Isaac Bruce>Marvin Harrison (1 Viewer)

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Why are we debating Art Monk in this thread?

 

[Block]

In 1982, the 10th-best receiver in the entire league had 575 yards. Monk had 447. Not great, but I would consider it solid #2 receiving production, especially for an attack bosed around John Riggins.

In 1987 his numbers fell off, mainly because of the Shroeder to Williams switch. Monk and Williams never developed a rapport, and if you look at Monk's numbers you can see that.

If you look at the Redskins of the 1980s as an entity though (an entity that won 3 Super Bowls, appeared in 4, and had great records over an extended period of time), Monk has to be one of their MVPs. Again, ask any Redskin fan and they will echo this sentiment. What he did isn't best reflected by stats (although his stats do put him up with the best of all time). He was a possession receiver, not a burner, but what he did was very important.

Monk was not in the top 20 in receiving yards in 1982. That's not a solid #2 WR.In 1987, yes, his numbers fell off, because he was not making a major contribution to the team. He finished outside the top 40 in the NFL that year.

Monk could realistically be said to be a major contributor to some of the 1980s Redskins teams, but none of the Super Bowl teams.

How many #2 receivers are top 20 in any year? 3? 4? You seem desperate to make Monk out to be illegitimate.

 

[CalBear]

How many #2 receivers are top 20 in any year? 3? 4? You seem desperate to make Monk out to be illegitimate.

Well, in 2006 it was:#3 Wayne#7 Boldin#12 Bruce#14 Furrey#16 Housh#18 GlennI don't think Monk was illegitimate; I just think the idea that he was a major contributor to the Redskins Super Bowl wins is ridiculous. He was a very good player. Maybe even better than Keyshawn Johnson. Not better than Isaac Bruce. Certainly not a Hall of Famer.

 

[Block]

How many #2 receivers are top 20 in any year? 3? 4? You seem desperate to make Monk out to be illegitimate.

Well, in 2006 it was:#3 Wayne#7 Boldin#12 Bruce#14 Furrey#16 Housh#18 GlennI don't think Monk was illegitimate; I just think the idea that he was a major contributor to the Redskins Super Bowl wins is ridiculous. He was a very good player. Maybe even better than Keyshawn Johnson. Not better than Isaac Bruce. Certainly not a Hall of Famer.

What about in 1982? I bet Monk was top 5 #2 wideout in that year. That is a solid #2.edit: also, I believe Boldin was technically #1 last year in terms of stats.

 

[CalBear]

What about in 1982? I bet Monk was top 5 #2 wideout in that year. That is a solid #2.

You lose again. Monk finished behind:C.Joiner (who was 33 at the time)Carlos CarsonRon SmithRoy GreenJohn Jefferson

 

[Block]

What about in 1982? I bet Monk was top 5 #2 wideout in that year. That is a solid #2.

You lose again. Monk finished behind:C.Joiner (who was 33 at the time)Carlos CarsonRon SmithRoy GreenJohn Jefferson

Ok, #6. In a league with 28 teams, the 6th best #2 wideout isn't solid?

 

[CalBear]

Ok, #6. In a league with 28 teams, the 6th best #2 wideout isn't solid?

Does it really matter? You're splitting hairs here; 4 receptions and 50 yards a game, one TD in 9 games, and missing the playoffs isn't a major contribution to a Super Bowl team.

 

[Block]

Ok, #6. In a league with 28 teams, the 6th best #2 wideout isn't solid?

Does it really matter? You're splitting hairs here; 4 receptions and 50 yards a game, one TD in 9 games, and missing the playoffs isn't a major contribution to a Super Bowl team.

I say it is, given the composition of the team and the era it was in.

 

[CalBear]

Ok, #6. In a league with 28 teams, the 6th best #2 wideout isn't solid?

Does it really matter? You're splitting hairs here; 4 receptions and 50 yards a game, one TD in 9 games, and missing the playoffs isn't a major contribution to a Super Bowl team.

I say it is, given the composition of the team and the era it was in.

Great, let's put Freddie Solomon in the Hall of Fame, too.

 

[Block]

Ok, #6. In a league with 28 teams, the 6th best #2 wideout isn't solid?

Does it really matter? You're splitting hairs here; 4 receptions and 50 yards a game, one TD in 9 games, and missing the playoffs isn't a major contribution to a Super Bowl team.

I say it is, given the composition of the team and the era it was in.

Great, let's put Freddie Solomon in the Hall of Fame, too.

Man, what did Art Monk do to you?

 

[Bri]

The TD debate here is a little weird. For many of the years you're talking about Faulk was awesome around the goalline(everywhere else too but...) and they were one of the best offenses ever.

How many TDs do they need to score to satisfy you?

Quickly looked at some name RBs that racked up huge TD totals and I don't see any WRs on their teams with high TDs either.

Is it really reasonable to expect Bruce and of course the Rams O to have scored a bunch more TDs those years?

Faulk would have scored them if Harrison, Bruce, or even Rice was on that team.

 

[SSOG]

Why are we debating Art Monk in this thread?

Because whenever any WR is mentioned as a possible HoFer, they must be compared to Art Monk. It is an immortal law of football, and will exist forever, because Monk will always be the most deserving WR *NOT* in the HOF (unless he gets elected, in which case he'll be the most undeserving WR in the HoF). Basically, wide receiver is such an interesting position for HoF debates because there's a very clear cut line that WRs have to cross in order to make it, and Monk, through a fluke of circumstance that will never again be repeated, just so happens to sit smack dab on top of the line, meaning he will always either be the best WR not in the hall of the worst WR in the hall- and therefore the best possible measuring stick for other potential HoF WRs.

 

[Block]

Why are we debating Art Monk in this thread?

Because whenever any WR is mentioned as a possible HoFer, they must be compared to Art Monk. It is an immortal law of football, and will exist forever, because Monk will always be the most deserving WR *NOT* in the HOF (unless he gets elected, in which case he'll be the most undeserving WR in the HoF). Basically, wide receiver is such an interesting position for HoF debates because there's a very clear cut line that WRs have to cross in order to make it, and Monk, through a fluke of circumstance that will never again be repeated, just so happens to sit smack dab on top of the line, meaning he will always either be the best WR not in the hall of the worst WR in the hall- and therefore the best possible measuring stick for other potential HoF WRs.

There are HOF receivers who were not as good as Monk. For example:Steve LargentCharlie JoinerLynn SwannJohn Stallworthedit: and yes, I picked two Steelers for a reason. The Charger and the Seahawk (Joiner, Largent) both got in with statistics alone. They never played in a Super Bowl. The Steelers (Stallworth, Swann) got in with championships alone. Their statistics don't match up.Art Monk has both stats AND championships.

 

[SSOG]

Why are we debating Art Monk in this thread?

Because whenever any WR is mentioned as a possible HoFer, they must be compared to Art Monk. It is an immortal law of football, and will exist forever, because Monk will always be the most deserving WR *NOT* in the HOF (unless he gets elected, in which case he'll be the most undeserving WR in the HoF). Basically, wide receiver is such an interesting position for HoF debates because there's a very clear cut line that WRs have to cross in order to make it, and Monk, through a fluke of circumstance that will never again be repeated, just so happens to sit smack dab on top of the line, meaning he will always either be the best WR not in the hall of the worst WR in the hall- and therefore the best possible measuring stick for other potential HoF WRs.

There are HOF receivers who were not as good as Monk. For example:Steve LargentCharlie JoinerLynn SwannJohn Stallworthedit: and yes, I picked two Steelers for a reason. The Charger and the Seahawk (Joiner, Largent) both got in with statistics alone. They never played in a Super Bowl. The Steelers (Stallworth, Swann) got in with championships alone. Their statistics don't match up.Art Monk has both stats AND championships.

Art Monk doesn't have championships, he just happened to be on a couple of championship teams. Calbear has already outlined just how much he contributed towards those championships. Saying that Art Monk has championships is sort of like saying Jimmy Smith and Drew Bledsoe have championships- sure, they might have a ring, but they were barely a contributor to the team that won it for them. Or like calling Dallas Clark a championship TE- sure, he played TE on a championship team, but he was probably the #5 option in his own offense. Art Monk essentially has one championship, if you want to talk about rings that he actually earned with his own contributions.Also, it's not about just statistics, it's about statistics relative to one's peers. In the three major categories (receptions, yards, TDs), Steve Largent finished in the top ten 25 times in 14 years (including 7 top-3 finishes). Art Monk finished in the top ten 8 times in 16 years. It's absolutely LUDICROUS to suggest that somehow Monk's statistics are comparable to Largent's. With Joiner you have much more of an arguement (actually, looking at statistics and ignoring the first 6 years of his career when Joiner was perpetually injured, Monk and Joiner are very comparable). The big difference is that Joiner was, at one point, the best WR on his own team (although I'm really just playing Devil's Advocate, since I wouldn't have put Joiner in the hall, either). Still, just because Joiner got in the Hall even though he doesn't deserve it doesn't mean we should compound the problem by admitting a bunch of other WRs that don't deserve it.As for Stallworth and Swann... I think everyone acknowledge's that Swann's inclusion in the Hall is a mistake (except for Steelers fans), but it's worth noting that Swann had as many top-10 finishes in 9 years as Monk had in 16 (8 apiece). Stallworth had 12 in 14 (two of which were lost to injury). Again, both players were better compared to their peers than Monk was. It's the Football Hall of Fame, not the Baseball Hall of Fame- to get in, you have to be significantly better than your peers at some point, instead of just being merely above-average over an incredibly long career.

 

[Tau837]

Why are we debating Art Monk in this thread?

Because whenever any WR is mentioned as a possible HoFer, they must be compared to Art Monk. It is an immortal law of football, and will exist forever, because Monk will always be the most deserving WR *NOT* in the HOF (unless he gets elected, in which case he'll be the most undeserving WR in the HoF). Basically, wide receiver is such an interesting position for HoF debates because there's a very clear cut line that WRs have to cross in order to make it, and Monk, through a fluke of circumstance that will never again be repeated, just so happens to sit smack dab on top of the line, meaning he will always either be the best WR not in the hall of the worst WR in the hall- and therefore the best possible measuring stick for other potential HoF WRs.

There are HOF receivers who were not as good as Monk. For example:Steve LargentCharlie JoinerLynn SwannJohn Stallworthedit: and yes, I picked two Steelers for a reason. The Charger and the Seahawk (Joiner, Largent) both got in with statistics alone. They never played in a Super Bowl. The Steelers (Stallworth, Swann) got in with championships alone. Their statistics don't match up.Art Monk has both stats AND championships.

Each time I think you have lost all credibility, you find a way to lose even more. This is a joke. Steve Largent was far better than Monk ever was. Not even close.

 

[mbuehner]

Ok, #6. In a league with 28 teams, the 6th best #2 wideout isn't solid?

Does it really matter? You're splitting hairs here; 4 receptions and 50 yards a game, one TD in 9 games, and missing the playoffs isn't a major contribution to a Super Bowl team.

I say it is, given the composition of the team and the era it was in.

I dont have a dog in this fight- but i was curious so here are a few comparisons:Hines Ward wr 2005 69 catches 975 yards 11 tds in 15 games4.6 rec/g65 y/g11 tdsKeyshawn Johnson 2002 76 catches 1088 yards 5 tds in 16 games4.75 catches/g68 y/g5 tdsThose guys numbers are a little better, but they are also #1 WRs who undeniably had a big impact on their teams success. I dont think Art Monk belongs in the HOF, but i also agree numbers arent everything.

 

[mbuehner]

Quickly looked at some name RBs that racked up huge TD totals and I don't see any WRs on their teams with high TDs either. Is it really reasonable to expect Bruce and of course the Rams O to have scored a bunch more TDs those years?

1999 Marshall Faulk 12 all purpose TDs Isaac Bruce 12 TDS Egderin James 17 all purpose TDs Marvin Harrison 12 TDs2000 Marshall Faulk 26 all purpose TDs Isaac Bruce 9 TDS Egderin James 18 all purpose TDs Marvin Harrison 14 TDs2000 was the only year Faulk was out of the stratosphere in TDs. Even if we give Bruce a pass on that season, what about all the rest? The bottom line is Bruce's best year was Harrison's AVERAGE year- and both of them had stud RBs and high powered offenses.

 

[Bri]

Quickly looked at some name RBs that racked up huge TD totals and I don't see any WRs on their teams with high TDs either. Is it really reasonable to expect Bruce and of course the Rams O to have scored a bunch more TDs those years?

1999 Marshall Faulk 12 all purpose TDs Isaac Bruce 12 TDS Egderin James 17 all purpose TDs Marvin Harrison 12 TDs2000 Marshall Faulk 26 all purpose TDs Isaac Bruce 9 TDS Egderin James 18 all purpose TDs Marvin Harrison 14 TDs2000 was the only year Faulk was out of the stratosphere in TDs. Even if we give Bruce a pass on that season, what about all the rest? The bottom line is Bruce's best year was Harrison's AVERAGE year- and both of them had stud RBs and high powered offenses.

Faulk had 21 TDs in 2001 tooHarrison had 15, Edge only had 3 thoughBruce getting 6,7,8,9 TDs is frowned upon yet that's exactly what Harrison got when Faulk was around. Sure you can say he wasn't as good then but ....Comparing TDs with these two is funky, it won't "ring true" no matter how ya break it down for me.Maybe if we weren't talking about two of the best all time offenses but more often than not I feel like "geesh what more do ya want?"

 

[stevegamer]

Why are we debating Art Monk in this thread?

Because whenever any WR is mentioned as a possible HoFer, they must be compared to Art Monk. It is an immortal law of football, and will exist forever, because Monk will always be the most deserving WR *NOT* in the HOF (unless he gets elected, in which case he'll be the most undeserving WR in the HoF). Basically, wide receiver is such an interesting position for HoF debates because there's a very clear cut line that WRs have to cross in order to make it, and Monk, through a fluke of circumstance that will never again be repeated, just so happens to sit smack dab on top of the line, meaning he will always either be the best WR not in the hall of the worst WR in the hall- and therefore the best possible measuring stick for other potential HoF WRs.

There are HOF receivers who were not as good as Monk. For example:Steve LargentCharlie JoinerLynn SwannJohn Stallworthedit: and yes, I picked two Steelers for a reason. The Charger and the Seahawk (Joiner, Largent) both got in with statistics alone. They never played in a Super Bowl. The Steelers (Stallworth, Swann) got in with championships alone. Their statistics don't match up.Art Monk has both stats AND championships.

Each time I think you have lost all credibility, you find a way to lose even more. This is a joke. Steve Largent was far better than Monk ever was. Not even close.

:good posting: In fact - EXCELLENT POSTING.The concept that Monk>Largent is so twisted, that it defies description.

 

[mbuehner]

Bruce getting 6,7,8,9 TDs is frowned upon yet that's exactly what Harrison got when Faulk was around. Sure you can say he wasn't as good then but ....

Oh come on! Harrison scored 7 TDs is 12 games with 59 receptions in 98 with Faulk and a rookie Manning. Thats an average Bruce complete season! Faulk scored 10 TDS in 98 for the Colts.

Edge scored 17 in 99, and Harrison put up 12.

This idea that these running backs are stealing poor Isaacs touchdowns is just hogwash. Somehow Harrison hasnt been hampered by it- and they played with the same damn HOF running back. This debate has just devolved into defending a side- there is simply no way to argue Bruce is being shortchanged TDs but somehow Harrison isnt. You cant make the identical argument (high powered offense) for why one guy gets TDs and the other guy DOESNT get TDs, and that is exactly what is happening here.

 

[mbuehner]

And btw, before anyone tries knocking Harrisons first couple seasons- please note that in his rookie season he scored 8 TDs (one of Bruce's better outings) with Jim Freakin Harbough throwing to him- the Colts only threw 16 TDs total. THAT is a rational excuse for not scoring double digit TDs, they were the 24th offense in the league (out of 30).

His sophomore year he caught 6 TDS out of 16- same deal.

 

[Bri]

Bruce getting 6,7,8,9 TDs is frowned upon yet that's exactly what Harrison got when Faulk was around. Sure you can say he wasn't as good then but ....

Oh come on! Harrison scored 7 TDs is 12 games with 59 receptions in 98 with Faulk and a rookie Manning. Thats an average Bruce complete season! Faulk scored 10 TDS in 98 for the Colts.

Edge scored 17 in 99, and Harrison put up 12.

This idea that these running backs are stealing poor Isaacs touchdowns is just hogwash. Somehow Harrison hasnt been hampered by it- and they played with the same damn HOF running back. This debate has just devolved into defending a side- there is simply no way to argue Bruce is being shortchanged TDs but somehow Harrison isnt. You cant make the identical argument (high powered offense) for why one guy gets TDs and the other guy DOESNT get TDs, and that is exactly what is happening here.

Thanks for taking that out of context with your snipHave a nice day

 

[cobalt_27]

I wouldn't trust anyone who says Bruce > Harrison to know much about anything. This is about as dumb as it gets.