And yet, Art still doesn't qualify?

Not unexpectedly, Dr. Z once again passes over Art Monk for the Hall of Fame - this time on the PRELIMINARY ballot.

Here are some of his selections and the reasons for choosing them:

AIKMAN: "Don't start reading me stats, because Aikman was the quintessential winner who sacrificed personal stats for team goals. He could have put up the big numbers anytime he wanted to."

KEN ANDERSON: "He had all the skills, including great courage."

Initially, Z. choose two receivers - Henry Ellard and (surprise, surprise) Michael Irvin, he subsequently eliminated Ellard to get from his initial 30 to 25:

HENRY ELLARD: "[W]ho I know will never have a chance, but whom I wanted to list anyway, just as a reward for long and dedicated service" and Michael Irvin.

IRVIN: "Michael annoys the hell out of me with all that nonsense he comes up with on ESPN, but we're not supposed to let that influence our ballots. I didn't. I picked him anyway. Went long, went short, possession receiver, downfield threat when he had to be."

FRED DEAN:"Maybe not, but I used to root so hard for the Niners in those days, and it seemed that he was always coming up with the key sack when needed most."

I guess Monk was just a no-skill receiver with no courage, who never sacrificed personal stats for team goals as he clearly couldn't go long when he had to and never, ever, came through in the clutch.

To his (slight) credit he had Russ Grimm on the final 25 and Jacoby on his initial list of 30 (wanna bet Russ doesn't make his next cut?).

The selectors' intellectual dishonesty is incredibly irksome to me. When stats don't justify their personal bias, they site teamwork, sacrifice, etc. BUT, someone with good stats who exhibits those same characteristics (a la' Art)will be cited for not having GREAT stats. Take the description for Aikman and substitute Monk's name - looks the same to me EXCEPT Monk had pretty damn good stats. Also - "Went long, went short, possession receiver, downfield threat when he had to be." Huh?! Again, sounds like Art to me. Strange how those getting the benefit of the doubt are fellow media personalities.

What hypocrisy.


Here is the whole article: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/dr_z/11/02/hof.cutdown/index.html

When you see something like "but I used to root so hard for the Niners in those days" it really removes all thought of impartiality

mi irvin over a monk is a joke any way you want to look at it.if you look strictly at stats,monk wins by a mile.and if you look at rings,irvin has 3,same as monk.just goes to show,as much as the writers bitch and moan about hot dogging and showmanship,this is still what grabs their eye.

Classic case of the "most popular kid in school" getting all the credit, girls, etc.. when there others just as deserving if not more. Monk will get his probably after he has left this world, probably after all of us have grown old and live in a nursing home.

seriously! Monk has been passed up every year he's had a chance. For every year (except last year) he should have dominated; but no everyone hates the redskins.

What a minute, he mentions Ellard for his long and dedicated service, and for Aikman he says stats don't matter and that he sacrificed for team goals... couldn't these same things be said for Monk??

I am going to have to disagree with some of you here. MONK HAD FANTASTIC STATS!! Statiscally speaking when he retired he was the 2nd greatest WR ever(to Rice). Not only did he sacrifice for his team, make clutch plays, display great skills he also apparently suffers from the same thing that Dr. Ass excuses Irvin for! Just in the opposite way. He states that "but we're not supposed to let that influence our ballots" when referring to Irvin's outlandishness but totally whiffs on Monk simply because Monk was exactly the opposite. He was quiet and not exactly a media hound. But Dr. Ass apparently doesn't ignore personality when it comes to Monk. What a crock! Jesus this is one of the greatest travesties in sports today! It's not like we're talking about oh say a guy like Henry 'Frickin' Ellard who was a good receiver but certainly not great. It's Art Damn Monk! Ellard over Monk? WTF????????

i donno about hatin on the redskins...ellard did play 4 solid seasons as a redskin toward the end of his career...his second best season can as a redskin...but i agree...lets be honest please...hes no art monk!!

Not baggin' on my man Henry. I even like Ellard. He was a top quality WR and probably should get favorable consideration as a HOF nominee but he is nowhere even close to ARt Monk. I mean com'on!

What a minute, he mentions Ellard for his long and dedicated service, and for Aikman he says stats don't matter and that he sacrificed for team goals... couldn't these same things be said for Monk??
No kidding. I really don't get it. Did Monk get drunk and piss on the hall of fame or somthing? There is no way he shouldn't be in there.