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!
I'm a Giants fan, and I voted yes.Should have gone in before Irvin, IMO.
I agree with you... I'm a bears fan though....
A very strong case can be made for Monk, but those two statements are pretty irrelevant. Tons of players can say they had records at one point or another. Priest Holmes once had the record for most TD's in a season, for example. Doesn't mean he is a HoFer.
But he is the player we are talking about.....He should be in....I just don't understand why he is not???
That would be different, yes. Oh, to the thread starter...Monk did NOT retire as the leading receiver in league history when he retired. Jerry Rice had already went flying past him years earlier. And if you are talking about receptions and not yardage, Rice had more receptions than Monk at the time of Monk's retirement, too.
jbalicki10 said:Avery said:I'm a Giants fan, and I voted yes.I agree with you... I'm a bears fan though....
Add a Broncos fan into the mix. Irvin in before Monk? Ridiculous! I get more and more anti HOF every year they pull SH it like this.
Simple answer:Because people are lobbying for Monk AFTER the voting is complete. If you truly believe he should be in the Hall, don't wait until after the announcements of who made it to complain that a specific player didn't make it. Lobby, write letters, post messages, and call your local representative BEFORE the voting takes place.Yitbos69 said:
I disagree. They were different types of players. Irvin was the heart and soul of the Dallas 90's dynasty. Gary Clark was the best receiver on the Redskins. I really just came here to find out where the question was in the thread title. I wouldn't argue against Monk, but he's not more deserving than Irvin.
The Dallas offensive line was the heart and soul of the Dallas dynasty.
No offense but I'll have to take Aikmans and other cowboys word for it over yours, im sure you can understand that.
Saying Irvin was the heart and soul of that team is absurd.He was only one of the triplets, a great offensive line and an excellent defense.If I had to pick the heart and soul, I would say Emmitt. Not some guy who played well but was a distraction to the good of the team much of the time.
I completely disagree. He provided the on field energy. See how they folded like a tent when he went out with an injury against Carolina in the 1996 playoffs.
Couple posts from the other HOF thread:
As for "heart and soul of 4 Super Bowl teams", I think that is a stretch. Was he a leader on the 1982 or 1983 teams? He certainly wasn't the key offensive performer... Charlie Brown was a better WR those seasons, and the Redskins had one of the top running games in the league. I'd say Theismann, Brown, and the Hogs were all more important to those two teams.In 1987, Gary Clark was the Redskins' best WR, and Ricky Sanders was roughly equal to Monk statistically. The Redskins won 3 postseason games that year, and Monk caught only 1 pass. If he was so critical to the Redskins, how did they get by without him?
To each his own. I never saw the Cowboys play well without Emmitt.
The Dallas offensive line that will have one Hall of Famer, that's it, on it was the "heart and soul' over Aikman. Emmitt. Irvin, and the best defense in the league? Hmm, that is an interesting take on things. Both Aikman and Smith claim that Irvin was the heart of those great teams. I know, the FBG message baord surely knows more about the 1990s Cowboys than those who played on the teams, but I am going to be a rebel and side with those who actually played the game with the man on this one.southeastjerome said:
You make a good point about Holmes, but its way out of context.Poster wrote that he led in receptions for LEAGUE HISTORY, that means all time career. So up to that point in time, he was the greatest not in one given year, but in a career. So every other hall of fame WR that went in before him, he's been able to surpass. For that reason, he should be in. What people did CAREER wise after is irrelevant. He can only be compared to what he did in his day and what people did prior, not what they did after he retired. That would be saying to a guy like Jim Kelly, let's wait and see what future QBs that lose the Superbowl a few times before we decide on your eligibility.Although somebody did point out that he actually didn't lead in receptions all time, your logic is faulty.Ghost Rider said:
"Better" is certainly subjective. If by "better" you are saying "Monk played longer," then yes his stats are better.Monk played in 224 games. Irvin played in 159. So Monk had 800 more receiving yards and 3 more TD playing in 65 more games.As I mentioned in one of the other HOF threads, the problem for Monk is that several other guys on his team(s) had similar numbers as he did--just for a shorter period.Career averages:Gary Clark 4.2 receptions, 65 receiving yards, 0.4 TD per gameArt Monk 4.2 receptions, 56.8 receiving yards, 0.3 TD per gameRicky Sanders 3.7 receptions, 49.3 receiving yards, 0.3 TD per gameCharlie Brown 3.2 receptions, 52.2 receiving yards, 0.4 TD per gameFrom that list of former Redskins, Monk's numbers certainly don't jump off the page. There's no denying that Monk had a few very good years (I count 3 of them), but statistically most of the time he was not at the top of the charts in the key receiving categories.If we looked at the league as a whole and said there were 30 teams each with a #1 WR, using fantasy rankings as a barometer, Monk would only have ranked in the top 50% of #1 WRs four times. Obviously the HOF could care less about fanatsy rankings, but that is a pretty telling statistic in that Monk was only in the top half of #1 WRs 4 of 16 seasons.Certainly Monk brings other things to the table than just pure regular season numbers (SB appearances and rings, all decade team, reputation, etc.), but based on pure numbers he is behind the curve compared to his peers at WR. He's one of the very best compilers (also known as very good for a very long time).I won't lose sleep if he makes it in or not, but IMO there are some valid reasons why he HAS NOT made it in to date.
Problem with this comparison is that Monk played 65 more games than Irvin. Let's look at per game numbers:Monk: 4.2 receptions, 56.8 receiving yards (13.5 ypr), 0.30 receiving TDs per regular season game
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but people who don't know better need to stop saying Michael Irvin was not the emotional leader of the Cowboys when he was playing. Direct quotes:
I don't feel passionate one way or the other about Art Monk, but to say Michael Irvin was not the core leader of the Cowboys' Super Bowl teams is just crazy talk.
Not to be an apologist or what have you but that last couple of years Monk was with the Redskins he had Mark Rypien throwing 13 TD's and 17 INT's in '92, 4 TD's and 10 pics in '93 and then he was with the Jets and an older Boomer Esiason who threw under 2,800 yards, and just 17 TD's in 1994 there. Keeping in mind Aikman wasn't a big number, big yardage guy either but Irvin was the #1 choice for Aikman and Monk was always the 2nd option is the thing there, I think that gets left out a lot in the discussion.My point is, those last 3 or 4 years he was in the league (even though he was aging) he was playing with a QB not really putting up big numbers and then he was the #2 guy at that, so he wasn't really the "go to" guy and then he wasn't on big numbers offenses those last 60-some odd games there.Thing is, I'm just saying you could certainly make a case for Monk, I think he was standout in his time and I think that even though he wasn't a "flashy" guy, I'm willing to bet if he got as much t.v. time as Irvin does, he would probably be in the hall already. Call it the "Dan Dierdorf" effect if you will.
A player's career is what it is . . . we can't change it. So they get the QBs they get and they wind down their careers normally not on the same tier as when they were in their primes. But that's the case for almost all receivers. And those "extra years" are what normally pad player's stats. If you don't count Monk's last four seasons, he'd have roughly 140 fewer receptions and 1800 fewer receiving yards and would drop to 17th all-time in receptions and 19th in receiving yards. IMO, those years HELP Monk more than they hurt him (and again IMO a player playing out the string as a below average player SHOULD NOT improve his candidacy by being below average--yet it happens all the time).
and thank you. That was driving me crazy.Here's the deal, Monk should already be in. I think he will have to wait for the verterans committy to get in.
Good point he's still a top 20 receiving guy in yardage no matter what, therefore I find it hard to keep a guy out of the hall of fame that finished where he did as the 2nd choice on his own team for the majority of his career.
But that's the crux of the argument against Monk . . . if you were mostly the second choice on your own team it's hard to garner HOF consideration when your own team would often have someone else as the primary receiving option.
But he FINISHED as a top 20 guy of all the receivers that ever played the game. THAT'S the point. He's 17th out of how many guys David? 17th in the NFL. I think that's speaks volumes personally.
Clark was a Skin from 85-92. Here were the totals for Clark and Monk in that time . . .Gary Clark 549 receptions, 8742 receiving yards, 58 TD, 1227.60 fantasy pointsArt Monk 545 receptions, 7372 receiving yards, 41 TD, 1015.00 fantasy points
Flawed approach. A candidate should earn his way in on his own merits, not on the "if player X made it, and player Y was better than player X, then player Y has to make it" logic. That logic is used in baseball too often IMO, and has resulted in a watered down HOF. Essentially following this logic means that if the committee ever makes a mistake, they will potentially end up compounding the mistake many times over.Personally, I don't think either of them should be in. But where Swann lacks a compelling statistical resume, as does Monk, Swann was an instrumental player in multiple Super Bowls. Monk wasn't.If Lynn Swan is in the HOF, Art Monk should, IMO. Personally, I don't think Swan should be there. Sorry Steelers fans.
Swan vs. Monk
Seasons:
16 Monk
9 Swan
Receptions:
940 Monk
336 Swan
Recs/yr:
58.7
37.3
Receiving yards:
12721 Monk
5462 Swan
Rec yards/yr:
795
606
SB rings:
4 Swan
3 Monk
1000-yard seasons:
5 Monk
0 Swan
Seaons among the leagues top 10:
Rec: Monk 4, Swan 2
Rec yards: Monk 3, Swan 3
Rec TD's: 2 Swan, Monk 1
In the all-time top 50:
Rec: 6 Monk
Rec yards: 11
Rec TD: 30 (tied)
yards from scrimmage: 32
* Swan is not in the top 50 in any category
The argument is definitely there for Monk to be in the HOF if Swan is already enshrined. I'm not impressed with either one's numbers, but stats suggest Monk should be in when comparing to Swan. Swan's 4 rings vs. Monk's 3 rings isn't that much difference. How swan got in the HOF playing only 9 years, never having more than 61 recs in a season and never once with a 1000-yd season, is completely beyond me. Would we honestly have listened to Swan's induction speech if he didn't make that acrobatic catch in the SB against Dallas (SB X I think?)
Monk is one of 26 WRs to have 10,000 career receiving yards. With Irvin's induction that makes SIX that are HOFers.Monk is one of ten WR with 850 receptions . . . to date none of them are in the HOF. Irvin makes 4 of 18 with 750 career receptions in the HOF.Clearly Monk has some nice CAREER numbers, but on a per season basis his numbers are not mind numbing. And given the number of WRs with similarly great career totals, Monk's career numbers are solid but not leaps and bounds above others.
