17 Finalists for Hall of Fame election announced (1 Viewer)

[Pat Patriot]

I dont think Derrick Thomas gets in. Andre Tippett was a much better all around linebacker.I think of Gradishar much in the same way as Steve Nelson for the Patriots. Should be inducted into his team's HOF but not Canton. Gradishar is close (Nelson wont sniff Canton) but not dynamic enough.

In 14 years, Steve Nelson made 3 pro bowls and had 5 all-pro seasons. In 10 seasons, Gradishar made 7 pro bowls and was an all pro in each of his final 8 years. Gradishar also won a DPoY award and was the heart of a defense good enough to earn a nickname. No comparison.Let's compare Gradishar to Ray Lewis, a guy who is widely considered a first-ballot lock at MLB. To start off with, let's get the "intangible" stuff out of the way. Ray Lewis was the heart and soul of an all-time great defense that carried its team to a championship. Gradishar was the heart and soul of an all-time great defense that carried its team to a championship game loss. Neither has any sustained postseason success outside of that.Lewis has played 12 seasons and made 9 pro bowls and 7 all pros. Lewis has two DPoY awards.Gradishar played 10 seasons and made 7 pro bowls and 8 all pros. Gradishar has one DPoY award.Lewis averages 9.4 tackles per game, which pro-rates to 150 in a 16-game season.Gradishar averaged 15.4 tackles per game (excluding his rookie season where he didn't start), which pro-rates to 246 tackles in a 16-game season. Stop, read that again. Let's dwell on this a bit. Gradishar's career WORST tackle-per-game number was 12.6, which came his sophomore year. That pro-rates to 202 tackles in 16 games. Ray Lewis's career BEST was 184 tackles. So Gradishar's WORST season was still 10% better than Lewis's BEST from a tackle standpoint. And Gradishar's best season was a mind-numbingly absurd 17.9 tackles per game (286 tackles in 16 games). For the record, the #2 and #3 tacklers in the NFL this year COMBINED put up 281 stops. Just throwing that out there.You specifically said that Gradishar wasn't "dynamic" enough, though, so let's look at some "dynamic" plays.Ray Lewis averages an INT per every 6.5 games. He returns each INT an average of 16.8 yards, with two career TDs.Gradishar averaged an INT per every 7.25 games. He returned each INT an average of 16.8 yards, with three career TDs.Ray Lewis averages a fumble recovery per every 12.5 games. He has returned all of his fumbles... a combined 1 yard. Not average, total. Seriously.Gradisahr averaged a fumble recovery per every 11.2 games. He returned all of his fumbles 72 total yards, with another TD chipped in for good measure.Ray Lewis averages a sack per every 5.4 games.Gradishar averaged a sack per every 7.25 games. Basically, Ray Lewis has a Superbowl MVP, a second DPoY award, and a few more sacks. Gradishar, meanwhile, blows Ray Lewis so far out of the water in tackles that he might as well be playing a different sport entirely, and stacks up very favorably in terms of turnovers forced (with a big edge in return yardage). Is that second DPoY really the difference between a first-ballot HoFer and a guy on the outside looking in?I write a novel of a post about how Gradishar deserves to be in, but the simple fact is that he stacked up extremely well against his peers (8 All Pros and a DPoY in 10 years), and he stacks up extremely well against history (most prolific tackler in NFL history... and it ain't even CLOSE). He has the intangibles and the leadership, and he headlined a knockout defense too boot. What on earth else would Gradishar have needed to do in order to be HoF caliber? Average 300 tackles a year? Win two more DPoY awards? End a few players' careers? Make All Pro in EVERY season instead of just 80% of the time? What?

Just to clarify, I wasnt saying that Nelson was equal of Gradishar just that he was the same type of player. I hate the fact that PFR inflates the All Pro numbers because I think AP All Pro is an important tool in measuring greatness. Pro Bowls mean nothing. There should be 1 or 2 MLB All Pros per year. That means you were the best at your position in a given year. Put a couple of those together and you have a HOF career. Hard to be a HOFer IMO if at no time in your career were you the best player at your position.

 

[CalBear]

Irvin11 yearsReceptions 750 Receiving Yards 11,904 Touchdowns 65 Monk15 seasonsReceptions 940 Receiving Yards 12,721 Touchdowns 68

Thank you for making the argument that Monk is a compiler.Top-5 receiving yardage seasons: Irvin 4, Monk 2Top-10 receiving yardage seasons: Irvin 6, Monk 3Top-10 receiving TD seasons: Irvin 6, Monk 1Number of years leading his own team in yardage: Irvin 8, Monk 4Playoff/Super Bowl numbers: Irvin 16 games, 87 receptions, 1314 yards, 8 TD, Monk 15 games, 69 receptions, 1062 yards, 7 TDIn every measurable except longevity, Irvin beats Monk. Monk can go line up alongside Rod Smith and get thrown to by Vinnie Testaverde.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Irvin11 yearsReceptions 750 Receiving Yards 11,904 Touchdowns 65 Monk15 seasonsReceptions 940 Receiving Yards 12,721 Touchdowns 68Seasons among the league's top 10Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3tReceiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10Receiving TDs: 1991-9tAmong the league's all-time top 50Receptions: 6(940)Receiving yards: 11(12,721)Receiving TDs: 30t(68)Yards from scrimmage: 26Consecutive games with at least one reception: 2(183)All-Rookie: 19803-time Pro Bowler: 1984, 1985, 19862-time All-Pro: 1984, 1985

Reed -15 years 951 catches13,198 yards87 td's Should be in over both Irvin last year and Monk this year.

 

[Tau837]

I'm surprised by all the love for McDaniel. Was he even a finalist last year? I don't remember seeing his name, but I do remember seeing Zimmerman and Grimm. So why would McDaniel get voted in above those two, especially since they're much stronger candidates?

What makes them "much stronger candidates"? Seriously, I think it is very hard to effectively compare offensive linemen. I'm willing to believe that the others may have been better, but what evidence is there of that? Especially when McDaniel had more All NFL, All Pro, and Pro Bowl selections.

 

[Tau837]

Reed -15 years 951 catches13,198 yards87 td's Should be in over both Irvin last year and Monk this year.

I agree. He is #5 in career receptions, #8 in career receiving yards, and #10 in career receiving TDs. He also made 7 consecutive Pro Bowls and 4 All Pro teams. And he was a key player in getting the Bills to 4 straight Super Bowls. Monk's teams made 4 Super Bowls, too, but he was always Washington's #2 WR in those years... Reed was his team's #1 WR.

 

[AB in DC]

I'm surprised by all the love for McDaniel. Was he even a finalist last year? I don't remember seeing his name, but I do remember seeing Zimmerman and Grimm. So why would McDaniel get voted in above those two, especially since they're much stronger candidates?

What makes them "much stronger candidates"?

Maybe you should ask the Hall of Fame voters who have nominated Zimmerman and Grimm as a finalist for several years in a row, but did not nominate McDaniel until this year.Seeing Zimmerman on two All-Decade teams is certainly enough for me. Grimm is a closer call, but he played a key role on several Redskin championship teams -- which is an argument being made against Art Monk.

 

[AB in DC]

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that Cris Carter is not the shoo-in for this year than everyone thinks he is.

Yes, Cris Carter will undoubtedly be a Hall of Famer at some point, but a first-ballot Hall of Famer? I'm not so sure. Not when there are plenty of other good candidates who have been waiting for much longer. I think everyone expected Michael Irvin to be a first-ballot vote, but he had to wait a year, and Carter probably will too.

We're all seeing this vote through the lens of fantasy football, but there are a lot of players on the list of finalists who meant more to their teams than Carter did.

Even if a WR does get voted in (which is not a certainty), I would not be surprised to see either Reed or Monk get in this year ahead of Carter.

 

[Tau837]

I'm surprised by all the love for McDaniel. Was he even a finalist last year? I don't remember seeing his name, but I do remember seeing Zimmerman and Grimm. So why would McDaniel get voted in above those two, especially since they're much stronger candidates?

What makes them "much stronger candidates"?

Maybe you should ask the Hall of Fame voters who have nominated Zimmerman and Grimm as a finalist for several years in a row, but did not nominate McDaniel until this year.

This argument is flawed IMO.- Zimmerman has been eligible for 6 years and has been a finalist 5 times. He was a finalist his first 2 years and the last 3 years, but not in his third year of eligibility. Why?

- Grimm has been eligible for 12 years and has been a finalist 4 times. He was not a finalist until his 9th year of eligibility. By your logic, is McDaniel more worthy because he made it in his second year of eligibility?

- Kuechenberg has been eligible for 20 years and has been a finalist 7 times. He was not a finalist until his 14th year of eligibility. By your logic, is McDaniel more worthy because he made it in his second year of eligibility?

Like I have said in this thread, IMO Zimmerman is worthy, I just happen to think McDaniel is more worthy. I don't really see the strong case for Grimm and Kuechenberg that others see. But admittedly, I find it pretty difficult to compare offensive linemen effectively.

Seeing Zimmerman on two All-Decade teams is certainly enough for me. Grimm is a closer call, but he played a key role on several Redskin championship teams -- which is an argument being made against Art Monk.

All Decade teams are great, but they are timing dependent. That is, it is somewhat dependent on where in a decade a player's career starts and ends as to how much of a chance a player has. McDaniel played 2 years in the 80s, 10 years in the 90s, and 2 years in the 00s. He made the 90s All Decade team and had no chance to make either the 80s or 00s teams. The fact that Zimmerman made two is quite a credit to him, but McDaniel did not have an equal chance to match that accomplishment due to timing. On the other hand, McDaniel had more All NFL, All Pro, and Pro Bowl selections, and they both had equal opportunity for those honors.

 

[MarshallRob]

Reed -15 years 951 catches13,198 yards87 td's Should be in over both Irvin last year and Monk this year.

I agree. He is #5 in career receptions, #8 in career receiving yards, and #10 in career receiving TDs. He also made 7 consecutive Pro Bowls and 4 All Pro teams. And he was a key player in getting the Bills to 4 straight Super Bowls. Monk's teams made 4 Super Bowls, too, but he was always Washington's #2 WR in those years... Reed was his team's #1 WR.

The biggest knock I see on Reed is that he disappeared in Super Bowls and AFC Championship games. He had some killer drops in Super Bowl XXV.

 

[nashua55]

Add me to the list of saying Monk doesnt belong in the HOF. He was very good player, other than that nothing special. When I think about the Hall of Fame, I think of great players like B. Sanders, Walter Payton, Joe Montana ect... Putting guys in like Monk, just water it down.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Irvin11 yearsReceptions 750 Receiving Yards 11,904 Touchdowns 65 Monk15 seasonsReceptions 940 Receiving Yards 12,721 Touchdowns 68Seasons among the league's top 10Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3tReceiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10Receiving TDs: 1991-9tAmong the league's all-time top 50Receptions: 6(940)Receiving yards: 11(12,721)Receiving TDs: 30t(68)Yards from scrimmage: 26Consecutive games with at least one reception: 2(183)All-Rookie: 19803-time Pro Bowler: 1984, 1985, 19862-time All-Pro: 1984, 1985

Reed -15 years 951 catches13,198 yards87 td's Should be in over both Irvin last year and Monk this year.

Irvin, Monk, Reed trivia question: which wr didn't have a HOF qb throwing him the ball ever, let alone the majority of their careers?And watch a replay of the '92 Super Bowl -- Monk >>> Reed........and this was in the twilight on Monk's career.

 

[SSOG]

If Ray Guy doesn't get in, it's like the voters are saying "Punters aren't NFL Players" Guy was the best punter ever.

He wasn't.

Who was?

Sammy Baugh

Randall Cunningham.

 

[Dexter Manley]

If Ray Guy doesn't get in, it's like the voters are saying "Punters aren't NFL Players" Guy was the best punter ever.

He wasn't.

Who was?

Sammy Baugh

Randall Cunningham.

What game was it that he had like a 90 punt? I remember watching it. Can't remember if it was a quik kick or real punt though.

 

[SSOG]

If Ray Guy doesn't get in, it's like the voters are saying "Punters aren't NFL Players" Guy was the best punter ever.

He wasn't.

Who was?

Sammy Baugh

Randall Cunningham.

What game was it that he had like a 90 punt? I remember watching it. Can't remember if it was a quik kick or real punt though.

It was a 1989 game against the Giants, and it was a real honest-to-goodness punt. You can watch it on Youtube
. He essentially kicks from the very back of his end zone, and gets it across the far 40 yard line, meaning it traveled 70 yards through the air and then took a heck of a bounce from there.Cunningham once said that he could have led the league in punting if his coaches had just let him... and if I'm being perfectly honest, I believe him.

 

[[scooter]]

Green is a lock. Dent, Carter and Zimmerman have good chances. Monk, Reed and Guy will come close but fall short yet again.

 

[mbuehner]

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that Cris Carter is not the shoo-in for this year than everyone thinks he is.Yes, Cris Carter will undoubtedly be a Hall of Famer at some point, but a first-ballot Hall of Famer? I'm not so sure. Not when there are plenty of other good candidates who have been waiting for much longer. I think everyone expected Michael Irvin to be a first-ballot vote, but he had to wait a year, and Carter probably will too.We're all seeing this vote through the lens of fantasy football, but there are a lot of players on the list of finalists who meant more to their teams than Carter did.Even if a WR does get voted in (which is not a certainty), I would not be surprised to see either Reed or Monk get in this year ahead of Carter.

Carter gets in ahead of Reed or Monk, easily. I do agree most years Carter wouldnt be the 'lock' guy (although i still think he would be first ballot). 8 pro-bowls4 all times all-pro2nd in TDs all time, 2nd in receptions, led the league in receiving TDs 3 timesCarter has a WAY better case than Reed or Monk. Before Randy Moss hit the scene he was the premier WR in the league outside of the best to ever play the game, and if Jerry Rice plays in a differenct era Carter would have been the player of the decade. Plus he taught Randy Moss quite a bit, which cant hurt.Then again if Carter doesnt make it this year somehow (he will), his numbers will lose some of their shine as TO and Moss overtake him next season.

 

[Jason Wood]

Irvin11 yearsReceptions 750 Receiving Yards 11,904 Touchdowns 65 Monk15 seasonsReceptions 940 Receiving Yards 12,721 Touchdowns 68

You answered your own question...Irvin was the much more productive player.On a per game basis:*** Irvin: 4.7 receptions, 74.9 yards, 0.4 TDs*** Monk: 4.2 receptions, 56.8 yards, 0.3 TDsPro rated for a 16 game season:*** Irvin: 75 receptions, 1,123 yards, 6.4 TDs*** Monk: 67 receptions, 909 yards, 4.8 TDsWhen you factor in Irvin's career being cut short (he was coming of consecutive 1,000 yard seasons in 1999) and it's not a hard argument to make. Now, to be clear, I think Monk SHOULD be in the Hall in spite of being a compiler. He did end his career as the leading receptions leader and has three rings; not to mention he was a good ambassador for the game. But objectively (having hated both the Skins and Cowboys all my life!), I think Irvin and, frankly, Reed were better players.

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that Cris Carter is not the shoo-in for this year than everyone thinks he is.Yes, Cris Carter will undoubtedly be a Hall of Famer at some point, but a first-ballot Hall of Famer? I'm not so sure. Not when there are plenty of other good candidates who have been waiting for much longer. I think everyone expected Michael Irvin to be a first-ballot vote, but he had to wait a year, and Carter probably will too.We're all seeing this vote through the lens of fantasy football, but there are a lot of players on the list of finalists who meant more to their teams than Carter did.Even if a WR does get voted in (which is not a certainty), I would not be surprised to see either Reed or Monk get in this year ahead of Carter.

Irvin wasn't a first ballot because the voters thought it would be cute to "punish" him for his off-the-field antics, IMHO. Carter was, by all accounts, well liked and actually a positive figure considering how he completely turned his life around after early problems with substance abuse. Given the slate of finalists, I can't imagine Carter not getting the nod.This isn't baseball where guys typically have to wait lots of years. A great many inductees get in on the first year of eligibility; and that's really the way it should be.

 

[Dexter Manley]

If Ray Guy doesn't get in, it's like the voters are saying "Punters aren't NFL Players" Guy was the best punter ever.

He wasn't.

Who was?

Sammy Baugh

Randall Cunningham.

What game was it that he had like a 90 punt? I remember watching it. Can't remember if it was a quik kick or real punt though.

It was a 1989 game against the Giants, and it was a real honest-to-goodness punt. You can watch it on Youtube

Thx for the link. Brought back some memories. I thought it was a real punt but wasn't sure, and now that I think about it I was most def in the camp that Cunnignham shoud be the punter. Had to really jog the memory to remember that. I always thought that RC would make the perfect punter -- imagine the play fake possibilities with him back there! And the eagles would have an extra roster spot. Still that people are pushing Ray Guy for the HOF when their are qb's that are better punters than that Guy....

 

[Dexter Manley]

Irvin11 yearsReceptions 750 Receiving Yards 11,904 Touchdowns 65 Monk15 seasonsReceptions 940 Receiving Yards 12,721 Touchdowns 68

You answered your own question...Irvin was the much more productive player.On a per game basis:*** Irvin: 4.7 receptions, 74.9 yards, 0.4 TDs*** Monk: 4.2 receptions, 56.8 yards, 0.3 TDsPro rated for a 16 game season:*** Irvin: 75 receptions, 1,123 yards, 6.4 TDs*** Monk: 67 receptions, 909 yards, 4.8 TDsWhen you factor in Irvin's career being cut short (he was coming of consecutive 1,000 yard seasons in 1999) and it's not a hard argument to make. Now, to be clear, I think Monk SHOULD be in the Hall in spite of being a compiler. He did end his career as the leading receptions leader and has three rings; not to mention he was a good ambassador for the game. But objectively (having hated both the Skins and Cowboys all my life!), I think Irvin and, frankly, Reed were better players.

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that Cris Carter is not the shoo-in for this year than everyone thinks he is.Yes, Cris Carter will undoubtedly be a Hall of Famer at some point, but a first-ballot Hall of Famer? I'm not so sure. Not when there are plenty of other good candidates who have been waiting for much longer. I think everyone expected Michael Irvin to be a first-ballot vote, but he had to wait a year, and Carter probably will too.We're all seeing this vote through the lens of fantasy football, but there are a lot of players on the list of finalists who meant more to their teams than Carter did.Even if a WR does get voted in (which is not a certainty), I would not be surprised to see either Reed or Monk get in this year ahead of Carter.

Irvin wasn't a first ballot because the voters thought it would be cute to "punish" him for his off-the-field antics, IMHO. Carter was, by all accounts, well liked and actually a positive figure considering how he completely turned his life around after early problems with substance abuse. Given the slate of finalists, I can't imagine Carter not getting the nod.This isn't baseball where guys typically have to wait lots of years. A great many inductees get in on the first year of eligibility; and that's really the way it should be.

Very flawed analysis, or imcomplete to say the least. What were the career target numbers for Irvin vs. Monk? I don't have them, but having watched both players their entire careers, I'm pretty sure who got significantly more targets.....it wasn't Monk.And even if the targets are the same, if Monk and Irvin switched teams during their careers, Irvin's #'s would be down and Monk's would be up for obvious reasons.

 

[CalBear]

Very flawed analysis, or imcomplete to say the least. What were the career target numbers for Irvin vs. Monk? I don't have them, but having watched both players their entire careers, I'm pretty sure who got significantly more targets.....it wasn't Monk.And even if the targets are the same, if Monk and Irvin switched teams during their careers, Irvin's #'s would be down and Monk's would be up for obvious reasons.

You can't base HOF decisions on things that didn't happen. Monk was on the team he was on. The fact that Irvin was targeted more is another reason why he's a stronger HOF candidate than Monk, not an argument for Monk's inclusion.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Very flawed analysis, or imcomplete to say the least. What were the career target numbers for Irvin vs. Monk? I don't have them, but having watched both players their entire careers, I'm pretty sure who got significantly more targets.....it wasn't Monk.And even if the targets are the same, if Monk and Irvin switched teams during their careers, Irvin's #'s would be down and Monk's would be up for obvious reasons.

You can't base HOF decisions on things that didn't happen. Monk was on the team he was on. The fact that Irvin was targeted more is another reason why he's a stronger HOF candidate than Monk, not an argument for Monk's inclusion.

Horrendous logic. If Gary Clark, who is one of the top 3-5 deep threats of all time, and would be a HOF candidate if he didn't start his pro career in the USFL, was on the Cowboys for half of Irvin's career, you srsly think Irvin's targets wouldn't go down? People pull reasons out of their rear end why Monk shouldn't be in the HOF. For example, defensive coordinators didn't make shutting down Monk their #1 priority. OMG! Who wouldn't put safety help over the top on Clark as their first priority when gameplanning against those Skins teams? If Clark played on the Cowboys, shutting him down from making the big play would be the #1 priority ahead of Irvin as well.For a more recent example, do you think that teams had shutting down Carter as their #1 priority over covering Moss?

 

[Tau837]

Gary Clark, who is one of the top 3-5 deep threats of all time

 

[Dexter Manley]

Gary Clark, who is one of the top 3-5 deep threats of all time

at your lack of nfl knowledge

 

[redman]

Gary Clark, who is one of the top 3-5 deep threats of all time

at your lack of nfl knowledge

I would submit that Gary Clark was at least as deserving of a HoF induction as Lynn Swann.

 

[CalBear]

You can't base HOF decisions on things that didn't happen. Monk was on the team he was on. The fact that Irvin was targeted more is another reason why he's a stronger HOF candidate than Monk, not an argument for Monk's inclusion.

Horrendous logic. If Gary Clark, who is one of the top 3-5 deep threats of all time, and would be a HOF candidate if he didn't start his pro career in the USFL, was on the Cowboys for half of Irvin's career, you srsly think Irvin's targets wouldn't go down? People pull reasons out of their rear end why Monk shouldn't be in the HOF. For example, defensive coordinators didn't make shutting down Monk their #1 priority. OMG! Who wouldn't put safety help over the top on Clark as their first priority when gameplanning against those Skins teams? If Clark played on the Cowboys, shutting him down from making the big play would be the #1 priority ahead of Irvin as well.

For a more recent example, do you think that teams had shutting down Carter as their #1 priority over covering Moss?

If Clark was on the Cowboys, Irvin's targets would be lower, along with his receptions, yardage, and TDs. Irvin might not be a HOFer if Clark was a Cowboy.But, Clark wasn't a Cowboy, he was a Redskin. Maybe that's why Irvin's in the HOF and Monk doesn't belong there, but it's pointless to speculate about; you can only judge Monk on how he did in the situation he was in.

Cris Carter had already had an illustrious career when Moss arrived; he was 33 years old, and already had almost 10,000 yards and 89 TDs (the latter more than Monk had in his entire career). Before Moss arrived, Carter had four top-10 yardage finishes (same as Monk for his career) and five top-10 TD finishes, including two #1 finishes (far better than Monk). He also had two 122-reception seasons (both better than Monk's best) and three All-Pros.

Then when Moss showed up, Carter from age 33-35 averaged 89 receptions, 1175 yards, and 11.3 TDs, all significantly better than Monk's career averages. He managed another top-10 yardage finish, three more top-10 TD finishes, and another All-Pro in those three years. So when another top receiver came in, Carter continued performing among the top receivers in the league, instead of having mediocre compiler stats like Monk. That's why Carter is going in on the first ballot, and Monk is still waiting.

 

[CalBear]

I would submit that Gary Clark was at least as deserving of a HoF induction as Lynn Swann.

That doesn't mean he was deserving of a HoF induction.

 

[redman]

I would submit that Gary Clark was at least as deserving of a HoF induction as Lynn Swann.

That doesn't mean he was deserving of a HoF induction.

As far as commentaries on Swann go, you and I obviously agree. I actually think Clark was better than Swann.

 

[Dexter Manley]

The major thing I can't get over is that Monk held multiple alltime receiving records that were broken by some schlub name Jerry Rice. Can we all agree that Rice is the best wr ever?

So how is it that Monk isn't in the HOF? In another sport, mlb, imagine if Rose never bet on baseball and was clean as a whistle. Rose surely wasn't the best hitter ever.....I would argue that Monk was a better receiver than Rose a hitter (and if not, it's close), but nonetheless....if Rose didn't bet on baseball, do you think that he would be left to twist in the wind by the HOF committee for several years like Monk because he was a "stat accumulator?"

Monk hasn't been elected for reasons we will never know -- the selection process is less transparent than the great wall of china......it's truly saddening.....

 

[Bri]

No sure things. I'm pulling for Tippett but not holding my breathe.

me too

 

[SSOG]

The major thing I can't get over is that Monk held multiple alltime receiving records that were broken by some schlub name Jerry Rice. Can we all agree that Rice is the best wr ever? So how is it that Monk isn't in the HOF? In another sport, mlb, imagine if Rose never bet on baseball and was clean as a whistle. Rose surely wasn't the best hitter ever.....I would argue that Monk was a better receiver than Rose a hitter (and if not, it's close), but nonetheless....if Rose didn't bet on baseball, do you think that he would be left to twist in the wind by the HOF committee for several years like Monk because he was a "stat accumulator?"Monk hasn't been elected for reasons we will never know -- the selection process is less transparent than the great wall of china......it's truly saddening.....

That argument doesn't hold water. Breaking records is nice, but doesn't make you an automatic HoFer, ESPECIALLY if a large reason why you broke those records was simply the era you were in. Monk was one of the first WRs who was able to take advantage of the passing revolution. The fact that his numbers have fallen way down the leaderboard demonstrates that he's not a record-setting WR, he just didn't have many contemporaries to compare him to yet.For another example, look at Shaun Alexander. He set the single season TD record. Does that make him a HoFer? Or does the fact that the record has already been broken 4 times in the past decade diminish the accomplishment?

 

[CalBear]

The major thing I can't get over is that Monk held multiple alltime receiving records that were broken by some schlub name Jerry Rice. Can we all agree that Rice is the best wr ever? So how is it that Monk isn't in the HOF? In another sport, mlb, imagine if Rose never bet on baseball and was clean as a whistle. Rose surely wasn't the best hitter ever.....I would argue that Monk was a better receiver than Rose a hitter (and if not, it's close), but nonetheless....if Rose didn't bet on baseball, do you think that he would be left to twist in the wind by the HOF committee for several years like Monk because he was a "stat accumulator?"Monk hasn't been elected for reasons we will never know -- the selection process is less transparent than the great wall of china......it's truly saddening.....

The reasons are obvious; you're just ignoring them. Monk's records were broken by Rice, true...and they were also broken by Tim Brown, Isaac Bruce, Marvin Harrison, Cris Carter, Henry Ellard, Andre Reed, and Irving Fryar, mostly within a couple of years of Monk setting them. He simply wasn't differentiated enough from his peers. When your stats are closely comparable to Keenan McCardell's, you're not a Hall of Famer.

 

[Dexter Manley]

The major thing I can't get over is that Monk held multiple alltime receiving records that were broken by some schlub name Jerry Rice. Can we all agree that Rice is the best wr ever? So how is it that Monk isn't in the HOF? In another sport, mlb, imagine if Rose never bet on baseball and was clean as a whistle. Rose surely wasn't the best hitter ever.....I would argue that Monk was a better receiver than Rose a hitter (and if not, it's close), but nonetheless....if Rose didn't bet on baseball, do you think that he would be left to twist in the wind by the HOF committee for several years like Monk because he was a "stat accumulator?"Monk hasn't been elected for reasons we will never know -- the selection process is less transparent than the great wall of china......it's truly saddening.....

The reasons are obvious; you're just ignoring them. Monk's records were broken by Rice, true...and they were also broken by Tim Brown, Isaac Bruce, Marvin Harrison, Cris Carter, Henry Ellard, Andre Reed, and Irving Fryar, mostly within a couple of years of Monk setting them. He simply wasn't differentiated enough from his peers. When your stats are closely comparable to Keenan McCardell's, you're not a Hall of Famer.

I agree. That's why Stallworth and Swann aren't HOFer's. Wait.......

 

[Dexter Manley]

The major thing I can't get over is that Monk held multiple alltime receiving records that were broken by some schlub name Jerry Rice. Can we all agree that Rice is the best wr ever? So how is it that Monk isn't in the HOF? In another sport, mlb, imagine if Rose never bet on baseball and was clean as a whistle. Rose surely wasn't the best hitter ever.....I would argue that Monk was a better receiver than Rose a hitter (and if not, it's close), but nonetheless....if Rose didn't bet on baseball, do you think that he would be left to twist in the wind by the HOF committee for several years like Monk because he was a "stat accumulator?"Monk hasn't been elected for reasons we will never know -- the selection process is less transparent than the great wall of china......it's truly saddening.....

That argument doesn't hold water. Breaking records is nice, but doesn't make you an automatic HoFer, ESPECIALLY if a large reason why you broke those records was simply the era you were in. Monk was one of the first WRs who was able to take advantage of the passing revolution. The fact that his numbers have fallen way down the leaderboard demonstrates that he's not a record-setting WR, he just didn't have many contemporaries to compare him to yet.For another example, look at Shaun Alexander. He set the single season TD record. Does that make him a HoFer? Or does the fact that the record has already been broken 4 times in the past decade diminish the accomplishment?

So you are against all those old school qb's prior to guys like Montana, Marino, Elway, etc. being in the HOF? Because the only reason they are in is because of the era they played in right?

 

[Tau837]

I would submit that Gary Clark was at least as deserving of a HoF induction as Lynn Swann.

That doesn't mean he was deserving of a HoF induction.

Nor does it mean Clark was one of the top 3-5 deep threats of all time.

 

[SSOG]

The major thing I can't get over is that Monk held multiple alltime receiving records that were broken by some schlub name Jerry Rice. Can we all agree that Rice is the best wr ever? So how is it that Monk isn't in the HOF? In another sport, mlb, imagine if Rose never bet on baseball and was clean as a whistle. Rose surely wasn't the best hitter ever.....I would argue that Monk was a better receiver than Rose a hitter (and if not, it's close), but nonetheless....if Rose didn't bet on baseball, do you think that he would be left to twist in the wind by the HOF committee for several years like Monk because he was a "stat accumulator?"Monk hasn't been elected for reasons we will never know -- the selection process is less transparent than the great wall of china......it's truly saddening.....

The reasons are obvious; you're just ignoring them. Monk's records were broken by Rice, true...and they were also broken by Tim Brown, Isaac Bruce, Marvin Harrison, Cris Carter, Henry Ellard, Andre Reed, and Irving Fryar, mostly within a couple of years of Monk setting them. He simply wasn't differentiated enough from his peers. When your stats are closely comparable to Keenan McCardell's, you're not a Hall of Famer.

I agree. That's why Stallworth and Swann aren't HOFer's. Wait.......

And we all know the best way to fix mistakes is to compound them by continuing to make them over and over again, right?

The major thing I can't get over is that Monk held multiple alltime receiving records that were broken by some schlub name Jerry Rice. Can we all agree that Rice is the best wr ever? So how is it that Monk isn't in the HOF? In another sport, mlb, imagine if Rose never bet on baseball and was clean as a whistle. Rose surely wasn't the best hitter ever.....I would argue that Monk was a better receiver than Rose a hitter (and if not, it's close), but nonetheless....if Rose didn't bet on baseball, do you think that he would be left to twist in the wind by the HOF committee for several years like Monk because he was a "stat accumulator?"Monk hasn't been elected for reasons we will never know -- the selection process is less transparent than the great wall of china......it's truly saddening.....

That argument doesn't hold water. Breaking records is nice, but doesn't make you an automatic HoFer, ESPECIALLY if a large reason why you broke those records was simply the era you were in. Monk was one of the first WRs who was able to take advantage of the passing revolution. The fact that his numbers have fallen way down the leaderboard demonstrates that he's not a record-setting WR, he just didn't have many contemporaries to compare him to yet.For another example, look at Shaun Alexander. He set the single season TD record. Does that make him a HoFer? Or does the fact that the record has already been broken 4 times in the past decade diminish the accomplishment?

So you are against all those old school qb's prior to guys like Montana, Marino, Elway, etc. being in the HOF? Because the only reason they are in is because of the era they played in right?

You want to compare a guy to his peers, that's fine by me. Monk's peers were Irving Fryar, Andre Reed, Steve Largent, Henry Ellard, James Lofton, Cris Carter, Jerry Rice, and Gary Clark. With the exception of Carter, every single one of those players had a career that started within 5 years of Monk's. With the exception of Lofton and Largent, every single one of those guys had careers that started *AFTER* Monk's- in other words, Monk just had a head start on his peers. Monk never caught Lofton and Largent, and Monk *WAS CAUGHT* by everyone else, so it sure looks like Monk didn't stack up well against his peers.Question- if Peyton Manning retires with the all-time passing record, and the Brady breaks it a couple of years later, are you going to argue that Peyton Manning is just as good as Brady because they both owned the record when they retired? Or are you going to realize that Peyton had a head start on his peers (in this case, Brady), and the only way to compare them is to wait until ALL OF THEM HAVE FINISHED THEIR CAREERS?

 

[CalBear]

Question- if Peyton Manning retires with the all-time passing record, and the Brady breaks it a couple of years later, are you going to argue that Peyton Manning is just as good as Brady because they both owned the record when they retired? Or are you going to realize that Peyton had a head start on his peers (in this case, Brady), and the only way to compare them is to wait until ALL OF THEM HAVE FINISHED THEIR CAREERS?

Not a great example; Manning is one year old than Brady and 15,000 yards ahead of him. A better example is Manning vs. Favre; Favre will retire with all the records, but Manning is going to catch them all within 5 years of Favre's retirement. That definitely reduces the value of Favre's accomplishment compare to, say, Marino's; Marino put up records that stood for 12 years (career stats) or longer (single-season yardage+TDs). But the point stands; he brought up Pete Rose as an example of a compiler. Well, 27 years later, Rose still holds the hits record. There's no active player within 1200 hits; the record is going to stand for at least another 10 years and probably longer than that; Jeter and A-Rod are the only active players who could make a run at it. If Rose was a compiler, he's the best compiler in the history of the game by a long, long way. Monk? He didn't even retire with any records; Rice had passed them all by the end of 1995, Monk's last season. The rest of the pack was right behind.

 

[SSOG]

Question- if Peyton Manning retires with the all-time passing record, and the Brady breaks it a couple of years later, are you going to argue that Peyton Manning is just as good as Brady because they both owned the record when they retired? Or are you going to realize that Peyton had a head start on his peers (in this case, Brady), and the only way to compare them is to wait until ALL OF THEM HAVE FINISHED THEIR CAREERS?

Not a great example; Manning is one year old than Brady and 15,000 yards ahead of him. A better example is Manning vs. Favre; Favre will retire with all the records, but Manning is going to catch them all within 5 years of Favre's retirement. That definitely reduces the value of Favre's accomplishment compare to, say, Marino's; Marino put up records that stood for 12 years (career stats) or longer (single-season yardage+TDs). But the point stands; he brought up Pete Rose as an example of a compiler. Well, 27 years later, Rose still holds the hits record. There's no active player within 1200 hits; the record is going to stand for at least another 10 years and probably longer than that; Jeter and A-Rod are the only active players who could make a run at it. If Rose was a compiler, he's the best compiler in the history of the game by a long, long way. Monk? He didn't even retire with any records; Rice had passed them all by the end of 1995, Monk's last season. The rest of the pack was right behind.

You're right, that's actually a much better example, I just didn't think most people would consider Favre and Manning to be contemporaries.

 

[AB in DC]

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that Cris Carter is not the shoo-in for this year than everyone thinks he is.Yes, Cris Carter will undoubtedly be a Hall of Famer at some point, but a first-ballot Hall of Famer? I'm not so sure. Not when there are plenty of other good candidates who have been waiting for much longer. I think everyone expected Michael Irvin to be a first-ballot vote, but he had to wait a year, and Carter probably will too.We're all seeing this vote through the lens of fantasy football, but there are a lot of players on the list of finalists who meant more to their teams than Carter did.Even if a WR does get voted in (which is not a certainty), I would not be surprised to see either Reed or Monk get in this year ahead of Carter.

 

[Bri]

The major thing I can't get over is that Monk held multiple alltime receiving records that were broken by some schlub name Jerry Rice. Can we all agree that Rice is the best wr ever? So how is it that Monk isn't in the HOF? In another sport, mlb, imagine if Rose never bet on baseball and was clean as a whistle. Rose surely wasn't the best hitter ever.....I would argue that Monk was a better receiver than Rose a hitter (and if not, it's close), but nonetheless....if Rose didn't bet on baseball, do you think that he would be left to twist in the wind by the HOF committee for several years like Monk because he was a "stat accumulator?"Monk hasn't been elected for reasons we will never know -- the selection process is less transparent than the great wall of china......it's truly saddening.....

That argument doesn't hold water. Breaking records is nice, but doesn't make you an automatic HoFer, ESPECIALLY if a large reason why you broke those records was simply the era you were in. Monk was one of the first WRs who was able to take advantage of the passing revolution. The fact that his numbers have fallen way down the leaderboard demonstrates that he's not a record-setting WR, he just didn't have many contemporaries to compare him to yet.For another example, look at Shaun Alexander. He set the single season TD record. Does that make him a HoFer? Or does the fact that the record has already been broken 4 times in the past decade diminish the accomplishment?

I heard someone say recently that Monk was and is the prototype WR we hear about every April. When scouts and GMs talk, they're talking about him.Over at HOF siteMonk, at 6-3, 210 pounds, was a prototype for today's bigger, stronger receivers. He got off the line of scrimmage quickly and never hesitated to run patterns across the middle of the field. He was a master of the short pass route that often left defenses unable to adjust, allowing for substantial gains.***snip***Washington coach Joe Gibbs claimed his star receiver was the complete package. He called him the strongest outside receiver he'd ever coached, and was quick to point out his effectiveness at catching passes inside. "He's big, he's strong, he's intelligent, he has everything," the Hall of Fame coach remarked.If there's some truth to that, and it seems so(although height, speed, strength, of well cooridinated WRs is something I never tracked) then that's a fairly interesting tidbit IMO. I'd like to know more about it.Re Shaun and Monk- They broke the record in front of them. Many of us are hypocrites with records and all. Some player is an arrogant tool if he says he'll shatter some record. If he just squeeks by and beats it out, we say it won't hold up long. They gotta get some credit, cmon now.

 

[FUBAR]

The major thing I can't get over is that Monk held multiple alltime receiving records that were broken by some schlub name Jerry Rice. Can we all agree that Rice is the best wr ever?

So how is it that Monk isn't in the HOF? In another sport, mlb, imagine if Rose never bet on baseball and was clean as a whistle. Rose surely wasn't the best hitter ever.....I would argue that Monk was a better receiver than Rose a hitter (and if not, it's close), but nonetheless....if Rose didn't bet on baseball, do you think that he would be left to twist in the wind by the HOF committee for several years like Monk because he was a "stat accumulator?"

Monk hasn't been elected for reasons we will never know -- the selection process is less transparent than the great wall of china......it's truly saddening.....

That argument doesn't hold water. Breaking records is nice, but doesn't make you an automatic HoFer, ESPECIALLY if a large reason why you broke those records was simply the era you were in. Monk was one of the first WRs who was able to take advantage of the passing revolution. The fact that his numbers have fallen way down the leaderboard demonstrates that he's not a record-setting WR, he just didn't have many contemporaries to compare him to yet.For another example, look at Shaun Alexander. He set the single season TD record. Does that make him a HoFer? Or does the fact that the record has already been broken 4 times in the past decade diminish the accomplishment?

If we add a "single season" wing, he could get in.

 

[[scooter]]

You're right, that's actually a much better example, I just didn't think most people would consider Favre and Manning to be contemporaries.

Favre and Manning have been contemporaries for 2/3 of Favre's career, whereas Favre and Marino were only contemporaries for 1/2 of Favre's career.What's even weirder is that Favre played more games as a contemporary of Tom Brady's (111) than as a contemporary of Marino's (107).

 

[KoolKat]

Just came in quick to vent.

Randy Gradishar gets jobbed again!

 

[SSOG]

Just came in quick to vent.Randy Gradishar gets jobbed again!

Even worse, this was his final year of eligibility through the modern-era route. If he gets in now, it'll have to be through the Seniors committee.