Art Monk HOF

[Countertrey]

The "Hall of Fame" is now, officially, totally irrelevant. That the criminal from Dallas is selected, while the very model of class is snubbed, insulted, and slighted, settles the issue.

Art Monk, of course, will eventually be selected... and will, of course, graciously accept this (now dubious) honor with the class he is known for.

But, personally, nothing would give me greater joy than to hear him say "The Hall of Fame can shove their selection up their ass".

How great would that be?

[jru37726]

Yes, character should count, but Monk was a better player, simply better, than Irvin.

I'd almost repeat that 100 times because I'm so exasperated. Disgusted. Astounded. Gobsmacked, as UK Skins Fan might say.

My chin is on my chest, or whatever Dan Dierdorff said at the end of Q2 SB 22, during which Monk knocked a Denver tackler about 5 yards into the air and out of the game...a game that Monk played on a sprained knee!

Growl!!!!!!

Do you realize that none of the hogs are in the HOF either? What are these idiots thinking? It just doesnt make sense.

[PulpExposure]

Yes, character should count, but Monk was a better player, simply better, than Irvin.

I'd almost repeat that 100 times because I'm so exasperated. Disgusted. Astounded. Gobsmacked, as UK Skins Fan might say.

My chin is on my chest, or whatever Dan Dierdorff said at the end of Q2 SB 22, during which Monk knocked a Denver tackler about 5 yards into the air and out of the game...a game that Monk played on a sprained knee!

Growl!!!!!!

Do you realize that none of the hogs are in the HOF either? What are these idiots thinking? It just doesnt make sense.

Yeah it's a freaking travesty none of our offensive linemen are in.

[Jake]

IRVIN OVER MONK SENDS A BAD MESSAGE

Now that Cowboys receiver Michael Irvin has leap-frogged Redskins/Jets/Eagles receiver Art Monk into Canton, we think it's high time for everyone who appreciates the talents of someone who does their job, does it well, keeps his mouth shut, and stays out of trouble to stand up at shout: "Why!?!"

Monk made it through 16 NFL seasons, and finished with 940 catches, 12,721 yards, and 68 touchdowns. He won three Super Bowl rings with three different quarterbacks (none of whom are or ever should be in the Hall of Fame) throwing the passes.

Irvin played 12 years, and caught 750 passes for 11,904 yards and 65 touchdowns. He won three Super Bowls with Hall of Famer Troy Aikman distributing the pill.

The only real difference between the two? Irvin was a loudmouth on the field, and a turd off of it. Monk was neither.

We know. We know. A player's off-the-field exploits are not to be considered, per Hall of Fame bylaws. Well, why hasn't it occurred to someone to change the damn bylaws?

What message does it send to kids out there when a receiver who acts responsibly and humbly on and off the field gets passed over by a guy with lesser career stats? And what happens if/when Irvin (who from time to time appears to be incoherent on the air) dishonors the assembly of busts (which per John Madden come to life at night and talk to each other) if/when Irvin gets arrested again?

We've been to Canton, and it's weird to see O.J. Simpson's bust among all of the non-murderers. In his case, though, no one had an inkling that he might someday treat his ex-wife and her friend like a couple of Thanksgiving turkeys. For guys like Irvin, will anyone be surprised if/when he does something that will tarnish the entire body of players who represent true excellence in the sport?

When a team drafts a guy with a history of misconduct and the player commits further misconduct after joining the team, the team that selected him rightly is criticized. We think that the organization and its selection committee fairly should face the same scrutiny if/when Irvin casts shame on the Hall of Fame.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

This is probably the only time I'll agree with something that comes from this site.

[forskins]

Yes, character should count, but Monk was a better player, simply better, than Irvin.

What???

Irvin, over his 12-year career, averaged 13.25 games played a year, 62.5 receptions and 992 receiving yards per season (and yes, this includes the injury or suspension years). Monk averaged 14 games played, 58.75 receptions and 795 receiving yards over his 16 seasons. Irvin averaged 15.9 yards per catch. Monk averaged 13.5. Irvin was in the league's top 10 four times for receptions, six times for yards, five times for touchdown catches and four times for yards from scrimmage. Monk was in the league's top 10 for receptions four times, yards three times, touchdown catches one time and no times for yards from scrimmage. (Let's not forget that Irvin was also competing for the touches against the all-time rushing king). When you go beyond the numbers, where Irvin clearly has the advantage, everyone knows that Irvin was the leader of three Super Bowl winners and of course was the playmaker. Everyone in the stadium knew who was getting the ball on clutch third downs and he would make the play. Is this really a debate?

Maybe I'm biased since I know more about Irvin's career than Monk's, but what do you think of? What did he do but catch a bunch of passes in a pass-oriented offense? What was memorable? Ever see Super Bowl replays of great touchdown catches he made? This is not to minimize Monk's accomplishments, but only to further highlight Irvin's.

Sorry folks, but, the bylaws are the bylaws and people like Lawrence Taylor and Micheal Irvin will still get in because of what they did on the field earned their way into the HOF.

Now, I'm not disrespecting Mr. Monk. It was said in an earlier post that Hank Aaron was a shoe-in for his respective HOF and it goes the same for Cal Ripken (he's an obvious firts ballot vote). When you play at a high level (not outstanding) for that amount of time and with the impact he had on those Redskin teams, you deserve to be in the hall and you disrespect the man if you compare him to Irvin. This wasn't Monk vs. Irvin; this was Monk versus the selection committee.

[SkinsFreak]

Yes, character should count, but Monk was a better player, simply better, than Irvin.

What???

Irvin, over his 12-year career, averaged 13.25 games played a year, 62.5 receptions and 992 receiving yards per season (and yes, this includes the injury or suspension years). Monk averaged 14 games played, 58.75 receptions and 795 receiving yards over his 16 seasons. Irvin averaged 15.9 yards per catch. Monk averaged 13.5. Irvin was in the league's top 10 four times for receptions, six times for yards, five times for touchdown catches and four times for yards from scrimmage. Monk was in the league's top 10 for receptions four times, yards three times, touchdown catches one time and no times for yards from scrimmage. (Let's not forget that Irvin was also competing for the touches against the all-time rushing king). When you go beyond the numbers, where Irvin clearly has the advantage, everyone knows that Irvin was the leader of three Super Bowl winners and of course was the playmaker. Everyone in the stadium knew who was getting the ball on clutch third downs and he would make the play. Is this really a debate?

Maybe I'm biased since I know more about Irvin's career than Monk's, but what do you think of? What did he do but catch a bunch of passes in a pass-oriented offense? What was memorable? Ever see Super Bowl replays of great touchdown catches he made? This is not to minimize Monk's accomplishments, but only to further highlight Irvin's.

Sorry folks, but, the bylaws are the bylaws and people like Lawrence Taylor and Micheal Irvin will still get in because of what the did on the field earned their way into the HOF.

Now, I'm not disrespecting Mr. Monk. It was said in an earlier post that Hank Aaron was a shoe-in for his respective HOF and it goes the same for Cal Ripken. When you play at a high level (not outstanding) for that amount of time and with the impact he had on those Redskin teams, you deserve to be in the hall and you disrespect the man if you compare him to Irvin. This wasn't Monk vs. Irvin; this was Monk versus the selection committee.

Did you even read the article that Jake posted??? That article came from an UNBIASED source with ACTUAL knowledge of BOTH players accomplishments, ON and OFF the field!

[carolinakat]

Yes, character should count, but Monk was a better player, simply better, than Irvin.

What???

Irvin, over his 12-year career, averaged 13.25 games played a year, 62.5 receptions and 992 receiving yards per season (and yes, this includes the injury or suspension years). Monk averaged 14 games played, 58.75 receptions and 795 receiving yards over his 16 seasons. Irvin averaged 15.9 yards per catch. Monk averaged 13.5. Irvin was in the league's top 10 four times for receptions, six times for yards, five times for touchdown catches and four times for yards from scrimmage. Monk was in the league's top 10 for receptions four times, yards three times, touchdown catches one time and no times for yards from scrimmage. (Let's not forget that Irvin was also competing for the touches against the all-time rushing king). When you go beyond the numbers, where Irvin clearly has the advantage, everyone knows that Irvin was the leader of three Super Bowl winners and of course was the playmaker. Everyone in the stadium knew who was getting the ball on clutch third downs and he would make the play. Is this really a debate?

Maybe I'm biased since I know more about Irvin's career than Monk's, but what do you think of? What did he do but catch a bunch of passes in a pass-oriented offense? What was memorable? Ever see Super Bowl replays of great touchdown catches he made? This is not to minimize Monk's accomplishments, but only to further highlight Irvin's.

Sorry folks, but, the bylaws are the bylaws and people like Lawrence Taylor and Micheal Irvin will still get in because of what the did on the field earned their way into the HOF.

Now, I'm not disrespecting Mr. Monk. It was said in an earlier post that Hank Aaron was a shoe-in for his respective HOF and it goes the same for Cal Ripken. When you play at a high level (not outstanding) for that amount of time and with the impact he had on those Redskin teams, you deserve to be in the hall and you disrespect the man if you compare him to Irvin. This wasn't Monk vs. Irvin; this was Monk versus the selection committee.

Well, Monk did not have just one great RB to have to share time with, he had several. Not only that, Irvin shared catches with average or slightly above WR's.That were never anywere close to matching his numbers. Monk had to share catches with two greats. I don't think that Irvin shared a 1000 yards with anyother WR, much less two others. Let's not forget who the only team to have three WR's go over a 1000 yards in one season is. I know for a fact, it was no team Irvin played on.

[SkinsJock]

It would show a lot of class for Irvin to now say "Monk should be in the Hall of Fame" OR "I think Monk deserves to be here before me" But that is the difference between these 2 former great players - one was a great NFL player and the other is in the Hall of Fame despite not being as good as Monk.

He knows it and now he should admit it! I'll be very surprised if he does.

Any puke fan who knows anything would agree. To not know that Monk was better than Irvin is an indication of how little you know about the NFL.

[SCSkinsFan]

And what about Roger Wehrli getting in? So far the discussion has been Irvin versus Monk. Was his career really memorable? Different position? Sure! But I wonder what Roger Wehrli would say if he had to try to cover Art Monk? One comment about Art was that there was no memorable catch that you can remember about Art Monk? BS! Seems like one catch I remember seeing many times was Art catching a ball at the back of the end zone, keeping his feet in, and scoring the TD over a number of Cardinals. That's just one I remember plus 939 others.

[Countertrey]

And what about Roger Wehrli getting in?

What about it? Anybody who is old enough to know that there were great players in the 60's and 70's knows what a pain in the ass he was to opponents. He deserves it.

[SCSkinsFan]

And what about Roger Wehrli getting in?

What about it? Anybody who is old enough to know that there were great players in the 60's and 70's knows what a pain in the ass he was to opponents. He deserves it.

I'm old enough to remember that he was good. Congratulations to him on his election. My real question though is, was he as qualified, or more qualified, to be enshrined than Art Monk? I say no!

[PulpExposure]

Here's a fun one to chew on.

Monk was one of 4 receivers elected by the NFL to their all 80's team.

The others were James Lofton, Jerry Rice, and Steve Largent. Largent and Lofton are in the Hall of Fame and Rice is a lock.

Where's that leave Monk?

[HitDoctor]

Sports writers outside of DC, hate the skins for whatever reason. That being said, how do you think irvin celebrated his induction?

[Countertrey]

My real question though is, was he as qualified, or more qualified, to be enshrined than Art Monk?

Apples and oranges. Wehrle was a pick of the old timer's committee ( or whatever the heck they call it). Monk was not. Frankly, I am far more distressed by the less qualified criminal Irvin and excellent, but not as qualified, Thurman Thomas...

Monk absolutely should have been in... but not at Werhle's expense.

[HEROHAMO]

Yes, character should count, but Monk was a better player, simply better, than Irvin.

What???

Irvin, over his 12-year career, averaged 13.25 games played a year, 62.5 receptions and 992 receiving yards per season (and yes, this includes the injury or suspension years). Monk averaged 14 games played, 58.75 receptions and 795 receiving yards over his 16 seasons. Irvin averaged 15.9 yards per catch. Monk averaged 13.5. Irvin was in the league's top 10 four times for receptions, six times for yards, five times for touchdown catches and four times for yards from scrimmage. Monk was in the league's top 10 for receptions four times, yards three times, touchdown catches one time and no times for yards from scrimmage. (Let's not forget that Irvin was also competing for the touches against the all-time rushing king). When you go beyond the numbers, where Irvin clearly has the advantage, everyone knows that Irvin was the leader of three Super Bowl winners and of course was the playmaker. Everyone in the stadium knew who was getting the ball on clutch third downs and he would make the play. Is this really a debate?

Maybe I'm biased since I know more about Irvin's career than Monk's, but what do you think of? What did he do but catch a bunch of passes in a pass-oriented offense? What was memorable? Ever see Super Bowl replays of great touchdown catches he made? This is not to minimize Monk's accomplishments, but only to further highlight Irvin's.

Sorry folks, but, the bylaws are the bylaws and people like Lawrence Taylor and Micheal Irvin will still get in because of what the did on the field earned their way into the HOF.

Now, I'm not disrespecting Mr. Monk. It was said in an earlier post that Hank Aaron was a shoe-in for his respective HOF and it goes the same for Cal Ripken. When you play at a high level (not outstanding) for that amount of time and with the impact he had on those Redskin teams, you deserve to be in the hall and you disrespect the man if you compare him to Irvin. This wasn't Monk vs. Irvin; this was Monk versus the selection committee.

Well, Monk did not have just one great RB to have to share time with, he had several. Not only that, Irvin shared catches with average or slightly above WR's.That were never anywere close to matching his numbers. Monk had to share catches with two greats. I don't think that Irvin shared a 1000 yards with anyother WR, much less two others. Let's not forget who the only team to have three WR's go over a 1000 yards in one season is. I know for a fact, it was no team Irvin played on.

If you werent alive to watch the man play. You really have no real facts behind your opinions.

[skinsfan#33]

Yes, character should count, but Monk was a better player, simply better, than Irvin.

What???

Irvin, over his 12-year career, averaged 13.25 games played a year, 62.5 receptions and 992 receiving yards per season (and yes, this includes the injury or suspension years). Monk averaged 14 games played, 58.75 receptions and 795 receiving yards over his 16 seasons. Irvin averaged 15.9 yards per catch. Monk averaged 13.5. Irvin was in the league's top 10 four times for receptions, six times for yards, five times for touchdown catches and four times for yards from scrimmage. Monk was in the league's top 10 for receptions four times, yards three times, touchdown catches one time and no times for yards from scrimmage. (Let's not forget that Irvin was also competing for the touches against the all-time rushing king). When you go beyond the numbers, where Irvin clearly has the advantage, everyone knows that Irvin was the leader of three Super Bowl winners and of course was the playmaker. Everyone in the stadium knew who was getting the ball on clutch third downs and he would make the play. Is this really a debate?

Maybe I'm biased since I know more about Irvin's career than Monk's, but what do you think of? What did he do but catch a bunch of passes in a pass-oriented offense? What was memorable? Ever see Super Bowl replays of great touchdown catches he made? This is not to minimize Monk's accomplishments, but only to further highlight Irvin's.

Sorry folks, but, the bylaws are the bylaws and people like Lawrence Taylor and Micheal Irvin will still get in because of what they did on the field earned their way into the HOF.

Now, I'm not disrespecting Mr. Monk. It was said in an earlier post that Hank Aaron was a shoe-in for his respective HOF and it goes the same for Cal Ripken (he's an obvious firts ballot vote). When you play at a high level (not outstanding) for that amount of time and with the impact he had on those Redskin teams, you deserve to be in the hall and you disrespect the man if you compare him to Irvin. This wasn't Monk vs. Irvin; this was Monk versus the selection committee.

Look you Cowboys fan first let me say Irvin deserves to be in the HOF, but just not before Monk! The numbers you spouted are great but they don't take 2 things into account.

First the game changed in the early 90's and became more pass orriented. I have done the numbers and the topflight WR of the 90's caught 30% more passes than the guys in the 80's. So take your figures for Monk's catches per game of 58.75X1.3 and you get 76.4 to Irvin's 62.5. Do the same for y/season and you get 795 X 1.3 or 1033.5 to Irvin's 992. So you see, for Monk's time he was more productive than Irvin. Maybe that is why prior to 1990 only 1 NFL WR had ever broke the 100 catch/season mark (Monk in set an NFL record 104). And since 1990 there has only been one season that the NFL's leading receiver didn't break 100. Now the 100 catch mark gets broken by TEs and FBs.
How many all time NFL records did Irvin ever own?

Second, lets call it the Troy factor. Having a HOF QB to throw you the ball greatly impacts a receiver's numbers. Before Troy became a probowl QB for the Cowgirls, Irvin was far from heading to Canton. In his first 3 seasons he failed to break the 100 reception mark (not in a year, but total). Heck Chris ey has more receptions, TD's, and yards than Irvin had in his first three seasons and lets just say know one has confuses the QBs playing with ey for probowlers. After Troy started playing well, Irvin took off like a guy running from the Dallas PD (oh wait, that was Irvin).

You accused Monk of playing in a pass friendly offense. That only proves you know nothing about the Joe Gibbs Redskins. When the Redskins beat down the Cowboys in the NFC Championship game. The Skins ran out the last 8 minutes running the same play and the Hogs told Randy White what they were running before every play. Gibbs was a run first, run second, throw on third type of coach. And if he got a lead it was JUST RUN!

Irvin was great, but he wasn't as good as Monk or Gary Clark for that matter!

[carolinakat]

Also that should be added to this, Irvin got a lot of his stats before the push off rule came into effect, which is also known as the.............M.Irvin Rule. Not hard to catch a ball when your 6'4 and push the DB off of you about 5 yards. After that rule went into effect, Irvins numbers went down.

[EasyMoney]

I don't mean to repeat the obvious but the HOF is really an exaggeration of the ProBowl. Players who are constantly in the media make it every year like clockwork. This will never change.

I'd love to argue both sides of this but I'll simplify my reasoning because there is never enough time to argue this. If I thought my ramblings would change the p.o.v. of a Monk doubter on the selection committee I'd probably go into this a lot more. (No disrespect to anyone)

Monk broke records in his era which IMO should put him in the hall. The argument is over right there is you ask me. It doesn't matter how long it took him to break the record (Ex. Emmitt Smith). If you break records in your own era and own Super Bowl rings (the two biggest accomplishments in the NFL) you'd think after the Pro Bowl the next logical step would be the HOF.

You think about huge catches for the Redskins in the mid 80's/early 90's and you think about Monk. Going deeper into Monk's career and character to justify his selection is (at this point) beating a dead horse. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't paid attention to the selection arguments over the past ten-ish years.

On the other side you have Michael Irvin who (in my mind) was a shoe-in for the hall of fame. He's years departed from pro football but he's still somewhat of a figurehead in the football world. No, I don't believe he's the end all, be all of football knowledge (I think he's far from it actually) but we're constantly reminded of his and the Cowboys fortunes in the early 90's. Reminders which keep his name in peoples' mouths and have obviously benefitted him in HOF voting. "The last dynasty before New England and blah blah blah, etc." You can blame ESPN but I wont go there.

After all the NFL changed rules because of him, much like his safety cowboy counterpart in the current era. Would it really surprise anyone if Roy Williams made the Hall of Fame as a safety, after possibly never even winning a SuperBowl? I have absolutely nothing against the 'United Way' but commercials and publicity like that go a long way...

Monk should be in the hall because of his 'on the field' accomplishments, but unfortunately you make the hall of fame if you're famous and I wouldn't really consider Monk "famous".

Ask yourself one question. If you were in a room with a thousand people, do you think the majority of people would recognize Irvin or do you think they would recognize Monk?

I'm not in the majority.

[UK Skins Fan]

On the Superbowl commentary we got over here in the UK last night, Sterling Sharpe was in the booth (I'm guessing you guys probably had a different commentary team to us).

The HOF was only mentioned once in the commentary in the whole game, and the only person that Sharpe spoke about was Art Monk. No discussion of who got in, or of the other guys that didn't get in, but just Art Monk. Sharpe said he didn't understand why Monk wasn't in yet. He was the guy that everybody other than Jerry Rice wanted to be! And Jerry Rice still admired Monk.

[skinsfan#33]

Also that should be added to this, Irvin got a lot of his stats before the push off rule came into effect, which is also known as the.............M.Irvin Rule. Not hard to catch a ball when your 6'4 and push the DB off of you about 5 yards. After that rule went into effect, Irvins numbers went down.

It wasn't a change to the rules, it was a concerted effort to enforce a rule that was always there, so people call it a rules change. Irvin made offensive pass interference an art form and made the HOF for it. But once he retired the NFL told official not to let anyone else earn a living pushing off.

[Redskins Rule]

Yes, character should count, but Monk was a better player, simply better, than Irvin.

What???

Irvin, over his 12-year career, averaged 13.25 games played a year, 62.5 receptions and 992 receiving yards per season (and yes, this includes the injury or suspension years). Monk averaged 14 games played, 58.75 receptions and 795 receiving yards over his 16 seasons. Irvin averaged 15.9 yards per catch. Monk averaged 13.5. Irvin was in the league's top 10 four times for receptions, six times for yards, five times for touchdown catches and four times for yards from scrimmage. Monk was in the league's top 10 for receptions four times, yards three times, touchdown catches one time and no times for yards from scrimmage. (Let's not forget that Irvin was also competing for the touches against the all-time rushing king). When you go beyond the numbers, where Irvin clearly has the advantage, everyone knows that Irvin was the leader of three Super Bowl winners and of course was the playmaker. Everyone in the stadium knew who was getting the ball on clutch third downs and he would make the play. Is this really a debate?

Maybe I'm biased since I know more about Irvin's career than Monk's, but what do you think of? What did he do but catch a bunch of passes in a pass-oriented offense? What was memorable? Ever see Super Bowl replays of great touchdown catches he made? This is not to minimize Monk's accomplishments, but only to further highlight Irvin's.

Sorry folks, but, the bylaws are the bylaws and people like Lawrence Taylor and Micheal Irvin will still get in because of what they did on the field earned their way into the HOF.

Now, I'm not disrespecting Mr. Monk. It was said in an earlier post that Hank Aaron was a shoe-in for his respective HOF and it goes the same for Cal Ripken (he's an obvious firts ballot vote). When you play at a high level (not outstanding) for that amount of time and with the impact he had on those Redskin teams, you deserve to be in the hall and you disrespect the man if you compare him to Irvin. This wasn't Monk vs. Irvin; this was Monk versus the selection committee.

How many of those catches did Irvin make by "pushing off"? whenver I hear him talking about catching passes on his show. You always here him say "give him a nudge" or "give him a little bump".

Besides, Comparing Irvin to Monk is really dumb when you look at the fact that Art Monk could take hits....Irvin couldn't! Hence, is career ended early.

[Redskin in Canada]

Sports writers outside of DC, hate the skins for whatever reason.

And the ones inside DC hate Snyder for several reasons.

Look guys, it DOES NOT MATTER ANYMORE.

As popularity contests go, the Pro Bowl and the HOF are the result of winning on a given year or over a given period. If we win, we will be respected. If we keep on losing as badly as we have, we should not expect -any- respect from anybody.

In a perfect world, the popularity (or lack thereof) of the owner and the record of a team should not have an impact in this process. The player should stand on its record and its merits alone.

But you have heard it before too: this is an imperfect world, even if some of the Selection Committee feel to be less imperfect than some of us.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Sports writers outside of DC, hate the skins for whatever reason.

And the ones inside DC hate Snyder for several reasons.

Look guys, it DOES NOT MATTER ANYMORE.

As popularity contests go, the Pro Bowl and the HOF are the result of winning on a given year or over a given period. If we win, we will be respected. If we keep on losing as badly as we have, we should not expect -any- respect from anybody.

In a perfect world, the popularity (or lack thereof) of the owner and the record of a team should not have an impact in this process. The player should stand on its record and its merits alone.

But you have heard it before too: this is an imperfect world, even if some of the Selection Committee feel to be less imperfect than some of us.

I've shared the same sentiments before. This franchise is being killed by Snyder. People hate him. No matter what anyone says, journalists hate him, the media hates him, and other owners hate him. He's mocked and ridiculed... People take their hatred for him out on the franchise. We've seen it in action.

For those in denial, everything I just typed isn't real. It isn't reality. We just won the superbowl yesterday. The Skins are a highly respected franchise in the NFL.

It's a shame Monk and others are being treated badly because of spite.

[Irn-Bru]

Sports writers outside of DC, hate the skins for whatever reason.

And the ones inside DC hate Snyder for several reasons.

Look guys, it DOES NOT MATTER ANYMORE.

As popularity contests go, the Pro Bowl and the HOF are the result of winning on a given year or over a given period. If we win, we will be respected. If we keep on losing as badly as we have, we should not expect -any- respect from anybody.

In a perfect world, the popularity (or lack thereof) of the owner and the record of a team should not have an impact in this process. The player should stand on its record and its merits alone.

But you have heard it before too: this is an imperfect world, even if some of the Selection Committee feel to be less imperfect than some of us.

I've given it 48 hours, RiC. I've been mad and kept shaking my head in shame. I want to come to the same conclusion that you have, and I want to believe that the Hall of Fame is irrelevant because of the stupidity in having media writers as voters. But I can't do it.

Believe it or not, I still have respect for the Hall of Fame and see it as the honorable resting place for players' memories that it should be. And I still want to see Monk enshrined at Canton. I wish I could let it go, and I wish I could shrug it off as a meaningless popularity contest, but I simply can't do it.

Monk should be in the Hall.

[welch]

I've said it before, but, for the sake of new folks, I'll repeat the assertion: statistics mean very little outside of fantasy league football.

For example: Monk was far better than any orher WR in his first six years. He went deep, he blocked so well that he could play H-back and the Skins would run from a three-wide ("posse") package. Monk was the main middle-range guy -- down and out to Art -- and the main over-the-middle guy.

When Monk broke a toe -- making a circus catch -- at the end of the '81 season, all the "wise men" in sports "journalism" insisted that the Redskins had no chance in the playoffs leading to SB 17. "One-dimensional" without Monk.

When Monk caught 104 passes, he broke a record, yes, but only he and the previous record-holder had come near that. Before that, 75 - 85 receptions put you at the top. For example, and during a 14 game season, see the year the Taylor, Smith, and Mitchell finsihed 1, 2, and 4 in receptions.

For the stat-obsessed, consider that you are comparing Monk in his 30's against Irvin in his 20's. To be honest, show me a receiver drafted in 1980 who was a good as Monk? Johnny Lam Jones?

Again, for the stat-obsessed, count up the Redskin team that went to SB 18. It has taken 20 years for teams to match their offensive production...and not just time, but severe limitations on the defense.

Yes, the Monk teams had an even balance. Monk did not compete for "touches", as sports entertainment announcers like to call "plays". Joe Gibbs very properly had

- and offensive line that could flatten 95% of all other NFL teams

- Gibbs had a succession of runners -- Riggins, Rogers, Riggs -- who could hit as hard as any of the Hogs. Early in a game, Riggins, remember, liked to swing the end and then run straight at a DB. After the first play, you could see them flinch when the Diesel came their way.

- Gibbs also had a change-up runner: Little Jet Joe Washington, Kelvin Bryant, Timmy Smith, Ervins.

- The H-back was always a tall pass-catcher. As Gibbs said, Clint Didier thought of himself as a WR, even though it was Clint who made the crucial block that sprang Riggins for The Run in SB 17

- Finally, Gibbs had at least one fine WR, and most of the time he had two: "Downtown" Charlie Brown, and then Ricky Sanders and Gary Clark.

In the Gibbs offense, none of them "competed" for "touches". They made their plays and almost no one could stop them. Gibbs balanced his offense.

Consider the "terror Bears". Monk made the catches and runs that broke them down in the playoff leading to SB 21.

Consider two "signature plays", one by Monk and one by Irvin:

- in his rookie season MOnk's Redskins were losing badly to the Cowboys in their second game. First game, for those old enough, ended with Joey T running back through the endzone holding the ball high like a trophy to ensure a Rdskins win. Toward the end of the second game, Monk took a pass over the middle and turned upfield...just like the Syracuse tailback he had been. However, instead of faking the Cowboys safety, Monk adjusted to hit him square, head on, and "pancaked" him. Monk didn't publicize himself, didn't hire a PR firm to invent names like "neon", but he played with overpowering fire.

- in the '92 season, when the young all-star Cowboys were holding to a small lead against the cripped (with injuries) SB Champ Redskins, Aikman faded back in his endzone, loked to Irvin. Right, the reliable go-to guy Michael Irvin. As Aikman started to throw, Darrell Green stepped in fron of Irvin, forcing Aikman to hesitate. Joe Buck plowed over Aikman, knocking the ball loose, and the Redskins recovered for the game-winning TD.

I offer those two as "signature" plays that best explain twinkle-toes Irvin and all-time great Art Monk.

Go deeper than statistics, and you see that Monk was a far better player than Irvin.