Most Deserving Player Not Yet In the Hall of Fame (1 Viewer)

[5Rings]

The argument should not be whether he belongs, but whether Swann belongs.If Swann is in, Stallworth should be...if Stallworth and Swann are in, Monk should be. Monk had a longer career of being productive on a team that had as many SB appearances as the other two.

I agree. Lynn Swann's election to the HOF has opened the doors for many "pretty good players" when basing arguments purely on regular season stats. Swann's election obviously had much to do with his 4 Rings and clutch play in the playoffs and SB.

 

[P Boy]

Well, I haven't seen him mentioned yet, so I'll throw another player out into the mix.

LB who is generally considered one of the top 3 goalline & short yardage LBs in the history of the NFL. Main cog in one of the NFL's most dominant defenses. Played 145 consecutive games in 10 seasons and averaged more than 14 tackles per game over that span, including a 224 tackle season, which is a team record. 7 Pro Bowls. 1 Super Bowl.

Answer below......

Randy Gradishar, Denver Broncos

That he isn't in the HoF when he is on almost every knowledgeable football expert's top 10 list for best LBs ever to play in the NFL is a serious joke.

 

[Doug Drinen]

The argument should not be whether he belongs, but whether Swann belongs.

Yes, that's the question. A lot of people feel that Swann was a bad choice, and I agree with them. The key is to recognize that Swann was a bad choice, live with it, and not allow Swann to become the bar that receivers must clear to get into the hall.If you're going to play the he's-no-worse-than-Lynn-Swann game, you can make a pretty compelling case for Stanley Morgan, Irving Fryar, Henry Ellard, Herman Moore, Andre Rison, and a bunch of others. Seriously, go look at the numbers. Monk has only two things on these guys:

(1) higher career totals.

(2) super bowl rings.

I would argue that the higher career totals are due to a lot of mediocre seasons where he was adding no value. As far as the rings are concerned, that's obviously something that different people are going to weigh differently in their assessments, but if that's what you're going to base your argument on, then where's the love for Gary Clark? He and Monk were together on the Redskins for 8 seasons, and Clark had more yards than Monk in 6 of those. He also had better numbers in both of the two super bowls they both played in. Seriously, I think that, all things considered, Clark has a better HoF case than Monk does.

I think 5rings pretty much nailed it. In fact, I think those that are saying Monk was "very good for a long time, but never great" are giving him too much credit. He played for a long time, but was only very good for a portion of it. And he was never great.

I hate to write posts like these, because as far as I know, Monk is a class act and he was probably one of the 50 best wide receivers in the history of the world. Most people reading this (self included) don't know what it's like to be near the 50 best people in the world at doing anything. In the grand scheme of things, Monk was better at playing football than I'll ever be at doing anything. So I feel a little squishy typing on a message board that he's not good enough.

But he's not. Not for the Hall of Fame.

 

[denver90]

I do have love for Gary Clark and will argue for him to enter as well. But I think you could make an argument that Clark was aided in his numbers by the presence of Monk. Hall of Fame implies that one should either be famous or be made famous. Monk was the clubhouse leader when he retired and the guy that Rice and those after were trying to be better than. The game changed in the 80s and 90s and it is becoming harder to compare today's receivers to those of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, especially in a statistical, highlight-crazed, fantasy world that we now live. If I may enter an intangible into the argument...My wife, having lived on the West Coast away from Washington, and not following football to the degree that I do, knows and remembers the name Art Monk and doesn't have a clue who Gary Clark is. Take that for what it's worth, but I think it speaks to the his accomplishments and his renown.

 

[Billy1x]

Don Coryell

Most innovative offensive coach out there, changed the way the game was played, and trained some of the most successful coaches of all time. Madden, Gibbs, Hannifan, Norv Turner, Ernie Zampese, etc. Gibbs, who was offensive coordinator for Coryell when both were in San Diego in 1979-80, led Washington to four Super Bowls, winning three. Gibbs' offense was a part of the evolution of the Coryell offense, in which receivers ran precise routes, quarterbacks threw well-timed, accurate passes and a power running game complemented the high-octane passing attack. Even Mke Martz, who never coached for Coryell is connected; he was an assistant coach for Turner in Washington from 1997-98. Coryell was a NFL head coach for 14 seasons, spending five seasons with the St. Louis (football) Cardinals and nine seasons with the San Diego Chargers. He compiled a 111-83-1 record in his career, leading teams to the playoffs six times. Don is the father, grandfather, & even great grandfather of many of the coaches since the 70's. If there is one coach in history no team wanted to face it was one coached by Don Coryell.

In 1974 second-year head coach Don Coryell took the Cardinals to the playoffs for the first time in 26 years. Coryell was named the league’s top coach, while quarterback Jim Hart and running back Terry Metcalf shared player of the year honors. St. Louis lost in the first round, but the following year the team repeated as division champions. Wide receiver Mel Gray and running back Jim Otis each led his respective position in yards gained, supported by an offensive line that featured Dan Dierdorf, a future Hall of Fame member, and Conrad Dobler, who was considered one of the era’s most intimidating players. St. Louis again lost in the first round of the playoffs.

He was the FIRST coach ever traded (to the chargers for a 2nd round draft choice) and we all know the story of what happened there.

I think to much emphasis is given to superbowls. Who cares. Superbowls define great teams but should not be a factor in individulal recognition. Elway vs Marrino - Could Elway have won two Super Bowls in Miami or visa versa? Same goes for players like Archie Manning, Terry Medcaff, etc.

Hannifan should be also considered someday. He may have developed more Pro-Bowl offensive lineman and lines than any line coach ever. 70's Cardinals, Chargers, Rams (2000), to name a few.

Good Article from St. Louis writer (Great Read):

Don Coryell Should Land In The Hall of Fame

 

[MarshallRob]

The argument should not be whether he belongs, but whether Swann belongs.

Yes, that's the question. A lot of people feel that Swann was a bad choice, and I agree with them. The key is to recognize that Swann was a bad choice, live with it, and not allow Swann to become the bar that receivers must clear to get into the hall.If you're going to play the he's-no-worse-than-Lynn-Swann game, you can make a pretty compelling case for Stanley Morgan, Irving Fryar, Henry Ellard, Herman Moore, Andre Rison, and a bunch of others. Seriously, go look at the numbers. Monk has only two things on these guys:

(1) higher career totals.

(2) super bowl rings.

I would argue that the higher career totals are due to a lot of mediocre seasons where he was adding no value. As far as the rings are concerned, that's obviously something that different people are going to weigh differently in their assessments, but if that's what you're going to base your argument on, then where's the love for Gary Clark? He and Monk were together on the Redskins for 8 seasons, and Clark had more yards than Monk in 6 of those. He also had better numbers in both of the two super bowls they both played in. Seriously, I think that, all things considered, Clark has a better HoF case than Monk does.

I think 5rings pretty much nailed it. In fact, I think those that are saying Monk was "very good for a long time, but never great" are giving him too much credit. He played for a long time, but was only very good for a portion of it. And he was never great.

I hate to write posts like these, because as far as I know, Monk is a class act and he was probably one of the 50 best wide receivers in the history of the world. Most people reading this (self included) don't know what it's like to be near the 50 best people in the world at doing anything. In the grand scheme of things, Monk was better at playing football than I'll ever be at doing anything. So I feel a little squishy typing on a message board that he's not good enough.

But he's not. Not for the Hall of Fame.

I agree that Monk isn't quite good enough to get in. But I don't agree with the statement that Swann was a bad choice. If asked the question "Who was the best receiver of the 1970's", Swann would probably be my answer. I think he was better than the other contenders (Drew Pearson, Cliff Branch, Stallworth) and he is on the NFL's 1970's All-Decade Team. If asked the same question for the 1980's, Monk isn't even close to guys like Rice, Largent, Lofton, Clayton, Duper, etc. Comparing stats for receivers who played in the 1970's to guys who came later isn't really fair. Receivers didn't start putting up big numbers on a regular basis until some rules were changed in 1978.

 

[Native]

Monk better get elected soon or else he may never make it. His big selling point is his number of career reeceptions - 940. Well, in the not too distant future, a bunch of other receivers will approach his numbers. Future hall of famers like Marvin Harrison (788 recetions), borderline HOFers like Issac Bruce (726), and a group of good but not necesarrily great WR's - Jimmy Smith (729), Keenan Mccardell (726), Rod Smith (660) and Eric Moulds (537). Throw in other modern day "stud" WR's like Moss, Owens, Holt and Ward and its possible that Monk's greatest selling point will become a non-issue. In five years time, when the current crop of top-tier WR's begin to pass Monks numbers, how will we remember him? Numbers aside, his "non statistical greatness" is limited at best, especially when comparing him to a showstopper like Swann, who made graceful, near-impossible catches and played his best in big games. Personally, when I consider players for the HOF, I dont look at one's statistics in a vaccum, but how well those statistics will hold up over the years. As teams throw the ball more frequently, and with more precision, Monk's accoldades will continue to diminish as WR's pile up more receptions. I personally would not vote him to the Hall.

 

[gump]

<=== SEE AVATAR (he may not be eligible until next year?)

 

[Whatevaman15]

IMO An interesting way to compare receivers of different eras and receivers who had brief levels of greatness vs players who had sustained levels of good play is using career VBD(the sum of all their positive VBD numbers). These numbers are from pro-football-reference.comArt Monk - 317Lynn Swann - 241John Stallworth - 399Jerry Rice - 1607Mark Duper - 327Marvin Harrison - 580Randy Moss - 664Rod Smith - 337James Lofton - 610Isaac Bruce - 460Gary Clark - 425Andre Reed - 410Steve Largent - 756Mark Clayton - 489Michael Irvin - 462Keenan McCardell - 167Jimmy Smith - 366Sterling Sharpe - 496

 

[maddawg2020]

I think it's an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE that Art Monk wasn't inducted the first year he was eligible!!!!!!!!!!!He's one of the greatest WR's ever and is MORE than deserving of a spot in the Hall of Fame. I think all these guys are deserving but none more than Art Monk.

 

[5Rings]

I think it's an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE that Art Monk wasn't inducted the first year he was eligible!!!!!!!!!!!He's one of the greatest WR's ever and is MORE than deserving of a spot in the Hall of Fame. I think all these guys are deserving but none more than Art Monk.

Would you mind elaborating on that? Thank you.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A case can be made for Ray Guy, but I think Art Monk is the better choice.BTW, is Mike Haynes in yet? He should be inducted before Lester Hayes.

 

[jwvdcw]

So when Art Monk became the first WR to ever catch 100+ passes in one year, you don't think he was among the best at his position that year?

No, I do not. I do realize Monk is a very good player, and I personally admired him as a player. Please allow me to play devils advocate here...as always, all stats from Pro-Football-Reference.com**Monk was a 3 time Pro Bowler...not a 9 time (Carson) Pro Bowler, but only 3 times in his 16 year career was he acknowledged as one of the best at his position.

**Seasons in Top 5 Receptions: 3/16

**Seasons in Top 5 Yards: 2/16

**Seasons in Top 5 TDs Rec: 0/16

**Even in his 100 catch season, other WRs like Roy Green, Mark Duper, John Stallworth, Mark Clayton, and James Lofton put up like-wise yardage and much better TD numbers.

**This stat really surprised me when I did the research. Only in 4/16 seasons did Art Monk lead his team in receiving. Guys like Charlie Brown 2, Gary Clark 5, and Ricky Sanders 3 all lead the team in receiving while Monk was a Redksin (I put 1990 as a tie, as all 3 are basically identical).

So if I'm a HOF voter, just looking at raw stats...I'm really not impressed. The guy is much closer to Don Sutton than Sandy Koufax, and he wouldn't get my HOF vote.

Very good argument there. I respect your position.

 

[jwvdcw]

The argument should not be whether he belongs, but whether Swann belongs.

Yes, that's the question. A lot of people feel that Swann was a bad choice, and I agree with them. The key is to recognize that Swann was a bad choice, live with it, and not allow Swann to become the bar that receivers must clear to get into the hall.If you're going to play the he's-no-worse-than-Lynn-Swann game, you can make a pretty compelling case for Stanley Morgan, Irving Fryar, Henry Ellard, Herman Moore, Andre Rison, and a bunch of others. Seriously, go look at the numbers. Monk has only two things on these guys:

(1) higher career totals.

(2) super bowl rings.

I would argue that the higher career totals are due to a lot of mediocre seasons where he was adding no value. As far as the rings are concerned, that's obviously something that different people are going to weigh differently in their assessments, but if that's what you're going to base your argument on, then where's the love for Gary Clark? He and Monk were together on the Redskins for 8 seasons, and Clark had more yards than Monk in 6 of those. He also had better numbers in both of the two super bowls they both played in. Seriously, I think that, all things considered, Clark has a better HoF case than Monk does.

I think 5rings pretty much nailed it. In fact, I think those that are saying Monk was "very good for a long time, but never great" are giving him too much credit. He played for a long time, but was only very good for a portion of it. And he was never great.

I hate to write posts like these, because as far as I know, Monk is a class act and he was probably one of the 50 best wide receivers in the history of the world. Most people reading this (self included) don't know what it's like to be near the 50 best people in the world at doing anything. In the grand scheme of things, Monk was better at playing football than I'll ever be at doing anything. So I feel a little squishy typing on a message board that he's not good enough.

But he's not. Not for the Hall of Fame.

another The Swann election really does mess a lot of stuff up.

 

[jwvdcw]

Personally, when I consider players for the HOF, I dont look at one's statistics in a vaccum, but how well those statistics will hold up over the years.

I really disagree with this. Why? So basically since the game has changed and WR catches are now more frequent that makes Monk's accomplishments less impressive? Thats ludicrous. Thats like saying that Babe Ruth's HR totals aren't as impressive since its rather commonplace to hit 50HRs in a year now. The fact that something is easier now shouldn't matter when looking at a guy who did it back when none of his contemporaries were able to.

 

[Native]

Lets take it a step further.

Monk only caught 196 passes over his first 4 seasons - thats 49 receptions a season through his first four years. In his final three seasons, he caught only 133 balls, for a paltry 43 receptions a season (he only played partially in his final season season so I didnt include those poor numbers in this study).

In total, a staggering 351 of his 940 receptions came over seven seasons at the begining and end of his career. I find it very hard to argue that he should get into the Hall based on his "career" output, since more than a third of his catches came during a sereies of mediocre years that spanned close to a decade.

If Monk gets voted in, Im going to start campaigning for JT Smith to make the Hall as well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm a little surprised that Monk's stats weren't that good. But I got to see him play a lot; and stats notwithstanding, Art Monk was goooood.

 

[Native]

I'm a little surprised that Monk's stats weren't that good. But I got to see him play a lot; and stats notwithstanding, Art Monk was goooood.

Yeah, he was good. But I compare him more to a modern day Keenan Mccardell or Ed Mccafrey than Randy Moss. Those guys had a few excellent years in an explosive offense, but they arent HOF material by any stretch of the imagination. Or are they?

 

[Native]

Id much rather see guys like Mark Clayton get elected - he had 4 double-digit TD years, six 1000 yard seasons - and most importantly - was a very electric receiver to watch and defend. Clayton may never make it because he retired at the age of 32, while Monk padded his statistics until he was 38. I dont think players should be penalized for choosing to hang it up when their skills begin diminishing, rather than hang around for four-five additional mediocre seasons. Had Clayton played as long as Monk, he would have broken 100 career TD's - numbers that are FAR more worthy of induction that Monks stats. Statistics have a way of rewriting history, and make us forget who the real playmakers and showstoppers were. Art Monk was a fine receiver, but he was no showstopper.

 

[jwvdcw]

Id much rather see guys like Mark Clayton get elected - he had 4 double-digit TD years, six 1000 yard seasons - and most importantly - was a very electric receiver to watch and defend. Clayton may never make it because he retired at the age of 32, while Monk padded his statistics until he was 38. I dont think players should be penalized for choosing to hang it up when their skills begin diminishing, rather than hang around for four-five additional mediocre seasons. Had Clayton played as long as Monk, he would have broken 100 career TD's - numbers that are FAR more worthy of induction that Monks stats. Statistics have a way of rewriting history, and make us forget who the real playmakers and showstoppers were. Art Monk was a fine receiver, but he was no showstopper.

Ummmm...you forgot to add that he played with perhaps the best QB of all time, while Monk played with a Humphries, Williams, Rypien, and a bunch of others you'll never remember.

 

[jwvdcw]

I'm a little surprised that Monk's stats weren't that good. But I got to see him play a lot; and stats notwithstanding, Art Monk was goooood.

Another perfect example:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...opic=116454&hl=

 

[JacKatMtn]

Id much rather see guys like Mark Clayton get elected - he had 4 double-digit TD years, six 1000 yard seasons - and most importantly - was a very electric receiver to watch and defend. Clayton may never make it because he retired at the age of 32, Monk padded his statistics until he was 38. I dont think players should be penalized for choosing to hang it up when their skills begin diminishing, rather than hang around for an four-five additional mediocre seasons. Had Clayton played as long as Monk, he would have broken 100 career TD's and well over 700 receptions - numbers that are FAR more worthy of induction that Monks stats. Statistics have a way of rewriting history, and makes us forget who the real playmakers and showstoppers were. Art Monk was a fine receiver, but he was no showstopper.

Clayton before Monk? Ridiculous, Clayton reaped the rewards of being the WR of a soon to be HOF QB Marino, all Art Monk did was be the ultimate clutch WR for QB's named Theismann, Schroeder, Rypien, Gannon, Humphries etc... no HOF there.Art Monk was never a flashy WR, but one thing he did was catch the ball in critical situations. If I had a 3rd & 8 I would rather have Art than Clayton anyday. The only WR I could accept getting in before Art is Harold Carmichael, who established alot of the records which Art surpassed and Rice subsequently destroyed. Duper & Clayton will probably ride Marino's wave but to exclude Carmichael & Monk would be a shame.

 

[Native]

Id much rather see guys like Mark Clayton get elected - he had 4 double-digit TD years, six 1000 yard seasons  - and most importantly - was a very electric receiver to watch and defend.  Clayton may never make it because he retired at the age of 32, while Monk padded his statistics until he was 38. I dont think players should be penalized for choosing to hang it up when their skills begin diminishing, rather than hang around for four-five additional mediocre seasons. Had Clayton played as long as Monk, he would have broken 100 career TD's - numbers that are FAR more worthy of induction that Monks stats. Statistics have a way of rewriting history, and make us forget who the real playmakers and showstoppers were. Art Monk was a fine receiver, but he was no showstopper.

Ummmm...you forgot to add that he played with perhaps the best QB of all time, while Monk played with a Humphries, Williams, Rypien, and a bunch of others you'll never remember.

Sure, when you play for 18 seasons, youre inevitably going outlast more than one QB and play for a few different signal callers :rotflmao: BTW, Rypien was a two time pro bowler. Doug Williams was a Super Bowl MVP and a standout QB. Even Jay Schroeder threw for over 4100 yards in 1986. Edited to add that Joe Theisman was throwing to Monk during Theismann's two best seasons. Monk may not have had Marino throwing him the ball, but he was hardly surrounded by a bunch of stiffs.

 

[Native]

Personally, when I consider players for the HOF, I dont look at one's statistics in a vaccum, but how well those statistics will hold up over the years.

I really disagree with this. Why? So basically since the game has changed and WR catches are now more frequent that makes Monk's accomplishments less impressive? Thats ludicrous. Thats like saying that Babe Ruth's HR totals aren't as impressive since its rather commonplace to hit 50HRs in a year now. The fact that something is easier now shouldn't matter when looking at a guy who did it back when none of his contemporaries were able to.

Sorry, didn’t see this reply. Your argument certainly holds a lot of water, and your point is well taken. MY point is this - Monk didnt record a 100-reception season 30 years before Football morphed into a pass-happy game. He reached 100 receptions at the dawn of the NFL's evolution into a pass-happy league. During Monk's prime, Dan Marino was busy throwing for 5000 yards, other Pro-Bowl QB's hovered around 4000 yards (Elway, Essaison, Fouts, Moon, Simms) while scores of good-but-not-great QB's (how about such memorable names as Schroeder, Kenny, Everett, Lomax and Dickey) could break 4000 yards in any given year. Teams were regularly putting up 30 and 40 points in the mid-80's and early-90's. Sure, Monk was the first NFL player to put up monster reception numbers, but that hardly makes him an all-time great. To me, he’s like Cecil Fielder hitting 50 home runs at the beginning of the home-run boom in baseball. Sure he was the first to reach 50 HR's since George Foster accomplished it almost 20 years earlier, (in 1979), but so many other players reached that pinnacle since than (Brady Anderson ring a bell?), that the accomplishment has since become a watered down achievement at best. Again, I dont mean to take anything away from Monk's 1984 and 1985 seasons, which were both terrific, but I dont believe its enough to separate him from all the great receivers that play/have played the game since then. If you make room in the HOF for Monk, Herman Moore's three seasons between 1995-1997 (where he AVERAGED 111 receptions, 1400 yards and 10 TD's) is much more impressive, and I dont consider him HOF material either...

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Ray Guy hands down. Is there another player who was clearly the most dominant player to ever play his position who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Ray Guy should be in there. It's a joke that games are won and lost by special teams, but you only have one pure Kicker, no Punters and neither of the two best Special Team players ever, Steve Tasker and Bill Bates.

 

[The Great Snook]

As a New Englander I'm going to throw out the name Andre Tippett

 

[Native]

Id much rather see guys like Mark Clayton get elected - he had 4 double-digit TD years, six 1000 yard seasons  - and most importantly - was a very electric receiver to watch and defend.  Clayton may never make it because he retired at the age of 32, Monk padded his statistics until he was 38. I dont think players should be penalized for choosing to hang it up when their skills begin diminishing, rather than hang around for an four-five additional mediocre seasons. Had Clayton played as long as Monk, he would have broken 100 career TD's and well over 700 receptions - numbers that are FAR more worthy of induction that Monks stats. Statistics have a way of rewriting history, and makes us forget who the real playmakers and showstoppers were. Art Monk was a fine receiver, but he was no showstopper.

Clayton before Monk? Ridiculous, Clayton reaped the rewards of being the WR of a soon to be HOF QB Marino, all Art Monk did was be the ultimate clutch WR for QB's named Theismann, Schroeder, Rypien, Gannon, Humphries etc... no HOF there.Art Monk was never a flashy WR, but one thing he did was catch the ball in critical situations. If I had a 3rd & 8 I would rather have Art than Clayton anyday. The only WR I could accept getting in before Art is Harold Carmichael, who established alot of the records which Art surpassed and Rice subsequently destroyed. Duper & Clayton will probably ride Marino's wave but to exclude Carmichael & Monk would be a shame.

Again, the Skins QB's in the 80's were hardly scrubs. 1) Theismann was a pro bowl caliber player in 1983 and 1984 (before he got injured).2) Rypien was a two time pro bowler. Yes he had some down time as well, but he was an excellent QB in his heyday that ran the offense as well as any Skins QB. 3) Shcreoder threw for over 4000 yards in 1986 and was elected to the pro bowl 4) Doug Williams helped reviatlized the franchise, and led them to a super bowl win was named SB MVP. He and Rypien combined for 4300 yards and 33 TD's in 1988.Yes, in the early 90's the Skins went through a tough period at QB - but overall, when you think of Washington's offense over the last 20 years, the lingering memory is NOT of Heath Shuler. While the QB position certainly lacked continuity, it wasnt a weak spot on the Skins.

 

[Bri]

Andre TippetHe played when LT played. He played on some bad teams that would finally make it to the Supe only to get demolished by Buddy's Wrecking Crew.Here's some from a recent Boston Globe article:*************Tippett played 11 years, started 136 games, is in the top 25 all-time with 100 sacks, forced 15 fumbles and recovered 17 (two for touchdowns), and in 1984 had one of the greatest defensive seasons in NFL history, producing 18 1/2 sacks, 118 tackles, and being selected NFL defensive player of the year.From 1982-93, only Lawrence Taylor was a consensus All-Pro at outside linebacker more often than Tippett. Tippett went to the Pro Bowl five times and was selected All-AFC by one or more organization seven times. Again, only Taylor had the honor more often.When Tippett played, two Linebacker of the Year awards were given, one by the NFL Players Association and the other by the NFL Alumni Association. Tippett won the award three times (1984, '85, and '87). Only Taylor won it more (five times).There are two major differences between Taylor, who played 13 years and finished his career with 142 sacks and 9 fumble recoveries, and Tippett. First, Taylor played in New York on two Super Bowl champions, while Tippett played in Foxborough on mostly poor teams, only three of which reached the playoffs.More important, Taylor rushed from the weak side, Tippett from the strong side, meaning Tippett always had to contend with a tight end as well as an offensive tackle. He also often shifted to defensive end on third down, which Taylor seldom did.Tippett also played his entire career without having a single defensive lineman from his team make the Pro Bowl, and only two other Patriot linebackers were selected. Taylor had at least one other linebacker or defensive lineman selected with him in nine of his 10 Pro Bowl seasons. In his best years, 1985-87, he had at least two members of the Giants front seven at the Pro Bowl with him.In 1986, Taylor was the league's MVP and had 20 1/2 sacks, perhaps the greatest season ever by a linebacker. That season, two of the linemen in front of him and a fellow linebacker were also Pro Bowl selections. In Tippett's best season, he had one, linebacker Steve Nelson.Hall of Fame running back Eric Dickerson, who played against both, said, "I think Tippett entering the Hall of Fame is long overdue, to be sure. Lawrence is a friend of mine. We play golf together quite often. He was a great, great player. But I think Andre Tippett was as great a linebacker as LT."Lawrence got all the media attention because he was in New York playing on Super Bowl teams while you never got to see Tippett. The sad thing is, a lot of being elected to the Hall is about notoriety."Hall of Fame guard Joe DeLamielleure, who played 13 years in the NFL, is adamant about Tippett's candidacy."A lot of guys thought he was better than Lawrence," DeLamielleure said. "He's definitely one of the best outside linebackers who ever played."Everyone knows what a great pass rusher he was, but he also played the run as well as anybody I ever faced. He was one of the dominant defensive players in the game. You couldn't knock him off his feet."I understand why Tippett hasn't gotten his due. I played on bad teams most of my career, too. Some guys get forgotten. It would be a travesty if Andre Tippett is forgotten. I think he was every bit as good as LT. No question."

 

[Bri]

reply to Skins WRs and Duper Clayton stuff.In Washington there were 3 WRs putting up 1000 yard seasons. In Miami there were two.

 

[dgreen]

Monk only caught 196 passes over his first 4 seasons - thats 49 receptions a season through his first four years.

His first four years consisted of:1) One season being a rookie, obviously2) Not only being a rookie, but being a rookie WR after being a college RB3) A season with a new coaching staff (Gibbs) attempting to find their identity and gain familiarity with players. They finally found that identity and that was to run first.4) Strike-shortened third season5) Injury-shortened fourth season

In his final three seasons, he caught only 133 balls, for a paltry 43 receptions a season (he only played partially in his final season season so I didnt include those poor numbers in this study).

His final three seasons, not counting 1994 with the Eagles, consisted of:1) Being old, obviously2) In 1992, Rypien, after a great 1991 season, held-out. He missed most of training camp and was awful that year. Also, Jim Lachey, their best lineman suffered a lengthy injury. Gibbs has said before, "With great protection, there are 100 guys that can play QB in this league. Without protection, there are about 3 or 4 that can play in this league." Rypien wasn't one of those 3 or 4. That directly affects Monk.3) In 1993, he was on a new team. He was insulted that the Redskins were unwilling to pay him very much and wanted to play more football. So, he gave it another shot. I understand the arguments against Monk. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone, in the history or future of the game, will break the record for most catches in a season and most catches in a career and not be in the HOF. Monk has those on his resume.

 

[redman]

I'm obviously another Redskins homer who thinks it's offensive that Monk is not in. His stats have been well-argued. I haven't read every post, however I don't think that it's been mentioned that he was the first WR to catch more than 100 balls in 1984 in the history of the league. Someone else mentioned Harold Carmichael, and rightly so, as a HoF candidate (I'm gritting my teeth at saying that about an Eagle! . Those two guys redefined the possession WR role back when the league was still very much a run-first league and would be for another decade. That historical significance, in addition to their stats of course, should be added to their credentials. Dr. Z, who seems to be on a crusade against Monk for reasons I don't understand, never seems to mention that. I'd also add that during Gibbs' first tenure, when they one 3 SB's and appeared in a 4th, they changed QB's, RB's, on defense and everywhere else, except for three vitally important positions: C, G, T. Jeff Bostic, Russ Grimm, and Joe Jacoby were on all of those Super Bowl teams. While Bostic was not dominant at his position, Grimm and Jacoby were and deserve recognition as the anchors on the original Hogs, which of course started the trend towards the massive lines we see today. The other Redskin from the 80's that I believe deserves strong consideration is WR Gary Clark. If you match up his career stats against Swann's or Stallworth's, he was more productive. And of course the Super Bowl contribution argument doesn't work against him. The stats look like this:Name / Yrs / Rec / Yds / Avg / TD'sClark 11 699 10856 15.5 65Stallworth 14 537 8723 16.2 63Swann 9 336 5462 16.3 51As for non-Redskins, like I Zimmerman (outstanding OL), Dent (simply a great DE), Craig (the prototypical WCO RB), and Ray Guy. All of those guys are very deserving and should be in.

 

[stevec]

Ray Guy is the best punter ever. If the best player at a position is not in the hall of fame, what use is the hall of fame?

 

[BlueOnion]

All Time top 15 in receptions:

1 J Rice 1524

2 C Carter 1101

3 T Brown 1089

4 A Reed 951

5 A Monk 940

6 I Fryar 851

7 L Centers 826

8 S Largent 819

9 S Sharpe 815

10 H Ellard 814

11 M Harrison 788

12 J Lofton 764

13 C Joiner 750

14 M Irvin 750

15 J Smith 746

All Time top 15 in receiving yards:

1 J Rice 22533

2 T Brown 14882

3 J Lofton 14004

3 C Carter 13899

4 H Ellard 13777

5 A Reed 13198

6 S Largent 13089

7 I Fryar 12785

8 A Monk 12721

9 C Joiner 12146

10 M Irvin 11904

11 D Maynard 11834

12 I Bruce 10998

13 G Clark 10856

14 S Morgan 10716

15 J Smith 10565

All Time top 15 in receiving yards:

1 J Rice 194

2 C Carter 130

3t S Largent 100

3t T Brown 100

5 D Hutson 99

6 T Owens 89

7t D Maynard 88

7t M Harrison 88

8 A Reed 87

9t R Moss 85

9t P Warfield 85

9t L Alworth 85

12t I Fryar 84

12t A Rison 84

12t M Clayton 84

12t T McDonald 84

Hard to say whether I would vote him in or not. It would greatly depend on who the other 4 or 5 who were up for induction in said year.

 

[Raiders37]

BTW, is Mike Haynes in yet? He should be inducted before Lester Hayes.

Yeah, Haynes is in. 1997(I knew it was late 90's but still had to look up the exact year ) I had never been to the Pro Football HOF site before. Great site with lots of history.Here's a link for those of you that care to visit:Pro Football Hall of Fame

 

[redman]

My rebuttal:

All Time top 15 in receiving TD's (what you meant to say) w/number of Super Bowls/Championships in parenthesis:

1 J Rice 194 (3)

2 C Carter 130 (0)

3t S Largent 100 (0)

3t T Brown 100 (0)

5 D Hutson 99 (3)?

6 T Owens 89 (0)

7t D Maynard 88 (1)

7t M Harrison 88 (0)

8 A Reed 87 (0)

9t R Moss 85 (0)

9t P Warfield 85 (3)

9t L Alworth 85 (2)

12t I Fryar 84 (0)

12t A Rison 84 (1)

12t M Clayton 84 (0)

12t T McDonald 84 (1)

29t Art Monk 68 (3)And remember, a lot of these guys played in a much smaller league, or in the old AFL, and sometimes weren't even integral parts of their teams' passing offenses in the years that they won championships (e.g. Rison with the '96 Packers).

 

[jwvdcw]

All Time top 15 in receptions:

1 J Rice 1524

2 C Carter 1101

3 T Brown 1089

4 A Reed 951

5 A Monk 940

6 I Fryar 851

7 L Centers 826

8 S Largent 819

9 S Sharpe 815

10 H Ellard 814

11 M Harrison 788

12 J Lofton 764

13 C Joiner 750

14 M Irvin 750

15 J Smith 746

All Time top 15 in receiving yards:

1 J Rice 22533

2 T Brown 14882

3 J Lofton 14004

3 C Carter 13899

4 H Ellard 13777

5 A Reed 13198

6 S Largent 13089

7 I Fryar 12785

8 A Monk 12721

9 C Joiner 12146

10 M Irvin 11904

11 D Maynard 11834

12 I Bruce 10998

13 G Clark 10856

14 S Morgan 10716

15 J Smith 10565

All Time top 15 in receiving yards:

1 J Rice 194

2 C Carter 130

3t S Largent 100

3t T Brown 100

5 D Hutson 99

6 T Owens 89

7t D Maynard 88

7t M Harrison 88

8 A Reed 87

9t R Moss 85

9t P Warfield 85

9t L Alworth 85

12t I Fryar 84

12t A Rison 84

12t M Clayton 84

12t T McDonald 84

Hard to say whether I would vote him in or not. It would greatly depend on who the other 4 or 5 who were up for induction in said year.

But you're penalizing him for what happened after he retired! He was much higher(and #1 in receptions) on those lists when he retired!What you're doing is like looking at baseball stats and not giving full credit to Babe Ruth because today many more players are hitting HRs! So if the current HR barrage continues, and in 20 years theres 10+ players with over 700 career HRs, does that devalue what Ruth did? Of course not!

The game changes...HRs and receptions become easier to get. That doesn't mean you penalize a guy for putting up THE BEST STATS OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

jerry Kramer

 

[Bri]

I understand the arguments against Monk. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone, in the history or future of the game, will break the record for most catches in a season and most catches in a career and not be in the HOF. Monk has those on his resume.

What about Andre Reed?One above Monk on catches list

 

[Bri]

The game changes...HRs and receptions become easier to get. That doesn't mean you penalize a guy for putting up THE BEST STATS OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES.

Reading a John Wooden book recently to find the Indiana state highschool basketball championship was won by a score of 7 to 6.I would assume the guy that got all the teams points would be the best in the state right? Well, still 7 points per game stinks nowadays.I don't think it's easier to get receptions now. There was a long while there that NFL teams only passed as a last resort and it wasn't truly part of the base offense.I don't think it's easier to hit home runs now if the pitchers can pitch eons faster+harder than pitchers of years ago AND we have these ace relief guys that didn't(for the most part) exist years and years ago.Ever hear of Jim Thorpe?I think you take those that are the best of their peers argument makes tons of sense. However we do not vote on the Hall(in any sport) once a decade. We vote every year. Something has to give, though folks don't like it, its a necessary evil when we vote every year.A few years back they had all decade teams and the top 75 all time. If those were the only HOF inductees many critical folks would be happy. It's not though

 

[MarshallRob]

Ray Guy is the best punter ever. If the best player at a position is not in the hall of fame, what use is the hall of fame?

I am very surprised at all the love Ray Guy is getting here. He was a punter! All positions are not equal. Would the Raiders really have lost so many more games had they had a different punter? Could somebody please demonstrate with some actual statistics how much better Guy made the Raiders and why he is so much better than any other punter?

 

[beef]

Bernie Kosar

 

[Yenrub]

Big time players make big time plays in big games! Swann came up big in big games!

It’s Swann’s post season accomplishments that got him into the hall of fame.

Named MVP of Super Bowl X for his 4 catch, 161 yard, 1 TD performance.

His combined total of 364 receiving yards in four games ranked first in Super Bowl history at the time of his retirement.

As a rookie, Swann led the NFL in punt returns with 577 yards on 41 returns, which at that time was a club record and fourth best in NFL history. He did see limited action as a wide receiver, particularly in late season, and his touchdown catch in the AFC championship game against the Oakland Raiders proved to be a game-winner and set the stage for things to come.

Swann was named to the NFL’s All-Decade Team of the 1970s, and to the Super Bowl Silver Anniversary Team.

Swann HOF

 

[dgreen]

I understand the arguments against Monk. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone, in the history or future of the game, will break the record for most catches in a season and most catches in a career and not be in the HOF. Monk has those on his resume.

What about Andre Reed?One above Monk on catches list

I don't think I'd have a big problem with Reed going to the HOF. But, I definitely think he is borderline. I don't think the HOF should only be reserved for the Rices and Marinos. If I had to only choose one between Monk and Reed, I'll take Monk. Yes, partly being a homer, but also for the two facts I mentioned earlier: Monk broke records for most catches in a season and most catches in a career. Reed never did that. Also, Reed spent most of career in the 90s, when catching 100 balls a year happened to someone almost every year. Aside from the two AFL guys, take a look at the years on the Top Single Season Since 1960 list. Monk's 1984 gets lost in there among all the 1990s and 2000s.

 

[BlueOnion]

But you're penalizing him for what happened after he retired! He was much higher(and #1 in receptions) on those lists when he retired!What you're doing is like looking at baseball stats and not giving full credit to Babe Ruth because today many more players are hitting HRs! So if the current HR barrage continues, and in 20 years theres 10+ players with over 700 career HRs, does that devalue what Ruth did? Of course not!The game changes...HRs and receptions become easier to get. That doesn't mean you penalize a guy for putting up THE BEST STATS OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES.

The game does change. I am not saying Art Monk should or should not be in the HOF. Either way, I can understand if he gets in or if he does not get in.But the truth be told, every year that goes by and he is not put in the HOF, it will get significantly harder because his numbers are being devalued by the changing of the game.I will say this, if he does not get in the HOF before Rice does, I would say there is a good chance he will never get in.

 

[mighty thor]

Ray Guy.

Greatest punter in history should be honored.

 

[Native]

Thought I would give this a mid-week bump. Heres is the candidate of the day regarding this subject - which I find to be fascinating and a lightning-rod for compelling, stimulating football discussion.

Todays HOF Candidate: Isaac Bruce

A. Statistical Background

*At only 31, Bruce has already moved into 14th place all time in receptions with 755, (recently passing both Charlie Joiner and Michael Irvin). He will pass James Lofton with 9 more catches.

*He is 13th all time in receiving yards with 11487. If he plays only one more year, he should pass Art Monk and approach Steve Largent territory. If he plays only two more years, he will approach the Top 3 (Rice Brown and Lofton). And then he would only be 33.

* He has averaged over 1000 yards per season over his 11 year career - the ultimate sign of consistent production over an extended period. That includes injury prone seasons in 1997 and 1998 when he only played 17 games total, and his rookie season when he only caught 21 passes in 12 games. Of players with 10 or more seasons, only Jerry Rice can boast such an amazing feat.

*Hes already passed Monk in TD's with 72 (25th all time). Among active players, only Owens, Harrison and Moss are in the top 50 (Unless you consider Rice and Brown "active").

*He has seven 1000 yard seasons and counting

* He already has 7 top "5 finishes" in major statistical categories and is scheduled to finish top 5 in both yards and receptions this year - putting him ahead of such HOF nominees as Brown, Monk, and Irvin

* His gargantuan 1995 season - 119 receptions, 1781 yards and 13 TD's remains one of the greatest seasons of all time for a WR

*He has been a clutch playoff performer, with 4 100-yard days in 8 games. He also had a monster Super Bowl vs the Titans, with 162 yards and the game winning TD

B. Player Performance/Personal Thoughts:

Bruce has been a great player to WATCH over the years - runs great routes, has excellent hands (aside from last nights two fumbles :rotflmao and most notably, makes his job look easy. His postseason play has been excellent and is noteworthy. He has stayed on one team throughout his career, which never hurts. To his discredit, he made some controversial comments about Chiefs LB Derrick Thomas a few years back that angered a lot of people. That may work against him.

C. Recommendation

With regards to statistics, Bruce's resume already meets HOF requirements. If he plays until hes 38 like so many other WR's, he will surpass every WR not named Jerry Rice in almost every relevant receiving statistic. My personal opinion is that Bruce should be included at the top of the SECOND-tier WR candidates - behind "legends" such as Rice, Moss, Carter, Owens and Harrison, but before "compilers" such as Art Monk, Tim Brown, Jimmy Smith, and Andre Reed. I have him on par with Michael Irvin - though if Bruce continues to pile on the statistics over the next few years, he will be an easy first ballot HOF.

Now that Ive offered the background, feel free to discuss.

 

[Jason Wood]

Thought I would give this a mid-week bump. Heres is the candidate of the day regarding this subject - which I find to be fascinating and a lightning-rod for compelling, stimulating football discussion.

Todays HOF Candidate: Isaac Bruce

A. Statistical Background

*At only 31, Bruce has already moved into 14th place all time in receptions with 755, (recently passing both Charlie Joiner and Michael Irvin). He will pass James Lofton with 9 more catches.

*He is 13th all time in receiving yards with 11487. If he plays only one more year, he should pass Art Monk and approach Steve Largent territory. If he plays only two more years, he will approach the Top 3 (Rice Brown and Lofton). And then he would only be 33.

* He has averaged over 1000 yards per season over his 11 year career - the ultimate sign of consistent production over an extended period. That includes injury prone seasons in 1997 and 1998 when he only played 17 games total, and his rookie season when he only caught 21 passes in 12 games. Of players with 10 or more seasons, only Jerry Rice can boast such an amazing feat.

*Hes already passed Monk in TD's with 72 (25th all time). Among active players, only Owens, Harrison and Moss are in the top 50 (Unless you consider Rice and Brown "active").

*He has seven 1000 yard seasons and counting

* He already has 7 top "5 finishes" in major statistical categories and is scheduled to finish top 5 in both yards and receptions this year - putting him ahead of such HOF nominees as Brown, Monk, and Irvin

* His gargantuan 1995 season - 119 receptions, 1781 yards and 13 TD's remains one of the greatest seasons of all time for a WR

*He has been a clutch playoff performer, with 4 100-yard days in 8 games. He also had a monster Super Bowl vs the Titans, with 162 yards and the game winning TD

B. Player Performance/Personal Thoughts:

Bruce has been a great player to WATCH over the years - runs great routes, has excellent hands (aside from last nights two fumbles :rotflmao and most notably, makes his job look easy. His postseason play has been excellent and is noteworthy. He has stayed on one team throughout his career, which never hurts. To his discredit, he made some controversial comments about Chiefs LB Derrick Thomas a few years back that angered a lot of people. That may work against him.

C. Recommendation

With regards to statistics, Bruce's resume already meets HOF requirements. If he plays until hes 38 like so many other WR's, he will surpass every WR not named Jerry Rice in almost every relevant receiving statistic. My personal opinion is that Bruce should be included at the top of the SECOND-tier WR candidates - behind "legends" such as Rice, Moss, Carter, Owens and Harrison, but before "compilers" such as Art Monk, Tim Brown, Jimmy Smith, and Andre Reed. I have him on par with Michael Irvin - though if Bruce continues to pile on the statistics over the next few years, he will be an easy first ballot HOF.

Now that Ive offered the background, feel free to discuss.

Hey Native,While I think you make a compelling case for Bruce, it's actually not germane to this thread. We're talking about Most Deserving Player Not Yet in the Hall of Fame...BUT ALREADY ELIGIBLE.

I think Bruce will get in when the time comes, but he has to stop playing for a few years before we can talk about him in this context.

Woodrow

 

[Urinal Mint]

If Bullet Bob Hayes, who forced the invention of the zone defense, isn't in the Hall of Fame... then Art Monk definitely doesn't deserve to get in.

 

[Newman]

Bullet Bob Hayes

As well as the other finalist who was snubbed last year - Rayfield Wright. 6-time pro bowler, member of 12 playoff teams, 5 Super Bowls, 2 Super Bowl rings. Cowboys from that era are underrepresented in the Hall, but they will partially make up for it with players from the 90's Super Bowl teams.

 

[MarshallRob]

Ray Guy hands down. Is there another player who was clearly the most dominant player to ever play his position who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Why is he so clearly the most dominant player to ever play his position?