Rod woodson can't believe how ignorant Peter King is.

We're bringing it this year.
Joe Gibbs year 3 back in the saddle. Including Al Saunders, Greg Williams, Clinton Portis, Santana Moss, Andre Carter, Sean Taylor, Brandon Lloyd, Marcus Washington, Cornelius Griffin and etc etc etc. REDSKINS YEAR!!! NOTHING STOPS US!!! NOT PARCELLS NOT TO NOT SEAHAWKS NUTHIN!!!
GO REDSKINS!!!:food-smil :headbange :towel: :biggthump :party-smi :cheers :httr: :dallas: :dallas: :dallas: .

Never thought i would say that Rod Woodson and i have something in common but apparetnly we both think that Peter Queen, i mean King, is an idiot.

It was interesting to hear also during the Harry Carson interview that in 2004 he was so fed up with the system, he wrote a letter to have his name removed from eligibilty. He said it was fed up with having his ability to play and someone else determining if he was good enough when he played, it was causing too much hardship or frustration on his and people close to him that knew he was good enough and had been shafted. I wonder how much that particular stand he made effected and 2 years later he is inducted.
It really is sad that now you see current players with the same or less accomplishments getting into the hall because players are marketed and showcased more in todays NFL. I think here in the next year Monk will get in, he is getting more push than most guiys when it comes to just plain along being dogged out when it comes to an induction to the Hall.

It's getting to the point where King is constantly defending his position on why Monk isn't in the Hall. More than any other player being snubbed, Monk's name is now being mentioned almost immediately.

When I saw this discussion I went and looked at Monks stats and can understand why King votes the way he does. Monk has good stats in receptions and receiving yards but Andre Reed and Chris Carter have more and I dont think those guys are HOF players either. Monk is way down on the TD list and he didnt do much in the post season and even less in the Super Bowls (with the exception of 1991 vs Buf). Unfortunately for Monk I think King may be correct.

When I saw this discussion I went and looked at Monks stats and can understand why King votes the way he does. Monk has good stats in receptions and receiving yards but Andre Reed and Chris Carter have more and I dont think those guys are HOF players either. Monk is way down on the TD list and he didnt do much in the post season and even less in the Super Bowls (with the exception of 1991 vs Buf). Unfortunately for Monk I think King may be correct.

Yes, Monk is way down on the list NOW. But it took a very long time for his receiving records to be broken. He was a 100 reception leader before it was really a big deal.

When I saw this discussion I went and looked at Monks stats and can understand why King votes the way he does. Monk has good stats in receptions and receiving yards but Andre Reed and Chris Carter have more and I dont think those guys are HOF players either. Monk is way down on the TD list and he didnt do much in the post season and even less in the Super Bowls (with the exception of 1991 vs Buf). Unfortunately for Monk I think King may be correct.
Must... control... urge to kill.

When Monk broke the all-time receptions record, it was 820 receptions. That was a measure of the way the game was played. By being the first to exceed that number (and by 120 catches), he was a trailblazer for the receivers of today. The first with a 100+ catch season, the consecutive games with a reception record holder at his retirement (since beaten by Rice) - these are the things that made Monk respected.

King did say earlier this year that he would rethink his stance on Monk because of all the support he has received. King has stated his reasons and stood behind his decision which I do respect but disagree. If he is now willing to listen and rethink his view on Monk we do have to give him some credit. I'm not saying he was right only that he stood by how he felt even under the scrutiny he has received.

we do have to give him some credit

bologna, i give him no credit, oh what everyones telling him how much of an idiot he is and he finally figured it out so he backtracked and said hed look it over again? no, the guys a moron, id give him credit if he stood by his post, but now hes just backtracking trying to save his butt from further scrutiny

Must... control... urge to kill.

When Monk broke the all-time receptions record, it was 820 receptions. That was a measure of the way the game was played. By being the first to exceed that number (and by 120 catches), he was a trailblazer for the receivers of today. The first with a 100+ catch season, the consecutive games with a reception record holder at his retirement (since beaten by Rice) - these are the things that made Monk respected.

I hear what you are saying and agree the game was different back then. I think King's problem is that the record is for receptions, not TD receptions, and I think he is not quite certain that catching a lot of balls makes one a HOF receiver.

By the way, Monk is now 5th on the reception list behind Rice, Chris Carter, Time Brown & Andre Reed. Of that list I think only Rice is HOF material.