This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
He didn't even make it past the 1st cut.Doo said:
Eh, why should he? He was a commish, and all of them get in eventually I guess. But he jumped behind the wheel of a Ferrarri.
Should have to wait 5 years like everybody else.Doo said:
f-in disgrace
If Irvin has an ounce of class in him, he'll call out the group for shafting Monk.
How many times did Irvin break the single season record for receptions?How many times did Irvin retire as the career leader in receptions?
We aren't tied purely to stats. And besides, when did you develop your confusion about the Pro Bowl being scientific as opposed to a popularity contest, which BTW is the type of thing that a quiet, unassuming guy like Monk would not thrive in. It's no surprise that a self-promoting jackass like Irvin would get into more Pro Bowls. You want to break it down further? Name the Hall of Fame QB's who threw the ball to Monk, as opposed to Irvin who had Aikman for basically his entire career.
I agree that some of those OL men should be in. J. Jacoby especiialy. That was a great line. But that said, A. Monk himself was not a HOF receiver IMO. Those Super Bowl "teams" were great. But A. Monk was just a good player on a great teams.Unreal. We're approaching 20 years after those Redskins teams won their third and last Super Bowl together, the 4th they appeared in in 10 seasons, and they have exactly one player - Riggins - in the Hall. They haven't even added the two best offensive linemen - Grimm and Jacoby - from what was one of the best offensive lines of all time, despite the fact that both of those guys, plus Bostic and Monk, were there for all four Super Bowls. What an ridiculous statement about the voting system for the HoF.
stats can be very misleading. Monk was one of the best and most feared receivers of his time. 1000 yard receivers weren't as prevalent then as they are today.
i don't think you base it off stats alone, but they are a big part of it. And he just doesn't have the HOF stats. he was a good reciever, and I personally like him alot. I just understand why he is not in the HOF.I don't think Pro Bowls are a good guage, I was just merely mentioning it. And BTW, Pro Bowls are a popularity contest, but back in the 80's it wasn't that bad.
This line causes me to assume the poster was not old enough to be a football fan while Monk was in his prime. Before Rice established himself, Monk was generally the first player in the conversation about top wideouts. Even then, it was many years later that Monk wasn't automatically mentioned as one of the top three.
Then why is Steve Largent in? How many Super Bowls was he in?
Does Aikman have Hall of Fame stats, or was he simply a "good player on great teams" like you're saying about Monk?
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1989 dal | 11 | 155 293 52.9 1749 6.0 9 18 | 38 302 0 || 1990 dal | 15 | 226 399 56.6 2579 6.5 11 18 | 40 172 1 || 1991 dal | 12 | 237 363 65.3 2754 7.6 11 10 | 16 5 1 || 1992 dal | 16 | 302 473 63.8 3445 7.3 23 14 | 37 105 1 || 1993 dal | 14 | 271 392 69.1 3100 7.9 15 6 | 32 125 0 || 1994 dal | 14 | 233 361 64.5 2676 7.4 13 12 | 30 62 1 || 1995 dal | 16 | 280 432 64.8 3304 7.6 16 7 | 21 32 1 || 1996 dal | 15 | 296 465 63.7 3126 6.7 12 13 | 35 42 1 || 1997 dal | 16 | 292 518 56.4 3283 6.3 19 12 | 25 79 0 || 1998 dal | 11 | 187 315 59.4 2330 7.4 12 5 | 22 69 2 || 1999 dal | 14 | 263 442 59.5 2964 6.7 17 12 | 21 10 1 || 2000 dal | 11 | 156 262 59.5 1632 6.2 7 14 | 10 13 0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| TOTAL | 165 | 2898 4715 61.5 32942 7.0 165 141 | 327 1016 9 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------++----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1994 gnb | 2 | 12 27 44.4 95 3.5 0 0 | 6 7 1 || 1995 jax | 13 | 201 346 58.1 2168 6.3 15 7 | 67 480 4 || 1996 jax | 16 | 353 557 63.4 4367 7.8 19 20 | 80 396 3 || 1997 jax | 14 | 264 435 60.7 3281 7.5 18 7 | 48 257 2 || 1998 jax | 13 | 208 354 58.8 2601 7.3 20 9 | 49 192 0 || 1999 jax | 15 | 259 441 58.7 3060 6.9 14 9 | 47 208 1 || 2000 jax | 16 | 311 512 60.7 3640 7.1 20 14 | 48 236 2 || 2001 jax | 15 | 289 473 61.1 3309 7.0 19 13 | 39 224 1 || 2002 jax | 15 | 245 416 58.9 2788 6.7 17 7 | 43 207 0 || 2003 jax | 3 | 54 82 65.9 484 5.9 2 0 | 8 19 1 || 2004 was | 9 | 118 237 49.8 1194 5.0 7 6 | 19 62 0 || 2005 was | 16 | 262 454 57.7 3050 6.7 23 10 | 42 111 0 || 2006 was | 10 | 162 260 62.3 1789 6.9 8 4 | 13 34 0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| TOTAL | 157 | 2738 4594 59.6 31826 6.9 182 106 | 509 2433 15 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+Monk has the misfortune to have been one of the first WR's to rack up the kind of stats that we now see regularly today. The mindset among fans quickly changed from amazement at how remarkable that performance was to "Ho hum, if you don't get 80 catches then I don't care about you."
I don't recall Irvin being feared. I recall Emmitt, the o-line and Aikman being feared, but not Irvin.
I don't think T. Aikman should be in the HOF. I think the HOF is for the best players...not the best teams. I am not a Cowboys fan....so using other Cowboys to sway my opinion won't work
I am not a fan of Irvin either, but he was a great player that does have the stats you can't argue with.
Again, not a Irvin fan, but he was feared alot more than Monk was.
I'm not assuming you're a Cowboys fan. I actually think Aikman was a lot better than his stats, but you were pointing us to how important stats were so I directed you to some stats from Irvin's teammate. I'm just pointing out how anemic the passing stats were for those teams, as evidence that they were built around rushing and defense, with the passing offense there to contribute what it needed to to win. I actually agree Irvin should be in . . . eventually. Certainly not ahead of Monk though.I don't think T. Aikman should be in the HOF. I think the HOF is for the best players...not the best teams. I am not a Cowboys fan....so using other Cowboys to sway my opinion won't work
Incorrect. BTW, when Novaceck was playing I recall him being far more of a matchup problem for defenses than Irvin was.
No, but at least you won't have to turn up the volume on your tv to hear it.
Why?The 5 year rule was instituted for players/coaches to make sure that they won't come back to the game after being inducted. Joe Gibbs is one exception. It's highly unlikely, however, that a commish will return to his post.
A. Monk was a good receiver. But playing 16 years skewed his stats IMO.A. Monk(first 12 years) - 801 receptions, 10,984yds, 60tds, 13.7yds per catchM. Irvin.......................- 750 receptions, 11,904yds, 65tds, 15.9yds per catchI do not like Irvin personally, but just showing him in comparison since Irvin got in the HOF.
The thick irony here is all of the Cowboys' fans who have beenUnreal. We're approaching 20 years after those Redskins teams won their third and last Super Bowl together, the 4th they appeared in in 10 seasons, and they have exactly one player - Riggins - in the Hall. They haven't even added the two best offensive linemen - Grimm and Jacoby - from what was one of the best offensive lines of all time, despite the fact that both of those guys, plus Bostic and Monk, were there for all four Super Bowls.
What an ridiculous statement about the voting system for the HoF.
over the years about how the Hall is prejudiced against the Boys. Meanwhile, Dallas players are getting in ahead of of older, more-deserving Skins, but few will even notice.
I know why the rule is there. I just think its only fair
Either way, he will be a HOFamer eventually as he should be.
Wow... so the argument here is that if you play enough seasons you will eventually hold the two most important records for your position? Is this kind of like the monkeys with the typewriters eventually banging out Shakespeare argument?
Also, you don't believe these two players played at exactly the same time in exactly the same system with exactly the same kind of supporting players, do you?
Damn those durable players! They skew my pretty stats!
I still think Irvin was more feared than Monk...we can just agree to disagree though.
No, but Monk played on good teams as well as Irvin. And both teams were focused more on running than passing.
Great Sig....
I am not bashing A. Monk guys...he was a very good WR, I just understand why he is not in the Hall this year and Irvin is.Durabilty is great, but it does skew his stats when you play 16 years. Thats why I compared the first 12 years of each. (prime years)Damn those durable players! They skew my pretty stats!
In my mind there is no argument. But that doesn't keep guys like you from wasting time trying to convince me otherwise every year.Yep. Stats dont tell the whole story, never do if you know football.
You mean as opposed to Swann's stellar numbers?
