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

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.

I do think coaches should have input, but are fans and players qualified to determine who the best players are? How many people here would vote for Aikman? Probably not 80%, but it doesn't mean he isn't HOF-worthy. As for players, I think they would lack the ability, as irish put it, to draw comparisons across the eras.

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.

No, did I say he does? All I'm saying is that having long standing members of the committee provides a continuity that a constantly changing one would not.

What is amazing about this discussion is that it sounds like PK is the only vote keeping AM out. Obviously that is not true.

No, did I say he does? All I'm saying is that having long standing members of the committee provides a continuity that a constantly changing one would not.

What is amazing about this discussion is that it sounds like PK is the only vote keeping AM out. Obviously that is not true.

Yes, that is what your prior post implied.

Thanks for the clarification, and I see your point. You are correct that it would provide continuity, but not all continuity is good. Case in point - a Board that continuously rejects Art Monk is not good.

PK is just the most vocal - has anyone heard any other member's rationale for not voting in Monk?

Yes, that is what your prior post implied.

Thanks for the clarification, and I see your point. You are correct that it would provide continuity, but not all continuity is good. Case in point - a Board that continuously rejects Art Monk is not good.

PK is just the most vocal - has anyone heard any other member's rationale for not voting in Monk?

Not that I know of.

I think the reality is that if AM was going to get in he would be there already but unfortunately he's not. The longer he goes without getting in the less his chances become because he slips further down the records lists and further from memory. It a shame.

I do think coaches should have input, but are fans and players qualified to determine who the best players are? How many people here would vote for Aikman? Probably not 80%, but it doesn't mean he isn't HOF-worthy. As for players, I think they would lack the ability, as irish put it, to draw comparisons across the eras.




former players would be the best poeple to do the voting, outside of coaches, they have played the game , they understand the worthiness a player can have to a team (which, in monks case, some media people don't realize how important he was. ex players do)

as far as fans go. fans would be great at voting (if they are truly fans of the nfl, not just someone who watches football casually) true fans recognize talented football players when they see them, regardless of the team he played for. i think, at least 80% of the people here would vote for aikman. i know i would. he was a damn good qb and won what, two superbowls, or was it three ?

I don't mean to take away from what Swann and Stallworth meant to the Super Steelers of the 1970s but I think that them getting inducted has screwed things for future potential Hall-of-Famers. Guys like Monk, Ellard, Reed, Fryar, even Gary Clark are on the outside looking in. Ellard and Fryar have better stats than Swann and Stallworth, but not the rings. Reed has as many SB appearances and better stats, but no rings.

Monk and Clark, however, have rings, better stats, more pro-bowl appearances (at least Clark does)

I don't know, the whole thing is just very frustrating.

Everyone knows that Peter King has been gunning for Monk for years. Hell, it's even on the Wikipedia entry for Monk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Monk

QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"It's legalized theft, a crime, that Art Monk is not in the Hall of Fame. Those voters ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.''

-- ESPN football analyst Sean Salisbury.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"It's legalized theft, a crime, that Art Monk is not in the Hall of Fame. Those voters ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.''

-- ESPN football analyst Sean Salisbury.

Relying on Salisbury for support feels like an act of desperation ;)

Everyone knows that Peter King has been gunning for Monk for years. Hell, it's even on the Wikipedia entry for Monk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Monk

Love the wikipedia entry on Peter King - Clearly the entry was written by a Skins fan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_King_%28sportswriter%29
King's credibility has recently been damaged by his capricious and arbitrary opposition to allowing Washington Redskin great Art Monk into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. King's increasingly defensive and incoherent rants on the subject have led to accusations of geographical bias.