Which of these WRs most deserves to make the HOF? (1 Viewer)

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Art Monk

3-time Pro Bowler: 1984, 1985, 1986

+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1980 was | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 58 797 13.7 3 || 1981 was | 16 | 1 -5 -5.0 0 | 56 894 16.0 6 || 1982 was | 9 | 7 21 3.0 0 | 35 447 12.8 1 || 1983 was | 12 | 3 -19 -6.3 0 | 47 746 15.9 5 || 1984 was | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 106 1372 12.9 7 || 1985 was | 15 | 7 51 7.3 0 | 91 1226 13.5 2 || 1986 was | 16 | 4 27 6.8 0 | 73 1068 14.6 4 || 1987 was | 9 | 6 63 10.5 0 | 38 483 12.7 6 || 1988 was | 16 | 7 46 6.6 0 | 72 946 13.1 5 || 1989 was | 16 | 3 8 2.7 0 | 86 1186 13.8 8 || 1990 was | 16 | 7 59 8.4 0 | 68 770 11.3 5 || 1991 was | 16 | 9 19 2.1 0 | 71 1049 14.8 8 || 1992 was | 16 | 6 45 7.5 0 | 46 644 14.0 3 || 1993 was | 16 | 1 -1 -1.0 0 | 41 398 9.7 2 || 1994 nyj | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 46 581 12.6 3 || 1995 phi | 3 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 6 114 19.0 0 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 224 | 63 332 5.3 0 | 940 12721 13.5 68 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Postseason data Year  Opp   Result  |  RSH    YD  TD  |  REC    YD  TD---------------------+-----------------+----------------- 1983  ram  W,51-7   |    0     0   0  |    4    60   2 1983  sfo  W,24-21  |    0     0   0  |    3    35   0 1983  rai  L,9-38   |    0     0   0  |    1    26   0  * 1984  chi  L,19-23  |    0     0   0  |   10   122   0 1986  ram  W,19-7   |    0     0   0  |    5    34   0 1986  chi  W,27-13  |    0     0   0  |    5    81   2 1986  nyg  L,0-17   |    0     0   0  |    8   126   0 1987  den  W,42-10  |    0     0   0  |    1    40   0  * 1990  phi  W,20-6   |    0     0   0  |    2    44   1 1990  sfo  L,10-28  |    1     9   0  |   10   163   1 1991  atl  W,24-7   |    1    -2   0  |    3    45   0 1991  det  W,41-10  |    0     0   0  |    5    94   1 1991  buf  W,37-24  |    0     0   0  |    7   113   0  * 1992  min  W,24-7   |    3     7   0  |    3    35   0 1992  sfo  L,13-20  |    1     3   0  |    2    44   0---------------------+-----------------+-----------------TOTAL                |    6    17   0  |   69  1062   7* - Super Bowl

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

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 5

Receiving yards: 9

Receiving TDs: 29t

Yards from scrimmage: 27

Andre Reed7-time Pro Bowler: 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994

+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1985 buf | 16 | 3 -1 -0.3 1 | 48 637 13.3 4 || 1986 buf | 15 | 3 -8 -2.7 0 | 53 739 13.9 7 || 1987 buf | 12 | 1 1 1.0 0 | 57 752 13.2 5 || 1988 buf | 15 | 6 64 10.7 0 | 71 968 13.6 6 || 1989 buf | 16 | 2 31 15.5 0 | 88 1312 14.9 9 || 1990 buf | 16 | 3 23 7.7 0 | 71 945 13.3 8 || 1991 buf | 16 | 12 136 11.3 0 | 81 1113 13.7 10 || 1992 buf | 16 | 8 65 8.1 0 | 65 913 14.0 3 || 1993 buf | 15 | 9 21 2.3 0 | 52 854 16.4 6 || 1994 buf | 16 | 10 87 8.7 0 | 90 1303 14.5 8 || 1995 buf | 6 | 7 48 6.9 0 | 24 312 13.0 3 || 1996 buf | 16 | 8 22 2.8 0 | 66 1036 15.7 6 || 1997 buf | 15 | 3 11 3.7 0 | 60 880 14.7 5 || 1998 buf | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 63 795 12.6 5 || 1999 buf | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 52 536 10.3 1 || 2000 was | 6 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 10 103 10.3 1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 227 | 75 500 6.7 1 | 951 13198 13.9 87 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Postseason data Year  Opp   Result  |  RSH    YD  TD  |  REC    YD  TD---------------------+-----------------+----------------- 1988  hou  W,17-10  |    1    -1   0  |    6    91   0 1988  cin  L,10-21  |    0     0   0  |    5    55   1 1989  cle  L,30-34  |    0     0   0  |    6   115   1 1990  mia  W,44-34  |    0     0   0  |    4   123   2 1990  rai  W,51-3   |    0     0   0  |    2    29   0 1990  nyg  L,19-20  |    0     0   0  |    8    62   0  * 1991  kan  W,37-14  |    1     6   0  |    4   100   2 1991  den  W,10-7   |    1    16   0  |    2    19   0 1991  was  L,24-37  |    0     0   0  |    5    34   0  * 1992  hou  W,41-38  |    0     0   0  |    8   136   3 1992  pit  W,24-3   |    1    -8   0  |    0     0   0 1992  mia  W,29-10  |    2     6   0  |    3    25   0 1992  dal  L,17-52  |    0     0   0  |    8   152   0  * 1993  rai  W,29-23  |    0     0   0  |    4    53   0 1993  kan  W,30-13  |    1     8   0  |    4    49   0 1993  dal  L,13-30  |    0     0   0  |    6    75   0  * 1995  pit  L,21-40  |    0     0   0  |    2    20   0 1996  jax  L,27-30  |    0     0   0  |    3    32   0 1998  mia  L,17-24  |    0     0   0  |    5    60   0---------------------+-----------------+-----------------TOTAL                |    7    27   0  |   85  1230   9* - Super Bowl

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

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 4

Receiving yards: 6

Receiving TDs: 10

Yards from scrimmage: 19

Rush/Receive TDs: 27t

Michael Irvin5-time Pro Bowler: 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995

+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1988 dal | 14 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 32 654 20.4 5 || 1989 dal | 6 | 1 6 6.0 0 | 26 378 14.5 2 || 1990 dal | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 20 413 20.6 5 || 1991 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 93 1523 16.4 8 || 1992 dal | 16 | 1 -9 -9.0 0 | 78 1396 17.9 7 || 1993 dal | 16 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 88 1330 15.1 7 || 1994 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 79 1241 15.7 6 || 1995 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 111 1603 14.4 10 || 1996 dal | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 64 962 15.0 2 || 1997 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 75 1180 15.7 9 || 1998 dal | 16 | 1 1 1.0 0 | 74 1057 14.3 1 || 1999 dal | 4 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 10 167 16.7 3 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 159 | 6 6 1.0 0 | 750 11904 15.9 65 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Postseason data Year  Opp   Result  |  RSH    YD  TD  |  REC    YD  TD---------------------+-----------------+----------------- 1991  chi  W,17-13  |    0     0   0  |    4    83   0 1991  det  L,6-38   |    0     0   0  |    5    84   0 1992  phi  W,34-10  |    0     0   0  |    6    88   0 1992  sfo  W,30-20  |    0     0   0  |    6    86   0 1992  buf  W,52-17  |    0     0   0  |    6   114   2  * 1993  gnb  W,27-17  |    0     0   0  |    9   126   1 1993  sfo  W,38-21  |    0     0   0  |    2    23   0 1993  buf  W,30-13  |    0     0   0  |    5    66   0  * 1994  gnb  W,35-9   |    0     0   0  |    6   111   0 1994  sfo  L,28-38  |    0     0   0  |   12   192   2 1995  phi  W,30-11  |    0     0   0  |    1     9   1 1995  gnb  W,38-27  |    0     0   0  |    7   100   2 1995  pit  W,27-17  |    0     0   0  |    5    75   0  * 1996  min  W,40-15  |    0     0   0  |    8   103   0 1996  car  L,17-26  |    0     0   0  |    1    22   0 1998  ari  L,7-20   |    0     0   0  |    4    32   0---------------------+-----------------+-----------------TOTAL                |    0     0   0  |   87  1314   8* - Super Bowl

Seasons among the league's top 10

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

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

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

Yards from scrimmage: 1991-4, 1992-10, 1993-8, 1995-9

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 18t

Receiving yards: 14

Receiving TDs: 35t

Yards from scrimmage: 38

 

[David Yudkin]

I'd probably pick none of the above, but I have tough standards. You might as well add Henry Ellard, Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Irving Fryar, and Isaac Bruce.

 

[gman8343]

Irvin to me is one of the true gamebreakers, a guy who could completely take over a game.

The others are great WRs but are more compilers over a lengthy period of time.

 

[wannabee]

I thought Irvin might be the most deserving due to his broadcasting expertise ....

 

[slayer666]

Michael Irvin.

 

[Noahs Troopers]

Pains me to say it, Irvin

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I'd probably pick none of the above, but I have tough standards. You might as well add Henry Ellard, Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Irving Fryar, and Isaac Bruce.

I think these 3 are more deserving than those guys.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Pains me to say it, Irvin

same here.I'd rank them:

1. Irvin

2. Reed

3. Monk

 

[diesel7982]

Reed, Monk, Irvin, in that order

 

[David Yudkin]

I'd probably pick none of the above, but I have tough standards.  You might as well add Henry Ellard, Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Irving Fryar, and Isaac Bruce.

I think these 3 are more deserving than those guys.

And that gets us to the part of the program where we will forever be trapped. Guys ending up their careers ranked in the Top 10 in key categories and whether they will be legit HOF candidates. Ellard is Top 5 in yards. Monk is Top 5 in receptions.When Bruce retires in a few year, he could have over 1,000 receptions, 15,000 reciving yards, and 90+ TD. Can you vote against a guy in the Top 2 for yards, Top 5 for receptions, and Top 10 for TD?

 

[Bri]

Andre Reed, Bruce, then Irvin

 

[Chase Stuart]

Yards over 1200

1093 - Irvin

215 - Reed

198 - Monk

Yards over 1000

2330 - Irvin

901 - Monk

764 - Reed

Yards over 800

3892 - Irvin

2141 - Monk

2124 - Reed

Irvin's annoying, immature, and flamboyant. He was also a tremendous wide receiver in his prime, and a vital cog of what many consider the best dynasty of all time. He has had the most post-season success of the three wide receivers, and has the top three receiving seasons of the group.

 

[TS Garp]

I'd rank them:1. Irvin2. Reed3. Monk

That's how I'd rank them as well.

 

[BlueOnion]

I'd probably pick none of the above

Picked 'null'.

 

[BlueOnion]

Irvin's Career rankings:

Receptions - Tied for 18

Keyshawn, T.O. and Eric Moulds should pass him by him in the next 20 games.

Receiving Yards - 14

Rod Smith should pass him next year.

Receiving touchdowns - tied for 35

I just don't think Michael Irvin did enough career wise to garner entrance into the HOF.

 

[Despyzer]

My first choice would be the guy who broke the record for receptions in a single season and a career. The other two warrant consideration, but only after Monk is inducted.

 

[zadok]

Interesting to me to realize that Monk never had a season with 10+ TDs and that Reed and Irvin had only 1 each.

 

[BlueOnion]

These three should be first-ballot HOFers for the Hall of the Very Good.

 

[P Boy]

I'll take Irvin, because anyone who succeeded as well as he did as a player despite the obvious severe handicaps he displays every weekend during the NFL season since he became a broadcaster ought to be commended in the highest possible manner.

 

[Demons]

None of the above.

As said earlier, they ought to collectively have no problem getting into the Hall of the Very Good.

 

[Tau837]

I have a hard time choosing which is most deserving, but I don't think it matters because I think all 3 will make the HOF. If forced to choose one, I'd take Monk first.

One thing not mentioned is All Pro selections. Monk & Irvin each were All Pro once, Reed was never selected. It is true, however, that Reed & Irvin played their careers at the same time as Rice, so they were handicapped.

As for Bruce, Ellard, Fryar, the Smiths, McCardell, Keyshawn, et al, I don't think any of them will make it, nor do I think any of them are deserving, barring unforeseen and unlikely future accomplishments.

 

[dgreen]

One thing not mentioned is All Pro selections. Monk & Irvin each were All Pro once, Reed was never selected.

Plus, Monk (80s) and Irvin (90s) were selected to All Decade Teams, while Reed was not.

 

[moleculo]

I'd probably pick none of the above, but I have tough standards.  You might as well add Henry Ellard, Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Irving Fryar, and Isaac Bruce.

I think these 3 are more deserving than those guys.

Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, and Isaac Bruce have done more with their careers than Irvin, Monk, and Reed. The one advantage that the three originally posted is they each have 3+ SB appearances. Rod and Bruce have 2 each, Jimmy has 0.

years 80+ catches 1000+yardsIrvin         12       3                 7Reed        16       3                 4Monk        16       3                 5RSmith      11       5                 8JSmith       13       6                 9Bruce         12       4                 7

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Yards over 1200

1093 - Irvin

215 - Reed

198 - Monk

Yards over 1000

2330 - Irvin

901 - Monk

764 - Reed

Yards over 800

3892 - Irvin

2141 - Monk

2124 - Reed

Irvin's annoying, immature, and flamboyant. He was also a tremendous wide receiver in his prime, and a vital cog of what many consider the best dynasty of all time. He has had the most post-season success of the three wide receivers, and has the top three receiving seasons of the group.

I respectfully submit that anybody who considers the Cowboys teams in the early 90's to be the best dynasty of all time is a Cowboys homer or an idiot. (I currently take no position on whether the two are one in the same.) 1) 60's Packers

2) 70's Steelers

3) 50's Browns

4) 49ers

5) Cowboys can argue this one out with the Pats.

 

[cstu]

Pains me to say it, Irvin

same here.I'd rank them:

1. Irvin

2. Reed

3. Monk

Same here. I think Irvin and Reed should both go in, but I could go either way on Monk.

 

[cstu]

I'd probably pick none of the above, but I have tough standards. You might as well add Henry Ellard, Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Irving Fryar, and Isaac Bruce.

I think these 3 are more deserving than those guys.

Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, and Isaac Bruce have done more with their careers than Irvin, Monk, and Reed. The one advantage that the three originally posted is they each have 3+ SB appearances. Rod and Bruce have 2 each, Jimmy has 0.

years 80+ catches 1000+yardsIrvin         12       3                 7Reed        16       3                 4Monk        16       3                 5RSmith      11       5                 8JSmith       13       6                 9Bruce         12       4                 7

They also play in an era where teams throw the ball more. Catching 80 catches now is a lot easier than even when Irvin played. Also 80 is a very arbitrary number since Irvin had 7 seasons of 74 or more receptions in an 8 year period.

 

[MarshallRob]

Irvin played in 7 title games (3 Super Bowls and 4 NFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 6

Reed played in 9 title games (4 Super Bowls and 5 AFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 1

Monk played in 6 title games (3 Super Bowls and 3 NFC Championship games; he missed one SB and two NFC Championship games with injuries).

Total TD's in those games: 1

 

[moleculo]

I'd probably pick none of the above, but I have tough standards.  You might as well add Henry Ellard, Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Irving Fryar, and Isaac Bruce.

I think these 3 are more deserving than those guys.

Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, and Isaac Bruce have done more with their careers than Irvin, Monk, and Reed. The one advantage that the three originally posted is they each have 3+ SB appearances. Rod and Bruce have 2 each, Jimmy has 0.
            years 80+ catches 1000+yardsIrvin         12       3                 7Reed        16       3                 4Monk        16       3                 5RSmith      11       5                 8JSmith       13       6                 9Bruce         12       4                 7

They also play in an era where teams throw the ball more. Catching 80 catches now is a lot easier than even when Irvin played. Also 80 is a very arbitrary number since Irvin had 7 seasons of 74 or more receptions in an 8 year period.

I figured someone would come back with the "throw the ball less" arguement. In reality, Rice was a contemporary of those three and he was able to thrive. Of course, the next arguement is that Rice was th exception to the rule, played in new system, etc. The fact remains that if one player could gain 1000+ yards in 60% or more of his career, shouldn't any HOF caliber reciever do the same? I was amazed to see Reed get 1000+ yards during only 25% of his seasons, and never back-to-back. this, despite of the fact that, like Rice, he played in an innovative, pass friendly offense.

80 is arbitrary...if you make it 70, Rod Smith would have 9 out of 11 seasons above that threshhold (and counting).

 

[Winning IS Everything]

I'd rank them:

1. Irvin

2. Reed

3. Monk

That's how I'd rank them as well.

Me too......

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Irvin played in 7 title games (3 Super Bowls and 4 NFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 6

Reed played in 9 title games (4 Super Bowls and 5 AFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 1

Monk played in 6 title games (3 Super Bowls and 3 NFC Championship games; he missed one SB and two NFC Championship games with injuries).

Total TD's in those games: 1

TDs are important, but I think you'd also have to consider how many receptions and yards the players had in these games.

 

[MarshallRob]

Irvin played in 7 title games (3 Super Bowls and 4 NFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 6

Reed played in 9 title games (4 Super Bowls and 5 AFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 1

Monk played in 6 title games (3 Super Bowls and 3 NFC Championship games; he missed one SB and two NFC Championship games with injuries).

Total TD's in those games: 1

TDs are important, but I think you'd also have to consider how many receptions and yards the players had in these games.

TotalsIrvin: 7 games, 43/656/6

Reed: 9 games, 43/500/1

Monk: 6 games, 25/434/1

 

[cstu]

I'd probably pick none of the above, but I have tough standards. You might as well add Henry Ellard, Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Irving Fryar, and Isaac Bruce.

I think these 3 are more deserving than those guys.

Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, and Isaac Bruce have done more with their careers than Irvin, Monk, and Reed. The one advantage that the three originally posted is they each have 3+ SB appearances. Rod and Bruce have 2 each, Jimmy has 0.
years 80+ catches 1000+yardsIrvin 12 3 7Reed 16 3 4Monk 16 3 5RSmith 11 5 8JSmith 13 6 9Bruce 12 4 7

They also play in an era where teams throw the ball more. Catching 80 catches now is a lot easier than even when Irvin played. Also 80 is a very arbitrary number since Irvin had 7 seasons of 74 or more receptions in an 8 year period.

I figured someone would come back with the "throw the ball less" arguement. In reality, Rice was a contemporary of those three and he was able to thrive. Of course, the next arguement is that Rice was th exception to the rule, played in new system, etc. The fact remains that if one player could gain 1000+ yards in 60% or more of his career, shouldn't any HOF caliber reciever do the same? I was amazed to see Reed get 1000+ yards during only 25% of his seasons, and never back-to-back. this, despite of the fact that, like Rice, he played in an innovative, pass friendly offense.

80 is arbitrary...if you make it 70, Rod Smith would have 9 out of 11 seasons above that threshhold (and counting).

All I'm saying is that if you try to compare current WR's to ones in the past that the newer ones will look better than they actually are. Jerry Rice was a freak and the GOAT so he's not really relevant to discussing borderline HOF'ers. As far as the numbers, Steve Largent was one of the best WR's in history never had more than 80 receptions in a year.

Rod Smith is very similar to Andre Reed, but I don't think he has played long enough to get in on his numbers. Also, Reed one considered one of the best when he played and was a Pro Bowl'er 7 straight years.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

My first choice would be the guy who broke the record for receptions in a single season and a career. The other two warrant consideration, but only after Monk is inducted.

 

[SkyRattlers]

I voted for Reed before reading the whole thread. I'd change my vote to Irvin now based on a few very interesting stats posted.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Irvin played in 7 title games (3 Super Bowls and 4 NFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 6

Reed played in 9 title games (4 Super Bowls and 5 AFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 1

Monk played in 6 title games (3 Super Bowls and 3 NFC Championship games; he missed one SB and two NFC Championship games with injuries).

Total TD's in those games: 1

TDs are important, but I think you'd also have to consider how many receptions and yards the players had in these games.

TotalsIrvin: 7 games, 43/656/6

Reed: 9 games, 43/500/1

Monk: 6 games, 25/434/1

Wow, that are pretty weak numbers for Reed, especially when you consider that Buffalo was playing catchup in quite a few of those games (Super Bowl blowouts) and you would have thought he could have at least padded his numbers with some garbage yardage or something. I do not think any of them are deserving HoFers, but Irvin is the most deserving of the three.

Irvin's annoying, immature, and flamboyant. He was also a tremendous wide receiver in his prime, and a vital cog of what many consider the best dynasty of all time.

Where are these people, besides Cowboys homers and delusional people, who consider Dallas the best dynasty of all-time? No way were they a better dynasty than the 70's Steelers or 80's 49ers.

 

[cstu]

Irvin played in 7 title games (3 Super Bowls and 4 NFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 6

Reed played in 9 title games (4 Super Bowls and 5 AFC Championship games).

Total TD's in those games: 1

Monk played in 6 title games (3 Super Bowls and 3 NFC Championship games; he missed one SB and two NFC Championship games with injuries).

Total TD's in those games: 1

TDs are important, but I think you'd also have to consider how many receptions and yards the players had in these games.

TotalsIrvin: 7 games, 43/656/6

Reed: 9 games, 43/500/1

Monk: 6 games, 25/434/1

Wow, that are pretty weak numbers for Reed, especially when you consider that Buffalo was playing catchup in quite a few of those games (Super Bowl blowouts) and you would have thought he could have at least padded his numbers with some garbage yardage or something. I do not think any of them are deserving HoFers, but Irvin is the most deserving of the three.

If Lynn Swann is in, Irvin has to be in.

 

[moleculo]

I'd probably pick none of the above, but I have tough standards.  You might as well add Henry Ellard, Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Irving Fryar, and Isaac Bruce.

I think these 3 are more deserving than those guys.

Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, and Isaac Bruce have done more with their careers than Irvin, Monk, and Reed. The one advantage that the three originally posted is they each have 3+ SB appearances. Rod and Bruce have 2 each, Jimmy has 0.
            years 80+ catches 1000+yardsIrvin         12       3                 7Reed        16       3                 4Monk        16       3                 5RSmith      11       5                 8JSmith       13       6                 9Bruce         12       4                 7

They also play in an era where teams throw the ball more. Catching 80 catches now is a lot easier than even when Irvin played. Also 80 is a very arbitrary number since Irvin had 7 seasons of 74 or more receptions in an 8 year period.

I figured someone would come back with the "throw the ball less" arguement. In reality, Rice was a contemporary of those three and he was able to thrive. Of course, the next arguement is that Rice was th exception to the rule, played in new system, etc. The fact remains that if one player could gain 1000+ yards in 60% or more of his career, shouldn't any HOF caliber reciever do the same? I was amazed to see Reed get 1000+ yards during only 25% of his seasons, and never back-to-back. this, despite of the fact that, like Rice, he played in an innovative, pass friendly offense.

80 is arbitrary...if you make it 70, Rod Smith would have 9 out of 11 seasons above that threshhold (and counting).

All I'm saying is that if you try to compare current WR's to ones in the past that the newer ones will look better than they actually are. Jerry Rice was a freak and the GOAT so he's not really relevant to discussing borderline HOF'ers. As far as the numbers, Steve Largent was one of the best WR's in history never had more than 80 receptions in a year.

Rod Smith is very similar to Andre Reed, but I don't think he has played long enough to get in on his numbers. Also, Reed one considered one of the best when he played and was a Pro Bowl'er 7 straight years.

I get what you are saying, but we aren't in THAT drastically different of an era than 5 years ago. Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Michael Irvin, Irving Fryar and Andre Reed were contemporaries - their careers overlapped more than a couple of years. The only one I will agree was from a different era is Monk.My point is that I don't think it is clear that these three are more hall-worthy than the Smiths or Bruce, as Rud contends.

 

[MarshallRob]

One point on Reed. Marv Levy and Jim Kelly are already in the Hall. Thurman Thomas will almost surely go in next year and Bruce Smith goes in as soon as he becomes eligible. If you put Reed in as well you'll have five Hall of Famers for a team that couldn't win a single championship.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

One point on Reed. Marv Levy and Jim Kelly are already in the Hall. Thurman Thomas will almost surely go in next year and Bruce Smith goes in as soon as he becomes eligible. If you put Reed in as well you'll have five Hall of Famers for a team that couldn't win a single championship.

6 when Tasker goes.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

One point on Reed.  Marv Levy and Jim Kelly are already in the Hall.  Thurman Thomas will almost surely go in next year and Bruce Smith goes in as soon as he becomes eligible.  If you put Reed in as well you'll have five Hall of Famers for a team that couldn't win a single championship.

you left out James Lofton, who is already in. Reed would be the 6th member of those teams.and an argument could be made for some of these guys as well: Steve Tasker, Cornelius Bennett, Kent Hull, Bill Polian, Ralph Wilson

 

[ConstruxBoy]

One point on Reed. Marv Levy and Jim Kelly are already in the Hall. Thurman Thomas will almost surely go in next year and Bruce Smith goes in as soon as he becomes eligible. If you put Reed in as well you'll have five Hall of Famers for a team that couldn't win a single championship.

you left out James Lofton, who is already in. Reed would be the 6th member of those teams.and an argument could be made for some of these guys as well: Steve Largent, Cornelius Bennett, Kent Hull, Bill Polian, Ralph Wilson

Err...you meant Tasker there, right?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

One point on Reed.  Marv Levy and Jim Kelly are already in the Hall.  Thurman Thomas will almost surely go in next year and Bruce Smith goes in as soon as he becomes eligible.  If you put Reed in as well you'll have five Hall of Famers for a team that couldn't win a single championship.

you left out James Lofton, who is already in. Reed would be the 6th member of those teams.and an argument could be made for some of these guys as well: Steve Tasker, Cornelius Bennett, Kent Hull, Bill Polian, Ralph Wilson

Err...you meant Tasker there, right?

yes. fixed.

Tasker was pretty Largent-esque when he lined up at WR though.

 

[Tau837]

My point is that I don't think it is clear that these three are more hall-worthy than the Smiths or Bruce, as Rud contends.

All-time leaders, receptions

4.  A Reed          951 5.  A Monk          940 7. *J Smith         86214. *I Bruce         81315. *R Smith         79719.  M Irvin         750

All-time leaders, receiving yards

6.  A Reed        13198 9.  A Monk        1272111. *J Smith       1228712. *I Bruce       1227814.  M Irvin       1190416. *R Smith       10877

All time leaders, receiving TDs

10.  A Reed           8720. *I Bruce          7729.  A Monk           6832. *J Smith          6737. *R Smith          6542.  M Irvin          65

Pro Bowls:Reed 7Irvin 5Jimmy Smith 5Bruce 4Monk 3Rod Smith 3All Pro:Monk 1Irvin 1The others 0Super Bowl appearances:Reed 4Monk 3Irvin 3Rod Smith 2Bruce 2Jimmy Smith 1 (non-contributor)Super Bowl wins:Irvin 3Monk 2Rod Smith 2 (Did he play in the 1997 SB? Not listed on pfr.com)Bruce 1Jimmy Smith 1 (non-contributor)Reed 0The numbers look good for Reed and Monk (considering the era difference). The other accomplishments look good for Irvin. I do think all three of them are more deserving than Bruce and the Smiths.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

The numbers look good for Reed and Monk (considering the era difference). The other accomplishments look good for Irvin. I do think all three of them are more deserving than Bruce and the Smiths.

 

[Sleeper 43]

Which of these 3 never had a solid QB throwing to them for the majority of thier career?

 

[dutch]

Which of these 3 never had a solid QB throwing to them for the majority of thier career?

none.Irvin had Aikman- 6 pro bowls

Reed had Kellly and Flutie- 5 pro bowls between them

Monk had Theisman, Schroeder, Rypien- 5 pro bowls all totaled

Pretty even split.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Rod Smith 2 (Did he play in the 1997 SB? Not listed on pfr.com)

Yes. He just didn't catch any balls, but then again, the Broncos ran the wall so well against the Packers that they never really had to throw the ball much. Smith had a very nice SB the following year against Atlanta, though.

 

[Dancing Bear]

I don't think that any of the 3 should make it into the Hall of Fame.

 

[Jason Wood]

Irvin should and will be in the Hall (as much as that pains me). I wouldn't have a problem with all three of these guys getting the nod eventually, but if I had my preference, Reed would become the "best WR not in the Hall" and Monk would be rightfully put aside for the compiler he was.

 

[moleculo]

My point is that I don't think it is clear that these three are more hall-worthy than the Smiths or Bruce, as Rud contends.

All-time leaders, receptionsThe numbers look good for Reed and Monk (considering the era difference). The other accomplishments look good for Irvin. I do think all three of them are more deserving than Bruce and the Smiths.

Assume you give Rod Smith 4 more years to equal the longetivity of Monk and Reed. during that span, say he averages 60 catches for 700 yards and 5 TD's - not beyond imagination. That would put him above anyone on your list.Same could be said for Bruce.

So - Reed and Monk payed for an incredibly long time. Doesn't mean they are more HOF worthy. IMO, the 3 posted are still equivalent to the 3 I mentioned.