Hall of Fame debates never open-and-shut cases

	Michael Irvin's contributions to three Super Bowl-winning teams are the sort of criteria Hall of Fame inductees are made of. Peter Read Miller/SI
	MAILBAG Peter King will answer your questions each week in Monday Morning Quarterback: Tuesday Edition. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

I knew it. Every time there's a Hall of Fame discussion, the passions are stirred. Let me let you write the column today, with your e-mails following Monday's Hall/wide receiver column:

BREAK THE LOGJAM. Frank Murtaugh of Memphis: "Terrific stance on the receiver conundrum in the Hall voting. And yes, this is the year to clear the logjam (before the eligibility of Jerry Rice, Cris Carter and Tim Brown further muddy the waters). You've got a healthy idea: expanding the panel to 50 voters. The club of 39 right now is way too exclusive. It's too easy to blackball a player when only seven votes are needed. And I'm in line with your stance on this year's vote: Monk and Irvin are Hall of Famers. They stand above the crowd of other great pass-catchers for having won THREE CHAMPIONSHIPS, and having played integral roles on all three. The last variable for consideration by any and all Hall voters should be winning championships. Reed was close, but was he merely this era's Ahmad Rashad?''

I think Reed was better for longer than Rashad. I'm just not sold that four players and a coach from that Bills regime should be in the Hall. My order of Bills to get in if they all could be accommodated would be Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, Thurman Thomas, Steve Tasker, Andre Reed and Kent Hull.

MONK AND IRVIN? NO. From Scott Rich of Minneapolis: "Art Monk and Michael Irvin belong in the Hall of Good, not the Hall of Fame. Because Lynn Swann was elected to the incorrect Hall, do not compound that mistake by electing Monk and Irvin, whose contributions to their respective teams have been recognized in the most appropriate of locations, each team's Ring of Fame/Honor.''

Disagree. But let's see what everybody else thinks.

MONK? YES. From David Davis of Ottawa: "Peter, I no longer hate you. For years I couldn't understand what you had against Monk. To me it just seemed like you didn't want to listen to anybody about why he's deserving. Then you said you would go for a guy like Michael Irvin, a player with character issues among other things, and I just thought Monk maybe hit your car one day and you had a grudge. You have just made my week, you have seen the light; you understand that a good teammate is a guy who will do the dirty stuff and take a backseat to other teammates while leading by example. That's what those Redskins were all about.''

Part of being on the committee is to take the heat, and I'm fine with that. Part of it too, I think, is not being so rock-solid and absolute that a good argument can't change your mind. As far as Irvin goes, off-field stuff, by our by-laws, shouldn't be part of our deliberations. I can't speak for everyone, but with me, I don't care if Irvin robs four banks tomorrow. He'll have my vote because of his consistent greatness on the field.

VOTE FOR VANDERJAGT! From Matthew Danielson of Cary, N.C.: "You quote Rick Gosselin saying, 'The Hall of Fame is about impact, not statistics.' If true, then a strong case must be made for kickers, who have had a great impact on the outcome of games. How many games have been decided by a last-minute field goal (or miss)? It's a shame only one (only one!) kicker has been enshrined in the Hall of Fame.''

Good point, sort of. My feeling is unless you're a transcendent kicker (and how many kickers or punters have been significantly better for a long period than their peers?), you don't belong. I'd rather fight for Steve Tasker, who, for nearly a decade, was the consensus best special-teamer in football and made at least eight game-deciding plays on special teams. I know because I've seen the tape put together by former Bill special-teams coach Bruce DeHaven.

LOTS OF SUPPORTS FOR REED. From Eric Adelson of Toronto: "I'm surprised you would put in Irvin ahead of Reed. Reed was vitally important to that [Bills] team. The running game would not have been as effective without that constant threat. He was also a lot quieter than Irvin with more catches -- that should get him in alone! I say this as a long-time Oilers/Titans fan who lived in Toronto for much of Reed's career, so I had to see him not only maul my team, but I had to watch those darn Bills week in, week out during that time. If Kelly is in, then Thomas and Reed must be. Kelly was nothing without them.''

You have just made Bill Polian's point. It's a good one. Remember one thing, and it's a nit-picky thing about your e-mail and those of many, many others: We vote on what happened between the white lines, not who talks smack or who is the nicest guy.