Pete Prisco the idiot

[#56fanatic]

he brings valid points to the arguement for the sake of "numbers". However, had Monk been elected when he should have been this wouldn't even have been a debate. Monk deserved to get in 7 years ago.

I usually dont bash writers on here, as they have these jobs because they are good at what they do, but where was this arguement when Irvin was elected prior to Monk?? no one really, outside of Redskin nation, really spoke up for Monk until the last year or so when all the Redskin reports and beat writers started making a stink about it.

[Coff]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

he brings valid points to the arguement for the sake of "numbers". However, had Monk been elected when he should have been this wouldn't even have been a debate. Monk deserved to get in 7 years ago.

I usually dont bash writers on here, as they have these jobs because they are good at what they do, but where was this arguement when Irvin was elected prior to Monk?? no one really, outside of Redskin nation, really spoke up for Monk until the last year or so when all the Redskin reports and beat writers started making a stink about it.

Exactly. Prisco is deceptively trying to frame a debate which does not actually exist. The question isn't so much who is better, Monk or Reed, but is Reed that much better than Monk that he should get into the HOF in his third year of eligibility when Monk was elected in his eighth year of eligibility? The numbers Prisco used to make his point only strengthen the argument that, if Monk didn't get in until his 8th year, than Reed should certainly not get in in his 3rd year, since the numbers were very, very comparable.