What is up with Monk not yet admitted to the Hall of Fame?

[DEHog]

Bob Hayes

[tcwest10]

Bob Hayes, the Cowboys receiver ?
Okay, friend.
Hayes was a fast guy. At one point (67-68), they considered him to be the fastest guy in the league, if not the world. In the 1964 Olympics, he picked up a Gold Medal for his country. I respect that more than you know.
In three years, 212 catches for 45 scores ( a whopping 21% of his receptions were for scores).
He finished with 341 catches for 7414 yards and 71 touchdowns over 11 years. This is extremely comparable to anybody, (including Alworth, Largent and Monk) except Jerry Rice. He certainly changed the way the secondary covers a receiver.
IMHO, I can't reconcile his personal issues and prison time. The man was a doper, through and through. While this may or may not have affected his play, I got to go with the character guy here to represent the very best we have to offer.

[DEHog]

Andre Reed

[tcwest10]

Wait, I'm not done with

[DEHog]

Check your PM

[tcwest10]

Wait, I'm not done with Hayes yet.
1965 Dallas Cowboys 7-7
1966 10-3-1
1967 9-5
1968 12-2
1969 11-2-1
1970 10-4
1971 11-3 (SB win)
1972 10-4
1973 10-4
1974 (Hayes' last year in Dallas) 8-6
After Hayes...
1975 10-5
1976 11-3
1977 12-2
It's the A-Rod (with the Rangers) argument.
Were you that much better because he was there ? Where did you finish when he wasn't ?
Note the consistancy in the record of the Cowboys after Hayes went to SF.
Who's next ? Andre Reed ?
How many SuperBowls there ?

[welch]

Andre Reed

???

I'm just passing through tonight, but:

Hayes was good, but not in the same class as our own Bobby Mitchell and Charlie Taylor, who played during the same era. I think Mitchell, more than Hayes, changed the WR. Consider that year when the entire Redskin offense was Norm Snead throwing about 90 miles downfield to Bobby Mitchell...wasn't there a loss to the champion Giants (the YA Tittle Giants) of about 65 - 49, when Snead threw about 7 TD passes?

*

Compare to Monk, and notice that Monk (a) set the league record for receptions in a season -- 106 or so...on a team with a balanced attack -- (b) broke Largent's total receptions record, and (c) broke the record for consecutive games with a reception.

Go to Ray Berry's stats and compare...teams threw less, so Berry had fewer catches than an average receiver today. But he was one of the two or three best of his day.

Same for Monk.

What did Monk NOT do?

(a) Never boasted, never made jazzy news copy, never said much to anyone. He just played winning football.

(b) Never caught a TD in a Super Bowl. He only was healthy for two SB's, and I think he caught a TD in SB 26...it was called back by replay, but I think the replay showed he was pushed out. Even so, I think -- have to check -- that he was the leading receiver in the game.

**

Andre Reed? Find a tape of SB 26, and watch Monk and Reed, same field, same big game. Reed kept dropping passes under pressure, and Monk kept catching them. Reed lost his temper after being hit so hard, so often, by Brad Edwards, the Redskins safety.

A special moment, a Michael Westbrook moment: end of the first half, Bills within FG range, trailing 17-0, and Reed drops a pass after a hard hit by Edwards. Reed thinks it was interference, and, when no flag is dropped, he pulls of his helmet and slams it into the turf.

Flag: unsportmanlike conduct, and the Bills are pushed out of range.

Not a game-turning momement, sure, because the score might have been 17-3, and we know the Skins came out in the 2nd half and tore the Bills apart...remember Jumpy Gaithers in coverage, Andre Collins bliztes up the middle, Jim Kelley panics, and throws a perfect pass to Kurt Gouveia, who returns it to the 1 or 2. Bang, Redskins TD, game over.

But compare Reed under pressure to Monk under pressure. Who played big? Recall that Reed played in the no-huddle gimic short-pass offense...an offsense that ran up statistics...

**

Sumary:

- Monk was always the featured receiver on a team that was 16-5 in playoffs. (He was hurt during two of those playoff runs, but he was the main receiver who got them there.) Monk was a big-time player on teams that played under the highest pressure, and won.

- Monk set all the records that were available to be set in his time

- The only negative about him is that he didn't have an agent who got him starring roles in the movies. He didn't date super-models. He didn't appear on MTV. He didn't get a job as a TV commentator. He didn't put advertisements on his helmet or a neck scarf, or put messages on his socks. So????

[DEHog]

Andre Reed
Henry Ellard
Cliff Branch
Drew Person
Cris Carter
Mark Clayton
TC here's a list of a few WR that may give Monk a run. Yes I believe Monk deserves to get in... I'm just trying to help you out...you said you needed some agruments. Also I hope Monk get in soon because there are quite a few WR getting ready to retire that are going in, Monk could get left behind by the likes of..

Rice
Tim Brown
Rod Smith
Issac Bruce
Antonio Freeman

[tcwest10]

Andre Reed : 951 for 13,198, 13.9 per 87 scores (15 seasons)
Henry Ellard: 814 for 13777, 16.9 per, 65 scores (16 seasons)
Cliff Branch: 501 for 8685 17.3 per 67 scores (13 seasons)
Drew Pearson: 489 for 7822 16.0 per 48 scores (10 seasons)
Cris Carter: 1101 for 13899 12.6 per 130 scores (15 Seasons)
Mark Clayton: 582 for 8974 15.4 per 84 scores (10 seasons)
Art Monk: 940 for 12721 13.5 per 68 scores (15 seasons)

Pro Bowl Years:
Andre Reed: 7
Henry Ellard: 3
Cliff Branch: 4
Drew Pearson: 3
Cris Carter: 8 (Chatty Cathy, wasn't he ?)
Mark Clayton: 5
Art Monk: 3

[DEHog]

Wow good numbers, good company that was just off the top of my head...I sure there're others. Reed and Carter are shoe-ins!!

[tcwest10]

They most certainly are. Here's my thing, though. Monk should've been in years ago. After all, he retired after the '95 season. Why is it, that eight years later, he still isn't there ? The bottom line, to my mind, is that he was not a media-friendly guy. They are stickin' it to him for being quiet.
The loud ones get in.
It's crap, and it's mainly due to the fact that each and every selector is a media rep for a certain area. A canvass of former Head Coaches would certainly get Monk in. Reed, for example, was a Prima Donna. If the Bills lost a game, he'd say it was because they didn't get the ball to him, although I'd love to show his drops next to his receptions. How often did Monk drop ? Nearly never. Reed ? All you had to do was hit him once and he was out of his game.
Much like Gambit.

[ChiliPalmer]

I like to make a similar arguement about Jim Rice in baseball. He offered nothing for the people who vote for the HOF. I fail to see how that changes, in any way, what he did on the field. If you watched him, you knew. If you didn't, you need something else. Monk offered little beyond what really mattered. Same with Jim Rice. Actually, Rice was kinda surly with the media, Monk wasn't surly, he just wasn't a fool wearing burgundy and gold suits accented with "dollar sign" bling.

I don't know Art Monk, but I hope he's happy knowing that those who watched him know that he was among the very elite all-time players on one of the very elite all-time sports franchises. The Football and Baseball HOF are both suspect, to put it mildly, so to take inclusion as too high an honor, or exclusion as too mighty a shun, may be ill-advised. Writers, in my opinion, belong "among" the voters, but to leave them solely responsible GREATLY diminishes the validity of any honor they bestow. Just as foolish as leaving it to only fans, or only former players. There should be a very large blue-ribbon panel which represents a cross-section of those who make the sport what it is. Writers, fans, former players, coaches, stat freaks, and so on. For instance, I want a defensive coordinator's opinion of an offensive skill-player's value much more than I want Michael Wilbon's. Regardless of Wilbon's opinion on Monk, I just can't listen to it and say "okay, that's what my opinion should be." I enjoy reading him and Kornheiser, but when I read, year after year, articles by the two of them, almost directly saying "this is the Wizard's year" or "Hiring Spurrier is the move the Skins needed to put them back on top", all I can say is, at least it's funny. And this is the ilk we trust the HOF voting to?

Give me the opinion of Jim Palmer on Jim Rice...Give me Joe Bugel's opinion on Reggie White. But I only want Wilbon's opinion to mean something if I go into the business of selling Wizard's T-shirts.

[tcwest10]

Amen, Chili. Amen.