Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

BrudLee · 02-05-2006, 09:07 AM

I don't think there's a lot of movement on the HOF committee. From what I understand, if he wants to continue, he likely will.

My strident concern regarding Peter King, who does know more than a little about the NFL, is that he doesn't even see how much of an obstructionist he is in this matter. To quote Beemnseven's post in another topic regarding Theismann's assertion that King has stood in the way of Monk,

1. He doesn't have the influence Theismann thinks he does.

2. He's not saying he'll never vote Art Monk in, and that he does keep an open mind on the subject. He admits that there's a compelling argument that Monk should be in, but he'd put Russ Grimm in before Monk. Says that if someone tells him something about Monk that he hasn't heard before, he'll consider it.

3. He's not hearing from opponents and others throughtout the league and other cities that Monk deserves to be in -- it's only from former teammates of Monk, and those in circles around Washington D.C.

I can't think of a single athlete, in any sport (with the possible exception of noted and admitted cheat Pete Rose) who inspires annual column space about why he does not deserve enshrinement. Every year though, I remember to buy my wife a Valentine's Day gift when I read Peter King tell his readership why Art Monk belongs in his mythical "Hall of the Very Good". Since it would appear that he's made some sort of stand before entering the room to vote, I submit that issue #2 is a raft of crap. As for influence among the voters - his bio tells a different tale.

One of the most respected football journalists, Sports Illustrated's Peter King joined HBO's INSIDE THE NFL as managing editor and reporter for the 2002 season. King came to SPORTS ILLUSTRATED as a staff writer in 1989 after spending nearly a decade as an award-winning newspaper journalist. Now a senior writer at the magazine, he is SI's primary NFL expert and is one of the country's premier pro football writers. The author of the magazine's weekly "Inside the NFL" column, King is also a key contributor to SI.com, including his popular "Monday Morning Quarterback" column.

Note that the above bio (from HBO.com) doesn't include the many radio interviews he gives, where he is often described as the preeminent expert on the league. One could easily argue he has a larger profile (no pun intended) than any voter on the list with the exception of Mike Wilbon - who is not specifically an NFL expert like King.

I understand the argument that Monk was the most feared receiver on his team at times (though, considering the number of catches he made in his career, one is left to wonder whether that reflects on Monk or the stupidity of defensive cooredinators of the day). Couldn't the same argument be made for Harry Carson, the 2006 inductee very good linebacker whose water King has carried these many years? Surely Lawrence Taylor was the player teams feared, and not Carson - who maybe stuck around a few too many seasons (like a certain #81) and didn't have the stats late in his career that he did as a younger man.

02-05-2006, 09:07 AM	#2
BrudLee Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE Posts: 3,494	Re: Snub. I don't think there's a lot of movement on the HOF committee. From what I understand, if he wants to continue, he likely will. My strident concern regarding Peter King, who does know more than a little about the NFL, is that he doesn't even see how much of an obstructionist he is in this matter. To quote Beemnseven's post in another topic regarding Theismann's assertion that King has stood in the way of Monk, 1. He doesn't have the influence Theismann thinks he does. 2. He's not saying he'll never vote Art Monk in, and that he does keep an open mind on the subject. He admits that there's a compelling argument that Monk should be in, but he'd put Russ Grimm in before Monk. Says that if someone tells him something about Monk that he hasn't heard before, he'll consider it. 3. He's not hearing from opponents and others throughtout the league and other cities that Monk deserves to be in -- it's only from former teammates of Monk, and those in circles around Washington D.C. I can't think of a single athlete, in any sport (with the possible exception of noted and admitted cheat Pete Rose) who inspires annual column space about why he does not deserve enshrinement. Every year though, I remember to buy my wife a Valentine's Day gift when I read Peter King tell his readership why Art Monk belongs in his mythical "Hall of the Very Good". Since it would appear that he's made some sort of stand before entering the room to vote, I submit that issue #2 is a raft of crap. As for influence among the voters - his bio tells a different tale. One of the most respected football journalists, Sports Illustrated's Peter King joined HBO's INSIDE THE NFL as managing editor and reporter for the 2002 season. King came to SPORTS ILLUSTRATED as a staff writer in 1989 after spending nearly a decade as an award-winning newspaper journalist. Now a senior writer at the magazine, he is SI's primary NFL expert and is one of the country's premier pro football writers. The author of the magazine's weekly "Inside the NFL" column, King is also a key contributor to SI.com, including his popular "Monday Morning Quarterback" column. Note that the above bio (from HBO.com) doesn't include the many radio interviews he gives, where he is often described as the preeminent expert on the league. One could easily argue he has a larger profile (no pun intended) than any voter on the list with the exception of Mike Wilbon - who is not specifically an NFL expert like King. I understand the argument that Monk was the most feared receiver on his team at times (though, considering the number of catches he made in his career, one is left to wonder whether that reflects on Monk or the stupidity of defensive cooredinators of the day). Couldn't the same argument be made for Harry Carson, the 2006 inductee very good linebacker whose water King has carried these many years? Surely Lawrence Taylor was the player teams feared, and not Carson - who maybe stuck around a few too many seasons (like a certain #81) and didn't have the stats late in his career that he did as a younger man. __________________ There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.