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

Czaben has some decent posts on the topic. I like his response to King's ranking Ricky Sanders as a bigger threat than Monk:

http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2006/01/index.html#000186
Peter King’s arguments against Monk include the following…. 1. “He was only voted to 3 Pro Bowls.” (Rebuttal: Fine, so was Charlie Joiner, Lynn Swann, and John Stallworth. It’s also worth noting, John Riggins only went to ONE Pro Bowl. Tells you what that’s worth.

2. “Modern wideout numbers are threatening to obliterate Monk’s catch total.” He cites Keenan McCardell, Jimmy Smith, Marvin Harrison as examples. Okay fine. But they aren’t Monk’s contemporaries. If you look up at Pro Football Reference the list of Most Catches in a Season, the staggering number of 100-plus catch years is amazing. Monk’s 106 in 1984 is notable however in one very important respect. It’s the ONLY such mark from the entire decade! Once 1993 rolled around, wideouts began racking up 100 catch seasons like it was nothing. Hell, even scrubs like Brett Perriman had 100-ball years!

3. “Monk was the 4th most dangerous weapon on those Redskin teams.” Please. Ricky Sanders, while a nice compliment wideout, could hardly be considered a “bigger weapon” than Monk. Comments like this really make you question King’s ability to judge ANYTHING in regard to pro football.

Finally, I want to layout a pair of wide receiver numbers, and you tell me who is who.

Receiver A: 13 Seasons 5 Pro Bowls 743 Rec. 10,205 Yds 84 TD
Receiver B: 12 Seasons 5 Pro Bowls 750 Rec. 11,904 Yds 65 TD

Both receiver A and B were Top 10 in the league in Touchdowns (5 times each) and Catches (4 times each). The only significant difference is that Receiver A has just one Super Bowl ring, while B has three.

Who are they?

A = Andre Rison
B = Michael Irvin

And yet I don’t hear anybody banging the drum for Bad Moon for Canton, do you?

There's another one later on in the same page.

Relying on Salisbury for support feels like an act of desperation ;)
Uh oh. Salisbury is threatening to get off my crap list. I guess even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.

Czaben has some decent posts on the topic. I like his response to King's ranking Ricky Sanders as a bigger threat than Monk:

http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2006/01/index.html#000186


There's another one later on in the same page.

Interesting comment about the pro bowl selections in light of the fact that most people on this thread think players should vote for HOF. Obviously the players were not watching when Riggo was playing because they are the ones who vote for the pro bowl.

Like I said, as imperfect a system as it is, the sports writers are the best source for voting players into the HOF.

I think it should be a four-pronged attack. Players, fans, coaches and current hall-of-famers.

I have to go with irish on this one - I think fans and players are rather unqualified to determine "the best of all time". I think coaches could be a valuable addition to the process, though.

I have to go with irish on this one - I think fans and players are rather unqualified to determine "the best of all time". I think coaches could be a valuable addition to the process, though.

I think the coaches are involved (and fans too) although not directly. The media is always talking to players, caoches & fans so they do not make their decision in a vacuum.

I think the coaches are involved (and fans too) although not directly. The media is always talking to players, caoches & fans so they do not make their decision in a vacuum.

I meant getting them directly involved might be helpful to the process. They, generally, know how to evaluate talent. That said, I'm not sure I want Mike Tice having input into the process...

Contract me will ya. I'll raise your contract another contract.

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.


I wonder what rascal did that? The style seem eerily familiar.

Like I said, as imperfect a system as it is, the sports writers are the best source for voting players into the HOF.



i'd have to respectfully disagree with that statement just for the simple fact that it is the MEDIA voters that are keeping monk out of the hof. that fact alone, shows just how much out of touch the media is with the understanding of the game known as the NFL. seems like every FAN or EX PLAYER, when asked about monk not being in the hof , all say that it is a crime that he hasn't been voted in yet.
media people are too interrested in providing a "GOOD STORY" moreso than understanding the true interworkings of a successfull footbal team. media folk fall in love with players like micheal irving, dion sanders, etc....players that always give them something to write about. media folk don't recognize how good monk was or how much monk meant to the skins or how well monk played the game by doing the other things like blocking for a teammate or making a catch for a first down to keep a drive going or being a smart player by not commiting penalties or always knowing were the first down marker is.
media people have no clue to the importance and value that monk possessed. he never cared to speak with the media therfore the media payed no attention to him.