For sake of Argument

mulkey · Post by **mulkey** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:17 pm

If you were a GM and had your choice of Monk or Irvin which would you choose. Would like for you to elaborate and explain your answer. Which usually isn't a problem for the fellow hogsters on this site. Go Skins!!!

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:52 pm

Typically when there's two similar football players... you want to go with the one with a higher character.

Michael Irvin seems like a good guy as a commentator, and is past his crazy days... and it never seemed to alter his relationship with his teammates...

Monk was a great player who wouldn't kill you... but no one ever called him the playmaker (a well deserved title).

Personally, all things considered I think that Irvin was the better player, and smarter pick between the two.

Monk ran the ball a lot more, made tough catches, etc... but Irvin was a star who was always at the top of the league in numbers. Monk was seldom as good when compared to his peers.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:03 pm

In hindsight I'd go with Monk based on what each player brought to their team. Monk played with a bunch of guys that won't come close to Canton at the QB postion and he made the people around him better. the crackhead on the other hand had a HOF quarterback and running back, yet in the end his stats are basiclly the same as Art's. By Art making players around him better he took opertunities from himself to make the team better. Mike only played for Mike.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:05 pm

That's a valid point about the skill levels on each team... but Monk did play with Clark and Sanders... Didier too... who were good players, but who make his contributions even more impressive.

Man, I thought I would take Irvin, now I'm on the fence.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:05 pm

Both were good, but Monk was far and away better! He wasn't afraid to go over the middle (not that Irvin was but didn't do it as much), actually got open without pushing off (the league now calls Irvins "seperation stride" offensive pass interference), Monk was the better blocker hands down, and Monk was never told "assume the possition" by the DPD and never was cought "holding a crack pipe for a friend".

Had Monk played during the same time frame as Irvin for a HOF QB he might have had 1300-1400 catches. I got thos numbers be taking Monk's stats X 1.3 (correction factor for time period) = 1222 x 1.1 (Aikman was atleast 10% better than the QBs Monk played with) = 1344.

Some might say Irvin only played 11 years due to injury and Monk played 16. Well lets say we toss out the last season for Monk (3 games) and Irvin (4 games) because they are not statically significant. That would make it 15 - 10 or Monk played 50% longer. So if you take Irvins 740 X 1.5 = 1110. 176 more than Monk's actual numbers, but remember these are projected stats for Irvin so if you use Monk's corrected stats 1344-1110=234. Monk woulds still have been 234 catches better.

Hoss · Post by **Hoss** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:23 pm

You guys just don't get it. Irvin was by far the better player. I mean, come on....you have to remember that he put up those numbers while high as a kite on crack. That in itself is very impressive. If the dude would have been cold sober he would have been immortalized.

mulkey · Post by **mulkey** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:49 pm

Great replys. I was actually affaid I was going to get hammered for asking the question. Personally ,I think I would go for Irvin here for the simple fact his attitude towards winning. This is not to say Monk didn't want to win in any way, but I like the more emotional players.
I also think Monk should be judged for his accomplishments on the field. Allot of the reason you remember Irvin and some of his touchdowns is due to his celebration afterwards. Had Monk spiked and showboated I actually feel like he would've been in two yrs. ago....

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:16 pm

mulkey wrote:Great replys. I was actually affaid I was going to get hammered for asking the question.

You still might!

I mean, what do you think people are going to say around here, besides Skinsfan55. (we're not too sure if he's really a Redskins fan, regardless of his screen name)

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:58 pm

skinsfan#33 wrote:He wasn't afraid to go over the middle (not that Irvin was but didn't do it as much),

I'm a Monk fan, but that's utter garbage. Irvin made his career catching the quick slant over the middle and getting YAC.

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:31 pm

I'd take Monk. He was very durable, he caught nearly 1000 passes over a very long career, he was a super team player, he never got into trouble and was a modest guy who just did his job at a HOF level.

Irvin was also a good player (just ask him). He had good hands and made the tough catches (after pushing the DB off - ask DG about that). He also had serious off field issues. IMO that's a big part of being a player in the NFL - a good role model. I would not want my son to be like Michael Irvin but I would love it if my son was like Art Monk.

Another way to look at this -- if you had 3 WRs and they were all Art Monks, could they get along and be happy, not causing issues on the team? Without a doubt, yes. If you had 3 Irvin's as your WRs would they be happy? I don't believe so...it was all about him.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:39 pm

Point is they were both great players. Monk played much longer though. They both have three SuperBowl Rings. There numbers are similar. Monk was an inspirational leader to his team. Irvin was a leader in his own right. Irvin had his issues off the field but they never effected his play on the field. But if your asking a Skins fan who hed pick? What do you think of course I am going for Monk. Monk was a team guy. Blocked like a beast for the rest of his teammates and springed many long runs for the rest of the recievers. Monk also seemed to make his teammates play harder around him. Monk all the way. Irvin was a superb talent as well.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:16 am

There's only one wide receiver I'd choose ahead of Art Monk, and his name isn't Michael Irvin. Jerry Rice is the greatest there has been, but nobody else is better than Art Monk.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:11 pm

Very good UK. Like you, Rice was the best receiver ever. Then Monk next and I would have to say Marvin Harrison next but he is still playing. I, like Gibbs get hung up on Character. I don't care for all the flash, even though Chad Johnson is my favorite player in the NFL, but Chad is a different kind of flashy. Irvin just never shuts up. He is loud, obnoxious, and just flat out a punk and thats why I really cant see how he would make it in before Monk. This again is another shot by the media across the US that are anti Redskins. Its tough to be a Skins fan but it seems even harder to be a player. Not sure if any of this makes sense but In my head its totally clear.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:38 am

PulpExposure wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:He wasn't afraid to go over the middle (not that Irvin was but didn't do it as much),

I'm a Monk fan, but that's utter garbage. Irvin made his career catching the quick slant over the middle and getting YAC.

Simply not true! Irvin made a living pushing off DBs. He brags about it all of the time and calls it his "separation stride". Darrel Green knows that "seperation stride" all too well. It is about the only way Irvin ever caught a pass on DG.

Like I said before, Irvin did go overe the middle, but nothing like Monk! Irvin played for a HOF QB and if you don't think that effected his game, just look at his first 3 years in the league, when Troy was either not there or wasn't playing well. Chris Cool

ey's first 3 years are far better than crack heads. Cool

ey had more receptions, TDs, and yards than Irvin had in his first 3 years. And Cool

ey certainly hasn't had a HOF QB tossing him the ball. Why is Irvin called the "playmaker", because he started calling himself that! Just like Deon Sanders named himself "Pimetime". But it was Monk's peers that called him "Money".

Monk is not in the HOF for 3 reasons:
He never self promoted.
He isn't on TV.
He put the team first (stayed in and blocked so Clark or Sanders could catch the big play!

The HOF is voted on by the media and Monk was never media freindly. You watch Marvin Harrison, Darrel Green, and Hines Ward will all have a hard time getting to Canton!

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:51 am

Personally, I don't think Green will ever have a hard time making it to Canton... which is kinda funny... considering that Monk seemed to have been a much bigger impact on those Redskins teams.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:19 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:He wasn't afraid to go over the middle (not that Irvin was but didn't do it as much),

I'm a Monk fan, but that's utter garbage. Irvin made his career catching the quick slant over the middle and getting YAC.

Simply not true! Irvin made a living pushing off DBs.

Sure, but he still made himself a target for linebackers. He went over the middle quite often. Pushing off to create slant separation still doesn't change the fact that you're running a slant. You know, over the middle.

Irvin played for a HOF QB and if you don't think that effected his game, just look at his first 3 years in the league, when Troy was either not there or wasn't playing well.

That's a nicely constructed strawman there. No one said anything about quarterback play. I merely refuted your statement that Irvin didn't go over the middle much.

Monk is not in the HOF for 3 reasons:
He never self promoted.
He isn't on TV.
He put the team first (stayed in and blocked so Clark or Sanders could catch the big play!

You also forgot he didn't play for a great QB, ever, and he played in a system guarenteed to depress his numbers because there were very good wide receivers playing with him.

The HOF is voted on by the media and Monk was never media freindly. You watch Marvin Harrison, Darrel Green, and Hines Ward will all have a hard time getting to Canton!

Harrison is a HoF lock, as is Darrell Green. Hines Ward? To me, reminds me of Andre Reed. Good receiver, but not great. Only 4 1000 yard seasons won't cut it for a receiver nowadays. Herman Moore's stats blow are better than Ward's (Moore has another 1000 yards receiving over Ward), but no way Herman Moore goes into the HoF.

Heck, when Andre Reed, who had a career that dwarfs Ward's (8000 receiving yards and 59 total TDs versus 13000 receiving yards and 88 total TDs) can't make the cut...why should Hines Ward?

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:51 am

UK Skins Fan wrote:There's only one wide receiver I'd choose ahead of Art Monk, and his name isn't Michael Irvin. Jerry Rice is the greatest there has been, but nobody else is better than Art Monk.

I think Monk's a Hall of Famer, and better than Irvin, but I wouldn't put him as second to Jerry Rice. Lance Alworth is the first one that comes to mind. In fact, I might take Charlie Taylor over Monk as well.

Monk is undoubtedly in the all-time top 20, and a reasonable argument can be made for top 10. I think top 5 or top 3 is a stretch.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:37 am

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
UK Skins Fan wrote:There's only one wide receiver I'd choose ahead of Art Monk, and his name isn't Michael Irvin. Jerry Rice is the greatest there has been, but nobody else is better than Art Monk.

I think Monk's a Hall of Famer, and better than Irvin, but I wouldn't put him as second to Jerry Rice. Lance Alworth is the first one that comes to mind. In fact, I might take Charlie Taylor over Monk as well.

Monk is undoubtedly in the all-time top 20, and a reasonable argument can be made for top 10. I think top 5 or top 3 is a stretch.

I can't pick Alworth or Taylor because I never saw them, and really can't assess them. That's why I said that I would only choose Rice over Monk. But I did see Irvin, and he was no Art Monk, IMO.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:42 am

PulpExposure wrote:

Heck, when Andre Reed, who had a career that dwarfs Ward's (8000 receiving yards and 59 total TDs versus 13000 receiving yards and 88 total TDs) can't make the cut...why should Hines Ward?

Because he played wide receiver for Pittsburgh in a Superbowl? That seems to be enough to get you in.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:31 am

Because he played wide receiver for Pittsburgh in a Superbowl? That seems to be enough to get you in.

After all... isn't that why Lynn Swan is in? On face value, he doesn't get into Canton without a ticket. (and, oh, by the way... he wasn't half the player Monk was)

welch · Post by **welch** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:51 pm

Monk. No doubt. No statistics needed. He was a better player.

By the way, it doesn't work to compare Monk at 35 with Irvin at 25. Think of Monk in the early 80's...although he was dangerous right down through (and past) SB 26, played when he was about 33.