Hey Look! Other people dislike Peter King, too!

[BrudLee]

By devoting that many column inches to why he will not (not "did not", will not) vote for Art Monk, he demonstrates bias. And the reasons are so media-centric!
1) The media only twice voted him an All-Pro. Art Monk held the media in disdain. He rarely granted interviews, and was less than warm during them.
2) Players stated they "didn't fear Monk". Players say all kinds of things to the media. Fred-Ex spent days denigrating a Patriots secondary that embarassed him and his family last Super Bowl. I suppose his "lack of fear" says more about them than it does him.
3) Numbers don't mean everything. The only thing he said that makes sense - but they have to mean something! He was the first WR with 100 catches in a season. He caught balls in 183 straight games (then a record). He has more catches than anyone in the Hall. Those numbers mean something. By mentioning the dozen or so receivers who will eclipse some of his numbers in the next five to ten years, King makes more of a comparison of eras than players - in his era, Monk (along with Rice and, to a lesser extent, Largent) set the benchmarks that today's receivers need to reach to achieve greatness. Of those three receivers, Largent is in the Hall, and (we presume) King will be voting for Rice, despite his gaudy numbers.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

By devoting that many column inches to why he will not (not "did not", will not) vote for Art Monk, he demonstrates bias. And the reasons are so media-centric!
1) The media only twice voted him an All-Pro. Art Monk held the media in disdain. He rarely granted interviews, and was less than warm during them.
2) Players stated they "didn't fear Monk". Players say all kinds of things to the media. Fred-Ex spent days denigrating a Patriots secondary that embarassed him and his family last Super Bowl. I suppose his "lack of fear" says more about them than it does him.
3) Numbers don't mean everything. The only thing he said that makes sense - but they have to mean something! He was the first WR with 100 catches in a season. He caught balls in 183 straight games (then a record). He has more catches than anyone in the Hall. Those numbers mean something. By mentioning the dozen or so receivers who will eclipse some of his numbers in the next five to ten years, King makes more of a comparison of eras than players - in his era, Monk (along with Rice and, to a lesser extent, Largent) set the benchmarks that today's receivers need to reach to achieve greatness. Of those three receivers, Largent is in the Hall, and (we presume) King will be voting for Rice, despite his gaudy numbers.

Yeah I totally agree with your stance on Art Monk, it's just that nowhere in Peter King's points does he show any indication of bias. Bias isn't necessarily present when someone disagrees with you. I can't point to any bias in any of his writing. If he's biased against Monk because Monk didn't take to the media, then King's doing a really good job of covering up for that bias by making fair points backed up by stats.

Again, we might disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he has it in for the Washington Redskins like Lenny P does.

PS Celts you are right on with your posts.

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah I totally agree with your stance on Art Monk, it's just that nowhere in Peter King's points does he show any indication of bias. Bias isn't necessarily present when someone disagrees with you. I can't point to any bias in any of his writing. If he's biased against Monk because Monk didn't take to the media, then King's doing a really good job of covering up for that bias by making fair points backed up by stats.

Except his stats in this case are that stats don't matter. Monk's numbers - record-setting though they may have been - aren't enough. His other points against Monk can be explained by his general reluctance to kowtow to the likes of Peter King.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Except his stats in this case are that stats don't matter. Monk's numbers - record-setting though they may have been - aren't enough. His other points against Monk can be explained by his general reluctance to kowtow to the likes of Peter King.

That's a hollow explanation though. What support do you have for saying that Peter King doesn't like Art Monk because he didn't kowtow to him? That's just speculation, I can't find any evidence in any of King's writing that he has a general dislike for anything related to the Redskins. Just because he argues against Monk doesn't mean he has something against him.

But even if you take that point away and dismiss it as media bias against Monk, it still doesn't account for King's point that Monk was voted to the Pro Bowl only three times. I know that voting now is decided 33% by fans, 33% by players, and 33% by coaches. It may have been an entirely player-driven thing back in the 80s, I'm just not sure. But the point remains, Monk's peers didn't put him in the Pro Bowl that often. That is not a media-related issue, and it's a fair point.

I think Monk's 100 catch season and his super bowl rings make the case for him, but disagreeing with the man is entirely different than finding him biased.