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

[redman]

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 Joiner

The 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.

Actually, what this analysis does is confirm the criticisms of many, that this HoF voting "brain trust" indeed pays more attention to stats than the supposed analysis that they supposedly do of actual game play (only to vote in their buddies like Lynn Swann in spite of all that). An equally credible argument is that they've neglected some significant and great receivers from the 1970-1985 era who should be in the HoF. Interestingly enough, though, there are only 4 championships won by that 1970's group, 3 of which were won by Cliff Branch, and one of which was won by Reggie Rucker when he was a 4th stringer for the Cowboys in 1971 before being traded. No matter which tack you take, Monk is a cut above.

 

[David Yudkin]

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 Joiner

The 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.

Actually, what this analysis does is confirm the criticisms of many, that this HoF voting "brain trust" indeed pays more attention to stats than the supposed analysis that they supposedly do of actual game play (only to vote in their buddies like Lynn Swann in spite of all that). An equally credible argument is that they've neglected some significant and great receivers from the 1970-1985 era who should be in the HoF. Interestingly enough, though, there are only 4 championships won by that 1970's group, 3 of which were won by Cliff Branch, and one of which was won by Reggie Rucker when he was a 4th stringer for the Cowboys in 1971 before being traded. No matter which tack you take, Monk is a cut above.

As I alluded to earlier, if I had a vote, I would want to try to fix the injustices and put in a lot of guys that get almost no recognition at all. Monk would be on that list somewhere, but there would be many others of the same ilk that have been shortchanged. Similarly, as years go by it will be even harder for Monk to get in, as several WR are in position to pass him in terms of career numbers.Under the current (most likely WRONG) basis that people get voted in, Monk will struggle to get in for the stat happy masses. But given the lack of WR enshrined, he will have a tough road (righlyt or wrongly).

 

[SSOG]

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

Bzzt, wrong. Smith opened on a breakneck tear in the season where McCaffrey was lost in week 1 to a broken leg. The #2 WR on the team the year Smith got all those catches was... Eddie Kennison, with 15 receptions.Having another quality WR on the other side of the field to draw attention is overrated, since that other guy draws targets, as well. Being a great receiver and the only guy in town is a great way to put up some stellar reception numbers.

 

[diesel7982]

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

Bzzt, wrong. Smith opened on a breakneck tear in the season where McCaffrey was lost in week 1 to a broken leg. The #2 WR on the team the year Smith got all those catches was... Eddie Kennison, with 15 receptions.Having another quality WR on the other side of the field to draw attention is overrated, since that other guy draws targets, as well. Being a great receiver and the only guy in town is a great way to put up some stellar reception numbers.

They did have 85 receptions amongst their TEs that year though. Not saying that disproves your point, as without really delving into the numbers Id be inclined to agree with you, but it would be an interesting analysis to see if having a 2 TE set with 2 TEs as recieving threats would be a substitute for a legit threat on the opposite side of the field.

 

[SSOG]

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

Bzzt, wrong. Smith opened on a breakneck tear in the season where McCaffrey was lost in week 1 to a broken leg. The #2 WR on the team the year Smith got all those catches was... Eddie Kennison, with 15 receptions.Having another quality WR on the other side of the field to draw attention is overrated, since that other guy draws targets, as well. Being a great receiver and the only guy in town is a great way to put up some stellar reception numbers.

They did have 85 receptions amongst their TEs that year though. Not saying that disproves your point, as without really delving into the numbers Id be inclined to agree with you, but it would be an interesting analysis to see if having a 2 TE set with 2 TEs as recieving threats would be a substitute for a legit threat on the opposite side of the field.

Well, obviously those receptions had to go somewhere... but it's apples and oranges, since teams cover TEs differently than they cover WRs. Unless a TE is Gates/Gonzo/Witten, his presence on the field isn't going to significantly impact the types of coverages that the #1 WR sees, since it's usually just LBs and Safeties on the TEs, anyway. At least, that's what I'd assume. I agree that such an analysis would be very interesting.

 

[MarshallRob]

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.

Good posting and I excerpted this portion because Harold Jackson is my candidate for most overlooked player who I feel is deserving of enshrinement. He was much better than Joiner but never had even a good QB throwing to him, let alone a Hall of Famer like Fouts. He had big seasons for three different teams and he still has one of the highest postseason YPC averages of all-time. When he retired he ranked sixth in career catches, second in career receiving yards, and eighth in receiving TD's. His career totals still look pretty good even though his athletic peak came at a time when passing numbers were at a historic low.

 

[trader jake]

does anyone NOT believe derrick thomas should be in the HOF?

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

No WRs should enter the hall of fame until Art Monk does.

At the time he retired, he held several records. THAT is dominating your position.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

does anyone NOT believe derrick thomas should be in the HOF?

His twenty kids from twenty different moms probably think he deserves to be in SOME kind of Hall of Fame.

 

[trader jake]

No WRs should enter the hall of fame until Art Monk does.

At the time he retired, he held several records. THAT is dominating your position.

so ray guy should be in as well, correct?

 

[buster c]

No WRs should enter the hall of fame until Art Monk does.

At the time he retired, he held several records. THAT is dominating your position.

my GOD. this is like me saying something good about Michael Irvin

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

No WRs should enter the hall of fame until Art Monk does.

At the time he retired, he held several records.  THAT is dominating your position.

or playing well for 16 seasonshe was far from dominant.

Seasons among the league's top 10

Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t

Receiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10

Receiving TDs: 1991-9t

4 years top-10 in receptions3 years top-10 in yards

1 year top-10 in TDs

3 Pro Bowls

by comparison, Andre Reed's numbers:

Seasons among the league's top 10

Receptions: 1987-8, 1989-2, 1990-10t, 1991-5t, 1994-6

Receiving yards: 1989-5, 1991-6, 1994-5

Receiving TDs: 1989-6t, 1990-6t, 1991-5t, 1994-8t

Yards from scrimmage: 1991-9, 1994-10

5 years top-10 in receptions3 years top-10 in yards

4 years top-10 in TDs

2 years top-10 in yards from scrimmage

7 Pro Bowls

Andre Reed is a borderline candidate himself, but I really don't understand why people think Monk is so much more deserving.

 

[turkishkamel]

What about Sterling Sharpe? Doesn't he deserve some consideration?

595/8134/13.7/65

Injury shortened his career (yearly averages 85/1162/9.3td)

Probably the best recevier in the NFL his final three years in the league (108/1285/14td per year)

Just a thought

 

[SSOG]

What about Sterling Sharpe? Doesn't he deserve some consideration?

595/8134/13.7/65

Injury shortened his career (yearly averages 85/1162/9.3td)

Probably the best recevier in the NFL his final three years in the league (108/1285/14td per year)

Just a thought

I'd rather see Sharpe in than Monk, who's really just an overglorified Keenan McCardell with only two great seasons to his name.

 

[redman]

What about Sterling Sharpe? Doesn't he deserve some consideration?

595/8134/13.7/65

Injury shortened his career (yearly averages 85/1162/9.3td)

Probably the best recevier in the NFL his final three years in the league (108/1285/14td per year)

Just a thought

I'd rather see Sharpe in than Monk, who's really just an overglorified Keenan McCardell with only two great seasons to his name.

Again, comments like this display more ignorance than insight, and certainly demonstrate a fixation on stats above all else. Sorry, but it's true.

 

[SSOG]

Again, comments like this display more ignorance than insight, and certainly demonstrate a fixation on stats above all else. Sorry, but it's true.

Tell me why, exactly? Both are extremely good WRs. Both spent the majority of their career playing second fiddle. Both proved absolutely competant when it was their turn to be the lead guy. Neither guy was ever really a dominant force, but both have had very good careers for a long enough time to compile some impressive numbers.If you don't like the Keenan McCardell comparison, would you prefer a Vinny Testeverde comparison? If Art Monk deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame, then so does Vinny Testeverde.

Personally, it was comments like "At the time he retired, he held several records. THAT is dominating your position." that I thought demonstrated more ignorance than insight, as well as a fixation on stats above all else. I could say "At the time Vinny retired, he was 6th all time in attempts, completions, and yards. THAT is dominating his position", and it'd be every bit as true for Vinny as it would be for Monk. Heck, Vinny's only one pro-bowl behind the "dominant" Monk!

If you want to talk about dominance, then you have to talk about per-season numbers... and Monk's simply weren't there.

Also, if I were fixated on stats above all else, then Art Monk would be a HoFer. I mean, stats are the only arguement he has in his favor.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Jerry Kramer

Who made the Packer sweep go?

Who lead Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung into the HOF with his blocks?

Who powered Starr into the endzone in the final seconds of the Ice Bowl (along with Ken Bowman)?

Who carried Lombardi off the field after what has now come to be known as Super Bowl II?

Who co-wrote, along with #### Schaap, one of the best books out there ever on the NFL?

Who to this day actively supports through charitable efforts those old time players the NFL and the union seemingly have abandoned?

This was an amazing football player and is an amazing man. The story of football itself and the lore of the 5 time Champion Packers from the 60's cannot be told without him.

 

[TS Garp]

Baseball guru Bill James put together which is meant to assess whether a player is worthy of being in the HOF. Although it is designed for baseball, I think it's still a useful tool to consider in these cases, as you can apply almost any of this to football by substituting a few words when necessary:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2. Was he the best player on his team?

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

 

[redman]

Again, comments like this display more ignorance than insight, and certainly demonstrate a fixation on stats above all else.  Sorry, but it's true.

Tell me why, exactly? Both are extremely good WRs. Both spent the majority of their career playing second fiddle. Both proved absolutely competant when it was their turn to be the lead guy. Neither guy was ever really a dominant force, but both have had very good careers for a long enough time to compile some impressive numbers.If you don't like the Keenan McCardell comparison, would you prefer a Vinny Testeverde comparison? If Art Monk deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame, then so does Vinny Testeverde.

Personally, it was comments like "At the time he retired, he held several records. THAT is dominating your position." that I thought demonstrated more ignorance than insight, as well as a fixation on stats above all else. I could say "At the time Vinny retired, he was 6th all time in attempts, completions, and yards. THAT is dominating his position", and it'd be every bit as true for Vinny as it would be for Monk. Heck, Vinny's only one pro-bowl behind the "dominant" Monk!

If you want to talk about dominance, then you have to talk about per-season numbers... and Monk's simply weren't there.

Also, if I were fixated on stats above all else, then Art Monk would be a HoFer. I mean, stats are the only arguement he has in his favor.

Bringing up Vinny Testaverde is not helping your credibility here, nor is talking about Monk as a second fiddle. How many of Vinny Testaverde's stats were compiled in games that had any sort of playoff implications? How many times has Vinny Testaverde been the statistical leader at anything?Monk was the only WR on all 3 Super Bowl Winners for the 'Skins.

No WR for the 'Skins had more yards, TD's, games with a catch, consecutive games with a catch, or catches in a single season, than he did. He also retired of course with the most catches, and consecutive games with a catch in league history. He was the first WR ever to get over 100 catches in a season.

I'm willing to bet money that on that team had more 3rd down catches that converted first downs.

Perhaps you can explain away most of those things by talking about longevity. Fine. But the last one is what made him great. When that team was 3rd and 9, or 4th and 6, etc. and desperately needed a first down, everyone in that stadium knew the guy who was going to get that ball, and he would inevitably go and get the ball anyway.

Monk's problems are pretty basic. He was always shy with the media (which some writers seem to resent to this day), he didn't score as many TD's as some other WR's have, and he played during a conservative offensive era for a team that emphasized power running and ball control. What gets lost is how important making clutch catches for 1st downs is for a team that does emphasize time of possession. They don't keep stats (at least not the kind readily available) for those types of things.

Basically, the analogy for Monk is this using baseball. Monk is Pete Rose (sans gambling). Yes, he played a long time, and no he doesn't have a lot of "home runs", but he was clearly great at his role and he retired with the all-time highest number of things he was paid to do, which was catch the ball in Monk's case. People seem to like to compare Monk to Jerry Rice, who played far more years of his career in a different era. If Albert Pujols, with all of his unbelievable power hitting and run production stats ends up breaking both Rose's all-time hits record and the all-time home run record, does that make Rose any less worthy (again, ignoring the gambling) of making the HoF?

*Edits in italics

 

[SSOG]

Bringing up Vinny Testaverde is not helping your credibility here, nor is talking about Monk as a second fiddle. How many of Vinny Testaverde's stats were compiled in games that had any sort of playoff implications? How many times has Vinny Testaverde been the statistical leader at anything?

So if Jerry Rice put up all of his numbers in Arizona, it would make him a worse player, since he was putting up numbers in games without a playoff implication? That's bull. Art Monk was lucky enough to be drafted in the first round by a phenominal team with a Hall of Fame head coach. Vinny Testeverde was unlucky enough to be drafted #1 overall by the worst franchise in the history of the NFL.Regardless, you ask how often Testeverde has been a statistical leader, which is a fair question. Only once- in 2000 he led the league in attempts. How many times has Monk been the leader in any statistical category? Again, only once- in 1984 he led the league in receptions.

How many times has Testeverde been top-5 in any statistic? 9 times. Twice in attempts (1996 and 2000), twice in completions (1996 and 2000), once in yards (1996), twice in TDs (1996 and 1998), twice in yards per pass (1996 and 1998). Monk has only been top-5 in any statistical category 5 times.

How many times has Testeverde been top-10 in any statistic? 20 times, compared to Art Monk's 8.

Even if you want to argue that there are twice as many WRs in the league as there are QBs, so it's twice as hard to finish in the top 5 (not necessarily an arguement I agree with, due to the difference in percentage of snaps that WRs from different teams face)... Testeverde had more top-5 finishes than Monk had top-10 finishes.

And we can look at Pro Bowls, too. Monk had 3, Testeverde had 2.

Monk was the only WR on all 3 Super Bowl Winners for the 'Skins.

So? If Antowain Smith had remained the only RB on all 3 Super Bowl Winners for the Patriots, would that have all of a sudden been a point in his favor for Hall of Fame discussions? All that says is that he happened to be in Washington all 3 years they won the Superbowl. It says nothing about how good he was as a receiver.

No WR for the 'Skins had more yards, TD's, games with a catch, consecutive games with a catch, or catches in a single season, than he did. He also retired of course with the most catches, and consecutive games with a catch in league history. He was the first WR ever to get over 100 catches in a season.

He deserves a mention in history as the first WR to get over 100 catches in a season. That's nice that he holds all of the single-season records, too, but all that says is that he had one truly fantastic season. Which he did. He had a remarkable season, and followed it up with a very good season. One, or possibly two, seasons DOES NOT A HALL OF FAMER MAKE.

I'm willing to bet money that on that team had more 3rd down catches that converted first downs.

Perhaps you can explain away most of those things by talking about longevity. Fine. But the last one is what made him great. When that team was 3rd and 9, or 4th and 6, etc. and desperately needed a first down, everyone in that stadium knew the guy who was going to get that ball, and he would inevitably go and get the ball anyway.

Which is fantastic. He had his niche, and he filled it splendidly. Doesn't change the fact that he was a specialist. If we let him in for being a fantastic specialist and having two good seasons, then suddenly we have to let in Charlie Garner and Roger Craig, too. I mean, I would bet you money that Bobby Engram leads Seattle in converted 3rd downs over the past 3 seasons. That doesn't mean he was even the best WR on his own team in any of those seasons, or over that span.Art Monk would be a first ballot entry into the 12-yard curl Hall of Fame... but to get into the real HoF, they take into consideration his ENTIRE GAME... and his entire game was very very good, but nothing more.

Monk's problems are pretty basic. He was always shy with the media (which some writers seem to resent to this day), he didn't score as many TD's as some other WR's have, and he played during a conservative offensive era for a team that emphasized power running and ball control. What gets lost is how important making clutch catches for 1st downs is for a team that does emphasize time of possession. They don't keep stats (at least not the kind readily available) for those types of things.

See, the thing is, I'm not convinced he was a better "clutch" catcher than anyone else on the team. I mean, if he was *THE GUY* to convert, then he'd be the primary target in the red zone, right? Teams don't go to their deep threat in the red zone, they go to their possession guy.

Basically, the analogy for Monk is this using baseball. Monk is Pete Rose (sans gambling). Yes, he played a long time, and no he doesn't have a lot of "home runs", but he was clearly great at his role and he retired with the all-time highest number of things he was paid to do, which was catch the ball in Monk's case. People seem to like to compare Monk to Jerry Rice, who played far more years of his career in a different era. If Albert Pujols, with all of his unbelievable power hitting and run production stats ends up breaking both Rose's all-time hits record and the all-time home run record, does that make Rose any less worthy (again, ignoring the gambling) of making the HoF?

*Edits in italics

First off, I don't follow baseball, so I can't comment on the analogy.Second off, baseball is a numbers game. Numbers in baseball are like oxygen. They're everything. If the guys in Cooperstown and the guys in Canton switched for a year and elected each others HoFers for just one season, Art Monk would get in unanimously... becaues baseball rewards compilers. This is football, though. He was rarely the best WR on his own team, the other WRs on his team that were better aren't HoF caliber, therefore it goes without saying that Monk himself isn't HoF caliber. The last 4 years of his career were pretty much entirely unremarkable, with 139 catches for 1737 yards and 8 TDs over 51 games (44/545/2.5 per 16 games). They were, I'm sure we'll all agree, junk seasons that should have pretty much no impact on his legacy. With that said, without those 4 seasons, nobody is mentioning Art Monk as this huge hall snub right now, because he'd be 14th in receptions and 15th in yards right now. And yet, because he stuck around and compiled 51 otherwise mediocre games, he's a snub for the HoF?

I don't buy that a very good WR can become a great one by sticking around past their prime and just compiling as much as they can before they retired. It wasn't getting the all-time sack record that made Bruce Smith a hall of famer.

 

[CalBear]

Monk was the only WR on all 3 Super Bowl Winners for the 'Skins.

In 1982 (Super Bowl win) Monk's season consisted of 447 yards and 1 TD (Charlie Brown had 690 yards and 8 TDs), and he didn't play in the post-season.In 1983 (Super Bowl loss) Monk had 1 reception for 26 yards.

In 1987 (Super Bowl win) Monk's season consisted of 483 yards and 6 TDs (Gary Clark had 1006 yards and 7 TDs), and he had one catch for 40 yards in the Super Bowl (Gary Clark was 3 for 55 and a TD).

In 1991 (Super Bowl win) Monk's season consisted of 1049 yards and 8 TDs (Gary Clark had 1340 yards and 10 TDs), and he had 7 catches for 113 yards in the Super Bowl (Gary Clark had 7 catches for 114 yards and a TD).

So, in none of the Redskins' Super Bowl years, and in none of the Super Bowl games, was Monk the #1 WR on his own team.

 

[MarshallRob]

I love Hall of Fame discussions but it's kind of a shame how every one of them eventually turns into an Art Monk debate. From what some of the pro-Monk people have posted I think there's a misconception about how the NFL passing game has changed over time. I don't see Monk has having played in a different era requiring an adjustment of his numbers in respect to those who came after him. It's the guys from the 1970's (Jackson, Cunningham, Pearson, Branch) who deserve that adjustment. The NFL changed the rules and liberalized the passing game in 1978 in addition to adding two games to the schedule. This is the true beginning of the modern passing era. The numbers slowly began to climb that season and they exploded in 1983.

Look at the guys who broke the receptions record prior to Monk. The changes came near the end of Charlie Joiner's career and played for the first team to take advantage of the new rules, the Air Coryell Chargers. Joiner had his best statistical seasons late in his career even though he was past his prime by then. Steve Largent got to play about half of his career in the new era. Monk started in 1980 so he got to play his entire career in this new passing era. Rice, Reed, Tim Brown and Cris Carter came along while Monk was still in mid-career and all four of them exceeded his numbers in a relatively short time period. I don't see any of them as having played a different game. Monk got the records from a combination of being durable and prolific (to his credit) and being the first receiver who played 200-plus games in the new passing era.

I don't believe that the passing and scoring numbers from the 1980's are that different from the 1990's or 2000's.

 

[redman]

Bringing up Vinny Testaverde is not helping your credibility here, nor is talking about Monk as a second fiddle. How many of Vinny Testaverde's stats were compiled in games that had any sort of playoff implications? How many times has Vinny Testaverde been the statistical leader at anything?

So if Jerry Rice put up all of his numbers in Arizona, it would make him a worse player, since he was putting up numbers in games without a playoff implication? That's bull. Art Monk was lucky enough to be drafted in the first round by a phenominal team with a Hall of Fame head coach. Vinny Testeverde was unlucky enough to be drafted #1 overall by the worst franchise in the history of the NFL.

Regardless, you ask how often Testeverde has been a statistical leader, which is a fair question. Only once- in 2000 he led the league in attempts. How many times has Monk been the leader in any statistical category? Again, only once- in 1984 he led the league in receptions.

How many times has Testeverde been top-5 in any statistic? 9 times. Twice in attempts (1996 and 2000), twice in completions (1996 and 2000), once in yards (1996), twice in TDs (1996 and 1998), twice in yards per pass (1996 and 1998). Monk has only been top-5 in any statistical category 5 times.

How many times has Testeverde been top-10 in any statistic? 20 times, compared to Art Monk's 8.

Even if you want to argue that there are twice as many WRs in the league as there are QBs, so it's twice as hard to finish in the top 5 (not necessarily an arguement I agree with, due to the difference in percentage of snaps that WRs from different teams face)... Testeverde had more top-5 finishes than Monk had top-10 finishes.

And we can look at Pro Bowls, too. Monk had 3, Testeverde had 2.

Monk was the only WR on all 3 Super Bowl Winners for the 'Skins.

So? If Antowain Smith had remained the only RB on all 3 Super Bowl Winners for the Patriots, would that have all of a sudden been a point in his favor for Hall of Fame discussions? All that says is that he happened to be in Washington all 3 years they won the Superbowl. It says nothing about how good he was as a receiver.

No WR for the 'Skins had more yards, TD's, games with a catch, consecutive games with a catch, or catches in a single season, than he did. He also retired of course with the most catches, and consecutive games with a catch in league history. He was the first WR ever to get over 100 catches in a season.

He deserves a mention in history as the first WR to get over 100 catches in a season. That's nice that he holds all of the single-season records, too, but all that says is that he had one truly fantastic season. Which he did. He had a remarkable season, and followed it up with a very good season. One, or possibly two, seasons DOES NOT A HALL OF FAMER MAKE.

I'm willing to bet money that on that team had more 3rd down catches that converted first downs.Perhaps you can explain away most of those things by talking about longevity. Fine. But the last one is what made him great. When that team was 3rd and 9, or 4th and 6, etc. and desperately needed a first down, everyone in that stadium knew the guy who was going to get that ball, and he would inevitably go and get the ball anyway.

Which is fantastic. He had his niche, and he filled it splendidly. Doesn't change the fact that he was a specialist. If we let him in for being a fantastic specialist and having two good seasons, then suddenly we have to let in Charlie Garner and Roger Craig, too. I mean, I would bet you money that Bobby Engram leads Seattle in converted 3rd downs over the past 3 seasons. That doesn't mean he was even the best WR on his own team in any of those seasons, or over that span.

Art Monk would be a first ballot entry into the 12-yard curl Hall of Fame... but to get into the real HoF, they take into consideration his ENTIRE GAME... and his entire game was very very good, but nothing more.

By dividing up my post the way you did, you created this straw man argument that each individual stat, taken alone, qualifies him for the Hall of Fame. Don't deny it, it's an important implication of your response. I'm not taking any of these stats alone, I'm taking each one in conjunction with everything else. Antowain Smith? C'mon! You're smarter than that!

I also don't buy slippery slope arguments. We have to let Roger Craig and Charlie Garner in? B.S. If you want to argue that way, then I can argue (correctly) that we're already on that slippery slope by letting the likes of John Stallworth and Lynn Swann in, who BTW have fewer receptions combined than does Monk, and neither of whom scored more TD's. Bringing up other players and "slippery slopes" doesn't help your argument.

Monk's problems are pretty basic.  He was always shy with the media (which some writers seem to resent to this day), he didn't score as many TD's as some other WR's have, and he played during a conservative offensive era for a team that emphasized power running and ball control.  What gets lost is how important making clutch catches for 1st downs is for a team that does emphasize time of possession.  They don't keep stats (at least not the kind readily available) for those types of things. 

See, the thing is, I'm not convinced he was a better "clutch" catcher than anyone else on the team. I mean, if he was *THE GUY* to convert, then he'd be the primary target in the red zone, right? Teams don't go to their deep threat in the red zone, they go to their possession guy.

I guess this is the 'Skins offense according to SSOG. Hmm, and here I always thought that the 'Skins were known for running the ball in the red zone. When running was not an option, they looked to Monk.

What's just occurred to me is that he's similar in this regard to Rod Smith who, for all of his excellence as a WR in a dynamic office, only managed double digit TD's in two seasons. The reason is guys like TD, Portis and the other RB's always were the first option in the red zone. Note that in 1984, which was probably Monk's most remarkable statistical year, he only had 7 TD's (which still led the team's receivers):

| 1984 was | 16 | 106 1372 12.9 7 | How many did Riggins have? 14.

Basically, the analogy for Monk is this using baseball.  Monk is Pete Rose (sans gambling).  Yes, he played a long time, and no he doesn't have a lot of "home runs", but he was clearly great at his role and he retired with the all-time highest number of things he was paid to do, which was catch the ball in Monk's case.  People seem to like to compare Monk to Jerry Rice, who played far more years of his career in a different era.  If Albert Pujols, with all of his unbelievable power hitting and run production stats ends up breaking both Rose's all-time hits record and the all-time home run record, does that make Rose any less worthy (again, ignoring the gambling) of making the HoF?*Edits in italics

First off, I don't follow baseball, so I can't comment on the analogy.

Second off, baseball is a numbers game. Numbers in baseball are like oxygen. They're everything. If the guys in Cooperstown and the guys in Canton switched for a year and elected each others HoFers for just one season, Art Monk would get in unanimously... becaues baseball rewards compilers. This is football, though. He was rarely the best WR on his own team, the other WRs on his team that were better aren't HoF caliber, therefore it goes without saying that Monk himself isn't HoF caliber. The last 4 years of his career were pretty much entirely unremarkable, with 139 catches for 1737 yards and 8 TDs over 51 games (44/545/2.5 per 16 games). They were, I'm sure we'll all agree, junk seasons that should have pretty much no impact on his legacy. With that said, without those 4 seasons, nobody is mentioning Art Monk as this huge hall snub right now, because he'd be 14th in receptions and 15th in yards right now. And yet, because he stuck around and compiled 51 otherwise mediocre games, he's a snub for the HoF?

I don't buy that a very good WR can become a great one by sticking around past their prime and just compiling as much as they can before they retired. It wasn't getting the all-time sack record that made Bruce Smith a hall of famer.

You don't follow baseball, but you're willing to then assert in your next breath that "baseball rewards compilers"? Stick with what you know, but FYI guys like Harold Baines, Rafael Palmiero (before the steroids embarrassment) and others would most assuredly take issue with that statement.

I'll leave it at that because I'm not going to argue a topic you're expressing unfamiliarity with. I'll only add that I stand by the analogy I originally posted.

*The formatting's a mess in this reply - my fault. I'm just going to bold my responses here.

 

[redman]

I love Hall of Fame discussions but it's kind of a shame how every one of them eventually turns into an Art Monk debate.

There's a reason for this, and it isn't just 'Skins homers or coincidence.

 

[MarshallRob]

I love Hall of Fame discussions but it's kind of a shame how every one of them eventually turns into an Art Monk debate. 

There's a reason for this, and it isn't just 'Skins homers or coincidence.

The fetish over Monk once having held the receptions record? I ask you, where is the Billy Howton bandwagon?

 

[redman]

I love Hall of Fame discussions but it's kind of a shame how every one of them eventually turns into an Art Monk debate. 

There's a reason for this, and it isn't just 'Skins homers or coincidence.

The fetish over Monk once having held the receptions record? I ask you, where is the Billy Howton bandwagon?

Yeah, that's it. Seriously, there's a lot more than just that - read the thread.I know zero about Howton, so I can't comment upon the similarity or difference between him and Monk and their HoF standing. Certainly though, to the extent that they're comparable, it hurts Howton to be this far after his playing days - it's just not fresh in peoples' minds the way that Monk is. I'm sure that contributes to the lack of conversation about Howton.

 

[thejag]

Getting back to the original question:

Andre Tippett, LB, NE.

"Andre Tippett played outside linebacker in the NFL for 11 seasons, all of them with New England. He holds that franchise’s career record for sacks with 100 and shares the mark for fumble recoveries with 17. He was selected to five straight Pro Bowls.

In 1984, Tippett was a one-man wrecking crew. He registered 118 tackles – a phenomenal total for an edge defender – and led the AFC in sacks with 18.5. He continued to be an irresistible force the following season, when he recorded 97 tackles (65 solos), forced three fumbles and recovered three as well. His 16.5 sacks were again tops in the AFC, and he powered the Patriots to an unprecedented three playoff victories on the road.

Tippett helped revolutionize the outside linebacker position, bringing a tenacity and athleticism that struck fear in the hearts of opponents. To try to contain his extraordinary pass-rushing abilities, offenses were forced to adjust their blocking schemes. The tight end was frequently kept in to double-team him, and backs were then asked to pick him up. Still, Tippett relentlessly chased down quarterbacks like California law enforcement officials pursuing a suspicious white Ford Bronco.

Making direct comparisons between Tippett and existing Hall of Famers is difficult because of a lack of representation among the new breed at the position. Only one outside linebacker who played in the last twenty years has made the Hall, and he was arguably the best the game has ever seen: Lawrence Taylor.

Likening Tippett to Taylor is similar to comparing every backcourt star to Michael Jordan or every great goal scorer to Wayne Gretzky. If those men represent the standard by which all players are judged, then the Halls of Fame would be rather empty.

Yet Tippett was the AFC’s answer to LT for over a decade. Tippett averaged 10 sacks a season for the 10 years he played between 1983 and 1993 (Tippett played sparingly in his rookie year of 1982). Unfortunately, a ruptured muscle in his shoulder cost him an entire year in his prime. He spent all of 1989 on injured reserve, and his string of consecutive Pro Bowl appearances ended at five.

For the sake of comparison, here’s a look at how Tippett stacks up against Taylor:

Games Tackles Sacks INTs Fum. Recs TDs

Lawrence Taylor 184 1,088 132.5 9 11 2

Andre Tippett 151 778 100 1 17 2

Taylor’s sack total would be even more impressive if it included the 9.5 that he had in 1981, when sacks were not yet an official statistic. LT was clearly in his own class, but Tippett was the second-best outside linebacker of his day. There is a sizable discrepancy in some numbers, certainly in INTs, but not in all of them:

Taylor averaged 5.91 tackles per game. Tippett averaged 5.15.

Taylor averaged 0.77 sacks per game (including his “unofficial” 9.5 in 1981). Tippett averaged 0.66 sacks per game.

Taylor produced 20 turnovers. Tippett produced 18.

Each player scored 2 defensive touchdowns.

When Tippett retired after the 1993 season, he ranked seventh in career sacks, trailing only Taylor among those who exclusively played linebacker.

It could actually be argued that Tippett had a better single season than Taylor ever did. LT’s best year was 1986, when he was named the NFL’s MVP on the strength of 20.5 sacks and 105 tackles. In Tippett’s spectacular 1984 campaign, he had two fewer sacks but registered 13 more total tackles. Of course, Taylor played under the bright lights of New York City, on a 1986 team that went on to win the Super Bowl. Tippett played in the relative obscurity of New England, on a team that went 9-7 and missed the playoffs."

From Cold, Hard Football Facts.

 

[SSOG]

I also don't buy slippery slope arguments. We have to let Roger Craig and Charlie Garner in? B.S. If you want to argue that way, then I can argue (correctly) that we're already on that slippery slope by letting the likes of John Stallworth and Lynn Swann in, who BTW have fewer receptions combined than does Monk, and neither of whom scored more TD's. Bringing up other players and "slippery slopes" doesn't help your argument.

First off, you can't compare Monk's numbers with Stallworth/Swann's. First off, Monk played 60 more games than Stallworth. Pro-rate Stallworth's numbers over 224 games and he has 11842 yards and 85.5 TDs. Notice how close that yardage total is to Art Monk's (just 879 yards behind), despite the fact that John Stallworth played the majority of his career in the old era of poor passing numbers (compared to Monk, who played the overwhelming majority of his career in the modern passing era).Then, too, there's the fact that Stallworth made seven top-5 lists to Monk's five, and fourteen top-10 lists to Monk's seven, despite playing in 59 fewer games.

There's no comparison between Stallworth and Monk. Stallworth was a more dominant receiver, was more clearly the #1 on his own team, and put up better numbers in a worse passing era.

As for Lynn Swann... I agree that letting Lynn Swann in was a huge mistake, but it'd be an even bigger mistake to let in a ton of other undeserving WRs just because they're better than Lynn Swann. The Hall of Fame is already on that "slippery slope", and the correct way to deal with it is to get off it as quickly as possible rather than compounding the problem.

Also... it's quite interesting, but did you ever notice how, despite playing 109 fewer games than Monk, Swann made just as many pro bowls and three more top-10 lists? I could probably make a pretty good arguement that Lynn Swann, whose hall pass was a huge mistake, was a more deserving WR for enshrinement than Art Monk.

 

[redman]

Just wanted to add that we've all seen year after year how unreliable Pro Bowl voting is as a guage for quality of play. Larry Allen, Warren Sapp and many, many others have made the Pro Bowl in recent years over more skilled but less notorious players. Monk's quiet nature hurt him here as much as anywhere else.

 

[dgreen]

I don't believe that the passing and scoring numbers from the 1980's are that different from the 1990's or 2000's.

I posted this in another thread a few weeks ago:

'Nother thought Joe.

NFL O's didn't pass as much til some point in the 90s when it just took off.

Just thought I'd look into this common claim. Here are comp, att, yds, td, and int from 1977-2003 (I need to download the latest seasons file from Drinen to get up to 2005):
Year Comp Att Yds TD INT1977 4993 9715 63120 378 5561978 6246 11750 78815 465 6311979 6994 12925 88500 534 5931980 7669 13632 95413 602 6251981 7720 14126 99203 582 6031982 4462 7894 55286 314 3381983 7958 13971 100251 614 6101984 8052 14256 101739 610 5791985 7895 14379 101267 592 5991986 7992 14417 100739 579 5741987 6847 12364 86856 567 4831988 7655 14095 97359 555 5511989 7926 14186 101347 577 5471990 7559 13511 94472 569 4771991 7823 13604 93839 499 4741992 7680 13344 91603 513 5141993 8340 14384 96208 513 4651994 8734 15042 101722 579 4711995 9701 16657 112740 660 5081996 9185 15937 106412 622 5401997 8830 15706 104990 611 4761998 8751 15453 105843 651 5071999 9555 16727 112927 660 5622000 9483 16286 109856 632 5262001 9536 16164 109569 634 5442002 10317 17291 116183 692 5252003 9690 16477 109377 653 5371978 had the big rule changes in what DBs could do to WRs, so that's why I went ahead and wet back to '77; to show that jump. 1982 and 1987 were strike seasons. 1995 appears to have a jump, but that's the year Jax and Carolina joined. The Browns came back in 1999 and the Texans in 2002. Here are attempts per team for 1977-2003:

Year  Att/tm1977   3471978   4201979   4621980   4871981   5051982   501*1983   4991984   5091985   5141986   5151987   471*1988   5031989   5071990   4831991   4861992   5771993   5141994   5371995   5551996   5311997   5241998   5151999   5402000   5252001   5212002   5402003   515

*Inflated to 16 gamesSo, we do some jumps, but it's not like the 80s was an era that ignored the pass. In fact, 84-86 fit in nicely with the 90s. The bigger difference is in completion percentage.

Year Comp %1977 51.41978 53.21979 54.11980 56.31981 54.71982 56.51983 57.01984 56.51985 54.91986 55.41987 55.41988 54.31989 55.91990 55.91991 57.51992 57.61993 58.01994 58.11995 58.21996 57.61997 56.21998 56.61999 57.12000 58.22001 59.02002 59.72003 58.8A couple times in the 80s we see some bumps, but, for the most part, there appears to be a permanent jump up to the high 50s starting in 1991. Oddly enough, that's about when the 100 catch season become more common.What does all this mean? I don't know, but I had fun looking into it. Teams are passing more, but, more importantly, teams are completing more. Since this is a thread on WRs, it may be a good idea to go back no further than 1991 since that's where completions take a jump up.

Oh, and it goes to show that Art Monk played most of his career in a different era and deserves to be in the HOF.

 

[MarshallRob]

Just wanted to add that we've all seen year after year how unreliable Pro Bowl voting is as a guage for quality of play. Larry Allen, Warren Sapp and many, many others have made the Pro Bowl in recent years over more skilled but less notorious players. Monk's quiet nature hurt him here as much as anywhere else.

I agree Pro Bowl honors can be unreliable, but I don't think Monk was specifically overlooked because of his personality. He just didn't have that many Pro Bowl type seasons if you compare his numbers to the very tough competition. From the mid-1980's through the mid-1990's an amazingly disproportionate number of the NFL's best receivers played in the NFC. In the NFC you've got Rice, Irvin, Monk, Sharpe, Carter, Ellard, H. Moore, Clark and Rison. That's a lot of wideouts fighting for a few Pro Bowl slots. In the AFC, there was always plenty of room for Tim Brown (9 Pro Bowls) and Andre Reed (7 Pro Bowls). The competiton was far less tough. Mark Clayton was good. Duper had fewer big seasons than one might think. Who else was there? Heywood Jeffires? Carl Pickens? I think Brown's and Reed's Pro Bowls need to be discounted somewhat.

 

[MarshallRob]

I don't believe that the passing and scoring numbers from the 1980's are that different from the 1990's or 2000's.

I posted this in another thread a few weeks ago:

'Nother thought Joe.

NFL O's didn't pass as much til some point in the 90s when it just took off.

Just thought I'd look into this common claim. Here are comp, att, yds, td, and int from 1977-2003 (I need to download the latest seasons file from Drinen to get up to 2005):
Year  Comp   Att     Yds     TD  INT1977  4993   9715   63120   378  5561978  6246  11750   78815   465  6311979  6994  12925   88500   534  5931980  7669  13632   95413   602  6251981  7720  14126   99203   582  6031982  4462   7894   55286   314  3381983  7958  13971  100251   614  6101984  8052  14256  101739   610  5791985  7895  14379  101267   592  5991986  7992  14417  100739   579  5741987  6847  12364   86856   567  4831988  7655  14095   97359   555  5511989  7926  14186  101347   577  5471990  7559  13511   94472   569  4771991  7823  13604   93839   499  4741992  7680  13344   91603   513  5141993  8340  14384   96208   513  4651994  8734  15042  101722   579  4711995  9701  16657  112740   660  5081996  9185  15937  106412   622  5401997  8830  15706  104990   611  4761998  8751  15453  105843   651  5071999  9555  16727  112927   660  5622000  9483  16286  109856   632  5262001  9536  16164  109569   634  5442002 10317  17291  116183   692  5252003  9690  16477  109377   653  5371978 had the big rule changes in what DBs could do to WRs, so that's why I went ahead and wet back to '77; to show that jump. 1982 and 1987 were strike seasons. 1995 appears to have a jump, but that's the year Jax and Carolina joined. The Browns came back in 1999 and the Texans in 2002. Here are attempts per team for 1977-2003:

Year  Att/tm1977   3471978   4201979   4621980   4871981   5051982   501*1983   4991984   5091985   5141986   5151987   471*1988   5031989   5071990   4831991   4861992   5771993   5141994   5371995   5551996   5311997   5241998   5151999   5402000   5252001   5212002   5402003   515

*Inflated to 16 gamesSo, we do some jumps, but it's not like the 80s was an era that ignored the pass. In fact, 84-86 fit in nicely with the 90s. The bigger difference is in completion percentage.

Year  Comp %1977   51.41978   53.21979   54.11980   56.31981   54.71982   56.51983   57.01984   56.51985   54.91986   55.41987   55.41988   54.31989   55.91990   55.91991   57.51992   57.61993   58.01994   58.11995   58.21996   57.61997   56.21998   56.61999   57.12000   58.22001   59.02002   59.72003   58.8A couple times in the 80s we see some bumps, but, for the most part, there appears to be a permanent jump up to the high 50s starting in 1991. Oddly enough, that's about when the 100 catch season become more common.What does all this mean? I don't know, but I had fun looking into it. Teams are passing more, but, more importantly, teams are completing more. Since this is a thread on WRs, it may be a good idea to go back no further than 1991 since that's where completions take a jump up.

Oh, and it goes to show that Art Monk played most of his career in a different era and deserves to be in the HOF.

If completions and completion percentage have gone up a bit that would not necessarily mean that passing yardage and scoring numbers have increased steadily. It could just mean teams are throwing more passes but for fewer yards (the dreaded West Coast Offense).

 

[CalBear]

Just wanted to add that we've all seen year after year how unreliable Pro Bowl voting is as a guage for quality of play. Larry Allen, Warren Sapp and many, many others have made the Pro Bowl in recent years over more skilled but less notorious players. Monk's quiet nature hurt him here as much as anywhere else.

Plus the fact that he usually wasn't even the top WR on his own team.

 

[dgreen]

If completions and completion percentage have gone up a bit that would not necessarily mean that passing yardage and scoring numbers have increased steadily. It could just mean teams are throwing more passes but for fewer yards (the dreaded West Coast Offense).

Here is passing yardage per team per year (82 and 87 inflated to 16 games), with 1980 as the base year:
Year YDS 19801977 2254 0.661978 2815 0.831979 3161 0.931980 3408 1.001981 3543 1.041982 3510 1.031983 3580 1.051984 3634 1.071985 3617 1.061986 3598 1.061987 3309 0.971988 3477 1.021989 3620 1.061990 3374 0.991991 3351 0.981992 3272 0.961993 3436 1.011994 3633 1.071995 3758 1.101996 3547 1.041997 3500 1.031998 3528 1.041999 3643 1.072000 3544 1.042001 3534 1.042002 3631 1.072003 3418 1.001995 was the peak, but still only 10% higher than 1980.Here are passing TDs per team per year (82 and 87 inflated to 16 games), with 1980 as the base year:

Year   TDS   19801977  13.5   0.631978  16.6   0.771979  19.1   0.891980  21.5   1.001981  20.8   0.971982  19.9   0.931983  21.9   1.021984  21.8   1.011985  21.1   0.981986  20.7   0.961987  21.6   1.021988  19.8   0.921989  20.6   0.961990  20.3   0.951991  17.8   0.831992  18.3   0.851993  18.3   0.851994  20.7   0.961995  22.0   1.021996  20.7   0.961997  20.4   0.951998  21.7   1.011999  21.3   0.992000  20.4   0.952001  20.5   0.952002  21.6   1.012003  20.4   0.95

Pretty consistent other than three really down years (1991-1993).

 

[dgreen]

Just wanted to add that we've all seen year after year how unreliable Pro Bowl voting is as a guage for quality of play. Larry Allen, Warren Sapp and many, many others have made the Pro Bowl in recent years over more skilled but less notorious players. Monk's quiet nature hurt him here as much as anywhere else.

Plus the fact that he usually wasn't even the top WR on his own team.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on one of those teams to say Art Monk wasn't WR1.

 

[CalBear]

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on one of those teams to say Art Monk wasn't WR1.

Let's look at it.1980: Monk 58/797 (Not impressive, but certainly WR1).

1981: Monk 56/894.

1982 (strike): Monk has 35 receptions for 447 yards and 1 TD: Charlie Brown has 32 receptions for 690 yards and 8 TDs.

1983: Brown, 78/1225/8, Monk 47/746/5

1984: Monk 106/1372/7

1985: Monk 91/1226/2

1986: Clark 74/1265/7, Monk 73/1068/4

1987: Clark 56/1066/7, Monk 37/483/6

1988: Sanders 73/1148/12, Monk 72/946/5

1989: Clark 79/1229/9, Monk 86/1186/8, Sanders 80/1138/4

1990: Clark 75/1112/8, Monk 68/770/5

1991: Clark 70/1340/10, Monk 71/1049/8

1992: Clark 64/912/5, Monk 46/644/3

1993: Sanders 58/638/4, Monk 41/398/2

So there are only four years where Monk was clearly the WR1, and two of those were weak years. There is only one other year, 1989, that you can argue that Monk was really a candidate for WR1 on the Redskins or for the Pro Bowl; the rest of the years, it's not close.

 

[redman]

Just wanted to add that we've all seen year after year how unreliable Pro Bowl voting is as a guage for quality of play.  Larry Allen, Warren Sapp and many, many others have made the Pro Bowl in recent years over more skilled but less notorious players.  Monk's quiet nature hurt him here as much as anywhere else.

Plus the fact that he usually wasn't even the top WR on his own team.

Myth. How many of Monk's games did you actually watch?

 

[CalBear]

How many of Monk's games did you actually watch?

I saw the two Super Bowls where he had one catch each, and the Super Bowl win where he didn't play. I lived in New Jersey for most of Monk's career, so saw two games a year against the Giants.

 

[Ghost Rider]

What about Sterling Sharpe? Doesn't he deserve some consideration?

No. Too short of a career, just like Terrell Davis.

 

[SSOG]

Just wanted to add that we've all seen year after year how unreliable Pro Bowl voting is as a guage for quality of play. Larry Allen, Warren Sapp and many, many others have made the Pro Bowl in recent years over more skilled but less notorious players. Monk's quiet nature hurt him here as much as anywhere else.

Plus the fact that he usually wasn't even the top WR on his own team.

And the fact that he only finished in the in the top 10 in any statistical category at all during 5 different years of his career. And the fact that he only finished in the top 5 in any statistical category at all during 3 years of his career.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on one of those teams to say Art Monk wasn't WR1.

Let's look at it.1980: Monk 58/797 (Not impressive, but certainly WR1).

1981: Monk 56/894.

1982 (strike): Monk has 35 receptions for 447 yards and 1 TD: Charlie Brown has 32 receptions for 690 yards and 8 TDs.

1983: Brown, 78/1225/8, Monk 47/746/5

1984: Monk 106/1372/7

1985: Monk 91/1226/2

1986: Clark 74/1265/7, Monk 73/1068/4

1987: Clark 56/1066/7, Monk 37/483/6

1988: Sanders 73/1148/12, Monk 72/946/5

1989: Clark 79/1229/9, Monk 86/1186/8, Sanders 80/1138/4

1990: Clark 75/1112/8, Monk 68/770/5

1991: Clark 70/1340/10, Monk 71/1049/8

1992: Clark 64/912/5, Monk 46/644/3

1993: Sanders 58/638/4, Monk 41/398/2

So there are only four years where Monk was clearly the WR1, and two of those were weak years. There is only one other year, 1989, that you can argue that Monk was really a candidate for WR1 on the Redskins or for the Pro Bowl; the rest of the years, it's not close.

To be fair, that's a simplistic analysis. The WR1 isn't the guy with the best numbers, it's the guy with the toughest coverages who is usually the first read. Despite the fact that he never once in his career led the Broncos in receiving, McCaffrey was considered the #1 from 1996 to 2001 (when he broke his leg). Of course, Rod Smith was always a better receiver.I much prefer the arguement that he wasn't the best WR on his team, since the "he wasn't the #1 WR" arguement is a little bit disingenuous. Technically, he very well might have been.

 

[CalBear]

To be fair, that's a simplistic analysis. The WR1 isn't the guy with the best numbers, it's the guy with the toughest coverages who is usually the first read. Despite the fact that he never once in his career led the Broncos in receiving, McCaffrey was considered the #1 from 1996 to 2001 (when he broke his leg). Of course, Rod Smith was always a better receiver.

The point is, no one is going to get into the Pro Bowl (or the Hall of Fame) over a teammate when the teammate has more receptions, yardage, and TDs. McCaffery did make the Pro Bowl once when Rod Smith had more yardage, but McCaffery had 10 TDs to Smith's 6 (and McCaffery only played 15 games). (Even so, I'd say it was a poor selection).Monk was a posession receiver. Guys like Keyshawn Johnson and Amani Toomer get a lot of short third-down receptions, too. Keyshawn, in fact, has 600 more yards and 13 more TDs than Monk did at this point in his career, and I don't think four more seasons of mediocrity will get Keyshawn anywhere near the Hall of Fame.

 

[SSOG]

To be fair, that's a simplistic analysis. The WR1 isn't the guy with the best numbers, it's the guy with the toughest coverages who is usually the first read. Despite the fact that he never once in his career led the Broncos in receiving, McCaffrey was considered the #1 from 1996 to 2001 (when he broke his leg). Of course, Rod Smith was always a better receiver.

The point is, no one is going to get into the Pro Bowl (or the Hall of Fame) over a teammate when the teammate has more receptions, yardage, and TDs. McCaffery did make the Pro Bowl once when Rod Smith had more yardage, but McCaffery had 10 TDs to Smith's 6 (and McCaffery only played 15 games). (Even so, I'd say it was a poor selection).Monk was a posession receiver. Guys like Keyshawn Johnson and Amani Toomer get a lot of short third-down receptions, too. Keyshawn, in fact, has 600 more yards and 13 more TDs than Monk did at this point in his career, and I don't think four more seasons of mediocrity will get Keyshawn anywhere near the Hall of Fame.

I agree and think that the Keyshawn comparison is a very good one, I was just saying, it's quite possible that Art Monk was his team's #1 receiver for some or even most of those seasons.

 

[Hunterbeer]

Clearly I was searching Hall of Fame posts as I enter into these debates late. There is NO WAY Art Monk should get in over Michael Irvin. None. Monk was very arguably not the best WR on his team in the years the Redskins won the SUper Bowl. Ask any Cowboy player or coach and they will tell you IRvin was the leader on that squad. As for the numbers, only in longevity does Monk get a nod.

Monk played 16 seasons (1980-1995), though to be fair his three game stint with the Eagles in 1995 should be thrown out. So in 15 "real" seasons, he broke 1100 yds only 3 times, broke 6 TDs only 3 times (six TDs, mind you), and never had double-digit TDs. Art Monk made the Pro Bowl 3 times. That's it. These are not the numbers of a football immortal here.

Let's look at how many times Monk appeared among the top-10 in the league in the major receiving catagories. Surely a HOF receiver should be among the top-10 in the league often, right? The top 10 is not asking too much for a Hall of Famer.

Seasons among the league's top 10 (year-place)

Receptions: 4 (1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t)

Receiving yards: 3 (1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10)

Receiving TDs: 1 (1991-9t)

OUCH! His career best was 8 TDs, done twice. For comparison, Michael Irvin played 12 season, but really only 11 due to his final year being cut short due to injury in the fourth game.

Receptions: 4 (1991-2, 1992-7, 1993-3, 1995-5)

Receiving yards: 6 (1991-1, 1992-2, 1993-3, 1994-8, 1995-4, 1997-8t)

Receiving TDs: 5 (1991-9t, 1992-8t, 1993-9t, 1995-10t, 1997-6t)

You tell me who the better receiver was. Irvin was clearly the more dominant of the two.

 

[Despyzer]

You tell me who the better receiver was.

I'll take the guy who finished as the career leader in receptions and also held the single season record (Hint: Irvin didn't do either). How anyone can discount those two extremely meaningful categories is beyond me.

 

[Knightro]

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'll quote a HOF, Ronnie Lott on this:

"Art Monk was an example for Jerry Rice. That's what Jerry always told me."

"There's nothing negative to say. He has the numbers, the catches, the championships."

"You have a Hall of Fame for all it represents. I know he represents all that it's about. Integrity, love and passion for the game, community, what he gave back. Look how he conducted himself. Nobody I know deserves it more.

 

[Godsbrother]

LC Greenwood.

It will never happen because there are already a ton of Steelers from the 70s in the HOF but this guy was a 6-time pro bowler and a dominant force on the Steelers defensive line.

 

[dgreen]

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

The article starting this thread was written by Peter King and did NOT include Art Monk. About a week ago, Peter King said he will vote for Monk this year.Link

Rethinking the receivers

Irvin, Monk, Reed present Hall of Fame dilemma

NEW YORK -- It's that time of year again. Time to get bashed by every Tom, **** and Bill (Polian, just below) about the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process, now that the Hall has announced the 25 semifinalists for the 2007 class. Who's in, who's not, who we screwed up on. Going by the annual noise I hear, the selection committee has been wrong about everyone from A (Art Monk) to Z (Zimmerman, Gary).

I made some calls to take the temperature of some voters and league people about the Hall, and discovered that what raises the ire of most is the wide receiver position. Here's why: We're in the Aerial Era of NFL history. Over the past 10 years, a strong crop of receivers has become eligible for the Hall of Fame. And of the 50 men enshrined in the Hall of Fame in these last 10 years, the same number of receivers (four) as guards has been elected. Three of the four receivers weren't active past 1987. One of those was the long-forgotten Tommy McDonald, the other two were ex-Steelers Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. (The last wideout to gain entry was James Lofton in 2003.)

Receivers with at least 750 career catches -- Andre Reed (951), Art Monk (940), Irving Fryar (851), Henry Ellard (814) and Michael Irvin (750) -- have been on the doorstep for years, unable to get in. Add up the total catches of Swann and Stallworth, 873, and you still don't get to either Reed or Monk.

There are 39 selectors from the news media for the Hall -- one hometown media person representing each of the 32 franchises, the president of the Pro Football Writers of America and six at-large reps (including me and Paul Zimmerman from Sports Illustrated). We vote by Dec. 15 for 15 of the 25 semifinalists, and we'll discuss the final 15 plus the two Senior Committee nominees (Detroit tight end Charlie Sanders and Cleveland guard Gene Hickerson) at the voting session on Feb. 3 in Miami. Of those 17 candidates, we can vote in a minimum of three and a max of six.

It seems to me that the receiver discourse is handcuffing us because we can't figure out what a Hall of Fame receiver is anymore. Either that or we don't think the five guys with more catches than almost every Hall of Fame wideout ever are Hall-worthy.

"You guys are running the risk of becoming irrelevant,'' Colts GM Bill Polian told me. As general manager of the Bills in their glory years, Polian saw Reed's importance to Buffalo's four Super Bowl teams, and he calls it "disgraceful'' that Reed hasn't been elected. "You're just like the U.S. Congress, with all the bickering and infighting and 'if this guy doesn't get in I won't vote for that guy' stuff. You can't get the right thing done.''

I mentioned this to Zimmerman and fully expected a full-frontal rip job on Polian. What I got from Dr. Z was this: "He might be right. Sometimes we get so involved with inner-sanctum nonsense that we lose sight of the big picture. It's good to have an outsider knock us on our ### every now and then.''

With Tim Brown, Cris Carter and Jerry Rice -- each of whom have caught more than 1,000 passes -- coming up for election in the next four years, my feeling is it's incumbent on us to break the logjam. This would be the year to do it. It's not a strong year for new candidates, with Bruce Matthews, Terrell Davis and Randall McDaniel the best of the newcomers.

I'd say over the last five years, receiver-wrangling has taken up more than its fair share of time in the meetings. We just can't agree on who belongs. I forget which year it was, but we spent 46 minutes debating the merits of Monk in one meeting. That's the longest debate I recall in my decade-and-a-half at this post.

"The Hall of Fame is about impact, not statistics,'' said one of the most responsible and conscientious voters in the room, longtime NFL writer Rick Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News. "Sometimes it's tricky separating the two. You can debate Monk, Irvin and Reed into the night. And we have. Clearly we haven't been able to come up with a consensus opinion on their impact in the game and where they fit historically. That doesn't mean the door has been closed on any of them.''

Many voters, including me, would like to see the 32-person panel increased to include long-time coaching and front-office authorities, and some current writers who aren't now on the panel. Not just head coaches or big-name GMs either. I'd love to see Ron Wolf and Don Shula in the room for their decades of expertise, but two other names I'd propose are the advance pro scouts who critically analyzed players from their teams' next games for years: Tim Rooney of the Giants and Bob Ferguson, the former Bills and Seahawks general manager. We'd be a better panel with those four men in the room, along with some veteran and sage football analysts like Vito Stellino and John Czarnecki, both of whom have chronicled the game with a critical eye for over 30 years. The number we work with now is sensible, I suppose. But why not make it an even 50? "Bringing in outsiders would inject new ideas into the discussion,'' said veteran San Francisco scribe and voter Ira Miller. Hear, hear.

Back to the wideout question. The recent historical evenness of guards and wide receivers drives Polian crazy.

"I'm as old-school as football gets,'' Polian said. "I love offensive linemen. But no defensive coordinator ever made a gameplan that said, 'We've got to stop this guard to be able to win this game.' Defensive coordinators often say that about receivers and design gameplans to stop them. If you eliminated Irvin, Reed or Monk from any game, or you eliminated a guard for the same game, which do you think would be more impactful on the offense that day? Missing the receiver, of course. I'm simply incredulous as a football man that these receivers can't get in. There's no question in my mind they all should be in.''

The game's changing. This year's college Game of the Century, Michigan at Ohio State, was as much a slap in the face about the passing game, and the importance of the receiver position, as you could ever see. Didn't it seem like almost a run-and-shoot game for a while? I went back and looked at the play-by-play in the first quarter: 35 plays were run from the line of scrimmage. Ten were called runs, 25 called passes (including two sacks). That means in the college football game of the year, between two teams that for generations personified how football was a man's game won by the team with the best running game and best run-defense, coaches called 71 percent passes in the first quarter. "Establish the run'' used to be the mantra in football. That's dead and buried. For the game, the two teams passed on 56 percent of the offensive snaps.

Sure, that's college football, and it's only one game. But it's a barometer. If you can't throw and catch, you're not winning anymore. We've seen that in the NFL for the last generation. We've enshrined most of the great eligible quarterbacks from 1980 and on -- Dan Fouts, Joe Montana, Jim Kelly, John Elway, Dan Marino, Steve Young, Warren Moon, Troy Aikman. We've enshrined exactly one of the receivers who played his way into the Hall for what he did after 1980, James Lofton. Eight quarterbacks, one receiver. Isn't that unjust?

In some ways I've been part of the problem. Even though Monk retired with the all-time receptions record, I've historically been anti-Monk for several reasons. He played 16 seasons and led his own team in receiving six times; only once was he voted first-team All-Pro. I questioned his impact on a team where the running game and Gary Clark, for many years, were the prime targets to stop by opposing defensive coordinators. I know. I watched the Giants do it nine times over four years against Washington. But last year, after a man I'd advocated got in (Harry Carson), veteran NFL writer Len Shapiro from the Washington Post e-mailed me and reminded me that everything Carson meant to the Giants, Monk meant to Washington. The leadership, the selflessness, the durable productivity ... all the same. I decided I should re-think my position.

As I made my rounds of training camps this year, I asked veteran coaches about Monk and the one word that kept coming up was "unselfish.'' His downfield blocking prowess kept coming up. His long-term numbers were almost Yastrzemski-like (one or two great years, lots of productive ones, very reliable). But when I talked to Joe Gibbs on Friday, the one thing that stood out was the body of work we don't see -- the downfield blocking, the quiet leadership, and this: Unlike his louder receiving mates Clark and Ricky Sanders, Monk, according to Gibbs, never once said he wanted the ball more. "We used him almost as a tight end a lot,'' said Gibbs, "and not only did he do it willingly, he was a great blocker for us. If he'd been a squeaky wheel, who knows how many catches Art would have had. But he cared about one thing -- the team.''

So many of the things Carson did can't be quantified. Similarly with Monk. Not only did he lead the NFL in all-time receptions when he retired, but he blocked superbly and was the most important locker-room influence on a three-time Super Bowl champion. I'm voting for him.

I'll support Monk and Irvin -- the most important locker-room guy and a constant offensive weapon on a three-time champion -- in my voting. I remain unconvinced about Reed. I saw a lot of the Bills in their Super Bowl prime, and I'm squarely in the corner of Thurman Thomas as the Bill's other offensive weapon who deserves entry. Does Reed belong when all the other mega-catchers -- Carter, Brown, Rice and, down the line, Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens and Randy Moss -- come before the committee in the coming years?

Let the e-mails begin. It's that time of year.

 

[Buckle]

Definitely Derrick Thomas should be in. There hasn't been a LB like him since, and he's been gone a while. That should be a yardstick he covers by the test of time. He earned himself in the class of LT.

 

[GroveDiesel]

An interesting note to the Art Monk debate:

The most outspoken opponent of Art Monk being in the HOF has always been Peter King. But after talking to a lot of Monk's peers this past offseason he had a change of heart. He realized that Monk meant more than just yardage to the Redskins. His downfield blocking was a huge part of who the Redskins were. His leadership and consistency were also very important to the team.

Peter King's change of heart

And I see that I was beaten to the punch while trying to work and post at the same time, lol.

 

[dagogrease]

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'll quote a HOF, Ronnie Lott on this:

"Art Monk was an example for Jerry Rice. That's what Jerry always told me."

"There's nothing negative to say. He has the numbers, the catches, the championships."

"You have a Hall of Fame for all it represents. I know he represents all that it's about. Integrity, love and passion for the game, community, what he gave back. Look how he conducted himself. Nobody I know deserves it more.

The best posting of this entire thread IMHO....