

Those are good points, but the process can be improved drastically with one change in the rules. Per the HOF website (http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.jsp):

[A]ll appointments [of the Board of Selectors] are of the open-end variety and can be terminated only by retirement or resignation, as long as the member continues to attend meetings regularly.

There is no reason Peter King (or anyone) needs to be on the Board for more than 3-5 years at a stretch.

Those are good points, but the process can be improved drastically with one change in the rules. Per the HOF website (http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.jsp):



There is no reason Peter King (or anyone) needs to be on the Board for more than 3-5 years at a stretch.

Why? I think having people on the board for longer periods of time provides the committee with members that have a sense of history and a better sense for comparison across eras. IMO, it seems that today most people think that nothing in sports happened before 2000.

AM's best bet is for old timers like King who actually saw him play as compared to newbees that think barry sanders is old-school.

Why? I think having people on the board for longer periods of time provides the committee with members that have a sense of history and a better sense for comparison across eras. IMO, it seems that today most people think that nothing in sports happened before 2000.

AM's best bet is for old timers like King who actually saw him play as compared to newbees that think barry sanders is old-school.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense - you think Peter King has a better sense of history than Tony Kornheiser or Mitch Albom? Neither of them is on the Board, but could be added if the selectors were limited to, say, 5 years. I'm not sure why you assume that anyone who is not currently on the Board would be lack the ability to draw comparisons across eras. (Of course, it is ironic that PK has no sense of history and is unable to appreciate the magnitude of Monk's pre-2000 accomplishments.)

The selectors should be replaced after a set term. Limits help to avoid crap like this, where certain members get bugs up their asses about certain players for no good reason and prevent them from getting into the Hall.

To put in persepctive Monk's numbers.
He is currently 5th in all time Recs and 9th in Yards.
His 1984 season of 106 catches was the league record until 1992. After that there was an explosion of 100 recs years. He is currently 19th on that list. Of everyone else within the top 20(and I think the top 30) not one comes before 1990. Monk's 106 was so big that no one before or soon after challenged it. And PK thinks TO deserves HOF thought and Monk doesn't. Duh!

I think the journalists are the best source for HOF voting because more so than any group, they are the most unbiased. Players are too caught up in their own world to see the league as a whole over time and letting fans vote would have the HOF end up like the MLB all-star game full of popular but maybe not great players. The HOF voting is not perfect by any means but its as good as it can be.


in my opinion media poeple should not be any part of the voting process. the voting should be done by fans and former players and/or coaches.