The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I think the biggest thing that's being overlooked here is that Monk was the first of his kind. Everybody in the know says that he was the "prototype". He was the standard bearer. He was catching those passes and making those records at a time when no one else was, and he did it with passers that will never be anybody's choice for the HOF.
Irvin had the benefit of having one guy throw the ball to him for his entire career.

Irvin will never be as good as Monk or Gary Clark.

Come on now guys. Are we really comparing these two drastically different recievers. Let us not forget something. Michael Irvin had Troy Aikman whom may i mentioned, Had his career ended by LAVAR ARRINGTON. Irvin had emmitt smith in his prime, he had Deion he had Novachek, so alot of what he accomplished he had alot of surrounding players with him. That doesn't go to say Monk, didn't, but he had how many different qb's in that time, how many different rb's in that time? If Art Monk doesn't get in on this ballot, i am personally going to drive to Canton this year to pee on all the cowboys busts!

_____________________________________________________________
Art Monk:
Nine times during his sterling 16-season career with the Redskins, New York Jets, and Philadelphia Eagles, former Syracuse star exceeded 50 catches in a season and five times he gained more than 1,000 receiving yards in a season. He also set NFL records for most catches in a season (106), and most consecutive games (183) with at least one reception. His consecutive games with a reception streak extended to 183 games. In 1992 he became the NFL's then-all-time leader in receptions with his 820th career catch in a game against the Denver Broncos. He finished his career with 940 receptions.

Please let Monk not make the Hall of Fame this year....

I want to hear the news reports about the Redskins fan who was arrested for peeing on all of the Cowboys Busts....

First of all, like curveball has said, Irvin was not kicked out, he had a spinal injury. I have never been as mad while watching a football game as I was when the Eagles fans cheered as Irvin layed motionless on the field. Another point. Isn't Dexter Manley in prison? Besides that, I'm not exactly sure how using drugs makes someone an evil person. The last time I checked the only person he was hurting was himself. A few other points:

True, Irvin had Emmitt, but unless you are willing to admit that the hogs sucked and the redskins had no running game during Monks career, then this isn't a very good argument.

Michael Irvin did have a great season. He led the league in receiving in 1991 with over 1500 yards.

Irvin finished in the top ten in receptions 4 times, in yardage 6 times, and touchdowns 5 times.

Monk finished in the top ten in receptions 4 times, yardage 3 times, and touchdowns 1 time.

Irvin was also a better post season performer. Irvin played in 16 post season games and Monk played in 15. Irvin averaged 5.4 receptions, 82.1 yards, and .5 touchdowns per game. Monk averaged 4.6 receptions, 70.8 yards, and .46 touchdowns per game.

They each have 3 super bowl victories.

The simple fact is that Irvin is superior to Monk in pretty much every statistical category except career numbers, and that is only because Monk played far longer.

The simple fact is that Irvin is superior to Monk in pretty much every statistical category except career numbers, and that is only because Monk played far longer.

Career stats are one of the most important categories. Career stats are precisely why most guys that are in the hall are there--it's no building for one season wonders (and Irvin isn't that either, before you jump all over that I'm just making my point). Another one of the other major considerations is the intangible "How much did this player contribute to his team's success." You can't prove it with stats, you just have to know the players and have seen them play. Monk devastates Irvin, by comparison, in this category.

And, I'm not sure why I'm hearing the argument that "well, Monk just played longer," as that is yet another reason why he should be in the hall over Irvin. In this case, longevity speaks to excellence.

How was Monk so much more integral to the success of the redskins than Irvin was to the cowboys? The cowboys only had Alvin Harper for 4 years, and even then his best season was 36 receptions, 777 yards, and 5 touchdowns. Jay Novacek was a great tight end, but he wasn't going take any attention away from Irvin. Contrast that with Monk who had Gary Clark who at least should be a hall of fame candidate and Ricky Sanders who had some decent seasons. Both guys had running games. FanfromAnnapolis, career stats don't mean everything. If they did, everyone would consider Emmitt Smith the best running back ever. Besides, its not like Irvin only had 3 good years. He played 11 full seasons. Monk played 15 full seasons and he only had 3 pro bowl appearances to Irvin's 5. If you look at every concievable statistical comparison except for career numbers, Irvin has bested Monk. Why don't you guys just admit that you are biased and move on?

Why don't you just move on? You don't even like professional football, remember?

We are not biased we are knowlegeable about football. Art Monk vs Michael Irvin is the question. Correct? You are on a Redskin board with Redskin fans and you want to know why we are saying what Art Monk did far and exceeds the accomplishments of Michael Irvin. If you want to talk about the greatness of Mr. Irvin you should visit www.dallascowboys.com. When you are done visiting that truly disgusting site, stop by and look up NFL Hall of Fame website which is http://www.profootballhof.com/ ,go down the list of players and tell me that statistics are all that matter in the Hall. That star you have as an icon is a joke, as is your comparison of these two deserving players. By the way i believe Irvin has a place in the Hall but not before Art Monk so there goes your bias, bias would be me saying Irvin doesn't belong at all. As a matter of fact to be quite frank they could move all the dallas cowboys busts and memorabilia to the bathroom section of the Hall and id be quite content with that. That also is not bias, that is simply utter and complete dislike of a certain team. I would even go as so far to dedicate my official "dallas cowboy toilet paper" to go with it. Thanks for your time patrickg68. Go Skins! Go Skins! Go Skins!

I think Patrickg68 was in the same hotel room using drugs with Irvan.The drugs have really scrambled his brain, if he thinks that Irvan is the best thing ever.Hog wash!!!!

i'm beginning to think the HOF is as big of a joke as the pro bowl..... an even bigger retirement popularity contest. the guys that really stand for what the game means only get in after they're dead.

hailskins666 wrote:i'm beginning to think the HOF is as big of a joke as the pro bowl..... an even bigger retirement popularity contest. the guys that really stand for what the game means only get in after they're dead.

I second that...I'm beginning to think Monk has a better chance at winning an Oscar!

May I have the envelope please...the winner for best WR playing a WR in the NFL is?

Russ Grimm!?

First off, I hate what the NFL has become. Believe it or not I actually used to like the NFL. Over the last ten years the NFL has become one big homogenous turd.

Second, I never said that Irvin was the best receiver ever. I was only saying that he was a better receiver than Monk. Virtually every statistic backs me up on that. True, statistics don't mean everything, but if Monk truly was the better player, then tell me how. What made him a better receiver than Irvin?

patrickg68 wrote:True, statistics don't mean everything, but if Monk truly was the better player, then tell me how. What made him a better receiver than Irvin?

he didn't take a job with espn to show how dumb he actually is?

patrickg68 wrote:I was only saying that he was a better receiver than Monk.

You crack me up!!!

Dear Patrick,
Well if we go on the theory that Championships = Success, you do the math Mr. Cowboy Fan. I don't even feel a need after that to clear up why Mr. Art Monk deserves to be in the hall and why he is a better reciever than Michael Irvin. And i guess it helps that Art Monk wasn't caught in a hotel room with cocaine. Hey, but Marion Barry got his job back twice after he got caught so who knows, maybe Irvin will become the next greatest tv pre game show man. OR MAYBE NOT!!! We're probably more likely to see him taking bong hits with Nate Newton.

I hate reducing the comparision to Irvin's piss-poor decision making process. It's fun to joke about it, but LT has shown us that your record off the field has no bearing on your eligibility.
It probably shouldn't, either. Many of the people who belive that Irvin should be held out due to his arrests should examine how they feel about Pete Rose and his ongoing situation in MLB.
At the end of the day, I'd like to see Monk get in because of what he did on the field, not because the competition was culled after a review of their personal issues.

I guess patrick doesn't know how to add or subtract.

Smoking crack has nothing to do with what Irvin did on the field. Even I think he's a dick, but that has nothing to do with what he accomplished as a receiver. I also don't think that the comparisons with Rose are necessarily fair. Rose gambled on baseball and compromised the integrity of the game. The only thing Irvin did was hurt himself.

Now, DCGloryYears, what do you mean by the whole championships argument? The last time I checked, they both had three Super Bowl victories.

How many passes did Michael Irvin catch by Pushing Off?????

I just have to ask that because on ESPN Countdown he always says stuff like, "When you make your cut just give him a 'little nudge' and the ball is there."

Yeah, I'm sure Monk never ever pushed off. Just like I'm sure no Redskins ever used drugs. The cowboys were no different than any other team in the nfl. They had mostly good guys, but because of the high level of media scrutiny on them, the few bad apples on the team got all the publicity.

I still say that it does matter what he did off the field, becuase you are suppose to be a pro athelete.The leauge should not tolerate that kind of behavior.I think this should stand for any player be a redskin,cowboy,eagle or so on.example Dexter Manly,im sorry but no hall of fame title.You are suppose to set examples to reflect the league.Doing drugs should be heavily frowned upon.Im sorry if you play,you pay!!!I think the leauge should impley that if you do that kind of stuff, hall of fame privelages are not there, and other things.You are a pro athelete not a crack head!!!

skinpride1 wrote::P I still say that it does matter what he did off the field, becuase you are suppose to be a pro athelete.The leauge should not tolerate that kind of behavior.I think this should stand for any player be a redskin,cowboy,eagle or so on.example Dexter Manly,im sorry but no hall of fame title.You are suppose to set examples to reflect the league.Doing drugs should be heavily frowned upon.Im sorry if you play,you pay!!!I think the leauge should impley that if you do that kind of stuff, hall of fame privelages are not there, and other things.You are a pro athelete not a crack head!!!

So tellm e skinspride, if you get into the hall of fame and you do something wrong. Should you be taken out.

Also all you Cowboy hating fans, need to get a grip. Irvin was a winner at Miami U. He over came his problems, the ones that occured off the field and never affected his performance. I knew alot of you would be mad once this happened.

You guys never stop...

I won't go into numbers, because everyone else has already. The fact of the matter is this:

Art Monk was a great receiver, who should have been in the HOF long ago. All the records he has set, all the games he played, consecutive catch records, etc. I think it was tcwest who said he was the first of his kind. Yeah, well so was Bullet Bob Hayes, the guy singlehandedly responsible for defensive coordinators creating the zone defense. Bob Hayes had many a record in a time when there weren't many great receivers, and had one of the highest, if not highest YPC average in the league. Yet he is not in the Hall of Fame.

Michael Irvin was the second best WR of his era (To the incomparable Jerry Rice) and there was a period of 2 or 3 years where Irvin was considered by many to be the better of the two. His mistake nothwithstanding (which he was never "convicted" for) how can you say that should bar him from the Hall? If that is your only argument against him, then the guy should be a lock to get in this year. If the biggest cokehead in NFL history can get in(Lawrence Taylor) then a guy who made a mistake, owned up to it, and turned his life around should definitely get in. Especially since he is considered by many to be one of the top receivers of all time. Take into account the fact that his career was ended abruptly because of the infamous Vet turf, he had a lot more to give.

I want to see Art Monk go in, but for you to say Irvin doesn't deserve to go because of one event that happened 9 years ago is ludicrous.

Best case scenario is seeing both.

I think the majority of Redskin fans, like myself, agree that Irvin deserves to be in the HOF. I think the stinger is that Monk isn't already in, so they vent by bagging on Irvin. Art Monk was a great WR and had a huge impact on his team and the NFL. He deserves to be in and it's just ridiculus that he isn't in...

I see Irvin in the same light as Monk. He made a huge impact on his team and the league. Mebbe even moreso than Monk in a shorter time. I think Monk was as good as Irvin, but the redskins had a better total group of WRs, so it took away from Monks numbers quite a bit. If the Skins had lesser WRs and Irvin didn't get injured, I think their career statistics would be very similar and both would be considered top 5 all time...