Skip Bayless on Michael Irvin (1 Viewer)

[Despyzer]

Please explain how a man who retired with the most ever of what his position is made to do - receive the ball - is not Hall of Fame worthy.

If Art Monk is not a Hall of Famer, then neither is Pete Rose (ignoring of course the gambling issue for the moment).

You didn't hear? Monk is an overrated pile of garbage and Irvin is the greatest receiver to ever touch the old cowhide.

 

[MarshallRob]

Please explain how a man who retired with the most ever of what his position is made to do - receive the ball - is not Hall of Fame worthy.

If Art Monk is not a Hall of Famer, then neither is Pete Rose (ignoring of course the gambling issue for the moment).

Jerry Rice broke Monk's catch record before Monk retired. And Billy Howton, who held the record between Don Hutson and Raymond Berry, is not in the Hall of Fame either. It's hard enough comparing NFL players to each other let alone to baseball players. In baseball, a player's offensive statistics correlate very closely with the number of runs that player produced for his team. Rose had more hits than anyone in baseball history, but more importantly he scored more runs than anybody in baseball history (in part because he had over 1000 extra-base hits and 1500 walks in his career). Runs win games.

In football, there's no such obvious relationship between catches and points scored. The knock against Monk would be that his yards per catch and his touchdowns per catch average are much lower than any modern-era receiver currently in the Hall of Fame. He had a lot of catches but his production per catch was very low. Many have argued Monk's job was to make the tough third-down catch rather than produce big plays. It might be incumbent on Monk supporters to come up with some statistics showing that Monk was a superior player in the area of producing first downs and that those first downs resulted in lots of points for his team.

Interesting how Monk's name will ultimately find itself in just about any thread related to the Hall of Fame.

 

[redman]

Please explain how a man who retired with the most ever of what his position is made to do - receive the ball - is not Hall of Fame worthy. 

If Art Monk is not a Hall of Famer, then neither is Pete Rose (ignoring of course the gambling issue for the moment).

Jerry Rice broke Monk's catch record before Monk retired. And Billy Howton, who held the record between Don Hutson and Raymond Berry, is not in the Hall of Fame either. It's hard enough comparing NFL players to each other let alone to baseball players. In baseball, a player's offensive statistics correlate very closely with the number of runs that player produced for his team. Rose had more hits than anyone in baseball history, but more importantly he scored more runs than anybody in baseball history (in part because he had over 1000 extra-base hits and 1500 walks in his career). Runs win games.

In football, there's no such obvious relationship between catches and points scored. The knock against Monk would be that his yards per catch and his touchdowns per catch average are much lower than any modern-era receiver currently in the Hall of Fame. He had a lot of catches but his production per catch was very low. Many have argued Monk's job was to make the tough third-down catch rather than produce big plays. It might be incumbent on Monk supporters to come up with some statistics showing that Monk was a superior player in the area of producing first downs and that those first downs resulted in lots of points for his team.

Interesting how Monk's name will ultimately find itself in just about any thread related to the Hall of Fame.

I guess you're right, although it was by two catches and only because Monk tried to do one more season in 1995 by playing three more games. Rice ended that year with 942 career catches, and Monk with 940. I was thinking of the consecutive games with a catch streak, which Rice also broke but not until after Monk retired. Still, I think the point remains valid. The reason I brought up Rose, BTW, is because I'd liken power in baseball hitting stats to TD's in football. In essence, people of criticized Monk because he's a football version of a singles hitter. Also like Rose, he had a long career in which to hit all of those "singles". People don't seem to hold those things against Rose - nor should they. There are many different ways to contribute in what we should all remember is a team sport - wasn't that the justification for Swann getting in? I just don't want them faulting Monk for it.