Hall of Fame - Class of 2008 (1 Viewer)

[Despyzer]

Are there any Monk HOF supporters who think Andre Reed should NOT get in?

I wouldn't be opposed to him getting in, but I don't think he has the credentials that Monk does.

 

[Despyzer]

I already mentioned Terrell Davis, and not surprisingly, you ignored that example.

I never saw it, but I have no real problem with Davis getting in. What were the multiple records that he held. I'm not being argumentative; I really just don't know.

 

[Despyzer]

That last statement is bullocks. Monk wasn't that much of a threat at that point in his career (he averaged 713 yards a season prior to '83). And Brown had been an All-Pro in '82, not Monk, so if anything, Monk should have been the one thriving off the attention an All-Pro like Brown would have gotten.

Who led the team in receiving in '80 and '81?

 

[OC Zed]

Are there any Monk HOF supporters who think Andre Reed should NOT get in?

I wouldn't be opposed to him getting in, but I don't think he has the credentials that Monk does.

I'll repeat a post I made earlier in this thread....

Reed's numbers:

951 REC - 5th all-time

13,198 yds - 8th all-time

87 REC TD's - 10th all-time

7 consecutive PB's(88-94)

2nd all-time in Super Bowl REC behind Jerry Rice

3rd all-time in Super Bowl REC yds behind Rice and Lynn Swann

Monk's numbers:

940 Receptions 6th all time

12721 Yards 12th all time

13.5 Average

68 Td's 31st all time

34th in yards from scrimmage

Reed beats Monk in almost every major category and keep in mind that a large percentage of Reed's receptions came over the middle as the primary receiver in double coverage, whereas Monk was never the primary receiver on his teams.

If you think Monk is a legitimate HOFer, then Reed should be a lock.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I already mentioned Terrell Davis, and not surprisingly, you ignored that example.

I never saw it, but I have no real problem with Davis getting in. What were the multiple records that he held. I'm not being argumentative; I really just don't know.

Go back to the last page and re-read my last few posts near the bottom. I am sure you will say, "yeah, but those records aren't as significant," but I would argue that having the record for most consecutive 100-yard games in the postseason is pretty significant, as is tying the record for most rushing TDs in a Super Bowl. Oops, I just told you what the records are!

That last statement is bullocks. Monk wasn't that much of a threat at that point in his career (he averaged 713 yards a season prior to '83). And Brown had been an All-Pro in '82, not Monk, so if anything, Monk should have been the one thriving off the attention an All-Pro like Brown would have gotten.

Who led the team in receiving in '80 and '81?

Seriously. That is the argument you are resorting to. Man, you are really out of options. Okay, I will play. Monk led the Redskins in receiving in '80 and '81. Then, in 1982, as a rookie, Charlie Brown outplayed Monk by a wide margin, and was actually selected as an All-Pro that year. So, at that point, Monk was a slowly improving good receiver, while Brown made a major splash as a rookie and was one of the best WRs in all of football. Now, use your common sense and tell me: Given all of those details, as a defensive coordinator, which WR would you have been more worried about at the start of the '83 season? If your answer is anyone other than Charlie Brown, I am going to have to question your line of thinking.

Are there any Monk HOF supporters who think Andre Reed should NOT get in?

I wouldn't be opposed to him getting in, but I don't think he has the credentials that Monk does.

If Scott Norwood makes that FG, and Reed has a Super Bowl ring, would that have been him more worthy? What if Thurman Thomas hadn't fumbled at the beginning of the second half of SB28 and the Bills went on to win that game? Would two Super Bowl rings make him more worthy?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

not sure if anyone has the stats available, but I'd be interested to know what Andre Reed's yards after the catch total is for his career. that's where he did the majority of his damage.

 

[Despyzer]

If you think Monk is a legitimate HOFer, then Reed should be a lock.

One of the best at his position? checkMultiple Super Bowl wins? nopeHeld multiple records? nope

 

[Despyzer]

If Scott Norwood makes that FG, and Reed has a Super Bowl ring, would that have been him more worthy? What if Thurman Thomas hadn't fumbled at the beginning of the second half of SB28 and the Bills went on to win that game? Would two Super Bowl rings make him more worthy?

Like it or not, the answer is yes.

 

[Despyzer]

I would argue that having the record for most consecutive 100-yard games in the postseason is pretty significant, as is tying the record for most rushing TDs in a Super Bowl.

I would agree. I think I already said I wouldn't have a problem with Davis in the Hall.

 

[Ghost Rider]

If Scott Norwood makes that FG, and Reed has a Super Bowl ring, would that have been him more worthy? What if Thurman Thomas hadn't fumbled at the beginning of the second half of SB28 and the Bills went on to win that game? Would two Super Bowl rings make him more worthy?

Like it or not, the answer is yes.

And like it or not, that is flawed thinking. You are basically saying that Reed's HoF credentials are based on factors that were out of his control (Norwood's miss and Thomas's fumble).

 

[Despyzer]

And like it or not, that is flawed thinking. You are basically saying that Reed's HoF credentials are based on factors that were out of his control (Norwood's miss and Thomas's fumble).

What I am saying is that he was part of a team effort in a team sport. His contributions to that effort did not result in a win in either case.

 

[dgreen]

In '91, Rypien and Gary Clark were their two best offensive players. Monk was probably the 3rd best.

Rypien was an average QB who was given more time to throw that year than almost any QB in the SB era. If you believe Clark was better than Monk, so be it. I disagree, but I'm not going to argue that right now.

In '87, Monk had a total of 483 receiving yards, so I don't see how you could argue that he was one of their two best players.

Again, Clark is the only one that can be argue as being a better offensive player on that team and I happen disagree.

In '83, the Redskins three best offensive players were undoubtedly Theismann (29 TD passes), John Riggins (1,347 rushing yards), and Charlie Brown (1,225 receiving yards). Monk had 746 yards that year.

Riggins is the only one on the 82 and 83 teams that can be argued above Monk. Are you seriously going to argue that Charlie Brown is a better WR than Art Monk?

And let's put the receptions in a season record in perspective. It is not like that was some legendary record that took forever for someone to break. Monk's mark of 106 catches in a season is now 24th all-time. 24th! So, to me, him holding a record that has been obliterated many times over since is pretty meaningless.

I've posted before about receptions in the NFL. Maybe I'll go find the data again and update it. But, basically, we know about there being a passing era change in 1978 with new rules and that led to more passing throughout the league. Well, there was another change, around 1994 or so where the league-wide completion percentage took a slight jump up. After Monk retired, the league, as a whole, become a more accurate league, likely by throwing much safer routes than previous years. That directly leads to huge reception numbers by WRs.

 

[Ghost Rider]

And like it or not, that is flawed thinking. You are basically saying that Reed's HoF credentials are based on factors that were out of his control (Norwood's miss and Thomas's fumble).

What I am saying is that he was part of a team effort in a team sport. His contributions to that effort did not result in a win in either case.

They would have had his teammates made those blunders, though. Again, you are penalizing him for things out of control.And while we are talking about contributions to a winning Super Bowl, how exactly was Monk catching 0 passes in their '83 SB win and 1 pass in their '87 SB win a huge contribution?

In '91, Rypien and Gary Clark were their two best offensive players. Monk was probably the 3rd best.

Rypien was an average QB who was given more time to throw that year than almost any QB in the SB era. If you believe Clark was better than Monk, so be it. I disagree, but I'm not going to argue that right now.

Okay, then perhaps the majority of the credit should go to the offensive line, then. Agree or disagree? Where does that then put Monk on the hierarchy of most important players to that Super Bowl winning team?

In '83, the Redskins three best offensive players were undoubtedly Theismann (29 TD passes), John Riggins (1,347 rushing yards), and Charlie Brown (1,225 receiving yards). Monk had 746 yards that year.

Riggins is the only one on the 82 and 83 teams that can be argued above Monk. Are you seriously going to argue that Charlie Brown is a better WR than Art Monk?

All-time, of course not, but in '82 and '83, Brown was clearly the better wide receiver, and that is what matters when talking about which receiver was going to draw better coverage in '83.

And let's put the receptions in a season record in perspective. It is not like that was some legendary record that took forever for someone to break. Monk's mark of 106 catches in a season is now 24th all-time. 24th! So, to me, him holding a record that has been obliterated many times over since is pretty meaningless.

I've posted before about receptions in the NFL. Maybe I'll go find the data again and update it. But, basically, we know about there being a passing era change in 1978 with new rules and that led to more passing throughout the league. Well, there was another change, around 1994 or so where the league-wide completion percentage took a slight jump up. After Monk retired, the league, as a whole, become a more accurate league, likely by throwing much safer routes than previous years. That directly leads to huge reception numbers by WRs.

That is a fair point, but I think many would agree that receiving yards and touchdown catches are a far better indicator of a WR's true greatness than receptions. And Monk was never much of a yardage machine or a touchdown scorer.

 

[Despyzer]

And like it or not, that is flawed thinking. You are basically saying that Reed's HoF credentials are based on factors that were out of his control (Norwood's miss and Thomas's fumble).

What I am saying is that he was part of a team effort in a team sport. His contributions to that effort did not result in a win in either case.

They would have had his teammates made those blunders, though. Again, you are penalizing him for things out of control.

I assumed you knew enough about football to realize that there is more to a game than one play. My mistake.

And while we are talking about contributions to a winning Super Bowl, how exactly was Monk catching 0 passes in their '83 SB win and 1 pass in their '87 SB win a huge contribution?

I assumed you knew enough about football to realize that WRs contribute in more ways than just catching passes. Was Randy Moss a non-factor against the Jags and the Chargers this year?

 

[Ghost Rider]

And like it or not, that is flawed thinking. You are basically saying that Reed's HoF credentials are based on factors that were out of his control (Norwood's miss and Thomas's fumble).

What I am saying is that he was part of a team effort in a team sport. His contributions to that effort did not result in a win in either case.

They would have had his teammates made those blunders, though. Again, you are penalizing him for things out of control.

I assumed you knew enough about football to realize that there is more to a game than one play. My mistake.

Do I need to point out again that Monk's numbers in the '83 and '87 seasons were 47/746/5 and 38/483/6?

And while we are talking about contributions to a winning Super Bowl, how exactly was Monk catching 0 passes in their '83 SB win and 1 pass in their '87 SB win a huge contribution?

I assumed you knew enough about football to realize that WRs contribute in more ways than just catching passes. Was Randy Moss a non-factor against the Jags and the Chargers this year?

Are you really comparing Art Monk to Randy Moss now? Monk NEVER demanded the kind of coverage than Randy Moss almost always has and did for all of the '07 season. As for WRs doing more than catching passes, duh, but I still find in entertaining that you dismiss the numbers that do not reflect well upon Monk, while continuing to go on and on and on about the numbers/records that supposedly support Monk's case. In other words, you are cherry-picking which numbers of Monk are important.

 

[Despyzer]

As for WRs doing more than catching passes, duh, but I still find in entertaining that you dismiss the numbers that do not reflect well upon Monk, while continuing to go on and on and on about the numbers/records that supposedly support Monk's case. In other words, you are cherry-picking which numbers of Monk are important.

Right. But picking out individual seasons to criticize Monk is being objective.

 

[Ghost Rider]

As for WRs doing more than catching passes, duh, but I still find in entertaining that you dismiss the numbers that do not reflect well upon Monk, while continuing to go on and on and on about the numbers/records that supposedly support Monk's case. In other words, you are cherry-picking which numbers of Monk are important.

Right. But picking out individual seasons to criticize Monk is being objective.

Come on now. You cannot be this dense. I think me pointing out average Monk's numbers were in '83 and '87 is pretty relevant considering how relevant you think him being on those two Super Bowl winning teams is. It is like you want to ignore the facts and say, "He was on three Super Bowl winning teams, so that trumps everything, regardless of how average he was in two of those three seasons."

 

[Despyzer]

It is like you want to ignore the facts and say, "He was on three Super Bowl winning teams, so that trumps everything, regardless of how average he was in two of those three seasons."

Or like you ignoring the fact that I have repeatedly said that his being on three Super Bowl winning teams is just part of what contributes to his resume?

 

[dgreen]

In '91, Rypien and Gary Clark were their two best offensive players. Monk was probably the 3rd best.

Rypien was an average QB who was given more time to throw that year than almost any QB in the SB era. If you believe Clark was better than Monk, so be it. I disagree, but I'm not going to argue that right now.

Okay, then perhaps the majority of the credit should go to the offensive line, then. Agree or disagree? Where does that then put Monk on the hierarchy of most important players to that Super Bowl winning team?

Yes, the best part of those Redskins teams was their OL. At skill position, under Gibbs, I rank them: Riggins then Monk then Clark then Theismann. And nobody else is even in the conversation.

And let's put the receptions in a season record in perspective. It is not like that was some legendary record that took forever for someone to break. Monk's mark of 106 catches in a season is now 24th all-time. 24th! So, to me, him holding a record that has been obliterated many times over since is pretty meaningless.

I've posted before about receptions in the NFL. Maybe I'll go find the data again and update it. But, basically, we know about there being a passing era change in 1978 with new rules and that led to more passing throughout the league. Well, there was another change, around 1994 or so where the league-wide completion percentage took a slight jump up. After Monk retired, the league, as a whole, become a more accurate league, likely by throwing much safer routes than previous years. That directly leads to huge reception numbers by WRs.

That is a fair point, but I think many would agree that receiving yards and touchdown catches are a far better indicator of a WR's true greatness than receptions. And Monk was never much of a yardage machine or a touchdown scorer.

Yes, I think yards are more important. FWIW, Monk's ypr is almost a full yard more than Cris Carter.TD's are more a function of team philosophy. It's no secret that Monk played for a run-first coach. And, more importantly when discussing TDs, Gibbs was determined to pound the ball in from inside the 5.To continue with the Monk-Carter comparison, I decided to look into their respective offenses.From 1980-1993 (meaningful portion of Monk's career), Monk had 888 receptions in 205 games. The Redskins, during that same period, completed 3905 passes in 216 games. So, Monk caught 22.7% of his team's completions. But, he missed 11 games; 11 games that contributed to the 3905 completions. Since the Redskins averaged 18.1 completions/game during those years, I multiplied that by 11 games (what Monk missed) to show that Monk missed out on about 199 team completions. Take those 199 completions from the team's 3905 during that span and you get 3706 completions. This gives Monk and adjusted reception % of 24%.From 1988-2001 (meaningful portion of Carter's career), Carter had 1088 receptions in 220 games. The Eagles and Vikings, during that same period, completed 4501 passes in 224 games. So, Carter caught 24.2% of his team's completions. But, he missed 4 games; 4 games that contributed to the 4501 completions. Since the Eagles/Vikings averaged 20.1 completions/game during those years, I multiplied that by 4 games (what Carter missed) to show that Carter missed ou on about 80 completions. Take those 80 completions from the team's 4501 during that span and you get 4421 completions. This gives Carter and adjusted reception % of 24.6%.Carter shared completions with Moss for 4 seasons. Monk shared with Clark for 8 seasons.Oh, and we always hear how Monk only led his team in receiving yards 4 times. Well, Cris Carter only did it 5 times.And, since Charlie Brown is better than Monk in 82 and 83, does that mean Jake Reed was better than Cris Carter in 96 and 97? The answer is NO. Carter is better than Reed, regardless of the stats in two seasons, and Monk is better than Brown, regardless of the stats in two seasons. Picking and choosing who is better year after year based on some stats makes no sense. Players don't change that much from one year to another. Monk > Brown. Carter > Reed. Any other argument is pure nonsense.

 

[Despyzer]

And, since Charlie Brown is better than Monk in 82 and 83, does that mean Jake Reed was better than Cris Carter in 96 and 97? The answer is NO. Carter is better than Reed, regardless of the stats in two seasons, and Monk is better than Brown, regardless of the stats in two seasons. Picking and choosing who is better year after year based on some stats makes no sense. Players don't change that much from one year to another. Monk > Brown. Carter > Reed. Any other argument is pure nonsense.

Well-played.

 

[dgreen]

If anyone's interested, here are some Monk vids.

 

[AB in DC]

What is next? You gonna tell me that Randy Moss benefited from the attention Wes Welker got this year?

Well, yeah, he did. Why would you say otherwise?

In '87, Monk had a total of 483 receiving yards, so I don't see how you could argue that he was one of their two best players.

The strike-shortened year? You really stretch your credibility when you try to twist the facts like this.

Gary Clark had over 1,000 yards that same season, and Monk finished 4th on his team in receiving yards. And the strike only eliminated one game.

More evidence that people in this thread never watched football in the 1980s. No one who did would even try to claim that the strike only affected one game.

 

[KoolKat]

If you think Monk is a legitimate HOFer, then Reed should be a lock.

One of the best at his position? checkMultiple Super Bowl wins? nopeHeld multiple records? nope

Andre Reed is a Hall of Famer if anyone is. I do not see a point in arguing against a guy as great as him getting in. The only reason he wasn't first ballot is because there are a lot of deserving WRs out there, and the HOF decision making process is bunk.I also agree that Monk is an unquestionable HOFer who should have got in much earlier.Edited to say that it total BS that Randy Gradishar did not get in. I think about him every time I think of the HoF. The guy was an animal. I really thought he was going to get in this year simialr to the way Harry Carson did. I guess they're going to wait till he is dead, so he cannot enjoy the honor. :sigh:

 

[MarshallRob]

If Scott Norwood makes that FG, and Reed has a Super Bowl ring, would that have been him more worthy? What if Thurman Thomas hadn't fumbled at the beginning of the second half of SB28 and the Bills went on to win that game? Would two Super Bowl rings make him more worthy?

Like it or not, the answer is yes.

And like it or not, that is flawed thinking. You are basically saying that Reed's HoF credentials are based on factors that were out of his control (Norwood's miss and Thomas's fumble).

Reed could have a Super Bowl ring if he had played better in Super Bowl XXV. Reed dropped several passes in that game. The worst was with about 5 minutes into the 2d quarter and Buffalo up 10-3. Buffalo was moving the ball and playing well on offense up to that point. On 3rd-and-1 from the 50, Reed, wide open, dropped an easy pass. If Buffalo scores a TD they probably win that game. For the rest of the game Reed only caught two more passes for nine total yards. As for Monk's Super Bowl catches, they (and Gary Clark's) were painstakingly detailed in this sadly uncommented upon post.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And like it or not, that is flawed thinking. You are basically saying that Reed's HoF credentials are based on factors that were out of his control (Norwood's miss and Thomas's fumble).

What I am saying is that he was part of a team effort in a team sport. His contributions to that effort did not result in a win in either case.

They would have had his teammates made those blunders, though. Again, you are penalizing him for things out of control.

I assumed you knew enough about football to realize that there is more to a game than one play. My mistake.

And while we are talking about contributions to a winning Super Bowl, how exactly was Monk catching 0 passes in their '83 SB win and 1 pass in their '87 SB win a huge contribution?

I assumed you knew enough about football to realize that WRs contribute in more ways than just catching passes. Was Randy Moss a non-factor against the Jags and the Chargers this year?

Please drop the "assumed you knew enough about football" shtick. TIA.J

 

[26554]

I still can't believe Chris Carter wasn't a first ballot HOF'erAnother thing why increase the max limit to 7 if they weren't going to use it, certainly there were candidates that would have fit the 7th spot nicely.

Not sure if this has been answered but, they used the max # of spots for 'modern era' candidates and one of the Seniors nominees (Goldberg) was a dud. Blame the Seniors for the 7th spot not being filled as, yes, there were certainly better candidates they could've nominated instead of Marshall Goldberg. Off the top of my head:Chuck HowleyChris HanburgerClaude HumphreyL.C. GreenwoodTommy NobisAlex KarrisJohnny RobinsonJerry KramerMick TinglehoffBob HayesOtis Tayloretc., etc.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Wow, Ghost Rider doing some serious owning in this thread.

 

[dgreen]

Yes, I think yards are more important. FWIW, Monk's ypr is almost a full yard more than Cris Carter.

TD's are more a function of team philosophy. It's no secret that Monk played for a run-first coach. And, more importantly when discussing TDs, Gibbs was determined to pound the ball in from inside the 5.

To continue with the Monk-Carter comparison, I decided to look into their respective offenses.

From 1980-1993 (meaningful portion of Monk's career), Monk had 888 receptions in 205 games. The Redskins, during that same period, completed 3905 passes in 216 games. So, Monk caught 22.7% of his team's completions. But, he missed 11 games; 11 games that contributed to the 3905 completions. Since the Redskins averaged 18.1 completions/game during those years, I multiplied that by 11 games (what Monk missed) to show that Monk missed out on about 199 team completions. Take those 199 completions from the team's 3905 during that span and you get 3706 completions. This gives Monk and adjusted reception % of 24%.

From 1988-2001 (meaningful portion of Carter's career), Carter had 1088 receptions in 220 games. The Eagles and Vikings, during that same period, completed 4501 passes in 224 games. So, Carter caught 24.2% of his team's completions. But, he missed 4 games; 4 games that contributed to the 4501 completions. Since the Eagles/Vikings averaged 20.1 completions/game during those years, I multiplied that by 4 games (what Carter missed) to show that Carter missed ou on about 80 completions. Take those 80 completions from the team's 4501 during that span and you get 4421 completions. This gives Carter and adjusted reception % of 24.6%.

Carter shared completions with Moss for 4 seasons. Monk shared with Clark for 8 seasons.

Oh, and we always hear how Monk only led his team in receiving yards 4 times. Well, Cris Carter only did it 5 times.

And, since Charlie Brown is better than Monk in 82 and 83, does that mean Jake Reed was better than Cris Carter in 96 and 97? The answer is NO. Carter is better than Reed, regardless of the stats in two seasons, and Monk is better than Brown, regardless of the stats in two seasons. Picking and choosing who is better year after year based on some stats makes no sense. Players don't change that much from one year to another. Monk > Brown. Carter > Reed. Any other argument is pure nonsense.

Some more Monk vs. Carter...Playoffs

Monk: 15 gms, 69-1062-7

Carter: 14 gms, 63-860-8

Per game averages: regular season vs. post season

Monk

Regular season: 4.2 rec, 56.8 yds, 13.5 ypr, 0.3 TDs

Post season: 4.6 rec, 70.8 yds, 15.4 ypr, 0.5 TDs

Significant improvements in every category.

Carter

Regular season: 4.7 rec, 59.4 yds, 12.6 ypr, 0.6 TDs

Post season: 4.5 rec, 61.4 yds, 13.7 ypr, 0.6 TDs

The only big difference is in his ypr with a slight drop in rec and a slight increase in yds.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Oh, and we always hear how Monk only led his team in receiving yards 4 times. Well, Cris Carter only did it 5 times.And, since Charlie Brown is better than Monk in 82 and 83, does that mean Jake Reed was better than Cris Carter in 96 and 97? The answer is NO. Carter is better than Reed, regardless of the stats in two seasons, and Monk is better than Brown, regardless of the stats in two seasons. Picking and choosing who is better year after year based on some stats makes no sense. Players don't change that much from one year to another. Monk > Brown. Carter > Reed. Any other argument is pure nonsense.

The Reed/Carter to Monk/Brown comparison is not a good one. Reed's numbers in '96 and '97 were 73/1320/7 and 68/1136/6Carter's numbers in '96 and '97 were 96/1163/10 and 89/1069/13 In other words, Reed was not better than Carter's in those two seasons combined. He had slightly more yards, but Carter had 10 more TDs, which is very significant. And since you think receptions is so important, Carter obliterated Reed in those categories, and he had the edge in two of those three categories, so how again was Reed better? Now, if you look at Monk and Brown in '82 and '83:Monk's numbers in '82 and '83 were 35/447/1 and 47/746/5Brown's numbers in '82 and '83 were 32/690/8 and 78/1225/8So, to recap, when combining those four players two seasons together:Reed 141/2456/13 vs. Carter 185/2232/23Monk 82/1193/6 vs. Brown 110/1915/16See how there is no comparison? Brown murdered Monk in all three categories, while Reed only beat Carter in one, while trailing significantly in the two others. As for saying that players don't change that much from year to year, are you serious? Some guys peek early (Brown) and burn out too soon, while others slowly improve (Monk). That is why Brown WAS a MUCH BETTER WR than Monk in '82 and '83; the numbers bare this out quite clearly. To say that a player is always better than another just because he is better all-time doesn't make any sense. That is like saying that if you think Emmitt Smith is the best RB of all-time, that he was the best RB in the league every season he played, even his last year in Arizona. It isn't as simple as saying that a player is equally good every single year. Charlie Brown was a stud his first two seasons in the NFL, but for whatever reason, he couldn't maintain that level of success. Over time, Monk proved to be a better all-time NFL receiver, but in '82 and '83, Brown was unquestionably better. Also, you said that Carter only led his team in receiving 5 times vs. Monk's 4 times. Should I bring up touchdowns scored yet again? Monk's high for a season is 8. Carter did better than that eight times. EIGHT TIMES. In other words, from a TD scoring perspective, Monk's best season wasn't as good as Carter's best EIGHT seasons!

 

[dgreen]

Also, you said that Carter only led his team in receiving 5 times vs. Monk's 4 times. Should I bring up touchdowns scored yet again?

Why would you bring that up again? You, among others, have made that point 5000 times, while I simply threw out some new comparisons. Did I throw out new pieces of data to prove once and for all that Monk > Carter? No, I simply threw out some extra data; some that I've never seen before.I've never said Monk > Carter. But, as I looked closer at some numbers, Monk and Carter may be closer than some realize and it all goes back to my basic argument about their opportunity. People like to say Monk was in the same era as current players. He wasn't. The passing game was different in Monk's prime. And, to add on to that, Monk wasn't on a pass-happy offense. He played for a coach who ran the ball down your throat. On 1st and 10, he ran. On 2nd and 5, he ran. On 3rd and 1, he ran. At the goalline, he ran.As I showed, Monk was just about as big a part of the Redskins' passing offense as Carter was of the Eagles' and Vikings'. Also looked at their postseason performance and noticed Monk was slightly better there. I also noticed earlier than Monk, who apparently only ran 8-yard button hooks, has a higher YPR than Carter. Don't take any of that to mean I think those couple stats prove without a shadow of doubt that Monk is greater than Carter.BTW, I realize the stats don't make the best comparison of Brown/Monk vs. Reed/Carter. I mainly did that just to say you can't just look at PFR's leading receiver for a team and simply claim that person was better than someone else on the team. You may not be doing that, but many people do. I remember Charlie Brown. He was a solid receiver. But, I don't care what the stats say, if I were given a choice between having Monk or Brown on my 1982 and 1983 teams, I'm taking Monk 100 times out of 100.