This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
1)
I've looked a little and have yet to find a quote where either of them say a former teammate, who is eligible for the Hall but not in, should be in. Other than Irvin. If you have a link I'll gladly read it.2) Does that mean you think they'd be sitting around with their mouths shut if Irvin wasn't a finalist, or that there are no other Hall-worthy Cowboys from those '90's teams?
Fixed.(Note for the clue-impaired: I don't really think Keyshawn Johnson should be in).
To elaborate on this point. In 11 seasons, Keyshawn has played in 167 games; Monk played in 173 games in his first 12 seasons. Keyshawn has played with multiple QBs and was always productive; he also has a Super Bowl ring. Keyshawn's first 11 seasons (6 fewer games): 814/10571, 64 TDCalBear said:
Keyshawn has a ring. Monk set some compiler records which were quickly eclipsed; big deal.
There is no statistical difference in passing yardage or passing scoring between Monk's "era" and today.
Art Monk had weak numbers compared to his peers and to players on his own team. It is not a question of what era he played in.
That isn't true. Receiving numbers are way up nowadays. Compared to the average WR of his age, Monk was better than KJ.
The Keyshawn comparison is an interesting one that I hadn't thought of. There are definitely some broad similarities there. But Assani is right. To see the difference, take a look at these "yards over 1000" lists. This only counts yards over 1000 in a given season, so it gives Monk no credit at all for compiling garbage numbers at the beginning or end of his career. I am by no means saying this is the one and only way to evaluate receivers, but it generally allows the real difference-makers to rise to the top ahead of long-career compilers. I'm sure any kind of comparison would yield similar results. The main point is just to see the receivers in each group.WRs who debuted between 1976 and 1984 (Monk = 1980)
Henry Ellard 1558 James Lofton 1406 Steve Largent 1288 Art Monk 901 <----------------- Roy Green 879 Irving Fryar 805 Mark Clayton 732 Mike Quick 708 Mark Duper 707 Drew Hill 550 Steve Watson 547 Stanley Morgan 522 Carlos Carson 473 Wes Chandler 442 John Jefferson 431 Tim Smith 317 Cris Collinsworth 288 Tony Hill 230 Charlie Brown 225 Wesley Walker 185 Kevin House 181*Marvin Harrison 3219*Torry Holt 2887*Randy Moss 2380*Isaac Bruce 2326 Jimmy Smith 2194*Terrell Owens 1742*Rod Smith 1643*Joe Horn 1316*Eric Moulds 1024*Muhsin Muhammad 841*Donald Driver 788*Keenan McCardell 784 David Boston 754 Antonio Freeman 741*Amani Toomer 731*Derrick Mason 684*Keyshawn Johnson 655 <---------------*Laveranues Coles 566 Carl Pickens 564*Plaxico Burress 547 Robert Brooks 507 Derrick Alexander 499*Hines Ward 499*Joey Galloway 479*Terry Glenn 462*Darrell Jackson 417
Issues with this type of analysis.1. It does not account for injuries, strikes, etc. This actually hurts Monk more than the more recent players, since his career included two seasons shortened by strikes.
And this is the huge problem with a 100% stats-based look. I, and other Skins fans, have claimed that, despite the stats, Monk > Clark. But, for those of you who want to use things like the above results, you would conclude that Schroeder > Williams, which just wasn't true.Yes... and look whose name is not listed.
But here's the thing. To people that aren't Redskins fans who live (and vote) elsewhere, the waters are cloudy and murky enough to influence people and spark debate as to what Monk's role and value actually was.Using Irvin as an example, there is very little doubt who "the guy" at WR was for the 90s Cowboys teams. There is certainly debate as to the situation in Washington in the 80s, as 4 guys put up decent numbers over the years. True, Monk put up the best career numbers, but from year to year Monk was not by leaps and bounds the most productive.And this is the huge problem with a 100% stats-based look. I, and other Skins fans, have claimed that, despite the stats, Monk > Clark. But, for those of you who want to use things like the above results, you would conclude that Schroeder > Williams, which just wasn't true.Yes... and look whose name is not listed.
So you're saying that because something isn't reported in the newspaper, that it couldn't have happened? That every word that comes out of their mouths is linked to somewhere on the web?1)I've looked a little and have yet to find a quote where either of them say a former teammate, who is eligible for the Hall but not in, should be in. Other than Irvin. If you have a link I'll gladly read it.
That means that the HOF voters don't think that there are other Cowboys for those teams worth including among the top 17 finalists for the past two years. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, I 100% understand why Monk is not in the HOF. I realize there is doubt from those that didn't watch Monk play. I heard David Elfin (the Washington HOF voter) on the radio the other day. He said he talked to voters from teams that would have seen Monk a lot (NFC teams, especially NFC East teams) and they all said they voted for Monk. It's his opinion that it goes like this:Saw Monk play = Votes for MonkDid not see Monk play much, if at all = Does not vote for MonkI have decided I will not engage in any more Monk for HOF debates without beginning the conversation with: "Did you watch him play?"But here's the thing. To people that aren't Redskins fans who live (and vote) elsewhere, the waters are cloudy and murky enough to influence people and spark debate as to what Monk's role and value actually was.Using Irvin as an example, there is very little doubt who "the guy" at WR was for the 90s Cowboys teams. There is certainly debate as to the situation in Washington in the 80s, as 4 guys put up decent numbers over the years. True, Monk put up the best career numbers, but from year to year Monk was not by leaps and bounds the most productive.And this is the huge problem with a 100% stats-based look. I, and other Skins fans, have claimed that, despite the stats, Monk > Clark. But, for those of you who want to use things like the above results, you would conclude that Schroeder > Williams, which just wasn't true.Yes... and look whose name is not listed.
I watched him play. No HOF for Art Monk.Oh, I 100% understand why Monk is not in the HOF. I realize there is doubt from those that didn't watch Monk play. I heard David Elfin (the Washington HOF voter) on the radio the other day. He said he talked to voters from teams that would have seen Monk a lot (NFC teams, especially NFC East teams) and they all said they voted for Monk. It's his opinion that it goes like this:Saw Monk play = Votes for MonkDid not see Monk play much, if at all = Does not vote for MonkI have decided I will not engage in any more Monk for HOF debates without beginning the conversation with: "Did you watch him play?"But here's the thing. To people that aren't Redskins fans who live (and vote) elsewhere, the waters are cloudy and murky enough to influence people and spark debate as to what Monk's role and value actually was.Using Irvin as an example, there is very little doubt who "the guy" at WR was for the 90s Cowboys teams. There is certainly debate as to the situation in Washington in the 80s, as 4 guys put up decent numbers over the years. True, Monk put up the best career numbers, but from year to year Monk was not by leaps and bounds the most productive.And this is the huge problem with a 100% stats-based look. I, and other Skins fans, have claimed that, despite the stats, Monk > Clark. But, for those of you who want to use things like the above results, you would conclude that Schroeder > Williams, which just wasn't true.Yes... and look whose name is not listed.
Suggest a new, more appropriate number and I'm sure Doug, or someone will run the data.
I agree. Defining eras can be difficult.
I don't think anyone should be compared to Rice. It's a pointless comparison and will always make the other guy look worse than he really was.And, as you say, he was comparing Monk to Keyshawn. If you extend the era to 5 years on either side (which would add Clark and Rice and I think Reed for Monk), you'd have to do the same for Keyshawn which would lower his ranking even further. Keyshawn's also includes mostly active players, so he'll just keep dropping and dropping in this comparison. So, adding a year would certainly drop Monk some, but no nearly as much as Keyshawn. A Monk/Keyshawn comparison is nonsense. If the average NFL GM was to rank WRs all time in the order they'd draft them, does anyone really think Keyshawn would be anywhere near Monk?
2. I don't think any yardage metric is necessarily appropriate. If I was to choose one, I'd choose a per game number like 50 or 75, not 62.5, which seems like an odd cutoff. But IMO you have to look at scoring in addition to yardage. And even more useful might be first downs or "key plays" but data is either scarce or subjective for those.3. Cool. We agree on something.
It wasn't an era of ESPN News, the internet, TIVO and the Sunday Ticket. Plain and simple, someone living in Kansas City simply did not see Monk play very much. By "did not see him play", I don't mean they never saw him play. I only mean they may have caught a couple of his games during his career. Even with today's technology, I think we are fooling ourselves if we think the voter from Oakland follows the Minnesota Vikings at all.I watched him play. I always thought he was very good. But I don't think he is HOF worthy.
The notion that people who saw him play voted for him and others didn't seems like a strange claim to me. When he became eligible, 5 years after his playing career ended, it doesn't make sense to me that there would be people with HOF voting privileges who had not seen him play plenty. I could be wrong, but if that is the case, then it implies that the HOF needs to change who votes.
I agree. He will get a Veterans Committee nomination if it gets to that point and they pretty much always make it.
50 or 75 or even 81.4562 are all arbitrary. I'd love if first downs or key plays or drops were available for that era.
I don't think Doug was basing his comment only on that stat alone. Monk was one of four receivers on the All 80s Team, so there is some evidence supporting him as one of the 3-4 best WRs of his era.BTW, Henry Ellard really deserves more consideration.
No one is considering Keyshawn for the HOF, but many have compared Monk to him. I think they do it more as slam on Monk, though, than a real comparison. Jimmy and Rod are 5th and 7th on the list above. Jimmy's retired and I don't expect Rod to gain anymore yards over 1000, so they'll both drop some over the next several years.Regardless, would anyone really take Jimmy or Rod over Monk if they were all available today coming out of college? I seriously doubt it.
Agree. Seems like the players of his era rank him higher than the media folk who vote on the HoF now. With the WRs coming up in the next few years, his performance will fade further and further into the background, so he'll have to get in the back door just like Charlie Sanders did.
I've been meaning to bring up these All Decade teams that get cited frequently in these discussions. I'm quoting your post because it mentions the topic, not because this is necessarily directed at you specifically.1. I agree that making an All Decade team means the player was very good. But it does not necessarily mean a player was among the few best of his era, for the same reasons "era" is always problematic. IMO Monk is on that All Decade team mostly because his career began in 1980, and he actually played all 10 years of his career in the 80s. Many better receivers may have had their career begin or end mid decade.To put it another way, what if the All Decade teams ran from m6-n5 (e.g., 1986-1995). Would Monk have made that All Decade team? He almost certainly would not have made the previous one, since he would have played only 5 years of it. Anyway, you get the point. The timing of these teams worked out perfectly for Monk but don't work out as well for plenty of players.2. Taking the All 1980s team as an example, I believe there are 21 offensive and defensive selections who aren't in the HOF today. Jerry Rice and Bruce Smith are locks IMO, but that still leaves 19 others, not to mention the specialists and coaches. People sometimes cite Monk's selection to this team as if it alone shows he is HOF worthy. But why would that be true for him and not the other 18 besides Rice and Smith?dgreen said:
I'd like to see you and SSOG discuss Monk vs. Rod Smith.dgreen said:
For reference, here is the offense and defense for the 1980's All-Decade Team (* indicates current HOFers, ** indicates "locks"):
) shouldn't that count for something?
Oh, I agree completely. It matters how you slice it. I remember once running the numbers on number of catches in the 80s and Monk led that group by like 300. (I don't remember the exact amount, but it was pretty significant...or so I thought.) I was amazed. Then I realized my mistake.
It's just one piece of the puzzle for Monk.
I can't do that until I know more about Rod Smith and what he meant to the Broncos. A perception of Monk is that he was just a nice receiver who played a long time and piled up a lot of catches - and nothing else. Is that what Smith was? Or, was Smith, like Monk, a team leader who only cared about how the team did, who accepted any assignment he was given (sacrificing his own stats), who could outblock most TEs, and had the best work ethic on his team?I'd like to see you and SSOG discuss Monk vs. Rod Smith.dgreen said:
Definitely not. I even said this:
My main point was to agree with Assani's statement that Monk's and Keyshawn's raw numbers shouldn't be directly compared. Even with no numbers at all, it's clear based on the lists that Monk is much better relative to his contemporaries (however you want to define that) than Keyshawn is to his.I actually did do yards over 600 and yards over 800 before settling on a thousand. But I decided to post the 1000 list because I didn't want people thinking I picked 800 for some particular reason. I do like the general method, but agree with you that 1000 isn't the "right" number any more than 900 or 772 or 1064 is.I also don't disagree about the slipperiness of defining eras. I just picked something and ran with it.
Another way to look at this is to establish a baseline for a given year.Let's say you average the top N players in receiving yards in a given year, with N being the number of teams in the league.I did this with 2 years, 1984 and 2001. Art Monk's and Keyshawn Johnson's best yardage years, respectively.1984: 1040.5 (Monk's 1372 is 32.1% higher)2001: 1139.0 (Johnson's 1266 is 11.2% higher)Whether or not this 100 yard difference in the baseline would hold up over the extent of their career, I don't know. I'm just thinking that Monk's best year (and maybe his career) is quite a bit better than Johnson's, even though a quick glace at the raw numbers might not indicate as such.
We have such a system . . . and it's called fantasy scoring. Here the numbers for the first 11 years for each player . . .Keyshawn:22, 23, 5, 12, 21, 28, 21, 53, 27, 28, 35 = 275 (the year at 53 was the year he was suspended 6 games)Monk:33, 20, 31, 24, 6, 13, 17, 25, 19, 10, 25 = 223Based on value scores . . .Keyshawn:17, 11, 62, 46, 25, 3, 19, 0, 7, 4, 0 = 193Monk:0, 28, 0, 12, 79, 31, 32, 2, 21, 59 = 264
Monk's 24 was a year he missed four games with an injury and the 25 he missed three games with an injury.
