What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

SI's top 10 Non-Hall of Famers (1 Viewer)

DaWidowMaker

Footballguy
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...mmqb/index.html

Let them in

Ten jilted players who deserve to be in Hall of Fame

We haven't had a good argument in a long time. No really good brouhahas, not even over my Dallas-to-win-the-Super Bowl pick. So as we head into the summer football doldrums, let's invent a nice little controversy.

Let's argue over who among the eligible coaches and players most deserves to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

I've got my list ready. Get yours and let's brawl.

Keep in mind that many of these guys were discussed in the meeting of the 39 Hall selectors in Detroit the day before the Super Bowl. Here, then, is my list of The Jilted 10.

1. Thurman Thomas, RB, Buffalo. I continue to be amazed at the lack of an uproar when he didn't make it last year. He's one of those guys who everyone says, "Oh, don't worry. He'll get in.'' Probably so, but I've heard that said about too many people over the years, people who never got in. So I take nothing for granted. Thomas was the most versatile running back over a six- or seven-year period, and he was the reason the Buffalo offense kept so many long drives alive. Only one Hall of Fame back, Walter Payton, has more catches than Thomas' 472. This guy's lock city. Or should be.

2. Mick Tingelhoff, C, Minnesota. Two numbers say it all: seven years All-Pro, more than any other center in NFL history (not counting Jim Otto's AFL awards), and 240 consecutive games. The man never missed a game due to injury for 15 years. At center! I've always felt he was unfairly singled out for the Minnesota Super Bowl losses and for getting beat on a few memorable plays. You don't play that long without being a great football player. And Tingelhoff was.

3. Michael Irvin, WR, Dallas. Three knocks on Irvin I always hear. 1) He cheated: He held and pass-interfered when the officials couldn't see. 2) He was a mess off the field. 3) Dallas will have Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith (and maybe Larry Allen) in the Hall when this era's team is considered. That's enough. Poppycock. This man was the leader of the Cowboys, pure and simple. The leader. And he was a great player who simply refused to lose. I know it's a cliché, but ask anyone around that team -- Aikman, Jimmy Johnson, Jerry Jones. It's absurd he hasn't made it. And re: the off-the-field stuff, we are not allowed to bring those considerations into the meeting room. Only what happened between the lines should matter. Catching 750 balls for a three-time Super Bowl winner and being the key guy in the locker room on game days ... that should make him a gimme.

4. Bill Parcells, coach. I always say the same thing about this. When Marv Levy was actively trying to get back into coaching, even at his advanced age, he and Parcells came up for a vote. I must be blind, because I think it's no contest that a man who has led four different teams to the playoffs, three different teams to the conference title game, two different teams to the Super Bowl and won two world titles is more deserving by far than Levy.

5. Dermontti Dawson, C, Pittsburgh. More All-Pro nods (six) than Dwight Stephenson or Jim Langer, to go along with a durable 184-game career. He played 13 years compared with Stevenson's eight. And while I think Stevenson was a better player, technically especially, I also think the longer career definitely plays in Dawson's favor.

6. Charlie Sanders, TE, Detroit. Two big problems with Sanders: He played for a team that lost a lot and never won a title, and he played tight end. People don't know how to look at tight ends. Imagine having a guy who was every bit the blocker of John Mackey -- and who averaged 14.3 yards per catch! Jerry Rice averaged 14.8. Sanders played 10 years at the highest level and he was every bit the player Mackey or Mike Ditka was. Just ask the men who competed against them.

7. Roger Craig, RB, San Francisco. I can't believe he doesn't get more consideration. Was I the only one who thought for five or six years he was the guy you had to stop in the San Francisco offense to have a chance to win? Think of what he did at his peak. Remember back 20 years. Unstoppable, durable, Mr. Inside-Mr. Outside. In 1985 he rushed for 1,050 yards and had 1,016 receiving yards. Imagine a year in which everyone knows you're getting the ball and still you pick up five yards per rush and 11 yards per reception. That's one of the best years a runner has ever had.

8. Bob Kuechenberg, G, Miami. SI.com's Paul Zimmerman rails every year about Kuechenberg belonging. I've come around on the Dolphins offensive lineman. For a long time I felt that because the center on that Miami team, Jim Langer, and the other guard, Larry Little, were in the Hall, that was enough for one line. I am convinced that Kuechenberg was better at his position than Langer was at his, so why penalize him because one of his linemates is in and maybe is only a borderline guy?

9. Derrick Thomas, OLB, Kansas City. I have wavered on Thomas, who I feel could be stopped by the best offensive tackles. But he passes the eye test. That is, I remember seeing him make so many plays with my own eyes and saying, "Wow -- how many more players could do that?'' And there haven't been many in my lifetime. He wasn't Lawrence Taylor, but he was in LT's league.

10. Gary Zimmerman, T, Denver. No really good player I've been around was more invisible than Zimmerman off the field. He didn't like the media stuff, but he wasn't rude about it. He was just a no-nonsense drive-blocker with good feet to slow down the great pass-rushers of his day. That's why, in part, he did something precious few players have ever done -- be a two-time NFL all-decade player. He made it in the '80s and the '90s.

I'd have to add Darren Woodson..yes I'm a homer but this guy was amazing and imagine if he could have played just 1 more year under Parcells and teamed with Roy Williams :eek: . He is the all-time Dallas Cowboy leader in tackles, has 3 Super Bowls rings and was an annual Pro-Bowler.

 
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...mmqb/index.html

1. Thurman Thomas, RB, Buffalo. I continue to be amazed at the lack of an uproar when he didn't make it last year. He's one of those guys who everyone says, "Oh, don't worry. He'll get in.'' Probably so, but I've heard that said about too many people over the years, people who never got in. So I take nothing for granted. Thomas was the most versatile running back over a six- or seven-year period, and he was the reason the Buffalo offense kept so many long drives alive. Only one Hall of Fame back, Walter Payton, has more catches than Thomas' 472. This guy's lock city. Or should be.

Absolutely. He lead the league in yards from scrimmage several years in a row and was one of the top 2 or 3 RBs for 5+ years. He has great career totals and did some amazing things.

2. Mick Tingelhoff, C, Minnesota. Two numbers say it all: seven years All-Pro, more than any other center in NFL history (not counting Jim Otto's AFL awards), and 240 consecutive games. The man never missed a game due to injury for 15 years. At center! I've always felt he was unfairly singled out for the Minnesota Super Bowl losses and for getting beat on a few memorable plays. You don't play that long without being a great football player. And Tingelhoff was.

Before my time.

3. Michael Irvin, WR, Dallas. Three knocks on Irvin I always hear. 1) He cheated: He held and pass-interfered when the officials couldn't see. 2) He was a mess off the field. 3) Dallas will have Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith (and maybe Larry Allen) in the Hall when this era's team is considered. That's enough. Poppycock. This man was the leader of the Cowboys, pure and simple. The leader. And he was a great player who simply refused to lose. I know it's a cliché, but ask anyone around that team -- Aikman, Jimmy Johnson, Jerry Jones. It's absurd he hasn't made it. And re: the off-the-field stuff, we are not allowed to bring those considerations into the meeting room. Only what happened between the lines should matter. Catching 750 balls for a three-time Super Bowl winner and being the key guy in the locker room on game days ... that should make him a gimme.

Absolutely not. He was a very good WR but never totally dominant. And his career totals just don't hold up. Maybe if he hadn't had to retire early he could have obtained the numbers, but they're just not there IMO.

4. Bill Parcells, coach. I always say the same thing about this. When Marv Levy was actively trying to get back into coaching, even at his advanced age, he and Parcells came up for a vote. I must be blind, because I think it's no contest that a man who has led four different teams to the playoffs, three different teams to the conference title game, two different teams to the Super Bowl and won two world titles is more deserving by far than Levy.

Yup, he definitely belongs. It seems like coaches have a hard time getting in the HOF without dying first. I think Parcells has hurt his cause by jumping around from team to team so much. If he had stayed with one team the entire time and had those credentials, I think he'd be in no problem.

5. Dermontti Dawson, C, Pittsburgh. More All-Pro nods (six) than Dwight Stephenson or Jim Langer, to go along with a durable 184-game career. He played 13 years compared with Stevenson's eight. And while I think Stevenson was a better player, technically especially, I also think the longer career definitely plays in Dawson's favor.

Absolutely should be in. He was the best center in the league for about a decade. He was the centerpiece of so many of those Steeler teams that just ran all over everyone else every single season.

6. Charlie Sanders, TE, Detroit. Two big problems with Sanders: He played for a team that lost a lot and never won a title, and he played tight end. People don't know how to look at tight ends. Imagine having a guy who was every bit the blocker of John Mackey -- and who averaged 14.3 yards per catch! Jerry Rice averaged 14.8. Sanders played 10 years at the highest level and he was every bit the player Mackey or Mike Ditka was. Just ask the men who competed against them.

Before my time.

7. Roger Craig, RB, San Francisco. I can't believe he doesn't get more consideration. Was I the only one who thought for five or six years he was the guy you had to stop in the San Francisco offense to have a chance to win? Think of what he did at his peak. Remember back 20 years. Unstoppable, durable, Mr. Inside-Mr. Outside. In 1985 he rushed for 1,050 yards and had 1,016 receiving yards. Imagine a year in which everyone knows you're getting the ball and still you pick up five yards per rush and 11 yards per reception. That's one of the best years a runner has ever had.

Nope. He was very good, but Montana, Rice and Taylor made those teams great, not Craig. He was a great West Coast Offense RB and a great fit for their system, but I don't think that there was one time where people really thought that he may be the best RB in the league.

8. Bob Kuechenberg, G, Miami. SI.com's Paul Zimmerman rails every year about Kuechenberg belonging. I've come around on the Dolphins offensive lineman. For a long time I felt that because the center on that Miami team, Jim Langer, and the other guard, Larry Little, were in the Hall, that was enough for one line. I am convinced that Kuechenberg was better at his position than Langer was at his, so why penalize him because one of his linemates is in and maybe is only a borderline guy?

Before my time.

9. Derrick Thomas, OLB, Kansas City. I have wavered on Thomas, who I feel could be stopped by the best offensive tackles. But he passes the eye test. That is, I remember seeing him make so many plays with my own eyes and saying, "Wow -- how many more players could do that?'' And there haven't been many in my lifetime. He wasn't Lawrence Taylor, but he was in LT's league.

I think the guy belongs. In 11 years he was selected to 9 Pro Bowls. Definitely one of the most dominant DEs in the 90s.

10. Gary Zimmerman, T, Denver. No really good player I've been around was more invisible than Zimmerman off the field. He didn't like the media stuff, but he wasn't rude about it. He was just a no-nonsense drive-blocker with good feet to slow down the great pass-rushers of his day. That's why, in part, he did something precious few players have ever done -- be a two-time NFL all-decade player. He made it in the '80s and the '90s.

No opinion
 
Thurman and Irvin deserve to be in the Hall, although I think Irvin having to wait due to his off the field transgressions is appropriate. Larry Allen definitely deserves to go although he's not eligible yet.

I still agree with Skins fans who yell Art Monk's name every year. And that's coming from a Giants fan!

I don't think Roger Craig played at a top level long enough. If he goes in then how do you say no to Terrell Davis? I agree that in his prime Craig was a force and tends to be underrated historically speaking but he still needed a few more years to qualify on my card.

Dermontti Dawson was as dominating a center as I've ever seen. Can't argue against his admission, but on the flip side I don't think he needs to be rushed in ASAP.

I'd vote Parcells in once he's done.

 
Thurman and Irvin deserve to be in the Hall, although I think Irvin having to wait due to his off the field transgressions is appropriate. Larry Allen definitely deserves to go although he's not eligible yet.



I still agree with Skins fans who yell Art Monk's name every year. And that's coming from a Giants fan!

I don't think Roger Craig played at a top level long enough. If he goes in then how do you say no to Terrell Davis? I agree that in his prime Craig was a force and tends to be underrated historically speaking but he still needed a few more years to qualify on my card.

Dermontti Dawson was as dominating a center as I've ever seen. Can't argue against his admission, but on the flip side I don't think he needs to be rushed in ASAP.

I'd vote Parcells in once he's done.
:thumbup: :goodposting:
 
Why is Parcells even on this list. He's still coaching. Can coaches get elected while they are still active coaches?

 
Thurman and Irvin deserve to be in the Hall, although I think Irvin having to wait due to his off the field transgressions is appropriate.  Larry Allen definitely deserves to go although he's not eligible yet.



I still agree with Skins fans who yell Art Monk's name every year.  And that's coming from a Giants fan!

I don't think Roger Craig played at a top level long enough.  If he goes in then how do you say no to Terrell Davis?  I agree that in his prime Craig was a force and tends to be underrated historically speaking but he still needed a few more years to qualify on my card.

Dermontti Dawson was as dominating a center as I've ever seen.  Can't argue against his admission, but on the flip side I don't think he needs to be rushed in ASAP.

I'd vote Parcells in once he's done.
:thumbup: :goodposting:
Regarding Monk - is there another example in any of the major sports of any athlete who retired with the highest number in any core statistical category who didn't make the HoF? Aside from career hits leader, Pete Rose, who of course is out because of gambling, I can't think of any.
 
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...mmqb/index.html

3. Michael Irvin, WR, Dallas. Catching 750 balls for a three-time Super Bowl winner and being the key guy in the locker room on game days ... that should make him a gimme.
How about a guy who caught 950 balls for a three-time Super Bowl champion? A guy who was a key not just by running his mouth on game day, but by setting an example of professionalism for an entire franchise? A guy like ART MONK!!Funny King should say this, since he's one of the leading opponents for letting Monk in the Hall -- as evidenced by his exclusion from this Top 10 list.

 
Why is Parcells even on this list. He's still coaching. Can coaches get elected while they are still active coaches?
Once he retired, he was eligible 5 years afterwards. Him coming back doesnt reset the 5 year window.I assume so at least.

 
I won't lose sleep if Monk makes it or not, as I can see valid points on both sides of the ledger.

But the fact of the matter is that statistically he really wasn't a Top 5 WR in ANY of his 16 seasons.

Yes, he did earn 3 rings, was a Top 25 WR 10 times, played for ever, and was good for the game. But was he ever dominant?

Take away the rings, and you basically will have Keenan McCardell by the time he retires (if he played 2 more years).

Monk:

940-12721-13.5-68

McCardell:

825-10680-12.9-62

Obviously you can't ignore the rings and that should give Monk a decided edge over McCardell, but there are a lot of WR on the outside looking in.

As I said, I could live with Monk being in or not getting in and would not fight hard one way or the other.

 
Taylor wasn't as good as Craig. And perhaps Brent Jones should have been there instead of Taylor. What I really was referring to though was the fact that the passing game was what was important for S.F. It's what made them special. Having a versatile and very good RB like Craig certainly helped them put things together, but he was not the main reason that those teams were great. And without the dominant numbers, I just can't say that he's HOF worthy without being the guy that clearly carried a team.

And whomever made the point about King supporting Irvin but being the biggest Monk detractor, good call. How he can support Irvin but not Monk is just beyond stupid. No, Monk was ever the most dominant WR at the position, but neither was Irvin. And there is something to be said for putting up very good numbers over a long period of time.

Lastly, I don't think that the rules apply to coaches/GMs/Owners etc. like they do for players. I'm pretty sure that the rules just say that you have to be retired as a coach, not that you have to have been retired for a certain number of years. Of course, that does exclude Parcels right now, but he could have been selected before he came back.

Just as an interesting sidenote, I just read on Wikipedia that the Falcons only have two players in the HOF, Eric Dickerson and Tommy McDonald, both of which only played one insignificant season with the Falcons. Ouch.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Irvin will make it eventually. They are just making him sweat.

Dawson was the dominant center in the league for a good part of a decade and should be in.

Thurman Thomas should be a no-brainer. Him not making it in his first year of eligibility just shows what a farce the Hall really is.

 
Thurman Thomas should be a no-brainer. Him not making it in his first year of eligibility just shows what a farce the Hall really is.
IMO, this just shows that the class from last year was one of the strongest ever, so it's not an indictment of Thomas' legacy. He should get in next time out (at least one would hope).
 
Just as an interesting sidenote, I just read on Wikipedia that the Falcons only have two players in the HOF, Eric Dickerson and Tommy McDonald, both of which only played one insignificant season with the Falcons.  Ouch.
Hey, things aren't that bad... they'll eventually have Brett Favre too. ;)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about a guy who caught 950 balls for a three-time Super Bowl champion? A guy who was a key not just by running his mouth on game day, but by setting an example of professionalism for an entire franchise? A guy like ART MONK!!

Funny King should say this, since he's one of the leading opponents for letting Monk in the Hall -- as evidenced by his exclusion from this Top 10 list.
If you take the first 11 years of Monks and Irvins careers (Irvin was injured in game 4 of year 12), their numbers are very similar (Irvins is just slightly better). I am a Dallas homer and cannot fathom why Monk isn't in. Could it be his Village People mustache?
 
Just as an interesting sidenote, I just read on Wikipedia that the Falcons only have two players in the HOF, Eric Dickerson and Tommy McDonald, both of which only played one insignificant season with the Falcons. Ouch.
Hey, things aren't that bad... they'll eventually have Brett Favre too. ;)
:lmao:
 
I won't lose sleep if Monk makes it or not, as I can see valid points on both sides of the ledger.

But the fact of the matter is that statistically he really wasn't a Top 5 WR in ANY of his 16 seasons.

Yes, he did earn 3 rings, was a Top 25 WR 10 times, played for ever, and was good for the game. But was he ever dominant?

Take away the rings, and you basically will have Keenan McCardell by the time he retires (if he played 2 more years).

Monk:

940-12721-13.5-68

McCardell:

825-10680-12.9-62

Obviously you can't ignore the rings and that should give Monk a decided edge over McCardell, but there are a lot of WR on the outside looking in.

As I said, I could live with Monk being in or not getting in and would not fight hard one way or the other.
Keynan McCardell played during a pass-happy era, much of it with a superior WR opposite of him to take away attention from him. Monk had no such advantage.
 
I won't lose sleep if Monk makes it or not, as I can see valid points on both sides of the ledger.

But the fact of the matter is that statistically he really wasn't a Top 5 WR in ANY of his 16 seasons. 

Yes, he did earn 3 rings, was a Top 25 WR 10 times, played for ever, and was good for the game.  But was he ever dominant?

Take away the rings, and you basically will have Keenan McCardell by the time he retires (if he played 2 more years).

Monk:

940-12721-13.5-68

McCardell:

825-10680-12.9-62

Obviously you can't ignore the rings and that should give Monk a decided edge over McCardell, but there are a lot of WR on the outside looking in.

As I said, I could live with Monk being in or not getting in and would not fight hard one way or the other.
Keynan McCardell played during a pass-happy era, much of it with a superior WR opposite of him to take away attention from him. Monk had no such advantage.
Monk WAS NOT the #1 WR in 10 of his 14 seasons on the Redskins.82 & 83 Charlie Brown

86, 87, 89, 90, 91 & 92 Gary Clark

88 Ricky Sanders

In 92 he was #3 after Clark and Sanders. In 93 he was #3 behind Sanders and Tim McGee.

 
Yeah and Keenan McCardell set all-time records for receptions in a career, receptions in a season, and most consecutive games with a reception, right?

Lynn Swann had 336 catches for 5462 yards. Take away his rings, and he's Michael Westbrook.

 
The HOF's problem is that they let too many people in, not the other way around. If theres any question about a guy's validity, then I vote 'no.'

 
I won't lose sleep if Monk makes it or not, as I can see valid points on both sides of the ledger.

But the fact of the matter is that statistically he really wasn't a Top 5 WR in ANY of his 16 seasons.

Yes, he did earn 3 rings, was a Top 25 WR 10 times, played for ever, and was good for the game. But was he ever dominant?

Take away the rings, and you basically will have Keenan McCardell by the time he retires (if he played 2 more years).

Monk:

940-12721-13.5-68

McCardell:

825-10680-12.9-62

Obviously you can't ignore the rings and that should give Monk a decided edge over McCardell, but there are a lot of WR on the outside looking in.

As I said, I could live with Monk being in or not getting in and would not fight hard one way or the other.
although part of their careers overlapped, Monk played his early career before the sudden trend of WR stats jumping. Therefore I don't think you can compare the two just by stats.
 
I was looking at Roger Craig when doing a different analysis today, and was surprised by how pedestrian his numbers were. Aside from 1985 (which, admittedly, was an enormous season at the time, and before Rice really made an impact on the team) he had just two 1000-yard seasons. In 18 post-season games he had just two 100-yard games and 9 TDs (although he did have big games in the 1984 and 1988 Super Bowls). He's not in the top 25 in rushing yards and is only #25 in yards from scrimmage; not HoF quality.

 
I won't lose sleep if Monk makes it or not, as I can see valid points on both sides of the ledger.

But the fact of the matter is that statistically he really wasn't a Top 5 WR in ANY of his 16 seasons. 

Yes, he did earn 3 rings, was a Top 25 WR 10 times, played for ever, and was good for the game.  But was he ever dominant?

Take away the rings, and you basically will have Keenan McCardell by the time he retires (if he played 2 more years).

Monk:

940-12721-13.5-68

McCardell:

825-10680-12.9-62

Obviously you can't ignore the rings and that should give Monk a decided edge over McCardell, but there are a lot of WR on the outside looking in.

As I said, I could live with Monk being in or not getting in and would not fight hard one way or the other.
Keynan McCardell played during a pass-happy era, much of it with a superior WR opposite of him to take away attention from him. Monk had no such advantage.
Monk WAS NOT the #1 WR in 10 of his 14 seasons on the Redskins.82 & 83 Charlie Brown

86, 87, 89, 90, 91 & 92 Gary Clark

88 Ricky Sanders

In 92 he was #3 after Clark and Sanders. In 93 he was #3 behind Sanders and Tim McGee.
I love Clark and frankly think that if you put Lynn Swann in the HoF, you should put Clark in there too, but that's a different topic. Monk was always the guy they targeted when they needed a play. He was Mr. 3rd down. That's what I'm talking about. Without Monk, those other guys would not have been as effective. It's not nearly as much the case the other way around. THAT's what I mean by #1 WR.

How do you think a guy like Charley Brown or even Ricky Sanders is worth mentioning now if not for having a rock like Monk opposite him?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of this really depends on your conception of the Hall Of Fame, and what the criteria should be. Do you think longevity should be rewarded even if a player was never dominant for a number of years, or do you prefer a guy who was clearly one of the very best at his position for a few years but burned out more quickly?

In my humble opinion, I think Irvin should probably be in the Hall (although I don't think he should be a first ballot guy necessarily) and I don't think Monk should be. Here's my rationale:

Monk was a great WR and showed terrific longevity, but he really only had one dominant season (1984) and a couple of other very good ones (1985 & 1989). He had more than 1,000 yds in 5 of 16 seasons, and never had more than 8 td's in a season. He made the pro-bowl 3 times. Yes, his career numbers are very impressive, but he did play for three years where he wasn't very effective. Take away 93 receptions and he's in Irving Fryar territory. I know that taking away seasons when guys shouldn't necessarily have been playing is a tricky and possibly futile argument, but, the larger point is, how much should Monk be rewarded for most likely hanging around longer than he should have? I will say that Monk was a good post-season performer, playing in 15 games with 69 receptions, 1062 yds and 7 td's.

In the case of Irvin, he had a solid run of seasons from 1991 -- 1997 where he was consistently one of the best WR's in the league (this was interrupted in 1996 when he was injured, but was otherwise on track for a very good season). He had 2 outstanding seasons and 2 more that can be considered dominant. He had more than 1,000 yds in 7 of 12 seasons, and made the pro-bowl 5 times. In 16 post-season games, he had 87 receptions for 1314 yds and 8 td's.

I personally think it's important to consider whether a player was ever the best at his position, or among the best, and, if so, for how long. Can you really say that Monk was the best WR in the game or among the top 3 or 5? Maybe for a season, but more than that is a stretch. While Irvin may never have been the best WR in the game, thanks to Jerry Rice's amazing run, I think it's fair to say that he was one of the best 3-5 wr's in the game for at least 4 years.

Another thing that comes up when people debate the Hall is that x player is in so therefore y should be in as well. I can completely understand why Monk supporters would point to a guy like Charlie Joiner and say that if he's in, Monk should be in as well. They'd be right, except that I don't think Joiner should be in, either (and I grew up a huge Chargers fan).

Anyway, just some rambling about why I think Irvin is a likely Hall of Famer and Monk is not.

 
WHY would he put an ACTIVE coach on this list, and leave Klecko off? Because he's an idiot.

While Klecko had an injury shortened career, he remains the only player to ever make the pro bowl at three positions, and that is very unlikely to ever happen again. DE, DT, NT. Parcells is an active coach, and should NOT be on the list. Klecko...... he will be only the third Jet in franchise history to ever have his number retired, which will happen this year. The other two? Namath and Maynard.

 
I won't lose sleep if Monk makes it or not, as I can see valid points on both sides of the ledger.

But the fact of the matter is that statistically he really wasn't a Top 5 WR in ANY of his 16 seasons. 

Yes, he did earn 3 rings, was a Top 25 WR 10 times, played for ever, and was good for the game.  But was he ever dominant?

Take away the rings, and you basically will have Keenan McCardell by the time he retires (if he played 2 more years).

Monk:

940-12721-13.5-68

McCardell:

825-10680-12.9-62

Obviously you can't ignore the rings and that should give Monk a decided edge over McCardell, but there are a lot of WR on the outside looking in.

As I said, I could live with Monk being in or not getting in and would not fight hard one way or the other.
Keynan McCardell played during a pass-happy era, much of it with a superior WR opposite of him to take away attention from him. Monk had no such advantage.
Monk WAS NOT the #1 WR in 10 of his 14 seasons on the Redskins.82 & 83 Charlie Brown

86, 87, 89, 90, 91 & 92 Gary Clark

88 Ricky Sanders

In 92 he was #3 after Clark and Sanders. In 93 he was #3 behind Sanders and Tim McGee.
I love Clark and frankly think that if you put Lynn Swann in the HoF, you should put Clark in there too, but that's a different topic. Monk was always the guy they targeted when they needed a play. He was Mr. 3rd down. That's what I'm talking about. Without Monk, those other guys would not have been as effective. It's not nearly as much the case the other way around. THAT's what I mean by #1 WR.

How do you think a guy like Charley Brown or even Ricky Sanders is worth mentioning now if not for having a rock like Monk opposite him?
anyone who would argue that Monk was not the #1 WR for the Skins did not follow the team during that era and, I'm guessing, is simply looking at stats. The HOF is not an entirely stat-based entity. as the redman says, Monk elevated Clark & Sanders to greatness.
 
Yeah and Keenan McCardell set all-time records for receptions in a career, receptions in a season, and most consecutive games with a reception, right?

Lynn Swann had 336 catches for 5462 yards. Take away his rings, and he's Michael Westbrook.
Swann was just a different type of player. He was the first WR that athletic on a football field. Alworth was close. B. Hayes was a little closer. Neither, opinion, were as complete a football player as Swann and this coming from a HUGE Alworth fan. Rules were significantly different during Swann's playing days. Defenders could chuck and hold. Next, the Steelers had one of the most dominant team defenses of all time over a decade. The seasons were shorter. They had a backfield with Harris and Bleier. All things considered, I do not thiink the forward pass was the first option in the Steelers' playbook but, when the team had to have it on 3rd and long, Swann got the ball. One of the most clutch players I have ever seen play.

 
Regarding Monk - is there another example in any of the major sports of any athlete who retired with the highest number in any core statistical category who didn't make the HoF?  Aside from career hits leader, Pete Rose, who of course is out because of gambling, I can't think of any.
Monk did not retire with the career receptions record. Rice broke the record in 1995, Monk's last year. To answer your question, Billy Howton did retire with the receptions record and he's not in the Hall of Fame. Howton passed Don Hutson's mark in 1963 and retired at the end of the season. Raymond Berry broke the record in 1964.EDIT: I don't think Rice broke the record until late in the 1995 season. It's possible Monk retired before then. I can't remember.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zimmerman deserves it. Likely one of the top 10-15 tackles to ever play the game.
Agreed. How great of a tackle do you have to be to make TWO all-decade teams? He was so good for so long.On a side note, I'm loving the fact that King lists 4 OLs and a TE on his top-10 list. I agree that the hall needs to start letting in a lot more OLs.

Why is Parcells even on this list. He's still coaching. Can coaches get elected while they are still active coaches?
Once he retired, he was eligible 5 years afterwards. Him coming back doesnt reset the 5 year window.I assume so at least.
There is no 5-year waiting period on coaches. I'm pretty sure Gibbs got in less than 5 years after he retired. I think the HoF doesn't bring up coaches until they're pretty sure they won't come back again, though- which is why Parcells has never come up. Nobody has ever believed him when he said he was retired.
Just as an interesting sidenote, I just read on Wikipedia that the Falcons only have two players in the HOF, Eric Dickerson and Tommy McDonald, both of which only played one insignificant season with the Falcons. Ouch.
That's what happens when your team exists for 40 years and doesn't ONCE during that span put up back-to-back winning seasons.It was more interesting a couple of years ago when the Denver Broncos were 2nd in NFL history in Super Bowl appearances... but didn't have a single HoFer. That one's a little bit harder to explain.

Keynan McCardell played during a pass-happy era, much of it with a superior WR opposite of him to take away attention from him. Monk had no such advantage.
Having a superior WR on the other side of the field draws attention, yes... but it draws targets, too. For example: Rod Smith. Name Denver's #2 WR in the season Rod Smith made a run at the NFL receptions record.
 
Regarding Monk - is there another example in any of the major sports of any athlete who retired with the highest number in any core statistical category who didn't make the HoF?  Aside from career hits leader, Pete Rose, who of course is out because of gambling, I can't think of any.
Monk did not retire with the career receptions record. Rice broke the record in 1995, Monk's last year. To answer your question, Billy Howton did retire with the receptions record and he's not in the Hall of Fame. Howton passed Don Hutson's mark in 1963 and retired at the end of the season. Raymond Berry broke the record in 1964.EDIT: I don't think Rice broke the record until late in the 1995 season. It's possible Monk retired before then. I can't remember.
Monk had the record for approximately one season after he retired, until Rice broke it. I'm absolutely sure of this.
 
Thurman should have gotten in on the first ballot. Was the victim of a ridiculously strong class this year.

I think Irvin is more deserving than Monk. In his prime, Irvin was one of the top 2 or 3 WRs in the league. As a Bills fan, I hate him...but I can't ignore his talent and ability.

I also think Andre Reed is more deserving than Monk. He has 7 Pro Bowls to just 3 for Monk and his career numbers are better than Monk's (more receptions, more yards, a better average, and more TDs) in a nearly identical number of games. Reed has better postseason stats than Monk as well. Reed was also clearly the #1 WR on his team throughout the prime of his career, while Monk often took a backseat to Gary Clark. Andre Reed didn't really play in the modern pass-happy NFL that we're seeing today, yet still ranks 4th all-time in receptions and 6th all-time in yards and 10th all-time in receiving TDs.

I agree with Zimmerman and Dermontti Dawson and Kuechenberg.

I loved Roger Craig but don't think he sustained his excellence for a long enough time period to make it in. I think Ricky Watters probably has a stronger case than him.

Derrick Thomas should also make it in at some point. He was a one dimensional player, but he was dominant and his 9 consecutive Pro Bowls are proof of that.

Parcells is a lock whenever he leaves coaching. The only reason Levy got in and he didn't was b/c everybody knew Parcells was not going to stay retired.

 
I won't lose sleep if Monk makes it or not, as I can see valid points on both sides of the ledger.

But the fact of the matter is that statistically he really wasn't a Top 5 WR in ANY of his 16 seasons.

Yes, he did earn 3 rings, was a Top 25 WR 10 times, played for ever, and was good for the game. But was he ever dominant?
This is one of those urban legends that gets tossed around and then repeated as if it was gospel even though it doesn't have any basis in reality. In 1984, Monk caught 106 passes (the leading indicator for the value of a WR). Do you know how many WRs caught that many passes in a single season before him? None. He also grabbed 91 passes the next year and 86 in 1989 (all top three performances).For those of us that were alive and paying attention to football at the time, until Rice really asserted himself as consistently amazing (around 1990) Monk's name was one of the first mention when discussing the best wideouts in the game.

 
I won't lose sleep if Monk makes it or not, as I can see valid points on both sides of the ledger.

But the fact of the matter is that statistically he really wasn't a Top 5 WR in ANY of his 16 seasons. 

Yes, he did earn 3 rings, was a Top 25 WR 10 times, played for ever, and was good for the game.  But was he ever dominant?
This is one of those urban legends that gets tossed around and then repeated as if it was gospel even though it doesn't have any basis in reality. In 1984, Monk caught 106 passes (the leading indicator for the value of a WR). Do you know how many WRs caught that many passes in a single season before him? None. He also grabbed 91 passes the next year and 86 in 1989 (all top three performances).For those of us that were alive and paying attention to football at the time, until Rice really asserted himself as consistently amazing (around 1990) Monk's name was one of the first mention when discussing the best wideouts in the game.
While not the best barometer for NFL greatness and certainly not the litmus test for HOF induction, Monk never was a Top 5 fantasy WR.He did rank Top 5 in receptions 3 times and Top 5 in yardage twice. Overall, he had 5 Top 5 rankings in the key receiving categories (Rec, yardage, and receiving TD). There are a lot of WR that can make that same claim.

If you research my other posts, I have written at length on the long list of WR that have had numerous Top 5 seasons in those categories. The HOF also has not voted in many WR, and that poses a problem for Monk and many others.

There's no denying that Monk was a very good receiver for many years, a go to guy in clutch situations, a team leader, and a Super Bowl champion. But IMO his year to year output was not HOF worthy. His CAREER stats probably are, but his yearly output was good but not great (thus the McCardell analogy).

But I have a hard time saying Monk was an elite talent when other WR on his team regularly had more receiving yards and TD than he did. If the guys he was playing second fiddle to were great, elite players that's one thing, but I'm not sure the guys on the 'Skins fall into that category. (Bruce and Holt or Carter and Moss as examples).

For the record, I did see Monk play in his prime. Yes, he had 2-3 very strong seasons. But do 3 strong years make a player a HOFer?

Yes, he was the first WR in 20 years to break 100 receptions. But since then it's been done 44 times.

Put another way, if I were a HOF voter there would likely be other players I would want to see in before Monk, and at some point I would consider giving him my vote if his name were on the ballot.

Again, if he gets elected more power to him. If he doesn't, I won't campaign that he was robbed. Either way, he had a great career and we should applaud his accomplishments. Is Monk a more qualified candidate than other WR currently enshrined? Yes. But does that mean all the WR that are more qualified should get in? I doubt it. IMO, he's a borderline candidate. Maybe it's just me . . .

 
I've posted the stats & argument before.

That Randy Gradishar isn't in the HoF is a travsty of the greatest magnitude. He has better ppg stats than Ray Lewis - whom some are considering one of the best LBs ever to have played in the history of the NFL - in almost every major D category over a 145 game/10 year career.

That he isn't even on the list above shows exactly how meaningful it is.

 
I also think Andre Reed is more deserving than Monk. He has 7 Pro Bowls to just 3 for Monk and his career numbers are better than Monk's (more receptions, more yards, a better average, and more TDs) in a nearly identical number of games. Reed has better postseason stats than Monk as well. Reed was also clearly the #1 WR on his team throughout the prime of his career, while Monk often took a backseat to Gary Clark. Andre Reed didn't really play in the modern pass-happy NFL that we're seeing today, yet still ranks 4th all-time in receptions and 6th all-time in yards and 10th all-time in receiving TDs.
:lmao: The K-gun wasn't pass happy! :loco:

 
Just as an interesting sidenote, I just read on Wikipedia that the Falcons only have two players in the HOF, Eric Dickerson and Tommy McDonald, both of which only played one insignificant season with the Falcons. Ouch.
T. Nobis should be in the HOF. I am not sure that he will ever get in but the guy should be a member. If memory serves, he average just about 20 tackles per game as a Longhorn, while winning every postseason award defensive players were eligible for, and had a damn near 300 tackle season with the Falcons; was Rookie of the Year; All Pro; Pro Bowl and made the All Decade team. Jeff Van Note, G. Riggs (finished a Redskin), J. Anderson, C. Matthews (spent most of his career with the Browns but finished a Falcon), Tuggle and Rison (lots of off the field problems) are probably the other Falcon players not a life-time of talent behind Nobis. Once Dunn and Vick finish their respect careers the list might change but Nobis is by far and away the best football player that the Falcons have ever had.
 
I was looking at Roger Craig when doing a different analysis today, and was surprised by how pedestrian his numbers were. Aside from 1985 (which, admittedly, was an enormous season at the time, and before Rice really made an impact on the team) he had just two 1000-yard seasons. In 18 post-season games he had just two 100-yard games and 9 TDs (although he did have big games in the 1984 and 1988 Super Bowls). He's not in the top 25 in rushing yards and is only #25 in yards from scrimmage; not HoF quality.
I agree. If you want to put a SF RB in the HoF I'd throw Ricky Watters in before Craig.
 
1. Thurman Thomas, RB, Buffalo.

No question, he's a HOF

2. Mick Tingelhoff, C, Minnesota.

nc

3. Michael Irvin, WR, Dallas.

Should be in.

3a. Art Monk WR WASH--added because every 3 months we need to have a discussion where the Wash homers cry about him not being in while the rest of us remind them that he wasn't even the leading WR on his team for 12/16 yrs. Its not the Hall of Pretty Good for a Long Time.

NO WAY--buy a ticket Art.

4. Bill Parcells, coach.

Yup

5. Dermontti Dawson, C, Pittsburgh.

Yup

6. Charlie Sanders, TE, Detroit.

Never saw him

7. Roger Craig, RB, San Francisco.

This hurts, but he doesn't belong. Many of my fellow Niner fans disagree with me, but to me he's not a HOFer. Had a few big years, but it wasn't enough. NOPE.

8. Bob Kuechenberg, G, Miami.

Nope.

9. Derrick Thomas, OLB, Kansas City.

Yup

10. Gary Zimmerman, T, Denver.

No doubt.
I think Zimmerman and Thurman are no brainers.
 
For those of us that were alive and paying attention to football at the time, until Rice really asserted himself as consistently amazing (around 1990) Monk's name was one of the first mention when discussing the best wideouts in the game.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Code:
Year        Value        Pos. Rank    Overall Rank--------------------------------------------------1985          11            22             561986         158             1              21987         216            1             11988          93             2              81989         145             1             21990         119             1              51991         101             1              61992          99             2             101993         147             1              11994         141             1              31995         165             1              21996          71             4             191997           0           117            3261998          47             8             281999           0            38             922000          12            25             642001          39            10             332002          45            11             352003           0            37             882004           0            65            213
One of these guys does not belong in the same sentence as the other.
Code:
Year        Value        Pos. Rank    Overall Rank--------------------------------------------------1980           0            33             821981          28            20             501982           0            31             801983          12            24             591984          79             6             181985          31            13             421986          32            17             451987           2            25             681988          21            19             491989          59            10             291990           4            25             681991          51            11             251992           0            38             941993           0            67            2061994           0            56            1431995           0           120            316
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having a superior WR on the other side of the field draws attention, yes... but it draws targets, too. For example: Rod Smith. Name Denver's #2 WR in the season Rod Smith made a run at the NFL receptions record.
the roided out little white guym mccaffrey
 
I won't lose sleep if Monk makes it or not, as I can see valid points on both sides of the ledger.

But the fact of the matter is that statistically he really wasn't a Top 5 WR in ANY of his 16 seasons.

Yes, he did earn 3 rings, was a Top 25 WR 10 times, played for ever, and was good for the game. But was he ever dominant?

Take away the rings, and you basically will have Keenan McCardell by the time he retires (if he played 2 more years).

Monk:

940-12721-13.5-68

McCardell:

825-10680-12.9-62

Obviously you can't ignore the rings and that should give Monk a decided edge over McCardell, but there are a lot of WR on the outside looking in.

As I said, I could live with Monk being in or not getting in and would not fight hard one way or the other.
You have fallen for the problem of comparing stats across time. WRs today have much better stats than they did back when Monk played. Find stats for WRs playing around 1981 - 1995. Really 1981 - 1991 when Monk was productive. And you can't just compare him to Jerry Rice, since nobody's stats look good compared to Rice.
 
I also think Andre Reed is more deserving than Monk. He has 7 Pro Bowls to just 3 for Monk and his career numbers are better than Monk's (more receptions, more yards, a better average, and more TDs) in a nearly identical number of games. Reed has better postseason stats than Monk as well. Reed was also clearly the #1 WR on his team throughout the prime of his career, while Monk often took a backseat to Gary Clark. Andre Reed didn't really play in the modern pass-happy NFL that we're seeing today, yet still ranks 4th all-time in receptions and 6th all-time in yards and 10th all-time in receiving TDs.
:lmao: The K-gun wasn't pass happy! :loco:
well, the Bills often led the league in rushing during those seasons. it was far from a pass-only type of attack. But, that wasn't really my point.look at the numbers he put up in his best seasons compared with the Pro Bowl receivers of the past 10 years. He only had 4 1000 yard seasons. Marvin Harrison has had 7 in a row. Isaac Bruce has had 7. Terrell Owens has had 6 in the last 8 years. Jimmy Smith had 9 in a 10-year span.

It's much more common for WRs to put up huge stats now than it was back when Reed played.

These are the # of WRs who finished the season with 1000+ yards receiving

1985 - 9

1986 - 14

1987 - 4

1988 - 12

1989 - 20

1990 - 10

1991 - 15

1992 - 7

1993 - 9

1994 - 17

1995 - 23

1996 - 20

1997 - 18

1998 - 21

1999 - 25

2000 - 17

2001 - 25

2002 - 22

2003 - 14

2004 - 23

2005 - 19

apart from a spike in 1989, looks like a pretty significant shift took place right around the end of the Bills Super Bowl runs from 1994 on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have fallen for the problem of comparing stats across time. WRs today have much better stats than they did back when Monk played. Find stats for WRs playing around 1981 - 1995. Really 1981 - 1991 when Monk was productive. And you can't just compare him to Jerry Rice, since nobody's stats look good compared to Rice.
From 1981 - 1990, Monk ranked #1 in receptions, #1 in receiving yards, and #8 in receiving TD. While impressive, it still is somewhat flaVVed, as not many WR played productively all of those seasons or were active all 10 seasons.But what does that get you?If you look at the 1971-1980 bracket . . .The Top 5 in terms of total receptions:Harold Carmichael, Harold Jackson, Ahmad Rashad, Reggie Rucker Charlie JoinerThe Top 5 in terms of total receiving yardage:Harold Jackson, Harold Carmichael, Charlie Joiner, Cliff Branch, Reggie Rucker The Top 5 in terms of total receiving TD:Harold Carmichael, Harold Jackson, Cliff Branch, Isaac Curtis, Haven Moses From that group, only Joiner is a HOFer.If you look at the rest of the 1981-1990 bracket . . .The Top 5 in terms of total receptions:Art Monk, Steve Largent, Roy Green, James Lofton, JT Smith The Top 5 in terms of total receiving yardage:Art Monk, James Lofton, Roy Green, Steve Largent, Jerry Rice The Top 5 in terms of total receiving TD:Jerry Rice, Mark Clayton, Roy Green, Steve Largent, Mike Quick From that group, Largent and Lofton are HOFers with Rice a lock as well.If you look at the 1991 - 2000 bracket . . .The Top 5 in terms of total receptions:Cris Carter, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Michael Irvin, Herman Moore The Top 5 in terms of total receiving yardage:Jerry Rice, Cris Carter, Tim Brown, Michael Irvin, Herman Moore The Top 5 in terms of total receiving TD:Cris Carter, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Andre Rison, Carl Pickens Rice, Carter, and Brown will get in and Irvin has an excellent shot.If you look at the 2001 - present bracket . . .The Top 5 in terms of total receptions:Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, Hines Ward, Rod Smith, Derrick Mason The Top 5 in terms of total receiving yardage:Torry Holt, Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Derrick Mason The Top 5 in terms of total receiving TD:Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Torry Holt, Hines Ward Of this group, Harrison, Owens, Moss, and Holt should get in. Smith is borderline. Too soon to tell on Ward. And does anyone even bring up Mason in HOF discussions?As you can see from the names from the 70s, being at the top of the list for your decade doesn't really get you much in terms of HOF votes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top