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

[Aaron Rudnicki]

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.

I wasn't projecting. I was basing it on their HOF credentials right now.If Bruce and Rod Smith keep playing and putting up numbers, obviously they will strengthen their case.

 

[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.

I wasn't projecting. I was basing it on their HOF credentials right now.If Bruce and Rod Smith keep playing and putting up numbers, obviously they will strengthen their case.

That's fair. So - is Jimmy Smith HOF worthy? I say no based on lack of post season sucess and SB's, which the original 3 have lots of. Championships count for alot, IMO.

 

[Pnishthm]

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.

Reed 7 Pro BowlsIrvin 5

Monk 3

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I wasn't projecting. I was basing it on their HOF credentials right now.

If Bruce and Rod Smith keep playing and putting up numbers, obviously they will strengthen their case.

That's fair. So - is Jimmy Smith HOF worthy? I say no based on lack of post season sucess and SB's, which the original 3 have lots of. Championships count for alot, IMO.

No, I don't think he's worthy and I don't think he has much of a shot to get in.

 

[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, 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.

A few things here. I think people tend to shortchange players who perform at a high level for a long time but perhaps not at an elite level for much of that time. The fact that Monk and Reed played longer than Rod Smith isn't a negative in this comparison.Secondly, I think there is virtually no chance for Rod Smith to add another 240/2800/20 receiving before his career ends. I agree that if he does that, he will belong in the group we are discussing (the Monk, Reed, Irvin group) and will almost certainly be a HOFer. But since I don't think that is going to happen, I am judging these guys based on what they have done and what I expect them to do going forward.

Finally, Reed and especially Monk fare better in comparison to their peers than Bruce or the Smiths. The primes of Bruce & the Smiths overlapped pretty directly with Harrison, Owens, and Moss, not to mention the second half of Rice's & Carter's careers, which were plenty good. All 5 of those guys and Tim Brown will be HOFers. There just isn't enough room to include the next tier of that generation, meaning Bruce & the Smiths. Monk doesn't suffer from that same overlap, and Reed's career was mostly in advance of today's elite WRs. Bruce & the Smiths may put up comparable or better numbers than older WRs, but that doesn't mean they were amongst the best handful of their generation.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Irvin had Aikman. Reed had Kelly. Monk had pretty much crap at QB.

I vote Monk in a landslide.

Someone else asked this question in another thread: Has a player in any of the 4 major sports ever retired as the career leader in a MAJOR statistical category and not been in the HOF?

 

[Wadsworth]

I understand that there are so called "different eras" for WRs, but does the era matter if the teams passing production doesn't mirror the era? Monk's era did not produce huge numbers for WRs. But he played on some teams that put up some pretty big passing stats. Irvin's era had some teams/WRs putting up some big numbers, but the cowboys never had big totals for passing TDs for example. Would it be more fair to look a look the WR's numbers in relation to the thier teams production instead on the NFL in general?

Obviously Bruce and Owens had a lot more chances to produce than Irvin for example. Reggie Wayne could end up with some impressive career totals, but does that mean much when you consider his situation?

 

[Wadsworth]

Irvin had Aikman. Reed had Kelly. Monk had pretty much crap at QB.

I vote Monk in a landslide.

Someone else asked this question in another thread: Has a player in any of the 4 major sports ever retired as the career leader in a MAJOR statistical category and not been in the HOF?

Pete Rose?And Monk might not have had great QBs throwing him the ball, but the skins had some impressive passing production in many of his seasons. For all Aikman's greatness, he never put up big numbers in that offense.

 

[Sleeper 43]

Dutch,

I strongly disagree

Aikman and Kelly are strong HoF candidates

The Skins QB's are not

As much as the game has evolved since the 80's , if my memory is correct when Monk retired he held the league record for Receptions.

I also think out of the 3 systems Monk had the least pass friendly.

Arguably the best hands in NFL history.

 

[CalBear]

I also think out of the 3 systems Monk had the least pass friendly.

Then why did he lead the team in receiving only four times? (And two of those with less than 900 yards).

 

[Wadsworth]

Dutch,

I strongly disagree

Aikman and Kelly are strong HoF candidates

The Skins QB's are not

As much as the game has evolved since the 80's , if my memory is correct when Monk retired he held the league record for Receptions.

I also think out of the 3 systems Monk had the least pass friendly.

Arguably the best hands in NFL history.

Aikman's career high for TDs in a season was 23 in 1992 and that was the only time he had over 19 in his career. He only had over 450 attempts 3 times in his career. Yes, Aikman was a very good QB. But the cowboys did not focus on the passing game. This is one example of why the "differrent eras" argument is flawed. No matter what "era" Irvin played in, his team did not offer many chances to produce. I would argue that the offensive system the WR played in matters much more than what era(post 1978).For comparison, Theismann had over 19 TDs 3 times and over 450 attempts 4 times, almost all coming in the 6 seasons he played with Monk. Monk then played 10 more season while Irvin's whole career was with Aikman.

Jimmy Smith had a situation similar to Irvin's. Brunell/Leftwich never had more than 20 TDs while playing with Smith. So when people argue that Jimmy Smith played in a "different era" I wonder how much it mattered with the system he played in.

EDIT: And a comparison of Jimmy Smith and Mike Irvin would yeild very similar numbers. Jimmy had more catches, yards and TDs, but played in a few more games even if you remove the 15-20 games Jimmy played as a special teamer and not a WR.

 

[David Yudkin]

They certianly don't pay me enough to do this (in fact, they don't pay me anything), but here's what I dug up to get a better overview of things.

I added up all the passing stats for the team each guy played for and then added up the stats for the player on that team. This will level the playing field as to what information (or misinformation) people have been spewing forth in this and other threads.

As you will see, the supposed "poor Art Monk argument" of playing not in a passing era with lousy QBs is an urban legend. The Redskins passed for more yards per game than either the Bills or Cowboys did. In fact, Michael Irvin, who allegedly was supposed to benefit the most playing in a passing era, actually played for the team (of these three) with the weakest passing stats.

Washington: 18.08 completions, 229.28 passing yards, 1.402 passing TD per game

Monk: 4.331 receptions, 58.66 receiving yards, 0.317 TD per game

Monk: 23.95% of receptions, 25.58% or receiving yards, 22.61% of receiving TD

Buffalo: 18.18 completions, 222.62 passing yards, 1.410 passing TD per game

Reed: 4.258 receptions, 59.253 receiving yards, 0.389 TD per game

Reed: 23.42% of receptions, 26.60% of receiving yards, 27.60% of receiving TD

Dallas: 18.55 completions, 217.73 receiving yards, 1.089 passing TD per game

Irvin: 4.717 receptions, 74.87 receiving yards, 0.409 receiving TD per game

Irvin: 25.43% of receptions, 34.49% of receiving yards, 37.56% of receiving TD

Pecentages added together:

Monk: 72.14

Reed: 77.62

Irvin: 97.48

Irvin clearly wins this battle, and not just because I am a Cowboys fan.

 

[cstu]

They certianly don't pay me enough to do this (in fact, they don't pay me anything), but here's what I dug up to get a better overview of things.

I added up all the passing stats for the team each guy played for and then added up the stats for the player on that team. This will level the playing field as to what information (or misinformation) people have been spewing forth in this and other threads.

As you will see, the supposed "poor Art Monk argument" of playing not in a passing era with lousy QBs is an urban legend. The Redskins passed for more yards per game than either the Bills or Cowboys did. In fact, Michael Irvin, who allegedly was supposed to benefit the most playing in a passing era, actually played for the team (of these three) with the weakest passing stats.

Washington: 18.08 completions, 229.28 passing yards, 1.402 passing TD per game

Monk: 4.331 receptions, 58.66 receiving yards, 0.317 TD per game

Monk: 23.95% of receptions, 25.58% or receiving yards, 22.61% of receiving TD

Buffalo: 18.18 completions, 222.62 passing yards, 1.410 passing TD per game

Reed: 4.258 receptions, 59.253 receiving yards, 0.389 TD per game

Reed: 23.42% of receptions, 26.60% of receiving yards, 27.60% of receiving TD

Dallas: 18.55 completions, 217.73 receiving yards, 1.089 passing TD per game

Irvin: 4.717 receptions, 74.87 receiving yards, 0.409 receiving TD per game

Irvin: 25.43% of receptions, 34.49% of receiving yards, 37.56% of receiving TD

Pecentages added together:

Monk: 72.14

Reed: 77.62

Irvin: 97.48

Irvin clearly wins this battle, and not just because I am a Cowboys fan.

That's just an absurdly low percentage of the team's receiving TD's for Monk.

 

[Wadsworth]

They certianly don't pay me enough to do this (in fact, they don't pay me anything), but here's what I dug up to get a better overview of things.

I added up all the passing stats for the team each guy played for and then added up the stats for the player on that team. This will level the playing field as to what information (or misinformation) people have been spewing forth in this and other threads.

As you will see, the supposed "poor Art Monk argument" of playing not in a passing era with lousy QBs is an urban legend. The Redskins passed for more yards per game than either the Bills or Cowboys did. In fact, Michael Irvin, who allegedly was supposed to benefit the most playing in a passing era, actually played for the team (of these three) with the weakest passing stats.

Washington: 18.08 completions, 229.28 passing yards, 1.402 passing TD per game

Monk: 4.331 receptions, 58.66 receiving yards, 0.317 TD per game

Monk: 23.95% of receptions, 25.58% or receiving yards, 22.61% of receiving TD

Buffalo: 18.18 completions, 222.62 passing yards, 1.410 passing TD per game

Reed: 4.258 receptions, 59.253 receiving yards, 0.389 TD per game

Reed: 23.42% of receptions, 26.60% of receiving yards, 27.60% of receiving TD

Dallas: 18.55 completions, 217.73 receiving yards, 1.089 passing TD per game

Irvin: 4.717 receptions, 74.87 receiving yards, 0.409 receiving TD per game

Irvin: 25.43% of receptions, 34.49% of receiving yards, 37.56% of receiving TD

Pecentages added together:

Monk: 72.14

Reed: 77.62

Irvin: 97.48

Irvin clearly wins this battle, and not just because I am a Cowboys fan.

I'd guess Jimmy Smith would come out similar to Irvin, but it would take way too long to run the numbers. Nice work David, you should work for Mythbusters.

 

[David Yudkin]

They certianly don't pay me enough to do this (in fact, they don't pay me anything), but here's what I dug up to get a better overview of things.

I added up all the passing stats for the team each guy played for and then added up the stats for the player on that team.  This will level the playing field as to what information (or misinformation) people have been spewing forth in this and other threads.

As you will see, the supposed "poor Art Monk argument" of playing not in a passing era with lousy QBs is an urban legend.  The Redskins passed for more yards per game than either the Bills or Cowboys did.  In fact, Michael Irvin, who allegedly was supposed to benefit the most playing in a passing era, actually played for the team (of these three) with the weakest passing stats.

Washington: 18.08 completions, 229.28 passing yards, 1.402 passing TD per game

Monk: 4.331 receptions, 58.66 receiving yards, 0.317 TD per game

Monk: 23.95% of receptions, 25.58% or receiving yards, 22.61% of receiving TD

Buffalo: 18.18 completions, 222.62 passing yards, 1.410 passing TD per game

Reed: 4.258 receptions, 59.253 receiving yards, 0.389 TD per game

Reed: 23.42% of receptions, 26.60% of receiving yards, 27.60% of receiving TD

Dallas: 18.55 completions, 217.73 receiving yards, 1.089 passing TD per game

Irvin: 4.717 receptions, 74.87 receiving yards, 0.409 receiving TD per game

Irvin: 25.43% of receptions, 34.49% of receiving yards, 37.56% of receiving TD

Pecentages added together:

Monk: 72.14

Reed: 77.62

Irvin: 97.48

Irvin clearly wins this battle, and not just because I am a Cowboys fan.

I'd guess Jimmy Smith would come out similar to Irvin, but it would take way too long to run the numbers. Nice work David, you should work for Mythbusters.

I'll look into some of the other guys (the Smiths, Bruce, etc.) over the weekend to see how they compare and will report back then. Don't have time right now (as you said, too time consuming).

 

[Bri]

I believe Bruce has more 200 yard games than all of them listed. In the grand scheme of things it's nothing, but it's one of the most impressive stats a WR can get while you're watching a game. Really makes ya think dominance and often times I'm thinking how effective a WR is. Dominance and effective just aren't the same. I'd give Bruce an edge in any close vote due to the 200 yard games but it'd have to be close first comparing normal stats.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Irvin/Reed

Monk

 

[David Yudkin]

Here are some other WR for comparison. Note that I only counted seasons as a starter (basically years with 30 or more receptions).

Rod Smith

Denver: 19.31 completions, 233.04 passing yards, 1.486 passing TD per game

Smith: 5.50 receptions, 74.38 receiving yards, 0.44 receiving TD per game

Smith: 28.48% of receptions, 31.92% of receiving yards, 29.60% of receiving TD

Total: 90.00

Jimmy Smith

Jacksonville: 19.18 completions, 225.45 passing yards, 1.213 passing TD per game

Smith: 5.42 receptions, 77.41 receiving yards, 0.412 receiving TD per game

Smith: 28.26% of receptions, 34.34% of receiving yards, 33.97% of receiving TD

Total: 96.57

Isaac Bruce

St. Louis: 21.89 completions, 266.31 passing yards, 1.59 passing TD per game

Bruce: 5.11 receptions, 77.46 receiving yards, 0.477 receiving TD

Bruce: 23.34% of receptions, 29.09% of receiving yards, 30.00% of receiving TD

Total: 82.43

Cliff Branch:

Oakland: 16.04 completions, 210.45 passing yards, 1.56 passing TD per game

Branch: 3.15 receptions, 54.96 receiving yards, 0.421 receiving TD

Branch: 19.65% of receptions, 26.12% of receiving yards, 26.99% of receiving TD

Total: 72.76

Henry Ellard

Rams/Skins: 16.45 completions, 210.22 passing yards, 1.229 passing TD per game

Ellard: 3.79 receptions, 64.09 receiving yards, 0.311 receiving TD per game

Ellard: 23.01% of completions, 30.49% of receiving yards, 25.31% of receiving TD

Total: 78.81

Shannon Sharpe

Green Bay: 20.39 completions, 229.00 passing yards, 1.33 passing TD per game

Sharpe: 5.31 receptions, 72.63 receiving yards, 0.58 receiving TD per game

Sharpe: 26.05% of receptions, 31.71% of receiving yards, 43.63% of receiving TD

Total: 101.39

Randy Moss

MIN/OAK: 20.73 completions, 261.25 passing yards, 1.875 passing TD per game

Moss: 5.07 receptions, 81.18 receiving yards, 0.784 receiving TD per game

Moss: 24.47% of completions, 31.07% of receiving yards, 41.81% of receiving TD

Total: 97.35

Tim Brown

Oakland: 18.25 completions, 224.46 passing yards, 1.415 passing TD per game

Brown: 4.713 receptions, 64.85 receiving yards, 0.43 receiving TD per game

Brown: 25.82% of receptions, 28.89% of receiving yards, 30.42% of receiving TD

Total: 85.13

I never would have thought that the Cliff Branch era Raiders would effectively have the same amount of passing TD per game compared to the Isaac Bruce era Rams.

 

[BlueDredSo]

Being a Buffalo fan my gut is to go with Reed, but after looking at the stats, plus the fact that Irivin won 3 SB's...I gotta go with him.

I find it hard to believe that Monk is getting more votes than Reed though, and that it's actually close between him and Irvin

 

[Despyzer]

Being a Buffalo fan my gut is to go with Reed, but after looking at the stats, plus the fact that Irivin won 3 SB's...I gotta go with him.

I find it hard to believe that Monk is getting more votes than Reed though, and that it's actually close between him and Irvin

It's not strange at all. Monk is the only one of the three that ever held the single season receptions record. He's the only one of the three that has ever held the career receptions record. He's the only one of the three that was ever in consideration as the best player at his position at some point in his career. What's hard to believe is that anybody is voting for the other two.

 

[BlueDredSo]

Career receptions record is great and all, but it's a fluff stat. The same argument can be made for why Testaverde won't make the HoF. He played forever and just compiled stats. I forgot that 106 receptions was a single-season record back then, the top 5 receivers today seem to have no problems hitting that mark. Look at what Irvin did from 91-98.

Alright, I guess I'd vote Irvin AND Monk in before Reed...damn it. But, I'd still vote Irvin over Monk. Sorry.

 

[David Yudkin]

Here are a few more guys just to give more of a sampling . . .

Terrell Owens

SF/PHI: 20.74 completions, 240.87 passing yards, 1.65 passing TD per game

Owens: 5.04 receptions, 74.19 receiving yards, 0.71 receiving TD per game

Owens: 24.30% of receptions, 30.80% of receiving yards, 42/11% of receiving TD

Total: 98.21

Lynn Swann

Pittsburgh: 14.04 completions, 200.36 passing yards, 1.44 passing TD per game

Swann: 3.23 receptions, 52.52 receiving yards, 0.52 receiving TD per game

Swann: 23.02% of receptions, 26.21% of receiving yards, 35.74% of receiving TD

Total: 84.97

Marvin Harrison

IND: 21.71 completions, 256.73 passing yards, 1.76 passing TD per game

Harrison: 6.019 receptions, 80.07 receiving yards, 0.71 receiving TD per game

Harrison: 27.73% of receptions, 31.19% of receiving yards, 40.52% of receiving TD

Total: 99.44

Jerry Rice

SF/OAK: 21.90 completions, 259.75 passing yards, 1.75 passing TD per game

Rice: 5.64 receptions, 83.54 receiving yards, 0.72 receiving TD per game

Rice: 25.76% of receptions, 32.16% of receiving yards, 41.07% of receiving TD

Total: 98.99

Cris Carter

PHI/MIN: 19.96 completions per game, 239.17 passing yards, 1.59 passing TD

Carter: 4.95 receptions, 62.50 receiving yards, 0.58 receiving TD per game

Carter: 24.78% of receptions, 26.13% of receiving yards, 36.42% of receiving TD

Total: 87.43

Herman Moore

Detroit: 17.74 completions, 212/08 passing yards, 1.23 passing TD per game

Moore: 5.5 receptions, 75.57 receiving yards, 0.52 receiving TD per game

Moore: 31.00% of receptions, 35.63% of receiving yards, 41.92% of receiving TD

Total: 108.55

Rice not getting the highest score is not surprising. He was the primary cog in the 49ers' passing game, but they put up a ton of passing/receiving stats.

Herman Moore scoring so well indicates that he was a HUGE part of the Lions' receiving corps, and his top tier numbers playng predominantly on a team that at so-so passing stats gives him a great percentage of the production.

Swann, long thought to be a marginally HOFer at best actually benefits in this sort of analysis. He still scored well in this system because the Steelers did not throw the ball all that much, thus his percentage of the production is fairly high. He still didn't play long enough in my book, so I still have trouble with him being a HOFer, SB circus catches aside.

 

[Don Quixote]

People looking at Art Monk only having three pro bowl appearances should really take a look at the composition of Pro Bowl rosters from that era. When Monk was playing, Pro Bowl rosters generally only contained 4 WR's per conference. After he retired, the trend went up to placing 6-7 WR's per conference on a Pro Bowl roster.

If the modern trend were in place back then, Art Monk probably would also have had Pro Bowl appearances in 1988, 1989, and 1991 (and possibly 1981, considering his numbers were comparable that year with Ahmad Rashad's).

 

[CalBear]

People looking at Art Monk only having three pro bowl appearances should really take a look at the composition of Pro Bowl rosters from that era. When Monk was playing, Pro Bowl rosters generally only contained 4 WR's per conference. After he retired, the trend went up to placing 6-7 WR's per conference on a Pro Bowl roster.

If the modern trend were in place back then, Art Monk probably would also have had Pro Bowl appearances in 1988, 1989, and 1991 (and possibly 1981, considering his numbers were comparable that year with Ahmad Rashad's).

In 1988 he was the #19 WR in fantasy scoring; in 1981 he was #20. There's no way he makes the Pro Bowl either of those years. In 1989 he was #10, so he would have had a shot, except Gary Clark, his teammate, was #7 with more yardage and more TDs, and also didn't make the Pro Bowl. There were 5 WRs selected that year, and Clark should have been selected before Monk.

 

[Don Quixote]

People looking at Art Monk only having three pro bowl appearances should really take a look at the composition of Pro Bowl rosters from that era. When Monk was playing, Pro Bowl rosters generally only contained 4 WR's per conference. After he retired, the trend went up to placing 6-7 WR's per conference on a Pro Bowl roster.

If the modern trend were in place back then, Art Monk probably would also have had Pro Bowl appearances in 1988, 1989, and 1991 (and possibly 1981, considering his numbers were comparable that year with Ahmad Rashad's).

In 1988 he was the #19 WR in fantasy scoring; in 1981 he was #20. There's no way he makes the Pro Bowl either of those years. In 1989 he was #10, so he would have had a shot, except Gary Clark, his teammate, was #7 with more yardage and more TDs, and also didn't make the Pro Bowl. There were 5 WRs selected that year, and Clark should have been selected before Monk.

If you look at the conference breakdown though, the higher fantasy WR's were generally in the AFC (in the Miami, Oakland, Cincinnati, Houston, and Seattle offenses).On further reflection, I agree 1988 is doubtful he have made it. I think a case can be made that probability would dictate two of the other four.

...While he may have only had three years in which he was an elite WR, he still put up consistently good numbers the rest of his career. I just don't get why people write him off as a "compiler." There is something to be said for putting together a productive, steady career when nobody else could.

 

[radballs]

Championships count for alot, IMO.

Why? A WR can only contribute so much to a total team's strength.

 

[CalBear]

If you look at the conference breakdown though, the higher fantasy WR's were generally in the AFC (in the Miami, Oakland, Cincinnati, Houston, and Seattle offenses).

On further reflection, I agree 1988 is doubtful he have made it. I think a case can be made that probability would dictate two of the other four.

A very weak case. In 1981 Monk was a second-year receiver with no big seasons to his name. Ahead of him in the NFC were Freddie Solomon (969/8), Harold Carmichael (1028/6), and Freddie Scott (1022/5). 894/6 from a nobody would not pass those three guys.1989 is the only year that Monk didn't make the Pro Bowl, that a case can be made for him deserving the Pro Bowl. And even that year, the voters would have had to select two receivers from the same team, when they didn't select even one.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

After he retired, the trend went up to placing 6-7 WR's per conference on a Pro Bowl roster.

6-7 WRs? are you talking about injury replacements? I don't think 6 or 7 WRs make the Pro Bowl from a single conference each year.

 

[Sinrman]

Yeah, I'd have to go with Irvin, Reed, Monk in that order. As much as it pains me to put Irvin at the top of ANY list...

But as Peter King says time and time again, they are supposed to vote for what they did ON the field, not OFF the field (like in baseball). If that's the case, Irvin should be the closest to getting in. Though it's nice to see the writers holding off putting him in immediately after being eligible. I think eventually, he will get in. Just not sure about the other two...

 

[Ghost Rider]

People looking at Art Monk only having three pro bowl appearances should really take a look at the composition of Pro Bowl rosters from that era. When Monk was playing, Pro Bowl rosters generally only contained 4 WR's per conference. After he retired, the trend went up to placing 6-7 WR's per conference on a Pro Bowl roster.

If the modern trend were in place back then, Art Monk probably would also have had Pro Bowl appearances in 1988, 1989, and 1991 (and possibly 1981, considering his numbers were comparable that year with Ahmad Rashad's).

Huh? That last time I looked, only 4 WR's still make the Pro Bowl from each conference ever year (not counting if a kickoff or punt returner, for example, happens to play WR, but goes to the Pro Bowl as a specialist).

 

[MarshallRob]

Here’s how Irvin, Reed and Monk performed in Super Bowls catch by catch.IRVIN

Super Bowl XXVII1st QuarterThird DAL drive: 20-yard catch on 3rd-and-16 to BUF 33. DAL scores a TD on 53-yard drive to tie the game 7-7.2nd QuarterFifth DAL drive: 19-yard TD catch. DAL leads 21-10.Sixth DAL drive: Following INT, 18-yard TD catch. DAL leads 28-10.Seventh DAL drive: 20-yard catch. No points scored on drive.3rd QuarterEighth DAL drive: 25-yard catch to BUF 29. 12-yard catch to BUF 7. DAL FG on drive gives DAL 31-10 lead. Super Bowl XXVIII1st QuarterFirst DAL drive: 20-yard catch to BUF 28 on game’s first play. DAL scores on 41-yard FG to lead 3-0.2nd QuarterFourth DAL drive: 15-yard catch. No score on drive.Fifth DAL drive: 13-yard catch on 2nd-and-7 from own 4-yard-line. 4-yard catch. Drive ends on INT.3rd QuarterSeventh DAL drive: 14-yard catch. No points scored on drive.Super Bowl XXX1st QuarterFirst DAL drive: 20-yard catch to DAL 49 for first completion of game. DAL scores on 42-yard FG to lead 3-0.Second DAL drive: 11-yard catch to DAL 39 on 3rd-and-7. DAL scores TD on 75-yard drive to lead 10-0.2nd QuarterThird DAL drive: 12-yard catch to 50-yard line. DAL scores on 35-yard FG to lead 13-0.3rd QuarterSixth DAL drive: 16-yard catch to DAL 35. No points scored on drive.Seventh DAL drive: Following INT, 17-yard catch to PIT 1. Emmitt scores on next play for a 20-7 DAL lead.

MONK

Super Bowl XVIIInjured. Did not play.Super Bowl XVII4th QuarterTwelfth WAS Drive: 26-yard catch while trailing 35-9. No points scored on drive.Super Bowl XXII1st QuarterThird WAS Drive: 40-yard catch to 50-yard-line. No points scored on drive.Super Bowl XXVI1st QuarterSecond WAS Drive: Monk’s shining moment. Catches of 12, 17, 19, and 31 yards, the 31-yarder giving WAS first-and-goal at the BUF 2. On third-and-goal, Rypien’s TD pass to Monk reversed by replay official because Monk did not get both feet in bounds. WAS then botches FG attempt. Score remains 0-0.2nd QuarterFifth WAS drive: 8-yard catch to BUF 21 on 51-yard TD drive. WAS leads 10-0.3rd QuarterTenth WAS drive: 9-yard catch. No points scored on drive.Twelfth WAS drive: 17-yard catch to BUF 7. WAS scores on 25-yard FG to lead 34-10.

REED

Super Bowl XXV1st QuarterFirst BUF drive: 4-yard catch. 5-yard catch. No points scored on drive.Third BUF drive: Catches of 11, 4, and 10 yards2nd QuarterThird BUF drive cont’d: 9-yard catch. BUF completes 80-yard TD drive to take 10-3 lead.2nd QuarterFifth BUF drive: On third-and-one at the 50-yard line, Reed dropped a pass that would have given the Bills a sure first down in NYG territory. BUF forced to punt.Seventh BUF drive: 5-yard catch. No points scored on drive. 4th QuarterEleventh BUF drive: 4-yard catch. Drive ends in Norwood’s missed FG attempt.Super Bowl XXVI1st QuarterThird BUF drive: 12-yard catch. No points scored on drive.2nd QuarterSixth BUF drive: 6-yard catch. 8-yard catch. No points scored on drive.Seventh BUF drive: 4-yard catch. No points scored on drive.Eighth BUF drive: On 3rd-and-18 at WAS 28, trailing 17-0 with less than 30 seconds in the half, pass to Reed broken up. 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on Reed takes team out of FG range.3rd QuarterTenth BUF drive: 4-yard catch on 77-yard FG drive. BUF trails 24-3.Super Bowl XXVII1st QuarterFirst BUF drive: 14-yard catch on first play. No points scored on drive.Third BUF drive: 21-yard catch to 50-yard line. Drive ends on INT.2nd QuarterFifth BUF drive: 40-yard catch to DAL 4-yard-line. Drive ends on INT.Sixth BUF drive: 38-yard pass to DAL 22-yard-line. BUF kicks 21-yard FG to trail 14-10.Eighth BUF drive: 11-yard catch. Drive ends on INT.3rd QuarterNinth BUF drive: 8-yard catch. No points scored on drive.Tenth BUF drive: 13-yard catch to DAL 36-yard-line on 71-yard TD drive. BUF trails 31-17.4th QuarterThirteenth Drive: 7-yard catch. Drive ends in DAL fumble-return TD. 52-17.Super Bowl XXVIII1st QuarterFirst BUF drive: 11-yard catch on 43-yard FG. Score tied at 3.Third BUF drive: Catches of 3 and 11 yards on 80-yard TD drive ending in 2d Quarter. BUF leads 10-6.2nd QuarterFourth BUF drive: 19-yard catch. 7-yard catch. No points scored on drive.Fifth BUF drive: 22-yard catch to DAL 22. BUF scores on 28-yard FG to take 13-6 lead.

SummaryIrvin: -3 games, 16/255/2-A huge factor in his team’s win in Super Bowl XXVII. His two TD catches broke the game open and he had two other important catches on two other scoring drives.-Didn’t do much in Super Bowl XXVIII.-In Super Bowl XXX he had important catches on three different scoring drives, all while the game was still competitive.Monk:-3 games, 9/179/0-Not much of a factor in any Super Bowl. He never caught a TD in a Super Bowl. Only twice did he even catch a pass on a scoring drive.-In his best game, Super Bowl XXVI, most of his yards came on one drive that resulted in no points when Monk couldn’t get both feet in bounds on what could have been a TD.Reed:-4 games, 27/323/0-Never caught a TD in any Super Bowl. -Virtually disappeared in the 2d half of all four games even though his team was behind each time and playing catchup.-In his team’s best chance for a championship, Super Bowl XXV, Reed dropped a critical ball that cost his team a chance to go up by two scores and take control of the game. He dropped a few other balls as well and played horribly after a good 1st Quarter. His team could have easily won had he played better. He admitted after the game that he should have caught those dropped passes.-Cost his team a chance to end the 1st Half of Super Bowl XXVI with a FG and gain a little momentum because of his stupid personal foul.-He did have a few big catches in the first half Super Bowl XXVII though his team could not take advantage of the field position.

 

[Don Quixote]

After he retired, the trend went up to placing 6-7 WR's per conference on a Pro Bowl roster.

6-7 WRs? are you talking about injury replacements? I don't think 6 or 7 WRs make the Pro Bowl from a single conference each year.

That could be the reason why. I'm not sure. I was just looking at pro-football-reference.com and saw that while during most years of Monk's career, only 4-5 WR's made the pro bowl roster from each conference, and, since 1995 or so, there have usually been 6-7, and, in one case, 8 WR's making the Pro Bowl roster from each conference.I had presumed roster compositon changes were the cause of that, but maybe injuries played a role in that trend as well. I don't pay enough attention to the Pro Bowl to know for sure.

 

[JMJ]

Reed, Monk, Irvin, in that order

Agreed.

 

[Despyzer]

Career receptions record is great and all, but it's a fluff stat.

Let's look at the names of some of the guys that have attained "fluff stats" at various positions of major importance (rushing yards, passing yards, receptions, passer efficiency rating, touchdowns, and sacks): Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, Steve Young, Joe Montana, Roger Staubach, Steve Largent, Jerry Rice, Marcus Allen, Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White, Bruce Smith.Yeah, those career leader stats are pretty meaningless. None of these guys are Hall-worthy.

 

[dgreen]

Here's Michael Irvin's opinion:

Q: Who is not in the Hall of Fame now who should be?

A: Art Monk comes to mind right away. At the time he retired, he was the all-time leader in the league in receptions.

There are no definite parameters for what it is. No certain number of catches or yardage.

The reality for me is this. If you caught a lot of passes and didn't win — Andre Reed caught 1,000 passes but didn't win a Super Bowl. OK.

But when you catch a lot of passes and win Super Bowls, you should be a lock. That's not saying I caught a lot of passes. I only caught 750. But Ark Monk is like nine-something.

 

[dgreen]

Career receptions record is great and all, but it's a fluff stat. The same argument can be made for why Testaverde won't make the HoF. He played forever and just compiled stats.

And in which stat is Vinny going to be #1 all-time?

 

[MarshallRob]

Career receptions record is great and all, but it's a fluff stat.  The same argument can be made for why Testaverde won't make the HoF.  He played forever and just compiled stats.

And in which stat is Vinny going to be #1 all-time?

I think the point BlueDredSo was trying to make (and I could be wrong), is that receptions don't have any intrinsic value outside of a Fantasy Football PPR league. Yardage and TD's are a better indicator of a receiver's contribution to a team. And in those areas, Irvin is very close to Monk despite paying in 65 fewer games. Irvin's production per catch was a lot higher.