Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 7:05 AM ET, 02/10/2011

Whitlock says Grimm, Monk are not Hall of Famers

By Dan Steinberg

If there's one thing the Redskins have excelled at in recent years, it's getting players into the Hall of Fame. Art Monk, Darrell Green, Russ Grimm, Chris Hanburger....that's four inductees in four years. That's impressive.

If there's one thing Jason Whitlock has excelled at in recent years, it's generating massive Web traffic by saying outrageous things.

This week, these two things collided, which led to Whitlock denigrating the Hall of Fame resumes of Grimm and Monk.

This came in a pretty interesting debate with Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio, in which Whitlock decried the vague criteria used to define Hall of Famers, the lack of transparency in the process and the general silliness of putting sportswriters in charge. He made some great points. But two of his prime examples of blips in the system played for the Redskins.

First, he argued that certain players are elected based on the fame and success of their teams, rather than their own individual excellence. This was prompted by Richard Dent's recent election, but Whitlock took it further.

"Russ Grimm didn't start in two of the three Super Bowls the Redskins won! He wasn't a starter on those teams!" Whitlock said, after wondering why Willie Roaf isn't in the Hall. "They put him in because of the Hogs nickname, and because John Madden made him popular. It's a joke."

Later, Whitlock suggested that players should have to meet certain annual Hall of Fame criteria during their careers, instead of merely amassing above-average seasons for a long time.

"Art Monk, a good player for a long time, but not a Hall of Famer," Whitlock said. "I'm sorry. Playing a long time and acquiring a bunch of stats doesn't qualify you for the Hall of Fame....I contend if Art Monk were being judged against his peers every year during his 16, 17 year, however many year career, he wouldn't be a candidate and we would have never gotten into this debate about whether Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame."

To which I'd only say, Jason, this Hall stuff is all Redskins fans have going for them lately. Don't take that away.

(Via Extreme Skins.)

By Dan Steinberg  | February 10, 2011; 7:05 AM ET
Categories:  Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Nate Ewell's farewell interview
Next: JaVale McGee wins best dressed Wizard

Comments

Whitlock is an idiot...Monk retired the career leader in receptions and played on several super bowl teams...Grimm was a great lineman playing a position that doesn't get noticed but he played great as evidenced by the awesome running game the skins always had and the lack of sacks they gave up...oh yeah, and those super bowl appearances...shut up whitlock!

Posted by: scottmando1 | February 10, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Whitlock is fat and weak.


He needs to say foolish things to stay noticed...otherwise, he can retire the that Kansas City BBQ pit and eat until his heart explodes out of his chest

Posted by: rich20ssu | February 10, 2011 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Whitlock is a buffoon, Espn won't bring him back on the Sports Reporters because of the stupid stuff he says.

Ask him who started the trend where wide recievers caught 100 passes. What wide receiver dominated the beginning of SB 22.

Why was Grimm voted to team of decade.
Both are special players and belong in the Hall!!

Have another donut Whitlock.

Posted by: dph60 | February 10, 2011 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Even Cowboys fans know Monk and Grimm are Hall-worthy.
Foolish writers, KC-based or otherwise, should be ignored.

Posted by: WaPoPimp | February 10, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Um, who is this guy and why should we care about someone who is trying to influence voting after the results are in?

Posted by: CTCapsPhan | February 10, 2011 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Whitock would say anything to get ratings. They aren't going to take their busts out of Canton so I don't give a s#$% what he says.

How many scoring drives that won games that won divisions that won championships dd Art Monk keep alive with crucial 1st down receptions?

Whitlock = attention seeking buffoon.

Posted by: Rocky420 | February 10, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I see the point that Whitlock is trying to make here and I think in certain ways he is correct.

To dumb it down as much as psossible, basically what he is trying to say is that too many players are getting into the Hall of Fame. We're making everybody "great" when they were merely "good."

Take for instance a guy going in this year like Deion Sanders. When you take a look at his entire body of work, how can you classify a guy who was horrific at a basic football skill such as tackling as a one of the All-Time greats?

Since 2005, at least six players have been enshrined every year and it seems to me that the Pro Football Hall of Fame is trying too hard to include too many players.

That being said, if you're going to include at least six players, guys like Monk and Grimm belong.

Posted by: CapsNut | February 10, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Exactly the reason Writers should not be voters for the HOF. Whitlock is entertaining but he is an absolute idiot with an agenda. All Writers have their bias depending on who they covered or developed relationships with over the years. They are no more credible than fans to elect Hall of Famers. A panel should be made up of Former Players, Coaches, Scouts, and GM's to elect Hall of Famers.

Posted by: moseley_brian | February 10, 2011 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Whitlock thrives on BS self-created controversy because he has nothing of value to say. Dont read his crap... If it weren't posted in "The Bog" I would have never even seen it :) Anyone denegrating Art Monk is just an idiot a-hole.

Posted by: shrshot | February 10, 2011 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Typical anti-Whitlock bashing here. Focus on his physical appearance instead of the truth.

Posted by: getjiggly2 | February 10, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Dexter Manley next.

Posted by: dcg326 | February 10, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I have seen Whitlock on PTI a few times and he comes across as a Racist.Lets just say if it was up to him there would be no white players in the HOF.

Posted by: goodeedward | February 10, 2011 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I have seen Whitlock on PTI a few times and he comes across as a Racist.Lets just say if it was up to him there would be no white players in the HOF.

Posted by: goodeedward | February 10, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure if you go to Canton and enter the hall of fame, you'll see both "Russ Grimm" and "Art Monk" included among the names...

So....pretty sure he's wrong on at least one of his points.

(Also side rant-"Russ Grimm didn't start in two of the three Super Bowls the Redskins won! He wasn't a starter on those teams!" might be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Does lack of performance in TWO games somehow nullify the rest of one's career? Since Timmy Smith was awesome in that one super bowl does that mean he's a hall of famer?)

Posted by: jbanks979 | February 10, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Whitlock is so right on -- Here are the reasons Art Monk doesn't belong: He doesn't carry a Sharpie in his sock for personal attention, he catches tough passes over the middle - he gets that necessary first down, but doesn't SCORE! he doesn't create headlines for off the field outrageous behavior AND OMG --- HE BLOCKS for his teammates?? Everyone knows that HOF WR need to be prima donnas who only care about themselves and say "Screw the TEAM!"
What a buffoon

Posted by: humbleandfree | February 10, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"I contend if Art Monk were being judged against his peers every year during his 16, 17 year, however many year career, he wouldn't be a candidate and we would have never gotten into this debate about whether Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame."
****

This remark just goes to show what an idiot Whitlock is....

I remember well the day it was announced that Mock finally made it in. On the NFL Network before the announcement they were debating who should get in and who should not.

Rod Woodson - an NFL GREAT- was adamant that Monk should get voted in and said it was a travesty that he had been waiting for so long.

Adam Schefter - a reporter - did not feel the same way.

So there you have it..Monk's peers say he should be in but reporters who have never played the game are clueless.

Posted by: Lisa_R | February 10, 2011 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Jason Whitlock, he's that high school beat reporter for Podunk County?

Posted by: jag523 | February 10, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Who cares what he thinks; he his a nobody; you give him too much in. Sure, he is entitled to his silly opinion, but you give him space because you have nothing of importance to write about today. Russ Grimm and Art Monk are in the hall of fame. If you go to Canton, guess what, you see that they are in the hall. They don't need to have anyone defend them, there was a process and they were elected. People who saw them play and who played against them know the score. And by the way, Art Monk didn't become a better person or a better football player because he was elected into the hall of fame; the hall became a better place because Art Monk is a member. Maybe some of those murderers, drug addicts and child rapists don't belong in the hall, but Art Monk is a shining example of what a hall of famer is all about.

Posted by: Phillip258 | February 10, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Whitlock genuinely thinks Jeff George was one of the best QB's that ever played in the NFL and thinks he can still play. Every year at the beginning of the season he write some pathetic article on how George got screwed and deserves a chance on another team. This past season he was begging the Vikings to sign him.

That should say something about the quality of his "opinion" right there. As someone said above, you're giving him too much credit on this blog.

- Ray

Posted by: rmcazz | February 10, 2011 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Russ Grimm and Art Monk have their busts in the Hall of Fame. Only way Jason Whitlock gets in is by buying a ticket. Perfect example of why sportswriters should not vote for HOF, Heisman, or anything else.

Posted by: rmcpks73 | February 10, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Wow! What an idiotic statement. I can't even find the right words to say

Posted by: gembrown | February 10, 2011 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Jason Whitlock was kicked off ESPN's the Sport Reporter's because he threatened Mike Lupica(NY Daily News)with bodily harm after an off-air confrontation and has been basically black-balled from major media market employment. Jason Whitlock say's crazy stuff to get attention but this one takes the cake i mean how stupid do you have to be to say Grimm and Monk don't deserve HOF enshrinement? I wouldn't waste a moment defending Grimm and Monk to a first class jackazz like Whitlock,statement's like that will keep Whitlock out of the major media outlets thank goodness.

Posted by: dargregmag | February 10, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Whoa, I didn't know that Russ Grimm didn't start on two Super Bowl teams.

Posted by: PublicEnemy1 | February 10, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I am a HUGE Skins fan but I sadly have to agree about Art Monk not deserving to be in the Hall of Fame. He made the Pro Bowl three times, and first team All-NFL twice or once, depending if you follow the Sporting News or AP. He led the NFL in receptions once, and never led in yardage (only 3 top ten finishes). He was a very good receiver for a long time but with the exception of perhaps 1984, was never the best at his position. He benefited by being on the front end of the inflation of WR stats generally. Is there room in the HOF for R.Moss, Owens, Harrison, Reed, Bruce, Ward, Brown, Carter, PLUS, Wayne, Johnson, Fitzgerald and Boldin and all the other young WR's who will probably pass Monk before he's done.

The best case for Monk was his aggregated numbers. Yes, he was on some great teams, but he arguably wasn't even the best receiver on those teams. Don't forget that in both '87 and '91, Gary Clark outperformed Monk in both the regular season and the Super Bowl.

Monk -- great guy, smart, excellent possession receiver. HOF worthy? Sorry, no.

Posted by: jksesq1 | February 10, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Whitlock has to say this stuff to cause a stir. There's no substance.

By his own standard, Monk should be a hall of famer. Towards the end of his career announcers were routinely referring to him as "future hall of famer" Art Monk. Something was lost over time as memories faded.

Grimm isn't in the hall of fame because of the two Super Bowls. It helps, of course, but he is in because of the dominance of an entire offensive line over the better part of a decade. As he said in his speech, he's basically in the hall of fame as a representative of the Hogs. And he was the game's most dominant player at his position for about 8 years.

Posted by: mhaslup1 | February 10, 2011 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I will say this. Chris Hanburger should have been enshrined before Monk or Grimm. His credentials were overwhelming and his exclusion for over two decades was one of the biggest injustices in the history of the NFL. As for Monk, he set an NFL record at the time for most receptions in a season (102 in 1984), and when he retired, he was the all-time leader in receptions. When Don Hutson, Don Maynard and Steve Largent retired, each of them was the all-time leader in receptions. All three were elected to the Pro Football Hall-of-Fame, so why shouldn't Monk receive the same recognition for his accomplishment?

Posted by: bigmac128 | February 10, 2011 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Willie Roaf is better than Russ Grimm? Please it is simple sour grapes from KC.

How many times did KC lead the league in scoring? And how many super bowls have they been too?

I declare a trash talking war on the city of Kansas City from this outrageous comments.

Posted by: dcinmd1 | February 10, 2011 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Wow, amazing. Whitlock, what about the fact that Monk played in an era with different rules and when teams didn't throw the ball as much? What about the fact that he had Ricky Saunders, Gary Clark, Donny Warren, Clint Didier, and so many others getting receptions as well? And what about Riggins and the Hogs moving the ball so well on the ground that they didn't have to rely on the pass as much? Monk's numbers still stood out on those teams. He seldom dropped passes, was extremely intelligent, and played the game exactly how you want the game to be played. You have no football credibility or sense if you think Art Monk isn't a Hall of Famer.

Posted by: charlissa | February 10, 2011 11:00 AM | Report abuse

The notion that Deion Sanders is not a Hall of Famer or did not have a Hall of Fame career is patently absurd. The guy was regarded as by far, the best cover man of his era, and many would argue of all-time. He was a huge difference maker in both the 94 Superbowl for the 49ers and the 95 Superbowl for the Cowpatties. I don't remember who advanced this argument above in support of Whitlock's equally ridiculous argument, but c'mon. Grimm and Monk were named to the all-decade teams for the 80s, which is one of the criteria he used to argue that Roaf should have been a First Ballot. The same Roaf who won a single playoff game in his career.

Posted by: keino83 | February 10, 2011 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"To which I'd only say, Jason, this Hall stuff is all Redskins fans have going for them lately. Don't take that away."

Yeah, why spend a few minutes digging up a few stats on Monk to dispute Whitlock's ignorant claims when you can take another not-so thinly veiled shot at the Skins and/or their suffering fans.

And for the record, I'm a huge fan of Whitlock ON TWITTER. However on the other hand, his articles are poorly written and lack substance.

Posted by: PropJoe | February 10, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

So I guess Monk wasn't judged against his peers when being voted to the pro bowl multiple times. Multiple pro bowls, multiple super bowls, multiple records, definitely not hall of fame worthy. I mean if we cut the hall of fame to the top 10 players in a decade then he has a point, but but if 5 people get voted in every year, he has none. He has none. Damn I just wasted my time on Whitlock...

Posted by: wisdom80 | February 10, 2011 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Keep in mind, this is the same Jason Whitlock who thinks teams should give Jeff George a 2nd chance even though he was never good to begin with.

Posted by: johnson443 | February 10, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse

If we follow Whitlock'slogic, then Brett Favre shouldn't be mentioned for the HOF. Get a life Whitlock

Posted by: rayjay1 | February 10, 2011 11:26 AM | Report abuse

If we follow Whitlock'slogic, then Brett Favre shouldn't be mentioned for the HOF. Get a life Whitlock

Posted by: rayjay1 | February 10, 2011 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I agree with CapsHut. i understand Whitlock's comments. I might agree Monk is not HOF worthy, but for the standards the HOF uses, he should be there.

There are many that even i question being in the HOF. One prominent name is Lynn Swann. His stats are modest for WRs of his time and definitely of most recent times. swann was nice but stallworth was dominant for a long time. Looking at Swann's numbers every WR from Monk-Andre Rison-Andre Reed-Chris Carter and more should be in the Hall. To point out Monk and not mention James Lofton and Michael Irving is also notable. i think monk is there in part ot the outrage of Irving making it before him as pretty much a possession WR that knowingly push off all his career.

I am not knocking the WRs in the Hall but Fred Blitnekof of the Raiders is also in the Hall. He has stats but he caught those passes literally with hands of glue, never out ran anyone or scared a defense. Meanwhile, Cliff branch was the speed guy that drew the attention of the defense. Is Branch in the HOF?

no one mentions it, but the modern standard bearer for WRs is Jerry Rice. so every HOF conversation has him as a frame of reference. we all saw him dominate the game. With that in mind not many recent players let alone WRs are in the conversation. so let's settle this now. The next WRs to make the HOF might only be Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss and possibly T.O.? eventually the Hall will debate WR in relation to the era and the more prolific passing attacks.


Don't recall the Grimm deal about the superbowls, but I do recall the Redskin line was 8-9 guys deep. All those guys played and were solid.

Posted by: oknow1 | February 10, 2011 11:32 AM | Report abuse

1995 Philadelphia Eagles 3 1 6 114 19.0 36 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1994 New York Jets 16 15 46 581 12.6 69 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1993 Washington Redskins 16 5 41 398 9.7 29 2 1 -1 -1.0 -1 0 -- --
1992 Washington Redskins 16 14 46 644 14.0 49T 3 6 45 7.5 16 0 1 0
1991 Washington Redskins 16 16 71 1,049 14.8 64T 8 9 19 2.1 14 0 2 0
1990 Washington Redskins 16 -- 68 770 11.3 44 5 7 59 8.4 26 0 -- --
1989 Washington Redskins 16 -- 86 1,186 13.8 60T 8 3 8 2.7 14 0 -- --
1988 Washington Redskins 16 -- 72 946 13.1 46T 5 7 46 6.6 23 0 -- --
1987 Washington Redskins 9 -- 38 483 12.7 62 6 6 63 10.5 26 0 -- --
1986 Washington Redskins 16 -- 73 1,068 14.6 69 4 4 27 6.8 21 0 -- --
1985 Washington Redskins 15 -- 91 1,226 13.5 53 2 7 51 7.3 16 0 -- --
1984 Washington Redskins 16 -- 106 1,372 12.9 72 7 2 18 9.0 18 0 -- --
1983 Washington Redskins 12 -- 47 746 15.9 43T 5 3 -19 -6.3 2 0 -- --
1982 Washington Redskins 9 -- 35 447 12.8 43 1 7 21 3.0 14 0 -- --
1981 Washington Redskins 16 -- 56 894 16.0 79T 6 1 -5 -5.0 -5 0 -- --
1980 Washington Redskins 16 -- 58 797 13.7 54T 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOTAL 940 12,721 13.5 79 68 63 332 5.3 26 0 3 0

Posted by: saltine182 | February 10, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

@CapsNut Are you out of your F'ING mind!?!? Deion Sanders doesn't deserve to be in the HALL? You're probably one of the most ignorant football fans to walk the earth. Yes Deion couldn't tackle but nobody I REPEAT NOBODY dominated one side of the field like Deion. And if his INT #'s were low it's probably because QB's didn't throw to his side. I believe Revis had 10 passes thrown at him all year...does that make him a bad corner because he doesn't have stats? Stick to the pucks big guy and you'll sound a lot smarter.

Posted by: ryanlewis4 | February 10, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Whitlock was an all-state offensive lineman at Warren Central High School in Warren Township in the eastern part of Indianapolis, and he blocked for quarterback Jeff George, who later became the first overall pick in the 1990 NFL Draft. He earned a scholarship to play football at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, lettering as an offensive tackle in 1987 and 1988. He graduated in 1990 with a degree in journalism. He is the first sports writer to win the National Journalism Award by the Scripps Howard Foundation for his Kansas City Star columns. He was fired by ESPN after announcing that he was going to write a column for AOL sports. He did call Mike Lupica "an insecure, mean-spirited busybody" on the sports blog, The Big Lead. When Don Imus made his comments about the Rutgers Women's Basketball team, Whitlock wrote an article in the Kansas City Star depoloring the comments, but saying that the real focus should be to protect the young from the influence of gangsta rap and a pop culture that glorifies criminal activity. Sounds like BillCosby. Sounds like Mike Vick and Plaxico Burris should have heeded Whitlock. I'd love to know why Russ didn't start in those Super Bowls, and whether he was replaced as a starter during the seasons involved. And for all you who are commenting that Whitlock is fat, so's John Madden, Ralph Friedgen, and a lot of other former O-lineman. Prejusdice against the fat and gays seems to be OK with you, despite the lack of medical evidence that the fat die quicker than the thin or that the fat can be made thin. So there.

Posted by: flynnie321 | February 10, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Jason Whitlock is a hypocrite,and a loser apologist!!First,he says stats are inflated because of new rules,Art Monk preceded these rules for the offense.His peers(Rod Woodson,Jamie Dukes,Andre Reed,Michael Irvin)coaches(Bill Parcells,Tom Landry)respected him and called him a H.O.Famer.Only beat writers from cities that haven't won in two generations,that judge our franchise based on our recent failings and not our history,who are jealous that we either beat their team to the Super Bowl,or have more Lombardis then they have(Sal palintonio,Adam Schefter included!!)say or write these weak arguments in defense of players who have no trophies,and are popular but don't have the career that our REDSKINS have.B.T.W. Art and Russ were injured on the way to the Super bowl on different occasions,DUMB JEFF GEORGE DEFENDING LOSER!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rrcforever | February 10, 2011 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Jason Whitlock is a hypocrite,and a loser apologist!!First,he says stats are inflated because of new rules,Art Monk preceded these rules for the offense.His peers(Rod Woodson,Jamie Dukes,Andre Reed,Michael Irvin)coaches(Bill Parcells,Tom Landry)respected him and called him a H.O.Famer.Only beat writers from cities that haven't won in two generations,that judge our franchise based on our recent failings and not our history,who are jealous that we either beat their team to the Super Bowl,or have more Lombardis then they have(Sal palintonio,Adam Schefter included!!)say or write these weak arguments in defense of players who have no trophies,and are popular but don't have the career that our REDSKINS have.B.T.W. Art and Russ were injured on the way to the Super bowl on different occasions,DUMB JEFF GEORGE DEFENDING LOSER!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rrcforever | February 10, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Jason Whitlock is a hypocrite,and a loser apologist!!First,he says stats are inflated because of new rules,Art Monk preceded these rules for the offense.His peers(Rod Woodson,Jamie Dukes,Andre Reed,Michael Irvin)coaches(Bill Parcells,Tom Landry)respected him and called him a H.O.Famer.Only beat writers from cities that haven't won in two generations,that judge our franchise based on our recent failings and not our history,who are jealous that we either beat their team to the Super Bowl,or have more Lombardis then they have(Sal palintonio,Adam Schefter included!!)say or write these weak arguments in defense of players who have no trophies,and are popular but don't have the career that our REDSKINS have.B.T.W. Art and Russ were injured on the way to the Super bowl on different occasions,DUMB JEFF GEORGE DEFENDING LOSER!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rrcforever | February 10, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Whitlock is just echoing Peter King, self-appointed guru on all things NFL. He tried like heck to keep Monk out of the Hall for years and years. Only when King lost interest did Monk make it in.

Posted by: KDSmallJr | February 10, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"Monk -- great guy, smart, excellent possession receiver. HOF worthy? Sorry, no."

Posted by: jksesq1 | February 10, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

I didn't know they made 940 catch possession receivers.

If Monk was just a possession receiver alone, wouldn't his numbers make him the greatest possession receiver of all time? And by a large margin? And wouldn't that alone make him HOF worthy?


Posted by: charlissa | February 10, 2011 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Never heard of Whitlock. enough said.

Posted by: blushfilms | February 10, 2011 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Whitlock is normally spot on. But his judgment gets clouded when he writes about the Redskins. For whatever reason, he hates the team every bit as much as John Feinstein.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 10, 2011 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"Monk -- great guy, smart, excellent possession receiver. HOF worthy? Sorry, no."

Posted by: jksesq1 | February 10, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

I didn't know they made 940 catch possession receivers.

If Monk was just a possession receiver alone, wouldn't his numbers make him the greatest possession receiver of all time? And by a large margin? And wouldn't that alone make him HOF worthy?

Posted by: charlissa

It's a good argument and I don't mean to slam Monk. I'm glad he's in the Hall. But if I wasn't a Redskins fan, he would seem to be a weak choice. I would expect an all-time great to make more than 3 Pro Bowls in 14 years, or make First Team All-Pro more than once. His most comparable players according to Pro-Football-Reference dot com lists his two most comparable players to be Henry Ellard and Harold Jackson, two really good players who are just not Hall-worthy.

Anyway, it's just opinion, I respect yours, and I love Art Monk and I'm glad he's in the Hall.

Posted by: jksesq1 | February 10, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Who's Jason Whitlock?

Posted by: richs91 | February 10, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

After reading this, I will not read anything that Jason Whitlock writes again. He clearly doesn't know anything about Pro Football. He is a complete joke.

Posted by: sruppert | February 10, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Great players aren't great because they tell you they're great, as many seem to do today. They're great because they let their play do the talking. Monk would take on defensive players at every opportunity. You could probably ask the guys he played against how effective they felt at the end of the game. Grimm? He was too small and too slow and everybody knew that except Grimm--and the guys who played against him who found out that he could hit hard and he could outsmart them. Players like these belong in the hall.
I'm not sure where Whitlock belongs.

Posted by: jlhare1 | February 10, 2011 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Whitlock says forget the numbers.

Well, that is how Ray Berry, Charley Taylor, Charlie Joiner, Jackie Smith and a HOST of other receivers made it to the Hall of Fame over time.

Cris Carter to me is a guy that blew the first 3-4 years of his career with personal issues and then put up numbers on teams that didn't end up winning anything.

Carter is the perfect example of a guy that is a candidate SOLELY on the numbers.

Anyone really think that Dave Wilcox deserved to be a Hall of Famer ahead of Chris Hanburger?

Posted by: RoyHobbs4 | February 10, 2011 12:36 PM | Report abuse

You mean, Jason Whitlock is still allowed to talk about the Pro Football Hall of Fame, or the NFL, or sports in general for that matter?

Posted by: Sportaholic | February 10, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Art Monk is clearly a hall of famer. I was at the induction ceremony. It is my considered opinion that Mr. Whitlock is an azzwipe.

Posted by: wireman65 | February 10, 2011 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Is there room in the HOF for R.Moss, Owens, Harrison, Reed, Bruce, Ward, Brown, Carter, PLUS, Wayne, Johnson, Fitzgerald and Boldin and the other young WR's who will probably pass Monk before he's done.

-------

Art Monk had BETTER HANDS than all of these WRs with no Stickum and None of the Super-Tac gloves they have now.

Art Monk could catch a bullet in the dark if he heard the gun go off.

If you wanted a first down all you had to do is throw it to Monk!

Posted by: filmchis | February 10, 2011 12:58 PM | Report abuse

People who point to pro bowls, or a lack thereof on a HOF resume, do realize that pro bowls are popularity contests, right? I mean, one would assume if you are commenting on this than you have some understanding of how the Pro Bowl selections work. I guess to these people, Yao Ming is a first ballot HOFer in the NBA once he retires for all his All Star selections. I guess Ken Harvey is more HOF-worthy than Art Monk, since he's got more Pro Bowl selections right?

All Star games are irrelevant. So people, please stop trying to use it to validate or invalidate a player's HOF credentials.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 10, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

When did Peter King paint himself in blackface?

Posted by: P00PY_MCP00P | February 10, 2011 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Yo Jason, who exactly do you think was opening those holes a Diesel could drive thru? Moron.....

Posted by: CHICO13 | February 10, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Whitlock elicits a yawn. Joe Jacoby next in, not Dexter.

Posted by: dcmusician2 | February 10, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Funny thing, Larry Brown deserved to go in ahead of Floyd Little. Little is a joke!

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 10, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Monk -- great guy, smart, excellent possession receiver. HOF worthy? Sorry, no."

Posted by: jksesq1 | February 10, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

I didn't know they made 940 catch possession receivers.

If Monk was just a possession receiver alone, wouldn't his numbers make him the greatest possession receiver of all time? And by a large margin? And wouldn't that alone make him HOF worthy?

Posted by: charlissa

It's a good argument and I don't mean to slam Monk. I'm glad he's in the Hall. But if I wasn't a Redskins fan, he would seem to be a weak choice. I would expect an all-time great to make more than 3 Pro Bowls in 14 years, or make First Team All-Pro more than once. His most comparable players according to Pro-Football-Reference dot com lists his two most comparable players to be Henry Ellard and Harold Jackson, two really good players who are just not Hall-worthy.

Anyway, it's just opinion, I respect yours, and I love Art Monk and I'm glad he's in the Hall.

Posted by: jksesq1
~~~~
Let me jump in on this conversation as I happened to agree with jksesq1's 1st post. There's a word missing here-legendary. As in legendary play/performance. I say play to mean consistently legendary play(ie., Elway,Barry Sanders,Jim Brown). I mean performance to mean the ability to have legendary performances (playing big in big games). That way,for example, both Peyton Manning goes in-though he has only won one SB thus far,but plays in a consistently legendary way and Ben Roethlisberger goes in though he doesn't have flashy numbers, because he has legendary big game performances, with the recent as an aberration.

So by my albeit loose definition-Monk, though I love him, isn't a HOF'er. He has numbers, exceptional numbers in fact, but he doesn't have legendary numbers-even though he was the 1st WR to go over 100 hundred catches.

Monk also doesn't have legendary big-game performances either. He was either snakebitten by injury or invisible. With Gary Clark, for example, I can EASILY remember legendary performances by him (ie., the back to the defender move for the game winning score in overtime against the Vikings, the one-handed snag against the Falcons in our last SB yr.)

So for me Art Monk,though he's my dude, isn't ahhh...LEGENDARY enough to be a HOF'er. That's why I disagree with quite a few HOF selections over the last two DECADES. Guys are getting in for numbers and sentimentality about how long they have had to wait to get elected, but for me it's...are they LEGENDARY?

You must be LEGENDARY to be HOF'er.

Posted by: ArmchairGM | February 10, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Had no clue who Jason Whitlock was, but by the looks of him I dont really care what he has to say

http://www.kcconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Jason-Whitlock2.jpg

Posted by: lsalter | February 10, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Whitlock who? The Redskins USED to have great players, but not since The Danny arrived. Just old has been free agents.

Monk and Grimm deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

Posted by: ftlmikeflorida | February 10, 2011 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Legendary? Steve Largent was no doubt a HoFer, but legendary?

Posted by: wcasey1 | February 10, 2011 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Largent was a WR with both legendary hands, but even moreso legendary moves/routes. He was also regarded as one of the best in the game during his playing years. As far as Largent vs Monk...Largent was a better player. Not by a huge, huge difference, but he was better.

Posted by: ArmchairGM | February 10, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Whitlock is an Uncle Tom! I have little respect for him if any at all.

Posted by: gmac78 | February 10, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Remember also wcasey1, that before Jerry Rice, Steve Largent was regarded in some few circles as the arguably the greatest WR ever when he retired. Now, I don't agree with THAT, but it was debated.

I have to point out that you echo my post-if he ain't legendary, he ain't a HOFer. I just believe Largent WAS legendary enough to go in.

Posted by: ArmchairGM | February 10, 2011 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dcinmd1 | February 10, 2011 11:00 AM

Do you even know who Willie Roaf is? First, he played more twice as many years in NO than in KC. His individual accomplishments dwarf Grimms and he played a tougher position on the line. He was named to the All Decade team for the 90s and the 00s. 6x All-Pro, 3x 2d team All-Pro, and an 11x Pro-Bowler.

Posted by: learnedhand1 | February 10, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Whitlock is an Uncle Tom! I have little respect for him if any at all.

Posted by: gmac78
~~~
Agreed.

Posted by: ArmchairGM | February 10, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Thelonius Monk was Art Monk's uncle. How cool is that?

Posted by: LouisTheRogue | February 10, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Whitlock loves to run his mouth on social and political issues then has the nerve to say he doesn't vote because he hates Politicians. His commentary is funny but has no value beyond entertainment. Just like Colin Cowherd.

Posted by: moseley_brian | February 10, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Whitlock has nursed a grudge ever since he got passed over for the movie part of
Fat B-a-s-t-a-r-d.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | February 10, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm not even a Redskins fan and I think that Whitlock is a fool for saying this. Grimm and Monk belong. I also think that Joe Jacoby belongs as well.

Posted by: Section505203 | February 10, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

If this guy did not say stupid things he would not be noticed. I guess it goes both ways Whitlock

: jlhare1

Russ Grimm was neither small or slow. In fact he was right at 300 which was big for his era and was a high school basketball player. He was very athletic too. The smallest hog was Jeff Bostic. He was under 275, the rest of the line was at least 280 starting with stark, then May Grimm and Jacoby being the biggest mainly because of his height.

Posted by: ged0386 | February 10, 2011 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line is any idiot can have an opinion; that is why there is a voting process. Who care what people think (fat or otherwise). The process is all that matters. Is the process flawed?? I think it is. When you include contributors with the players instead of as a separate category, I think you have a problem. Also only allowing 5 regulars plus two seniors to be inducted in any one year may be a problem. Finally, this seniors category may allow older players to slip in. But no one cares what I think about the process. Those who are voted in through the process are in the hall of fame and those who have not been voted in, are not. Nonsense about who does or doesn't deserve to be in is good for useless blogs like this, but are meaningless. I happen to think that all members of the baseball hall of fame who played before black or hispanic players were allowed to play in the major leagues should have asterisks after their name because they didn't play against the very best competition. But that is my opinion and it doesn't make any difference in who is in the baseball hall of fame.

Posted by: Phillip258 | February 10, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Who is Jason Whitlock?

Posted by: ZeroHero0 | February 10, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Whitlock ever saw Grimm and Monk play, live. Those two were as good at their positions as any who ever played the game. Just shut up!

Posted by: hammeresq | February 10, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Whitlock is an Uncle Tom! I have little respect for him if any at all.

Posted by: gmac78 | February 10, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

In this day in age, it's amazing people are still this pitifully ignorant. "Uncle Tom" is a racial epithet, moron. It's no different than "Oreo" or calling a Hispanic a "cocunut."

Posted by: Barno1 | February 10, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

What's the point of this and how relevant is this cat's opinion? They're in. Is his opinion going to cause the voters to reconsider and vote them OUT? I don't believe that Abraham Lincoln deserved to be shot, but that doesn't make him any less dead.

Posted by: randysbailin | February 10, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I clearly remember during the 80's that Jerry Rice and Art Monk were easily the two best receivers in the game. Every coach, reporter, TV analyst ALL agreed, no hesitation. There were plenty of other excellent receivers. Also remember that Joe Gibbs commented that his two favorite Redskins of all time were Donnie Warren and Art Monk. Neither ever even missed a practice. That is unbeleivable.

Hall of Fame? Art Monk and Russ Grimm BOTH should have been first ballot types without question. Ask their peers.

Posted by: reindeerterp | February 10, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Art Monk was never one searching out any available microphone. He never talked to the press and they take this personnally. That's why he took so long to get in the HOF. That's why he didn't make more Pro Bowls.
When he played, he was always reguarded by opposing coaches as one of the two or three best in the game.
He was one of the best rout runners, blockers, and clutch receivers EVER in the game. Many reporters are ignorant to these things. Coaches are not. Stats are only 1 reason he should have been a first ballot HOF'er.

Posted by: micgo95 | February 10, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Monk was the one keeping drive after drive (on record breaking offense's) alive with 3rd down receptions. Monk would get 3 or 4 first downs, then Clark,Diddier,Riggo or whoever would get the TD.
How many more games would the "skins" have won this year if they didn't drop so many Chain moving passes. Monk was the best I've seen at getting open (different rules back then) and keeping the chains moving. Again, coaches (Parcels,Landry....) understand these things. Reporters and stat salivators, not so much.

Posted by: micgo95 | February 10, 2011 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Dan, how about telling Whitlock he's dead wrong? And Jacoby's next in.

KDSmallJr, King changed his mind about Monk because Leonard Shapiro called King out after King lobbied for Harry Carson, using many of the same arguments King rejected when applied to Monk. King is a pumpkin-headed, skunk-striped-haired, tiny-brained gas bag and should be removed from the rolls of the HOF voters.

Posted by: dockeppins | February 11, 2011 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Somebody give that buffoon 40 acres and a mule and let him walk off about 200 pounds doing something he is qualified to do.

Posted by: SkinsfaninKaneohe | February 12, 2011 7:33 AM | Report abuse

I think Whitlock just like alot of NFL fans want to keep the HOF the Hall for GREATS, not the Hall for the Very Good. I don't expect skins' fans to not want there own in even if they are not hall of fame worthy. Is Grimm and Monk on the same level as Darrell Green? who I'm sure skins fans would have thrown a fit if he were passed over in his first year of induction. What teams worried about Monk when you designed a scheme to slow down JG's offense? Yes he could block for the run game, but is that the criteria for the HOF and Gibbs lobbied for him because he wasn't just a possession receiver in his offense. When you look at what he did that is whats stands out as his reason for being on the field. The smurfs (Sanders and Clark) is who you had to stop or you would have a long day against the skins passing attack. My criteria for anyone to enter the HOF is how many All-Pro teams were they apart of, then Pro Bowls. Not as a replacement (PB) player because of injury. And for all these Deion Sanders fans talking about him being the best ever cornerback, don't get it twisted, Deion couldn't check Jerry Rice when Deion was in Atlanta. I think Grimm and Monk are HOF worth, but only through the senior committee like Hanburger, not a straight up election. Or better yet a 5th-6th ballot HOF. Because of the Monk issue every receiver with similar stats think they should be in one their 1st-2nd-3rd ballot when they are not worthy if at all. I know skins have had their 15 yrs of quality hometeam football, but thats it. Your players weren't that great and even Gibbs knows that, Theismann couldn't win a SB, Riggins won that SB. A year later my Raiders challenged him to beat them and he couldn't. Its great that you love your team and its players but be real about it. Don't lower yourselves to the Cowboys stature (who are nothing but a hype machine). When the dust clears what do you have? No playoffs and wait till next year excuses!!!!

Posted by: RaidersOne | February 16, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company