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

[dornado]

How about Richard Dent

137.5 career sacks... 4 pro bowls... Super Bowl MVP...

 

[Workhorse]

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.

Very, very Tippett was the best OLB not named Lawrence Taylor of the 1980s. He was a force.

 

[JohnDoe]

There is one non-player who was on the initial ballot this year but will probably never get in: Ed Sabol, the founder of NFL Films. Ed should be in the HOF based on what NFL Films means to the NFL, and the impact this venture has had on the popularity of the league.

NFL Films

 

[David Yudkin]

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....

In fantasy terms, Monk never ranked in the Top 5 in any season using standard fantasy scoring (0.1 per yard and 6 pts for TDs).Art Monk may very well be a deserving HOFer, but IMO it certainly WILL NOT BE due to him being a DOMINANT player statistically on a yearly or peak seasons basis. Yes, he was a clutch player and was a go to guy on third downs. Yes, he was a good humanitarian and and upstanding citizen. Yes, he was a good teammate and was not a potential embarrasment to the league like some of the clowns out there today. Yes, he was a member of a team that won 3 Super Bowls (although how big a receiving factor he was in those years is open for debate). Yes, he at one point held the single season and career records for most receptions. All those things are true.

But IMO he was not a dominant player. Almost by definition Monk was a compiler that did very well for a long, long time. Statistically, IMO he belongs in the Hall of the Very Good (now before I get nasty cards and letters for being a Monk-hater, I just pointed out that his candidacy has a lot of other things going for him). And it's not the Hall of Statistics, so we'll all bear that in mind as well.

Here are his best 3 consecutive years in each main category over his career and how they stacked up to his peers (players that also played in the 1980-95 timeframe). The best three seasons had to be consecutive, although the range years listed could be at any point in a player's career provided they occurred in that timeframe. (I bracketed 3- year intervals that overlapped Monk's career, so basically only data from 1978 through 1997):

RECEPTIONS

Jerry Rice 342 (94-96)

Cris Carter 340 (94-96)

Jerry Rice 332 (93-95)

Cris Carter 330 (93-95)

Sterling Sharpe 314 (92-94)

Herman Moore 301 (94-96)

Jerry Rice 294 (92-94)

Sterling Sharpe 289 (91-93)

Michael Irvin 278 (93-95)

Larry Centers 277 (94-96)

Art Monk 270 (84-86)

Carl Pickens 270 (94-96)

Tim Brown 268 (94-96)

Haywood Jeffires 264 (90-92)

Jerry Rice 264 (90-92)

Jerry Rice 262 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 262 (89-91)

Cris Carter 261 (92-94)

Andre Rison 260 (91-93)

Andre Rison 260 (92-94)

Yes, Monk ranks fairly high on this list, to which I rhetorically say, so what? Does anyone know who holds the single season record for rushing attempts in a season? How about completed passes? Are those stats revered throughout the land? Having a lot of receptions is nice, but what you do with them is far more important in my book. To that end . . .

RECEIVING YARDS

Jerry Rice 4850 (93-95)

Jerry Rice 4601 (94-96)

Jerry Rice 4291 (88-90)

Herman Moore 4275 (95-97)

Michael Irvin 4249 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 4203 (92-94)

Jerry Rice 4191 (89-91)

Michael Irvin 4174 (93-95)

Herman Moore 4155 (94-96)

Henry Ellard 4090 (88-90)

Michael Irvin 3967 (92-94)

Jerry Rice 3954 (86-88)

Isaac Bruce 3934 (95-97)

Jerry Rice 3910 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 3909 (90-92)

Jerry Rice 3867 (87-89)

Sterling Sharpe 3854 (92-94)

Tim Brown 3854 (95-97)

Tim Brown 3831 (93-95)

James Lofton 3814 (83-85)

Michael Irvin 3806 (94-96)

Herman Moore 3794 (93-95)

Cris Carter 3790 (94-96)

Tim Brown 3755 (94-96)

Michael Irvin 3745 (95-97)

Henry Ellard 3728 (89-91)

Mike Quick 3708 (83-85)

Cris Carter 3698 (93-95)

Sterling Sharpe 3696 (91-93)

Gary Clark 3681 (89-91)

Art Monk 3666 (84-86)

IMO, that's a decent showing, but there certainly were a lot of WR that put up big 3-year totals in consecutive seasons. And remember that outside of the 84-86 years, Monk posted only 2 seasons with 1000+ receiving yards in 13 other seasons.

But the key to football is getting in the endzone. The best 3-year span TD receptions wise for Monk was only 21 TD. Here were all the players that scored at least that many in a 3-year span in the Monk era. I didn't bother to count how many there were, but suffice it to say that there were A LOT:

RECEIVING TD

Jerry Rice 48 (87-89)

Jerry Rice 46 (86-88)

Jerry Rice 44 (89-91)

Jerry Rice 43 (93-95)

Sterling Sharpe 42 (92-94)

Jerry Rice 40 (85-87)

Cris Carter 40 (95-97)

Carl Pickens 40 (94-96)

Jerry Rice 39 (88-90)

Jerry Rice 39 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 38 (92-94)

Andre Rison 38 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 37 (90-92)

Jerry Rice 36 (94-96)

John Jefferson 36 (78-80)

Cris Carter 34 (94-96)

Herman Moore 34 (94-96)

Andre Rison 34 (92-94)

Carl Pickens 34 (93-95)

Carl Pickens 34 (95-97)

Cris Carter 33 (93-95)

Mike Quick 33 (83-85)

Andre Rison 33 (90-92)

Mark Clayton 32 (84-86)

Roy Green 31 (83-85)

Mike Quick 31 (85-87)

Mark Clayton 31 (86-88)

Herman Moore 31 (93-95)

Herman Moore 31 (95-97)

Daryl Turner 30 (84-86)

Mark Clayton 30 (87-89)

Mike Quick 29 (84-86)

Roy Green 29 (82-84)

Steve Largent 29 (83-85)

Sterling Sharpe 29 (93-95)

Sterling Sharpe 28 (91-93)

Harold Carmichael 28 (78-80)

Tim Brown 28 (94-96)

Tony Martin 27 (94-96)

Terance Mathis 27 (94-96)

Steve Largent 27 (84-86)

Gary Clark 27 (89-91)

Andre Reed 27 (89-91)

Michael Jackson 27 (95-97)

John Jefferson 27 (79-81)

Harold Carmichael 26 (79-81)

Joey Galloway 26 (95-97)

Tony Martin 26 (95-97)

Andre Rison 26 (89-91)

John Taylor 26 (89-91)

Tim Brown 26 (93-95)

Anthony Miller 26 (93-95)

Andre Rison 26 (93-95)

Steve Largent 26 (82-84)

Paul Coffman 26 (83-85)

Daryl Turner 26 (85-87)

Mark Clayton 26 (88-90)

Irving Fryar 26 (94-96)

Michael Jackson 25 (94-96)

Stephone Paige 25 (85-87)

Todd Christensen 25 (83-85)

Stephone Paige 25 (84-86)

Michael Haynes 25 (91-93)

Isaac Bruce 25 (95-97)

Irving Fryar 25 (95-97)

Robert Brooks 24 (95-97)

Tim Brown 24 (95-97)

Jerry Rice 24 (95-97)

Wesley Walker 24 (84-86)

Louis Lipps 24 (84-86)

Kellen Winslow 24 (80-82)

Kellen Winslow 24 (81-83)

Dwight Clark 24 (83-85)

Mike Quick 24 (86-88)

Drew Hill 24 (87-89)

Eddie Brown 24 (88-90)

Gary Clark 24 (88-90)

Mark Clayton 24 (89-91)

Ernest Givins 24 (90-92)

Haywood Jeffires 24 (90-92)

Tony Hill 24 (78-80)

Steve Largent 24 (79-81)

Stanley Morgan 24 (79-81)

Freddie Solomon 23 (79-81)

Steve Largent 23 (78-80)

Nat Moore 23 (78-80)

Stanley Morgan 23 (78-80)

Lynn Swann 23 (78-80)

Gary Clark 23 (90-92)

Sterling Sharpe 23 (90-92)

Gary Clark 23 (87-89)

Steve Largent 23 (81-83)

Mike Quick 23 (82-84)

Todd Christensen 23 (82-84)

Daryl Turner 23 (83-85)

Tim Brown 23 (92-94)

Mark Clayton 23 (83-85)

Roy Green 23 (84-86)

Drew Hill 23 (88-90)

Andre Reed 23 (88-90)

Henry Ellard 22 (88-90)

Steve Largent 23 (85-87)

Michael Irvin 23 (93-95)

Isaac Bruce 23 (94-96)

Ben Coates 23 (95-97)

Mark Duper 22 (84-86)

Wesley Walker 22 (81-83)

Paul Coffman 22 (82-84)

Anthony Carter 22 (85-87)

Mark Duper 22 (85-87)

Stephone Paige 22 (86-88)

Eric Martin 22 (87-89)

Sterling Sharpe 22 (89-91)

Michael Irvin 22 (91-93)

Haywood Jeffires 22 (91-93)

Cris Carter 22 (92-94)

Ben Coates 22 (94-96)

Anthony Miller 22 (94-96)

Antonio Freeman 22 (95-97)

Terance Mathis 22 (95-97)

Jake Reed 22 (95-97)

Ahmad Rashad 22 (78-80)

Tony Hill 22 (79-81)

Alfred Jenkins 22 (79-81)

Ahmad Rashad 21 (79-81)

Kellen Winslow 21 (79-81)

Billy Joe Dupree 21 (78-80)

Michael Irvin 21 (95-97)

Anthony Miller 21 (95-97)

Robert Brooks 21 (94-96)

Curtis Conway 21 (94-96)

Haywood Jeffires 21 (92-94)

Herman Moore 21 (92-94)

Henry Ellard 21 (87-89)

Gary Clark 21 (86-88)

Drew Hill 21 (86-88)

Mark Clayton 21 (85-87)

Mark Duper 21 (83-85)

Roy Green 21 (81-83)

Louis Lipps 21 (83-85)

Wes Chandler 21 (80-82)

Wes Chandler 21 (83-85)

Todd Christensen 21 (84-86)

Cris Collinsworth 21 (84-86)

Michael Haynes 21 (90-92)

Andre Reed 21 (90-92)

Ben Coates 21 (93-95)

Art Monk 21 (89-91)

Now, armed with this information, does this translate into Monk being a dominant player looking at his peak years and comparing them to his peers? I'd be inclined to say no, but of course to each his own . . .

As for Monk's performance in the Redskins' 3 Super Bowl winning seasons (83, 87, and 91), Monk amassed a regular season total of 156 receptions, 2278 receiving yards, and 19 receiving TD.

In terms of a contemporary comparison, IMO Monk's numbers are similar to Keyshawn Johnson's:

Keyshawn through 10 and 3/4 seasons:

801 receptions, 10430 receiving yards, 64 receiving TD

Monk through 11 seasons:

760 receptions, 9935 receiving yards, 50 receiving TD

Monk's best 3 consecutive seasons were:

270 receptions, 3666 receiving yards, and 21 receiving TD

(Note that they were the best 3 consecutive seasons at any point in his career, so they were not truly 3 consecutive seasons.)

Johnson's best 3-year stretch in each category:

266 receptions, 3310 receiving yards, 26 receiving TD

Are people clamoring that Keyshawn should be a HOFer?

Should Monk someday be elected to the HOF, I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. IMO, he's not a terrible candidate and he certainly has some positive points to consider. But IMO there are several other WR that I would put in before him as being more dynamic from year to year than Monk was. As I've posted in many other threads, the HOF voters up until now have not inducted many WR, and IMO that's part of the problem and another reason why Monk has not made it as of yet.

 

[GroveDiesel]

There is one non-player who was on the initial ballot this year but will probably never get in: Ed Sabol, the founder of NFL Films. Ed should be in the HOF based on what NFL Films means to the NFL, and the impact this venture has had on the popularity of the league.

NFL Films

That's a good one actually. I agree, he belongs.I also think that it's a shame that Ralph Wilson isn't in the HOF. He was crucial in merging the NFL and AFL, helped keep both the Raiders and Patriots from folding and was absolutely instrumental in creating the TV contracts that now exist.

 

[GregR_2]

...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 . He is the all-time Dallas Cowboy leader in tackles, has 3 Super Bowls rings and was an annual Pro-Bowler.

He played 3 years alongside Roy Williams? I thought they actually were a bad pairing the way Parcells used them, he kept Roy back deep which isn't the strength of his game. Woodson retiring caused Parcells to use Roy as a true strong safety again and he's been more of a force since, though his poor pass coverage keeps getting exposed.

 

[jbz]

Well if this was the Fantasy Football HOF we were talking about, I could see the arguments against Art Monk. There's other intangibles besides stats that should get factored in. There are good arguments for both sides though, I certainly can see where the anti-Monk crowd is coming from. Peter King is one of the major Anti-Monk guys. Even he has changed his tune:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...eceivers/1.html

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's not also forget that at one time, Art Monk held 3 major NFL receiving records. He had the record for most receptions in a season (and first to ever break 100), most receptions in a career, and most consecutive games with a reception. When a WR can stake claim to all 3 of those at once, even if they all were broken eventually, how can you not recognize his greatness?

 

[David Yudkin]

Let's not also forget that at one time, Art Monk held 3 major NFL receiving records. He had the record for most receptions in a season (and first to ever break 100), most receptions in a career, and most consecutive games with a reception. When a WR can stake claim to all 3 of those at once, even if they all were broken eventually, how can you not recognize his greatness?

The bolded part is inaccurate. Lionel Taylor had 100 receptions in 1961 and that was broken by Charlie Hennigan in 1964.I'm sure we could find other players that held simultaneous records that time has completely forgot. Like single season and lifetime home run leaders before Babe Ruth came along. Or rushing leaders before Jim Brown played. Or passing leaders before Dan Marino.

Everything is relative. IIRC, Frank Tripucka once held the record for most completions in a season. John David Crow held the single season record for most yards from scrimmage. James Wilder held the record for most rushes in a season.

The fact of the matter is that there will be players that held records that may not even be worth discussing. I'm not saying that Monk isn't worth debating, nor am I trying to diminish his acocmplishments.

Since Monk retired roughly 10 years ago, 5 players have passed him in total receptions and in 10 years there's a decent chance another half dozen players will too. 10 players have passed him in career receiving yards (with a decent chance of that many passing him in the next decade). And 8 of those guys aren't inducted (granted many are not eligible yet). 29 players have caught more TD passes.

So the debate will continue, and Monk at the moment remains on the fringe and on the outside looking in.

 

[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....

In fantasy terms, Monk never ranked in the Top 5 in any season using standard fantasy scoring (0.1 per yard and 6 pts for TDs).Art Monk may very well be a deserving HOFer, but IMO it certainly WILL NOT BE due to him being a DOMINANT player statistically on a yearly or peak seasons basis. Yes, he was a clutch player and was a go to guy on third downs. Yes, he was a good humanitarian and and upstanding citizen. Yes, he was a good teammate and was not a potential embarrasment to the league like some of the clowns out there today. Yes, he was a member of a team that won 3 Super Bowls (although how big a receiving factor he was in those years is open for debate). Yes, he at one point held the single season and career records for most receptions. All those things are true.

But IMO he was not a dominant player. Almost by definition Monk was a compiler that did very well for a long, long time. Statistically, IMO he belongs in the Hall of the Very Good (now before I get nasty cards and letters for being a Monk-hater, I just pointed out that his candidacy has a lot of other things going for him). And it's not the Hall of Statistics, so we'll all bear that in mind as well.

Here are his best 3 consecutive years in each main category over his career and how they stacked up to his peers (players that also played in the 1980-95 timeframe). The best three seasons had to be consecutive, although the range years listed could be at any point in a player's career provided they occurred in that timeframe. (I bracketed 3- year intervals that overlapped Monk's career, so basically only data from 1978 through 1997):

RECEPTIONS

Jerry Rice 342 (94-96)

Cris Carter 340 (94-96)

Jerry Rice 332 (93-95)

Cris Carter 330 (93-95)

Sterling Sharpe 314 (92-94)

Herman Moore 301 (94-96)

Jerry Rice 294 (92-94)

Sterling Sharpe 289 (91-93)

Michael Irvin 278 (93-95)

Larry Centers 277 (94-96)

Art Monk 270 (84-86)

Carl Pickens 270 (94-96)

Tim Brown 268 (94-96)

Haywood Jeffires 264 (90-92)

Jerry Rice 264 (90-92)

Jerry Rice 262 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 262 (89-91)

Cris Carter 261 (92-94)

Andre Rison 260 (91-93)

Andre Rison 260 (92-94)

Yes, Monk ranks fairly high on this list, to which I rhetorically say, so what? Does anyone know who holds the single season record for rushing attempts in a season? How about completed passes? Are those stats revered throughout the land? Having a lot of receptions is nice, but what you do with them is far more important in my book. To that end . . .

RECEIVING YARDS

Jerry Rice 4850 (93-95)

Jerry Rice 4601 (94-96)

Jerry Rice 4291 (88-90)

Herman Moore 4275 (95-97)

Michael Irvin 4249 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 4203 (92-94)

Jerry Rice 4191 (89-91)

Michael Irvin 4174 (93-95)

Herman Moore 4155 (94-96)

Henry Ellard 4090 (88-90)

Michael Irvin 3967 (92-94)

Jerry Rice 3954 (86-88)

Isaac Bruce 3934 (95-97)

Jerry Rice 3910 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 3909 (90-92)

Jerry Rice 3867 (87-89)

Sterling Sharpe 3854 (92-94)

Tim Brown 3854 (95-97)

Tim Brown 3831 (93-95)

James Lofton 3814 (83-85)

Michael Irvin 3806 (94-96)

Herman Moore 3794 (93-95)

Cris Carter 3790 (94-96)

Tim Brown 3755 (94-96)

Michael Irvin 3745 (95-97)

Henry Ellard 3728 (89-91)

Mike Quick 3708 (83-85)

Cris Carter 3698 (93-95)

Sterling Sharpe 3696 (91-93)

Gary Clark 3681 (89-91)

Art Monk 3666 (84-86)

IMO, that's a decent showing, but there certainly were a lot of WR that put up big 3-year totals in consecutive seasons. And remember that outside of the 84-86 years, Monk posted only 2 seasons with 1000+ receiving yards in 13 other seasons.

But the key to football is getting in the endzone. The best 3-year span TD receptions wise for Monk was only 21 TD. Here were all the players that scored at least that many in a 3-year span in the Monk era. I didn't bother to count how many there were, but suffice it to say that there were A LOT:

RECEIVING TD

Jerry Rice 48 (87-89)

Jerry Rice 46 (86-88)

Jerry Rice 44 (89-91)

Jerry Rice 43 (93-95)

Sterling Sharpe 42 (92-94)

Jerry Rice 40 (85-87)

Cris Carter 40 (95-97)

Carl Pickens 40 (94-96)

Jerry Rice 39 (88-90)

Jerry Rice 39 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 38 (92-94)

Andre Rison 38 (91-93)

Jerry Rice 37 (90-92)

Jerry Rice 36 (94-96)

John Jefferson 36 (78-80)

Cris Carter 34 (94-96)

Herman Moore 34 (94-96)

Andre Rison 34 (92-94)

Carl Pickens 34 (93-95)

Carl Pickens 34 (95-97)

Cris Carter 33 (93-95)

Mike Quick 33 (83-85)

Andre Rison 33 (90-92)

Mark Clayton 32 (84-86)

Roy Green 31 (83-85)

Mike Quick 31 (85-87)

Mark Clayton 31 (86-88)

Herman Moore 31 (93-95)

Herman Moore 31 (95-97)

Daryl Turner 30 (84-86)

Mark Clayton 30 (87-89)

Mike Quick 29 (84-86)

Roy Green 29 (82-84)

Steve Largent 29 (83-85)

Sterling Sharpe 29 (93-95)

Sterling Sharpe 28 (91-93)

Harold Carmichael 28 (78-80)

Tim Brown 28 (94-96)

Tony Martin 27 (94-96)

Terance Mathis 27 (94-96)

Steve Largent 27 (84-86)

Gary Clark 27 (89-91)

Andre Reed 27 (89-91)

Michael Jackson 27 (95-97)

John Jefferson 27 (79-81)

Harold Carmichael 26 (79-81)

Joey Galloway 26 (95-97)

Tony Martin 26 (95-97)

Andre Rison 26 (89-91)

John Taylor 26 (89-91)

Tim Brown 26 (93-95)

Anthony Miller 26 (93-95)

Andre Rison 26 (93-95)

Steve Largent 26 (82-84)

Paul Coffman 26 (83-85)

Daryl Turner 26 (85-87)

Mark Clayton 26 (88-90)

Irving Fryar 26 (94-96)

Michael Jackson 25 (94-96)

Stephone Paige 25 (85-87)

Todd Christensen 25 (83-85)

Stephone Paige 25 (84-86)

Michael Haynes 25 (91-93)

Isaac Bruce 25 (95-97)

Irving Fryar 25 (95-97)

Robert Brooks 24 (95-97)

Tim Brown 24 (95-97)

Jerry Rice 24 (95-97)

Wesley Walker 24 (84-86)

Louis Lipps 24 (84-86)

Kellen Winslow 24 (80-82)

Kellen Winslow 24 (81-83)

Dwight Clark 24 (83-85)

Mike Quick 24 (86-88)

Drew Hill 24 (87-89)

Eddie Brown 24 (88-90)

Gary Clark 24 (88-90)

Mark Clayton 24 (89-91)

Ernest Givins 24 (90-92)

Haywood Jeffires 24 (90-92)

Tony Hill 24 (78-80)

Steve Largent 24 (79-81)

Stanley Morgan 24 (79-81)

Freddie Solomon 23 (79-81)

Steve Largent 23 (78-80)

Nat Moore 23 (78-80)

Stanley Morgan 23 (78-80)

Lynn Swann 23 (78-80)

Gary Clark 23 (90-92)

Sterling Sharpe 23 (90-92)

Gary Clark 23 (87-89)

Steve Largent 23 (81-83)

Mike Quick 23 (82-84)

Todd Christensen 23 (82-84)

Daryl Turner 23 (83-85)

Tim Brown 23 (92-94)

Mark Clayton 23 (83-85)

Roy Green 23 (84-86)

Drew Hill 23 (88-90)

Andre Reed 23 (88-90)

Henry Ellard 22 (88-90)

Steve Largent 23 (85-87)

Michael Irvin 23 (93-95)

Isaac Bruce 23 (94-96)

Ben Coates 23 (95-97)

Mark Duper 22 (84-86)

Wesley Walker 22 (81-83)

Paul Coffman 22 (82-84)

Anthony Carter 22 (85-87)

Mark Duper 22 (85-87)

Stephone Paige 22 (86-88)

Eric Martin 22 (87-89)

Sterling Sharpe 22 (89-91)

Michael Irvin 22 (91-93)

Haywood Jeffires 22 (91-93)

Cris Carter 22 (92-94)

Ben Coates 22 (94-96)

Anthony Miller 22 (94-96)

Antonio Freeman 22 (95-97)

Terance Mathis 22 (95-97)

Jake Reed 22 (95-97)

Ahmad Rashad 22 (78-80)

Tony Hill 22 (79-81)

Alfred Jenkins 22 (79-81)

Ahmad Rashad 21 (79-81)

Kellen Winslow 21 (79-81)

Billy Joe Dupree 21 (78-80)

Michael Irvin 21 (95-97)

Anthony Miller 21 (95-97)

Robert Brooks 21 (94-96)

Curtis Conway 21 (94-96)

Haywood Jeffires 21 (92-94)

Herman Moore 21 (92-94)

Henry Ellard 21 (87-89)

Gary Clark 21 (86-88)

Drew Hill 21 (86-88)

Mark Clayton 21 (85-87)

Mark Duper 21 (83-85)

Roy Green 21 (81-83)

Louis Lipps 21 (83-85)

Wes Chandler 21 (80-82)

Wes Chandler 21 (83-85)

Todd Christensen 21 (84-86)

Cris Collinsworth 21 (84-86)

Michael Haynes 21 (90-92)

Andre Reed 21 (90-92)

Ben Coates 21 (93-95)

Art Monk 21 (89-91)

Now, armed with this information, does this translate into Monk being a dominant player looking at his peak years and comparing them to his peers? I'd be inclined to say no, but of course to each his own . . .

As for Monk's performance in the Redskins' 3 Super Bowl winning seasons (83, 87, and 91), Monk amassed a regular season total of 156 receptions, 2278 receiving yards, and 19 receiving TD.

In terms of a contemporary comparison, IMO Monk's numbers are similar to Keyshawn Johnson's:

Keyshawn through 10 and 3/4 seasons:

801 receptions, 10430 receiving yards, 64 receiving TD

Monk through 11 seasons:

760 receptions, 9935 receiving yards, 50 receiving TD

Monk's best 3 consecutive seasons were:

270 receptions, 3666 receiving yards, and 21 receiving TD

(Note that they were the best 3 consecutive seasons at any point in his career, so they were not truly 3 consecutive seasons.)

Johnson's best 3-year stretch in each category:

266 receptions, 3310 receiving yards, 26 receiving TD

Are people clamoring that Keyshawn should be a HOFer?

Should Monk someday be elected to the HOF, I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. IMO, he's not a terrible candidate and he certainly has some positive points to consider. But IMO there are several other WR that I would put in before him as being more dynamic from year to year than Monk was. As I've posted in many other threads, the HOF voters up until now have not inducted many WR, and IMO that's part of the problem and another reason why Monk has not made it as of yet.

I think the term "dominant" is being thrown around here without looking at guys as players and what they brought to their teams and to the league. Here are some names of players that have made the HOF since 1990 and I would like to know the opinions of folks who think they were "dominant" every year:Lynn Swann

John Stallworth

James Lofton

Mike Munchak

Charlie Joiner

Steve Largeant (My all time favorite player by the way)

Jackie Smith

Jan Stenerud

Bob Griese

Troy Aikman

All in my opinion are great players and hall of fame worthy, but as it relates to the way this thread is looking at determining greatness...were any of them always "dominant"? Seems Art Monk relates to these guys in many ways?

Pros for Monk:

If you look at final career stats...Art Monk has that

If you look at a single season accomplishment...Art Monk has that

If you look at championship rings...Art Monk has that

If you look at players and coaches who played against you and they believe you are HOF worthy...Art Monk has that

He was never flashy, he was never a home run threat but he kept defenses honest and opened the field up for Clark, Sanders and Brown. Without him, they would not have been the #1 receivers on that team statistically. But anyone that watched football back then knew he was the most important Wide Receiver on that team. Lost in all of this stats talk is that he was a devestaing blocker that helped the running game tremendously and did so without crying about not getting the ball more. A consumate team player which is another reason why his teams won 3 championships.

IMHO, all this points to a hall of fame career as deserving if not more than Michael Irvin.

 

[jbz]

Let's not also forget that at one time, Art Monk held 3 major NFL receiving records. He had the record for most receptions in a season (and first to ever break 100), most receptions in a career, and most consecutive games with a reception. When a WR can stake claim to all 3 of those at once, even if they all were broken eventually, how can you not recognize his greatness?

The bolded part is inaccurate. Lionel Taylor had 100 receptions in 1961 and that was broken by Charlie Hennigan in 1964.I'm sure we could find other players that held simultaneous records that time has completely forgot. Like single season and lifetime home run leaders before Babe Ruth came along. Or rushing leaders before Jim Brown played. Or passing leaders before Dan Marino.

The fact of the matter is that there will be players that held records that may not even be worth discussing. I'm not saying that Monk isn't worth debating, nor am I trying to diminish his acocmplishments.

Since Monk retired roughly 10 years ago, 5 players have passed him in total receptions and in 10 years there's a decent chance another half dozen players will too. 10 players have passed him in career receiving yards (with a decent chance of that many passing him in the next decade). And 8 of those guys aren't inducted (granted many are not eligible yet). 29 players have caught more TD passes.

So the debate will continue, and Monk at the moment remains on the fringe and on the outside looking in.

thanks for the correction yeah, I agree that there will always be records that people held that got broken. But it's always tough to debate pure numbers since one could throw in the "they played in different era" or "the rules have changed to improve passing/receiving numbers in recent years" angles. Still, I find it hard to discredit Monk for those records, those weren't some obscure records, those were major NFL receiving records. Regardless of if they got surpassed or not, one man holding them is a pretty impressive accomplishment.

 

[David Yudkin]

What does statistically dominent mean? IMO, for WR it means ranking in the Top 5 on a regular basis in the 3 main receiving categories (receptions, reciving yards, and receiving TD). IMO, this is the best barometer for comparing players to their peers in the seasons they played.

In 16 NFL seasons, Monk ranked in the Top 5 in those categories a total of 5 times.

In other HOF threads, I have listed how many Top 5 seasons other WRs have had, but just for an example:

Andre Reed 5

Irving Fryer 3

Michael Irvin 7

Henry Ellard 7

Isaac Bruce 6

Rod Smith 7

Those are players with some solid seasons and some very good career numbers. But let's look at some other players . . .

Holt 10

Moss 12

Carter 13

Owens 11

Harrison 16

Rison 11

Sharpe 12

Most of these guys had more top rankings and most in a lot fewer years played.

Certainly Monk gets a lot of points for longevity, but in most seasons there were a fair amount of WR that put up betters numbers statistically. (As we all agree, Monk has many other positives besides pure stats on hios side.)

 

[Hunterbeer]

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.

Very, very Tippett was the best OLB not named Lawrence Taylor of the 1980s. He was a force.

Tippett was a great player and I think could get into the Hall, but the gap between Taylor and Tippett is much more than stats show. Teams designed entire game-plans around stopping Taylor. In fact Joe Gibbs said that was the only player he ever did that for in his career. (First time around at least)

 

[dagogrease]

What does statistically dominent mean? IMO, for WR it means ranking in the Top 5 on a regular basis in the 3 main receiving categories (receptions, reciving yards, and receiving TD). IMO, this is the best barometer for comparing players to their peers in the seasons they played.In 16 NFL seasons, Monk ranked in the Top 5 in those categories a total of 5 times.In other HOF threads, I have listed how many Top 5 seasons other WRs have had, but just for an example:Andre Reed 5Irving Fryer 3Michael Irvin 7Henry Ellard 7Isaac Bruce 6Rod Smith 7Those are players with some solid seasons and some very good career numbers. But let's look at some other players . . .Holt 10Moss 12Carter 13Owens 11Harrison 16Rison 11Sharpe 12Most of these guys had more top rankings and most in a lot fewer years played.Certainly Monk gets a lot of points for longevity, but in most seasons there were a fair amount of WR that put up betters numbers statistically. (As we all agree, Monk has many other positives besides pure stats on hios side.)

So based on your specifications, where do current HOFers stand?Lynn SwannJohn StallworthFred BiletnikoffSteve LargeantJames LoftonCharlie Joiner...I did a quick look and none of them would be worthy.

 

[The Goat]

Well if this was the Fantasy Football HOF we were talking about, I could see the arguments against Art Monk. There's other intangibles besides stats that should get factored in. There are good arguments for both sides though, I certainly can see where the anti-Monk crowd is coming from. Peter King is one of the major Anti-Monk guys. Even he has changed his tune:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...eceivers/1.html

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's not also forget that at one time, Art Monk held 3 major NFL receiving records. He had the record for most receptions in a season (and first to ever break 100), most receptions in a career, and most consecutive games with a reception. When a WR can stake claim to all 3 of those at once, even if they all were broken eventually, how can you not recognize his greatness?

While I am not particularly opinionated one way or another on the Monk issue, I have and will continue to say this:If Art Monk gets in, there should immediately be a public outcry for Irving Fryar. It can easily be argued that Fryar had an equal, if not superior, career statistically, with a far inferior supporting cast.

 

[jbz]

If you look at pure numbers, then Irving Fryar and Monk match up, but Monk's supporters will point to other intangibles. Also Fryar never accomplished what Monk did (Super Bowl titles, NFL records). There's several other WRs that will match up and surpass Monk statistically, including Fryar. Andre Reed comes to mind.

I guess this is why Monk is always one of the more debated HOF entries.

 

[Sea Bass]

Of that list, Thurman Thomas is the only one that belongs in the HOF.

 

[jbz]

What does statistically dominent mean? IMO, for WR it means ranking in the Top 5 on a regular basis in the 3 main receiving categories (receptions, reciving yards, and receiving TD). IMO, this is the best barometer for comparing players to their peers in the seasons they played.In 16 NFL seasons, Monk ranked in the Top 5 in those categories a total of 5 times.In other HOF threads, I have listed how many Top 5 seasons other WRs have had, but just for an example:Andre Reed 5Irving Fryer 3Michael Irvin 7Henry Ellard 7Isaac Bruce 6Rod Smith 7Those are players with some solid seasons and some very good career numbers. But let's look at some other players . . .Holt 10Moss 12Carter 13Owens 11Harrison 16Rison 11Sharpe 12Most of these guys had more top rankings and most in a lot fewer years played.Certainly Monk gets a lot of points for longevity, but in most seasons there were a fair amount of WR that put up betters numbers statistically. (As we all agree, Monk has many other positives besides pure stats on hios side.)

Do you think they will look at players from the more current time frame and adjust their line of thinking regarding what makes a HOF player, especially for QBs/WRs since the rules of the game are constantly being tweaked to favor the passing game. Also it seems (though I don't know for sure) that teams pass more these days then they did in the past. Seeing those names on your list will bring up debates down the road for sure, mainly Andre Rison, Andre Reed, Bruce, Rod Smith and Fryar.

 

[David Yudkin]

What does statistically dominent mean? IMO, for WR it means ranking in the Top 5 on a regular basis in the 3 main receiving categories (receptions, reciving yards, and receiving TD). IMO, this is the best barometer for comparing players to their peers in the seasons they played.In 16 NFL seasons, Monk ranked in the Top 5 in those categories a total of 5 times.In other HOF threads, I have listed how many Top 5 seasons other WRs have had, but just for an example:Andre Reed 5Irving Fryer 3Michael Irvin 7Henry Ellard 7Isaac Bruce 6Rod Smith 7Those are players with some solid seasons and some very good career numbers. But let's look at some other players . . .Holt 10Moss 12Carter 13Owens 11Harrison 16Rison 11Sharpe 12Most of these guys had more top rankings and most in a lot fewer years played.Certainly Monk gets a lot of points for longevity, but in most seasons there were a fair amount of WR that put up betters numbers statistically. (As we all agree, Monk has many other positives besides pure stats on hios side.)

So based on your specifications, where do current HOFers stand?Lynn SwannJohn StallworthFred BiletnikoffSteve LargeantJames LoftonCharlie Joiner...I did a quick look and none of them would be worthy.

All this shows is that the newer breed of WR has produced more at the top level than ever before and stats will matter a lot more than they used to.Swann is often the player that comes up as the example of some one that should not have been voted in (based mostly on his seemingly unimpressive regular season numbers.)Since you mentioned it, here were the Top 5 totals for the players mentioned . . .Lynn Swann - 3John Stallworth - 7Fred Biletnikoff - 9Steve Largent - 11James Lofton - 6Charlie Joiner - 5Some of these players fared better when looking at Top 10 rankings so their overall resume looks a bit better.The Top 5 evaluation approach is not an exact science and only one method in looking at things, but clearly some WR have had stronger seasons than others. Rice laps the field with 31 times ranked in the Top 5 in one of those 3 categories.But I don't have a HOF vote to cast, and certainly the voters care more than pure stats. If it were up to me, the HOF needs to catch up on some positions (WR being one of them) and cut back on others (IMO they have gone overboard on QBs). Joe Namath is another player that some point to as not being a great stats guy. He had a career TD to INT of 173 to 220 with a 50% completion percentage. But he led the Jets to one of the biggest upsets in sports and IIRC was the first QB to pass for 4000 yards in a season. (He only had 1 other season over 3000 passing yards in 12 other seasons and had only 2 seasons with 20 TD passes.) But even on the Top 5 scale for QBs (completions, passing yards, passing TDs), he still had 19 Top 5 seasons in his career. So at first blush he looks like a strange selection (based on his numbers) but not many QBs in his timeframe had gaudy numbers.The fact of the matter is that we can't kick anyone out if the HOF, nor is it likely that the voters will start making up for players or positions that have been overlooked. So if there are some players that got in who in retrospect may not have been the most deserving, IMO the selection committee will likely give future candidates a lot more scrutiny than they did 20+ years ago.

 

[David Yudkin]

What does statistically dominent mean? IMO, for WR it means ranking in the Top 5 on a regular basis in the 3 main receiving categories (receptions, reciving yards, and receiving TD). IMO, this is the best barometer for comparing players to their peers in the seasons they played.In 16 NFL seasons, Monk ranked in the Top 5 in those categories a total of 5 times.In other HOF threads, I have listed how many Top 5 seasons other WRs have had, but just for an example:Andre Reed 5Irving Fryer 3Michael Irvin 7Henry Ellard 7Isaac Bruce 6Rod Smith 7Those are players with some solid seasons and some very good career numbers. But let's look at some other players . . .Holt 10Moss 12Carter 13Owens 11Harrison 16Rison 11Sharpe 12Most of these guys had more top rankings and most in a lot fewer years played.Certainly Monk gets a lot of points for longevity, but in most seasons there were a fair amount of WR that put up betters numbers statistically. (As we all agree, Monk has many other positives besides pure stats on hios side.)

Do you think they will look at players from the more current time frame and adjust their line of thinking regarding what makes a HOF player, especially for QBs/WRs since the rules of the game are constantly being tweaked to favor the passing game. Also it seems (though I don't know for sure) that teams pass more these days then they did in the past. Seeing those names on your list will bring up debates down the road for sure, mainly Andre Rison, Andre Reed, Bruce, Rod Smith and Fryar.

There are a lot of reasons why numbers for players continue to go up, and IMO the #1 reason is that they play for way longer than they used to. And compared to players pre-1978, they have the benefit of 2 more games played per season.Yes, compared to the early 70s, team passing stats are much higher. There have been peaks and valleys since then, but there were years in the 80s and 90s with some inflated passing totals as well. For example, Brett Perriman had almost 1,500 receiving yards in 1995. But he ranked 6th in that category that year (and he would have ranked 1st in 2004).

 

[Marc Levin]

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:940-12721-13.5-68McCardell:825-10680-12.9-62Obviously 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 assume McCArdell can maintain historical averages after a year when he clearly could not, and McCardell is significantly behind Monk in ALL categories except TDs. I do not believe that McCardell will get 45-1G each of the next two years. In fact, he's more likely to have something like 40-400 each of the next two years - he will probably get more than 6 TDs if he plays two more years, but that is not certain (he has no TDs in 2006).And, as you realized, Monk's got the rings.Finally, compared to how he played against his contemporaries, it is a shame he's not in.

 

[David Yudkin]

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:940-12721-13.5-68McCardell:825-10680-12.9-62Obviously 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 assume McCArdell can maintain historical averages after a year when he clearly could not, and McCardell is significantly behind Monk in ALL categories except TDs. I do not believe that McCardell will get 45-1G each of the next two years. In fact, he's more likely to have something like 40-400 each of the next two years - he will probably get more than 6 TDs if he plays two more years, but that is not certain (he has no TDs in 2006).And, as you realized, Monk's got the rings.Finally, compared to how he played against his contemporaries, it is a shame he's not in.

Well, McCardell is now up to857-11074-12.9-62 If he plays 2 more seasons (admittedly a big if), I can see him averaging 40-650-2 and would wind up with around 940-12300-68. That's almost the same as Monk for career totals IF that came to bear.

 

[Marc Levin]

He's on pace for 40-501-0 this year. And he is heading into his 16th season next year.

I think your numbers are extremely optimistic.

 

[Despyzer]

If you look at pure numbers, then Irving Fryar and Monk match up, but Monk's supporters will point to other intangibles. Also Fryar never accomplished what Monk did (Super Bowl titles, NFL records). There's several other WRs that will match up and surpass Monk statistically, including Fryar. Andre Reed comes to mind.

I guess this is why Monk is always one of the more debated HOF entries.

Are you sure about this? Fryar played 31 more games, had 89 fewer catches and only 64 more yards. Fryar never even led the league in receptions, much less held the single-season record. He also did not retire as the career leader in any stat. He didn't play on any championship teams. And I have NO Idea how you think he's going to pass Monk, seeing how he retired six years ago. I've always liked Fryar (and even had a chance to talk with him), but he really does not have a claim to the hall like Monk does.

 

[David Yudkin]

He's on pace for 40-501-0 this year. And he is heading into his 16th season next year.I think your numbers are extremely optimistic.

So say he plays two more years and gets a total of 80-1000-2. That still leaves him with career totals of around 940 receptions, 12,000+ yards, and 70 TD. Monk had 940-12721-68. That's pretty close, in my opinion.

 

[Marc Levin]

He's on pace for 40-501-0 this year. And he is heading into his 16th season next year.I think your numbers are extremely optimistic.

So say he plays two more years and gets a total of 80-1000-2. That still leaves him with career totals of around 940 receptions, 12,000+ yards, and 70 TD. Monk had 940-12721-68. That's pretty close, in my opinion.

My point is that he won't get those numbers - he's heading into his 16th season next year.I thin he's done, to be honest - and if he's back next year, it will be in a b/u, not a starter's, role.I see the similarity, however - go look at Monk's last two or three years in the league, and that is what we are discuissing as McCardell's last two-three years.Unfortunately for him, McCardell's FIRST 12 years were not as successful as Monk's - either statistically or professionally (rings or Pro Bowls)

 

[Wreckincrew]

Zimmerman deserves it. Likely one of the top 10-15 tackles to ever play the game.

7 Seasons in Minnesota vs 5 seasons in Denver = A Minnesota Viking that finished his career in Denver.

 

[Knightro]

all I know is if Monk makes it in this year, my ### is going to Canton. A buddy of mine is on the hosting committee there and he'll get me some sweeeeeeet seats to stuff.

 

[Marc Levin]

and he'll get me some sweeeeeeet seats to stuff.

What goes on between you, your buddy, and your buddies friends is your business.

 

[MeatMops]

Very good discussion by all.

A couple of points (with a caveat on the Monk discussion - I'm a Cowboys fan).

After reading all the Monk information - I remain unconvinced he's a HOFer. I don't buy the argument of his supporters that he was the best receiver on his team all those years in spite of the numbers that say otherwise.

Can anyone point out another hall of fame receiver who had that many seasons in which he failed to lead his own team in any of receptions, yards receiving, or receiving touchdowns? Especially given that the two guys who were leading the team instead of Monk are not HOFers. I can see something like that happening on a fairly rare basis - but not again and again and again.

Next onto the Cowboys. Down in Texas I always see in the media reports of a supposed bias against the old era Cowboys players. I can't say I ever really bought into it. But now I would really have to question it - here's a very long discussion of the most worth players who are not in (and in this discussion a lot of very deserving candidates are mentioned) and not ONE of them is an old era Cowboy player. Maybe it's more than bias that has kept some of those guys out.

In any case, to repeat myself - good discussion all around. I enjoyed reading this and learned a lot.

 

[Despyzer]

Can anyone point out another hall of fame receiver who had that many seasons in which he failed to lead his own team in any of receptions, yards receiving, or receiving touchdowns?

Who told you that? Which guy on the Redskins do you think beat him out for catches when he pulled down 106?

 

[MeatMops]

I didn't say Monk never led his team in receiving.

The numbers posted in this thread showed that in the prime of Monk's career that 9 times in 13 years he failed to lead his own team in any of receptions, yards, or TD's.

If a Monk supporter could show a reasonable sample of current HOF receivers who played second fiddle on their own team for such a significant portion of their careers then it would be worth reconsidering Monk's case.

 

[[scooter]]

I didn't say Monk never led his team in receiving.

The numbers posted in this thread showed that in the prime of Monk's career that 9 times in 13 years he failed to lead his own team in any of receptions, yards, or TD's.

How convenient of you to compare Monk to RBs (who universally get more yards and TDs than WRs do).Fact: in Monk's first 11 seasons, there were only TWO SEASONS when another WR had more touches than him. Monk was injured one of those seasons, and the other was a strike year.

1980 - led team in catches and yards

1981 - led team in catches, yards, and TDs

1982 - led team in catches

1983 - injured mid-season

1984 - led team in catches, yards, and TDs

1985 - led team in catches and yards

1986 - had 1 less catch than Gary Clark, but had 3 more touches

1987 - strike year, only played 9 games (led team in TDs/game)

1988 - had 1 less catch than Ricky Sanders, but had 4 more touches

1989 - led team in catches

1991 - led team in catches

Oh yeah, he also played on 4 Super Bowl teams in those 11 seasons.

If a Monk supporter could show a reasonable sample of current HOF receivers who played second fiddle on their own team for such a significant portion of their careers then it would be worth reconsidering Monk's case.

Except that Monk was never "second" to anyone. It was 1A and 1B. See also: Stallworth and Swann, Holt and Bruce, Moss and Carter.

 

[Hunterbeer]

What does statistically dominent mean? IMO, for WR it means ranking in the Top 5 on a regular basis in the 3 main receiving categories (receptions, reciving yards, and receiving TD). IMO, this is the best barometer for comparing players to their peers in the seasons they played.

In 16 NFL seasons, Monk ranked in the Top 5 in those categories a total of 5 times.

In other HOF threads, I have listed how many Top 5 seasons other WRs have had, but just for an example:

Andre Reed 5

Irving Fryer 3

Michael Irvin 7

Henry Ellard 7

Isaac Bruce 6

Rod Smith 7

Those are players with some solid seasons and some very good career numbers. But let's look at some other players . . .

Holt 10

Moss 12

Carter 13

Owens 11

Harrison 16

Rison 11

Sharpe 12

Most of these guys had more top rankings and most in a lot fewer years played.

Certainly Monk gets a lot of points for longevity, but in most seasons there were a fair amount of WR that put up betters numbers statistically. (As we all agree, Monk has many other positives besides pure stats on hios side.)

Do you think they will look at players from the more current time frame and adjust their line of thinking regarding what makes a HOF player, especially for QBs/WRs since the rules of the game are constantly being tweaked to favor the passing game. Also it seems (though I don't know for sure) that teams pass more these days then they did in the past. Seeing those names on your list will bring up debates down the road for sure, mainly Andre Rison, Andre Reed, Bruce, Rod Smith and Fryar.

There are a lot of reasons why numbers for players continue to go up, and IMO the #1 reason is that they play for way longer than they used to. And compared to players pre-1978, they have the benefit of 2 more games played per season.Yes, compared to the early 70s, team passing stats are much higher. There have been peaks and valleys since then, but there were years in the 80s and 90s with some inflated passing totals as well. For example, Brett Perriman had almost 1,500 receiving yards in 1995. But he ranked 6th in that category that year (and he would have ranked 1st in 2004).

Yes, their career numbers do continue to go up in the pass happy age we live in. But that has absolutely no relevance nor bearing on the number of top-5 finishes per season the WRs had. That is how one judges one as compared to his contemporaries.Monk might, though I do not think so, deserve to get in due to being very good for a very long period of time. But it would have been nice if he had been great a little more often. Does he have better career numbers than, say Steve Largent? Yes he does, but there is just no honest way you could claim he was a more dominant WR than was Largent.

Number of time in the top 10 in the NFl in receptions:

Largent 9

Monk 4 (leading the league once)

Number of times in the top 10 in the NFL in yards:

Largent 8 (including leading the league twice)

Monk 3

Number of times in the top 10 in the NFL in receiving TDs:

Largent 8

Monk 1

In fact Largent had six entire seasons where he had as many or more TDs than Monk did in the best year of his life.

Irvin was a dominant WR who at his best was simply better than Monk. Irvin was NEVER second best on his own team, as Monk often was. It is okay to be #2 to Jerry Rice, but to Gary Clark and Charlie Brown (a couple of times each)? No. I would put Monk in ahead of Reed and Fryar b/c of all of the intangibles that eveyone who played with Monk attest to, but not ahead of Irvin who has the same intangibles and is often called the leader of those great Cowboy teams. And I would certainly NEVER compare him to Largent as an earlier poster did.

I applaud one for being very, very, good for a very, very long time, but I just prefer a great stretch for a number of years over the very good for a decade and a half.

 

[[scooter]]

Let's not also forget that at one time, Art Monk held 3 major NFL receiving records. He had the record for most receptions in a season (and first to ever break 100), most receptions in a career, and most consecutive games with a reception. When a WR can stake claim to all 3 of those at once, even if they all were broken eventually, how can you not recognize his greatness?

The bolded part is inaccurate. Lionel Taylor had 100 receptions in 1961 and that was broken by Charlie Hennigan in 1964.

<_< That was the AFL.

 

[jbz]

If you look at pure numbers, then Irving Fryar and Monk match up, but Monk's supporters will point to other intangibles. Also Fryar never accomplished what Monk did (Super Bowl titles, NFL records). There's several other WRs that will match up and surpass Monk statistically, including Fryar. Andre Reed comes to mind.

I guess this is why Monk is always one of the more debated HOF entries.

Are you sure about this? Fryar played 31 more games, had 89 fewer catches and only 64 more yards. Fryar never even led the league in receptions, much less held the single-season record. He also did not retire as the career leader in any stat. He didn't play on any championship teams. And I have NO Idea how you think he's going to pass Monk, seeing how he retired six years ago. I've always liked Fryar (and even had a chance to talk with him), but he really does not have a claim to the hall like Monk does.

Sorry, didn't mean for it to come out sounding like Fryar had better #s, he was in the "match up" part, meaning similar. I was trying to say there will be WRs with have similar or even better numbers then Monks but don't belong in the HOF discussion.

 

[jbz]

What does statistically dominent mean? IMO, for WR it means ranking in the Top 5 on a regular basis in the 3 main receiving categories (receptions, reciving yards, and receiving TD). IMO, this is the best barometer for comparing players to their peers in the seasons they played.

In 16 NFL seasons, Monk ranked in the Top 5 in those categories a total of 5 times.

In other HOF threads, I have listed how many Top 5 seasons other WRs have had, but just for an example:

Andre Reed 5

Irving Fryer 3

Michael Irvin 7

Henry Ellard 7

Isaac Bruce 6

Rod Smith 7

Those are players with some solid seasons and some very good career numbers. But let's look at some other players . . .

Holt 10

Moss 12

Carter 13

Owens 11

Harrison 16

Rison 11

Sharpe 12

Most of these guys had more top rankings and most in a lot fewer years played.

Certainly Monk gets a lot of points for longevity, but in most seasons there were a fair amount of WR that put up betters numbers statistically. (As we all agree, Monk has many other positives besides pure stats on hios side.)

Do you think they will look at players from the more current time frame and adjust their line of thinking regarding what makes a HOF player, especially for QBs/WRs since the rules of the game are constantly being tweaked to favor the passing game. Also it seems (though I don't know for sure) that teams pass more these days then they did in the past. Seeing those names on your list will bring up debates down the road for sure, mainly Andre Rison, Andre Reed, Bruce, Rod Smith and Fryar.

There are a lot of reasons why numbers for players continue to go up, and IMO the #1 reason is that they play for way longer than they used to. And compared to players pre-1978, they have the benefit of 2 more games played per season.Yes, compared to the early 70s, team passing stats are much higher. There have been peaks and valleys since then, but there were years in the 80s and 90s with some inflated passing totals as well. For example, Brett Perriman had almost 1,500 receiving yards in 1995. But he ranked 6th in that category that year (and he would have ranked 1st in 2004).

Yes, their career numbers do continue to go up in the pass happy age we live in. But that has absolutely no relevance nor bearing on the number of top-5 finishes per season the WRs had. That is how one judges one as compared to his contemporaries.Monk might, though I do not think so, deserve to get in due to being very good for a very long period of time. But it would have been nice if he had been great a little more often. Does he have better career numbers than, say Steve Largent? Yes he does, but there is just no honest way you could claim he was a more dominant WR than was Largent.

Number of time in the top 10 in the NFl in receptions:

Largent 9

Monk 4 (leading the league once)

Number of times in the top 10 in the NFL in yards:

Largent 8 (including leading the league twice)

Monk 3

Number of times in the top 10 in the NFL in receiving TDs:

Largent 8

Monk 1

In fact Largent had six entire seasons where he had as many or more TDs than Monk did in the best year of his life.

Irvin was a dominant WR who at his best was simply better than Monk. Irvin was NEVER second best on his own team, as Monk often was. It is okay to be #2 to Jerry Rice, but to Gary Clark and Charlie Brown (a couple of times each)? No. I would put Monk in ahead of Reed and Fryar b/c of all of the intangibles that eveyone who played with Monk attest to, but not ahead of Irvin who has the same intangibles and is often called the leader of those great Cowboy teams. And I would certainly NEVER compare him to Largent as an earlier poster did.

I applaud one for being very, very, good for a very, very long time, but I just prefer a great stretch for a number of years over the very good for a decade and a half.

Damn man, you talking like Gary Clark and Charlie Brown were some scrubs Clark's borderline HOF himself despite playing in the USFL as well

 

[DCThunder]

When offensive linemen who aren't in Canton get discussed, how come nobody ever talks about Russ Grimm and/or Joe Jacoby? They were the heart and soul of The Hogs for 10 years and played on 2 of the 3 Gibbs led Super Bowl teams.

Jacoby handled LT about as well as any left tackle and Grimm was the man that Riggo made all his TDs behind. If they want to talk about Zimmerman and Kuchenberg, then talk about Jacoby and Gimm.

 

[Tau837]

Clark's borderline HOF himself despite playing in the USFL as well

 

[BEARMAN31]

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.

And that PrimeTime dude.

 

[Workhorse]

Jacoby handled LT about as well as any left tackle.

Joe Theisman might disagree.

 

[dgreen]

Clark's borderline HOF himself despite playing in the USFL as well

I'm not a Clark-for-the-HOF guy, but his numbers usually really surprise some people. We can compare them to another WR who is certain to get in the HOF, Michael Irvin.Career stats

Clark: 11 seasons, 167 games, 699 receptions, 10,856 yards, 65 TDs

Irvin: 13 seasons, 159 games, 750 receptions, 11904 yards, 65 TDs

Pro Bowls: Clark 4, Irvin 5

Postseason stats

Clark: 13 games, 58 receptions, 826 yards, 6 TDs

Irvin: 16 games, 87 receptions, 1314 yards, 8 TDs

Clark's teams were 10-3 in his 13 games. Irvin's were 12-4.

Clark won 2 SBs. Irvin won 3.

Average SB performance for Clark: 5.0-85-1.0

Average SB performance for Irvin: 5.3-85-0.67

Seasons in the top 10

Receptions: Clark 4, Irvin 4

Rec. yards: Clark 5, Irvin 6

Rec. TDs: Clark 5, Irvin 5

All-time ranks

Receptions: Clark 25, Irvin 20

Rec. yards: Clark 19, Irvin 14

Rec. TDs: Clark 37, Irvin 37

Fantasy value

Career total value: Clark 425, Irvin 462

Average pos rank: Clark 20, Irvin 30

Irvin had six good fantasy years (above baseline) ranking: 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11

Clark had eight good fantasy years ranking: 3, 3, 3, 6, 7, 12, 15, 19

Other stuff

Irvin's injuries kept him from blowing Clark away in total career numbers.

Clark's one full year in USFL have his numbers a tad lower than they would have been otherwise.

As we've all been told over and over, Clark was better than Monk who is on the verge of entering the HOF.

Clark isn't nearly as annoying as Irvin.

 

[Tau837]

Clark's borderline HOF himself despite playing in the USFL as well

I'm not a Clark-for-the-HOF guy, but his numbers usually really surprise some people. We can compare them to another WR who is certain to get in the HOF, Michael Irvin.Career stats

Clark: 11 seasons, 167 games, 699 receptions, 10,856 yards, 65 TDs

Irvin: 13 seasons, 159 games, 750 receptions, 11904 yards, 65 TDs

Pro Bowls: Clark 4, Irvin 5

Postseason stats

Clark: 13 games, 58 receptions, 826 yards, 6 TDs

Irvin: 16 games, 87 receptions, 1314 yards, 8 TDs

Clark's teams were 10-3 in his 13 games. Irvin's were 12-4.

Clark won 2 SBs. Irvin won 3.

Average SB performance for Clark: 5.0-85-1.0

Average SB performance for Irvin: 5.3-85-0.67

Seasons in the top 10

Receptions: Clark 4, Irvin 4

Rec. yards: Clark 5, Irvin 6

Rec. TDs: Clark 5, Irvin 5

All-time ranks

Receptions: Clark 25, Irvin 20

Rec. yards: Clark 19, Irvin 14

Rec. TDs: Clark 37, Irvin 37

Fantasy value

Career total value: Clark 425, Irvin 462

Average pos rank: Clark 20, Irvin 30

Irvin had six good fantasy years (above baseline) ranking: 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11

Clark had eight good fantasy years ranking: 3, 3, 3, 6, 7, 12, 15, 19

Other stuff

Irvin's injuries kept him from blowing Clark away in total career numbers.

Clark's one full year in USFL have his numbers a tad lower than they would have been otherwise.

As we've all been told over and over, Clark was better than Monk who is on the verge of entering the HOF.

Clark isn't nearly as annoying as Irvin.

Good post. However, my takeaway is that Irvin was a better regular season performer in fewer games; better postseason performer; had one more Pro Bowl; had 2 more postseason wins; won one more Super Bowl; and ranks higher on the all time statistical lists. And, by the way, they each had one All NFL selection.Sure, they are all small margins, but every one is in Irvin's favor. Now consider that Irvin himself is a "borderline" HOF candidate. How then can Clark legitimately be called the same? I don't see it.

That said, you're right, it's closer than I thought.

 

[dgreen]

Good post. However, my takeaway is that Irvin was a better regular season performer in fewer games; better postseason performer; had one more Pro Bowl; had 2 more postseason wins; won one more Super Bowl; and ranks higher on the all time statistical lists. And, by the way, they each had one All NFL selection.Sure, they are all small margins, but every one is in Irvin's favor.

I agree. Also, Irvin was more dominant at his peak. Notice Irvin's 462 fantasy value is in only six seasons, while Clark's 425 is over eight seasons.But, it's an interesting, and surprising, comparison

Now consider that Irvin himself is a "borderline" HOF candidate. How then can Clark legitimately be called the same? I don't see it.That said, you're right, it's closer than I thought.

I don't think Irvin is borderline because of anything on the field, though. I don't even consider him "borderline." He will get in. I think there are just some voters making him wait because of the type of person he was/is. Clark, on the other hand, hasn't even made the 15 finalists, and I don't expect him to. I doubt he's ever even made the list of 25 finalists.

 

[alg]

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).

He should have been in before Aikman IMO. Strong class or not.

 

[David Yudkin]

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).

He should have been in before Aikman IMO. Strong class or not.

The HOF has serious man love for QBs, so we should not be surprised by another QB going in before players at other positions.

 

[DCThunder]

Jacoby handled LT about as well as any left tackle.

Joe Theisman might disagree.

You look at all the games that Jacoby played against LT to judge the body of work, not just one play. JoeT was also hurt when he started to scramble, not just as a traditional pocket collapsing rush from LT.

 

[MarshallRob]

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).

He should have been in before Aikman IMO. Strong class or not.

The HOF has serious man love for QBs, so we should not be surprised by another QB going in before players at other positions.

There have been a lot of QB's inducted in the last three years but I think that's because Elway, Marino, Young, Aikman, and Moon all happened to retire within just a few years of each other. I don't see any QB getting elected in the next 5 years (or more depending on when Favre retires). After that it could be another 5 years or more before we see another QB go in.Players I think should go in the Hall are T. Thomas, Irvin, Tippett, Dent, Kuechenberg, Greenwood, and Christiansen. Harold Jackson and Harold Carmichael have been overlooked and deserve to go in before Monk. I've written about this before but I don't think many people realize how difficult it was to put up big receiving numbers in the 1968-1977 period.

 

[Marc Levin]

' date='Dec 6 2006, 08:13 PM' post='6021602']

I didn't say Monk never led his team in receiving.

The numbers posted in this thread showed that in the prime of Monk's career that 9 times in 13 years he failed to lead his own team in any of receptions, yards, or TD's.

How convenient of you to compare Monk to RBs (who universally get more yards and TDs than WRs do).Fact: in Monk's first 11 seasons, there were only TWO SEASONS when another WR had more touches than him. Monk was injured one of those seasons, and the other was a strike year.

1980 - led team in catches and yards

1981 - led team in catches, yards, and TDs

1982 - led team in catches

1983 - injured mid-season

1984 - led team in catches, yards, and TDs

1985 - led team in catches and yards

1986 - had 1 less catch than Gary Clark, but had 3 more touches

1987 - strike year, only played 9 games (led team in TDs/game)

1988 - had 1 less catch than Ricky Sanders, but had 4 more touches

1989 - led team in catches

1991 - led team in catches

Oh yeah, he also played on 4 Super Bowl teams in those 11 seasons.

If a Monk supporter could show a reasonable sample of current HOF receivers who played second fiddle on their own team for such a significant portion of their careers then it would be worth reconsidering Monk's case.

Except that Monk was never "second" to anyone. It was 1A and 1B. See also: Stallworth and Swann, Holt and Bruce, Moss and Carter.

Nicely researched, [scooter]

 

[Marc Levin]

Good post. However, my takeaway is that Irvin was a better regular season performer in fewer games;

Goodpost dgreen.JWB:

Clark: 11 seasons, 167 games, 699 receptions, 10,856 yards, 65 TDs

Irvin: 13 seasons, 159 games, 750 receptions, 11904 yards, 65 TDs

It is clear that Clark was better in the regular season - and more durable.Irvin played two more years, but half a season fewer games.

Regular season edge goes to Clark, IMO - even though you are correct that he did a little bit more on 8 fewer games, it took him two more seasons to do it.

Irvin's two extra seasons helps edge some other numbers closer to Clark's side - like number of years in the Pro Bowl or in the top-10/5 of regular season leaderboards.

Irvin was way better in the post-season.

 

[Husker]

Ray Guy. Ray Guy. Ray Guy.