Peter King still doesn't get it

Dirtbag59 · 02-14-2006, 09:12 PM

Another anti-Art Monk for the Hall article by, you guessed it, Peter King.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...bte/index.html

70Chip · 02-14-2006, 10:25 PM

The Pro Bowl defense doesn't cut it with me. He points out that Carson had 9 Pro Bowls in 13 seasons and I will again point out that Chris Hanburger had 9 Pro Bowls in 14 seasons. Does anyone ever remember Chris being touted for the hall. There are posters on this site who are saying "Chris Who?" even as they read this. King should just come out and say that he's giving bonus points for New York.

shallyshal · 02-15-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The Pro Bowl defense doesn't cut it with me. He points out that Carson had 9 Pro Bowls in 13 seasons and I will again point out that Chris Hanburger had 9 Pro Bowls in 14 seasons. Does anyone ever remember Chris being touted for the hall. There are posters on this site who are saying "Chris Who?" even as they read this. King should just come out and say that he's giving bonus points for New York.

if carson plays anywhere else other than ny he never gets inthe hall of fame

BigSKINBauer · 02-14-2006, 10:36 PM

I have a chris Hanburger autograph.

King is also a d-bag

GoSkins! · 02-14-2006, 10:52 PM

I clicked on the link and after reading half the article I came to the conclusion that the best thing I can say is that King is a really fat guy.

offiss · 02-14-2006, 11:38 PM

I have to laugh that he gives Carson all this credit for the Giants being this great run stopping defense, he wasen't even on the best defensive team of his era, that honor goes to the Bears, as well as whom was considered the best MLB of that era? Mike Singletary. Now he want's to use a popularity contest in the pro-bowl, as if we don't see year after year players left off the pro-bowl roster who clearly deserve it above others who are voted in.

I love how he fails to mention that Carson played in a 3-4 defense, which in itself dimishes his accomplishments as a run stopper. As he stated Monk had Clark who was very good, but I wouldn't call him great, yet he fails to mention that Carson was the benefactor of LT on his defense occupying 2-3 players constantly, correct me if I am wrong but LT is THE greatest OLB to ever play the game. Pepper Johnson stepped in and played tremendous for the Giants, along with plenty of other MLB's during Carsons era, it's funny he doesn't give Parcells and Belechik the credit for Carsons limited success, reason I say that is both have proven to make star's out of less than physically gifted players, Carson is riding the success of a defensive concept which plenty of other MLB's have had a lot of Success, some more than Carson, his name? Teddy Brusci. As well a strong case can be made that Carson was 3rd best LB on his own team behind Taylor and Banks.

Then perhaps the biggest argument that can be made which you will never hear coming out of Kings convoluted mouth is this, the Wr position especially a possesion WR like Monk is far more difficult, and requires far more skills than a MLB of a 3-4 defense, so in itself by position Monk IMO deserves the nod over Carson, even if Carson was on an even plain with Monk, but that's just not so, Monk broke several NFL records. Carson is lucky if he holds any Giant records. And yes Monk has a hall of fame coach signing his praises with more SB rings than the guy who was signing Carsons praises!

The guy is a hypocrite, who has limited knowledge of how the game truley breaks down!

Bottom line Monk was the primary reciever on the most prolific offense in NFL history, Carson? Well he wasen't even on the best defense of his era. END OF STORY!

SC Skins Fan · 02-15-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offiss

I love how he fails to mention that Carson played in a 3-4 defense, which in itself dimishes his accomplishments as a run stopper.

I know this thread is about Art Monk and I agree with most of what others have said, but how does playing in a 3-4 defense dimish any MLB's accomplishments as a run stopper? It means you don't have two DT's eating up the Guards so they get a free run at you. Ask Ray Lewis how much he liked having to play in a 3-4 . . . or just check out that NFL films video where he keeps talking about how he is getting "double teamed," when in fact Will Shields was simply mopping the field with him (at least in part because he had no protection from the DT's). As another example, if Brian Urlacher played in a 3-4 he would be litterally eaten alive. Not trying to dimish all you said, but this dictum about the 3-4 is misplaced.

70Chip · 02-16-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I know this thread is about Art Monk and I agree with most of what others have said, but how does playing in a 3-4 defense dimish any MLB's accomplishments as a run stopper? It means you don't have two DT's eating up the Guards so they get a free run at you. Ask Ray Lewis how much he liked having to play in a 3-4 . . . or just check out that NFL films video where he keeps talking about how he is getting "double teamed," when in fact Will Shields was simply mopping the field with him (at least in part because he had no protection from the DT's). As another example, if Brian Urlacher played in a 3-4 he would be litterally eaten alive. Not trying to dimish all you said, but this dictum about the 3-4 is misplaced.

I agree that a MLB in the 3-4 has to take on more blocks ,which was Ray-Ray's complaint. However, you don't have to cover as much of the field as a mike lb in a 4-3 does.

offiss · 02-16-2006, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I know this thread is about Art Monk and I agree with most of what others have said, but how does playing in a 3-4 defense dimish any MLB's accomplishments as a run stopper? It means you don't have two DT's eating up the Guards so they get a free run at you. Ask Ray Lewis how much he liked having to play in a 3-4 . . . or just check out that NFL films video where he keeps talking about how he is getting "double teamed," when in fact Will Shields was simply mopping the field with him (at least in part because he had no protection from the DT's). As another example, if Brian Urlacher played in a 3-4 he would be litterally eaten alive. Not trying to dimish all you said, but this dictum about the 3-4 is misplaced.

Not really, a 4-3 MLB has to take on linemen as well, usually a center, and he's responsible for bothsides of the field, which also makes his ability to read a play more significant, in a 3-4 a LB is usually just going to cover his terroritory [his side of the field] which is less confusing, as well as being tougher to fool with misdirection, where as a 4-3 LB breaks the wrong way it's usually to late to recover.

The key with the 3-4 is the nose tackle and his ability to occupy 2 linemen, the center and a guard, essentially becoming a blocker for the LB on that side if yuou don't have a dominant force at nose guard then a LB will get hit, rest assured Carson didn't make his bones taking on guards all by his lonesome, and even if he did that wouldn't make him any better than an average D-tackle in a 4-3. A MLB has much more resposibility in a 4-3, rather than a 3-4, and they both have to fight off linemen, but the 3-4 LB has a backup plan with the other inside LB, a 4-3 LB is all alone in the middle.

You might want to ask Ray Ray how he would pan out playing under Parcells, or Belichik? Something tells me he wouldn't mis a beat in either of those 3-4 schemes.

gusbus · 02-15-2006, 12:11 AM

He's an idiot and the reason why HOF voting should not be left to the writers. One point is that Monk is a very quiet guy an dprobably didn't grant the fat A** an interview at some point. Second don't the fans do the voting for the Pro Bowl. So Monk wasn't voted to a lote of PBs so what back then the internet wasn't available for people to vote sorry a**e* like M. Vick to the PB. They had to do it at the stadium. RFK was sold out every game by the same fans and they probably only filled out the ballot once and then away games it was always Monk who killed their hopes on 3rd and long. Back to M. Vick if you use fat a**es method of voting M. Vick has been to the PB, I believe, every year of his career. This year he threw for like 2400 yards and was rated, I think 26/27 QB in the NFL. But I guess since he went to the PB he had a HOF season.

Peter King is full of it. Here are the numbers:
Rank Yrs Catches Yards Avg TD
1(1)JERRY RICENFL

20

1,549
22,895
14.8
197

5(5)Art MonkNFL

16

940
12,721
13.5
68

9(8)Steve Largent *NFL

14

819
13,089
16.0
100

14(11)James Lofton *NFL

16

764
14,004
18.3
75

16T(13T)Michael IrvinNFL

12

750
11,904
15.9
65

backrow · 02-15-2006, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gusbus

He's an idiot and the reason why HOF voting should not be left to the writers. One point is that Monk is a very quiet guy an dprobably didn't grant the fat A** an interview at some point. Second don't the fans do the voting for the Pro Bowl. So Monk wasn't voted to a lote of PBs so what back then the internet wasn't available for people to vote sorry a**e* like M. Vick to the PB. They had to do it at the stadium. RFK was sold out every game by the same fans and they probably only filled out the ballot once and then away games it was always Monk who killed their hopes on 3rd and long. Back to M. Vick if you use fat a**es method of voting M. Vick has been to the PB, I believe, every year of his career. This year he threw for like 2400 yards and was rated, I think 26/27 QB in the NFL. But I guess since he went to the PB he had a HOF season.

Peter King is full of it. Here are the numbers:
Rank Yrs Catches Yards Avg TD
1(1)JERRY RICENFL

20

1,549
22,895
14.8
197

5(5)Art MonkNFL

16

940
12,721
13.5
68

9(8)Steve Largent *NFL

14

819
13,089
16.0
100

14(11)James Lofton *NFL

16

764
14,004
18.3
75

16T(13T)Michael IrvinNFL

12

750
11,904
15.9
65

Great Post! The Statistics do not lie!

shallyshal · 02-15-2006, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Another anti-Art Monk for the Hall article by, you guessed it, Peter King.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...bte/index.html

the only positive thing you can say is if he keeps having to defend his position he is getting heat for it.

but he is right that there are others who feel the same way he does

skinsttw · 02-15-2006, 09:32 AM

Monk definitely deserves HOF. He is just so soft-spoken and has no big ego, that most non-skins fans don't recognize his greatness.

onlydarksets · 02-15-2006, 11:33 AM

The other thing Priscilla King doesn't mention is that, if Monk's peers were in charge of selecting HOF members, THEY WOULD VOTE MONK IN. PK's arguments are complete bunk. Unfortunately, he is one of those people who would rather defend an incorrect position to his grave than admit he might be wrong about something. It's unfortunate that Monk is the one getting hurt as a result.

12thMan · 02-15-2006, 11:57 AM

The other thing that seems to be lost some in all of this is that King seems to be one of the more vocal writers on the issue, which leads me to believe perhaps he wields quite a bit of influence upon the other voters.

While he seems to deflect a lot of attention to his other so called peers who aren't voting Monk in as well, with the exception of a few, we really don't know who they are on a national level for the most part. But it is King, in my opinion, who arguably has one of the biggest platforms to voice his opinion from could very well sway others in their voting when it's all said and done.

02-14-2006, 09:12 PM	#1
Dirtbag59 Naega jeil jal naga Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland Age: 39 Posts: 14,750	Peter King still doesn't get it Another anti-Art Monk for the Hall article by, you guessed it, Peter King. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...bte/index.html

02-14-2006, 10:25 PM	#2
70Chip Playmaker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Manassas Age: 53 Posts: 3,048	Re: Peter King still doesn't get it The Pro Bowl defense doesn't cut it with me. He points out that Carson had 9 Pro Bowls in 13 seasons and I will again point out that Chris Hanburger had 9 Pro Bowls in 14 seasons. Does anyone ever remember Chris being touted for the hall. There are posters on this site who are saying "Chris Who?" even as they read this. King should just come out and say that he's giving bonus points for New York. __________________ This Monkey's Gone to Heaven

02-14-2006, 10:36 PM	#4
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Washington, DC Age: 36 Posts: 5,688	Re: Peter King still doesn't get it I have a chris Hanburger autograph. King is also a d-bag

02-14-2006, 10:52 PM	#5
GoSkins! The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Yorktown, Va Age: 55 Posts: 1,587	Re: Peter King still doesn't get it I clicked on the link and after reading half the article I came to the conclusion that the best thing I can say is that King is a really fat guy. __________________ Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. A. Einstien

02-14-2006, 11:38 PM	#6
offiss Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ] Age: 60 Posts: 3,097	Re: Peter King still doesn't get it I have to laugh that he gives Carson all this credit for the Giants being this great run stopping defense, he wasen't even on the best defensive team of his era, that honor goes to the Bears, as well as whom was considered the best MLB of that era? Mike Singletary. Now he want's to use a popularity contest in the pro-bowl, as if we don't see year after year players left off the pro-bowl roster who clearly deserve it above others who are voted in. I love how he fails to mention that Carson played in a 3-4 defense, which in itself dimishes his accomplishments as a run stopper. As he stated Monk had Clark who was very good, but I wouldn't call him great, yet he fails to mention that Carson was the benefactor of LT on his defense occupying 2-3 players constantly, correct me if I am wrong but LT is THE greatest OLB to ever play the game. Pepper Johnson stepped in and played tremendous for the Giants, along with plenty of other MLB's during Carsons era, it's funny he doesn't give Parcells and Belechik the credit for Carsons limited success, reason I say that is both have proven to make star's out of less than physically gifted players, Carson is riding the success of a defensive concept which plenty of other MLB's have had a lot of Success, some more than Carson, his name? Teddy Brusci. As well a strong case can be made that Carson was 3rd best LB on his own team behind Taylor and Banks. Then perhaps the biggest argument that can be made which you will never hear coming out of Kings convoluted mouth is this, the Wr position especially a possesion WR like Monk is far more difficult, and requires far more skills than a MLB of a 3-4 defense, so in itself by position Monk IMO deserves the nod over Carson, even if Carson was on an even plain with Monk, but that's just not so, Monk broke several NFL records. Carson is lucky if he holds any Giant records. And yes Monk has a hall of fame coach signing his praises with more SB rings than the guy who was signing Carsons praises! The guy is a hypocrite, who has limited knowledge of how the game truley breaks down! Bottom line Monk was the primary reciever on the most prolific offense in NFL history, Carson? Well he wasen't even on the best defense of his era. END OF STORY!

02-15-2006, 12:11 AM	#10
gusbus Camp Scrub Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 58	Re: Peter King still doesn't get it He's an idiot and the reason why HOF voting should not be left to the writers. One point is that Monk is a very quiet guy an dprobably didn't grant the fat A an interview at some point. Second don't the fans do the voting for the Pro Bowl. So Monk wasn't voted to a lote of PBs so what back then the internet wasn't available for people to vote sorry ae* like M. Vick to the PB. They had to do it at the stadium. RFK was sold out every game by the same fans and they probably only filled out the ballot once and then away games it was always Monk who killed their hopes on 3rd and long. Back to M. Vick if you use fat aes method of voting M. Vick has been to the PB, I believe, every year of his career. This year he threw for like 2400 yards and was rated, I think 26/27 QB in the NFL. But I guess since he went to the PB he had a HOF season. Peter King is full of it. Here are the numbers: Rank Yrs Catches Yards Avg TD 1(1)JERRY RICENFL 20 1,549 22,895 14.8 197 5(5)Art MonkNFL 16 940** 12,721 13.5 68 9(8)Steve Largent NFL 14 819* 13,089 16.0 100 14(11)James Lofton NFL 16 764* 14,004 18.3 75 16T(13T)Michael IrvinNFL 12 750 11,904 15.9 65

02-15-2006, 09:32 AM	#13
skinsttw Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 174	Re: Peter King still doesn't get it Monk definitely deserves HOF. He is just so soft-spoken and has no big ego, that most non-skins fans don't recognize his greatness. __________________ Go skins!

02-15-2006, 11:33 AM	#14
onlydarksets Playmaker Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: all up in your business Posts: 2,693	Re: Peter King still doesn't get it The other thing Priscilla King doesn't mention is that, if Monk's peers were in charge of selecting HOF members, THEY WOULD VOTE MONK IN. PK's arguments are complete bunk. Unfortunately, he is one of those people who would rather defend an incorrect position to his grave than admit he might be wrong about something. It's unfortunate that Monk is the one getting hurt as a result. __________________ Stop reading my signature.

02-15-2006, 11:57 AM	#15
12thMan MVP Join Date: May 2005 Location: washington, D.C. Posts: 11,460	Re: Peter King still doesn't get it The other thing that seems to be lost some in all of this is that King seems to be one of the more vocal writers on the issue, which leads me to believe perhaps he wields quite a bit of influence upon the other voters. While he seems to deflect a lot of attention to his other so called peers who aren't voting Monk in as well, with the exception of a few, we really don't know who they are on a national level for the most part. But it is King, in my opinion, who arguably has one of the biggest platforms to voice his opinion from could very well sway others in their voting when it's all said and done.

Peter King still doesn't get it

Locker Room Main Forum