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

Can people argue their points without resorting to namecalling?

Sure, you're allowed to call someone's posts stupid without violating the rules, but it's still the sign of a weak argument.

Attack someone elses arguments with facts, with contrary evidence if you're honestly trying to engage in a debate.

Just saying "That is a stupid post" not only does nothing factual to diminish my argument but shows your arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own without first taking a shot at mine.

It's like when you hit on a girl you know is seeing someone (not seriously, but maybe have been on one or two dates with.) You wouldn't just go up to her and start talking smack about the guy, because that shows you aren't confident in yourself, tearing someone else down isn't the way to impress anyone.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Can people argue their points without resorting to namecalling?

How about informing yourself before disrespecting one of the greatest Redskin of ALL time?

I provided some true information for your education in the Smack forum. This thread is NOT about you. It is about the original topic.

You still do not get it, do you?

lol, yes, Art Monk is one of the greatest Redskins of all time...

But he is NOT one of the greatest WR's of all time.

See the difference?

How, HOW is it disrespect to say Monk was a great Redskin but falls short of being one of the greatest wideouts ever?

Explain that.

No, seriously, before you post anything else explain how disrespect = saying Monk is not one of the best WR's ever in the history of the sport.

Explain how not bestowing Monk with the highest honor afforded to any former NFL player is a slap in his face.

Answer, you can't, you can't POSSIBLY make that argument.

What you're doing ammounts to a temper tantrum.

Hey, if in a few years the voters won't put Todd Helton in the MLB Hall of Fame, or recognize other players I grew up loving and watching I'd be livid too, I'd be angry, I'd yell, I'd curse the writters, but I wouldn't start attacking everyone who disagreed with me like I was a toddler not wanting to share my toys.

Skinsfan55 wrote:lol, yes, Art Monk is one of the greatest Redskins of all time...

But he is NOT one of the greatest WR's of all time.

See the difference?

This is the MOST hypocritical post I have ever had the displeasure to read in this board.

You know that PLENTY of information was already posted in a post in the Smack forum. You have read it. You responded -after- it was posted.

This attitude is as DISHONEST as the arguments of your beloved Peter King. I can see why you love him.

Redskin in Canada wrote: Your post is so IGNORANT and STUPID that it is not worth even discussing it.

I wish I had stuck to this line. What a waste of time!

Wow, what a joke that post was.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore, trying to have a rational conversation with you is like debating politics with an angry drunk.

You've completely lost all objectivity, rationality and ability to argue in a civilized manner.

Instead of just leaving it at "I think Monk is a Hall of Famer and you don't" you have to use the loopholes of the board to lob insults, question my standing as a fan and generally make an arse of yourself because I disagree.

Seriously, grow up.

Just a public reminder:


I would say that you ought to start a Smack Thread to contain all personal attacks. . .


. . .except that there is ALREADY a thread in Smack.


Keep it clean if it's going to be in Hogwash. Please and thank you.

SkinsFan55 - Well, I made an unoffensive, respectful argument that you haven't responded to (the Pete Rose analogy). What's your counter for that?

What do you mean, I guess I don't understand how Art Monk is like Pete Rose...

Pete Rose was an accumulator too, but he was an All-Star 17 times over the course of a 20 year span (he played 24 seasons.)

He won an MVP

He won 2 Gold Gloves

He won Rookie of the Year

He had 3 batting titles, led the league in on base percentage twice, led in hits 7 times and won 3 WS rings (in 6 trips.)

So not only was he there a long time, he was one of the best at his position year in and year out along with beuing otherwise impressive.

Also, the stats he accumulated are ones that are WAY above and beyond.

Monk accumulated a lot of really impressive stats. But IMO he falls JUST short of the Hall.

His numbers have nothing else especially significant attached to them.

Did Monk ever lead the league in yards? TD's? No, only in catches.

Was Monk ever the best WR in football? No, probably not.

Only in 1984 would I even say he was in the top 5 best WR in football, and for my money, Gary Clark was a better player.

Heck, John Madden even put Clark on his All-Madden team of the 90's... and guess who wasn't on it? Monk.

Even my friend that is a huge Cowboys fan says that Monk should be in the hall of fame. How's that for respect. Peter King is an idiot.

I just did a quick study on Monk's recieving yards compared to other Hall of Famers. In order to be able to compare Monk's yardage to players from different eras, I took the player's yards per game and divided it by the league's passing yards per game. This allows us to look at how many yards a player was producing relative to the rest of the NFL (or in some cases, the AFL).

As an example, Santana Moss had 1483 yards in 16 games this past season, a 92.7 yards per game average. In the 512 games teams played this season, the total passing yardage in the NFL was 104,171, coming to 203.5 yards per game. That ratio (Moss's yards per game divided by NFL's yards per game) comes to .456. The higher the number, the better.

Just two quick notes before the results. I have all the raw data on this, but since I don't know how to use the "code" function (although I would still love to find out if someone knows), I'm only going to post the final numbers in an effort to keep it as clean as possible. Also, Elroy Hirsch, Bobby Mitchell and Charley Taylor began their careers as running backs, so I have excluded those seasons.

PLAYER (Career Total, Career Best)
Lance Alworth (.396, .551)
Elroy Hirsch (.357, .404)
Tom Fears (.339, .499)
Don Maynard (.336, .497)
Bobby Mitchell (.327, .482)
Steve Largent (.310, .415)
Raymond Berry (.302, .567)
Paul Warfield (.302, .409)
Charley Taylor (.300, .413)
Pete Pihos (.284, .451)
Tommy McDonald (.279, .405)
James Lofton (.278, .363)
Dante Laveli (.267, .337)
Fred Biletnikoff (.264, .382)
Charlie Joiner (.258, .382)
John Stallworth (.258, .382)
Art Monk (.256, .376)
Lynn Swann (.247, .330)

The results are pretty clear. In terms of recieving yards, Monk doesn't measure up to the other recievers (with the exception of Swann). Lance Alworth actually had a better career mark than Monk's finest season (1984). You would probably find even less favorable results with touchdown receptions, but obviously far better results with receptions. Depending on the interest in this post, I might put those numbers together as well.

Monk, in my opinion, is a fringe candadite, and the stats back that up. The only player that is clearly inferior to him is Swann (who probably shouldn't be in the Hall at all), and he had to wait 19 years after his retirement to be inducted into the Hall. It will probably have to be a similar wait for Monk, if he is ever to get in.

If anyone wants the raw data, PM me and I'll e-mail it to you. It's some pretty interesting stuff.

Wow, way to put in the research SSIII.

As a Political Scientist in training we're taught how to attack people's studies and question their methods and numbers but I just can't find a hole in this equation.

Lynn Swann was probably not as good a reciever as Art Monk but he was helped by famous moments in the sport that he was a part of. This is probably unfair, but if the best argument for Monk is also against Swann I don't think he has a leg to stand on.

I see some validity to FFA's statement that Art Monk was a different kind of reciever, the kind who didnt score or rack up a bunch of yards often but who was solid and productive at getting first downs.

Still, he's a fringe canidate and may never get in. He's also not helped by a lack of defining moments and "flash"

Ok, but...

He had the most catches in the history of the NFL. He had the longest string of at least one catch in a game. He was the first player ever to have more than a hundred catches in a season. He helped the team to four Superbowls. And oh yea....

Joe Gibbs says he belongs there.

SSIII - great analysis. Now can you compare Monk to the WR's of his era? When looking at two distinct things it is instrumental in avoiding comparing the apples to oranges even though they are essentially both fruit. Yes one can compare Monk to other HOF'ers and that is a valid comparison (kudos) but another comparison is how he stacked up agaisnt the WR's of his day.

I'm not knocking your research as it is impressive and it shows Monk down the list against HOF'ers. But as I and other people have pointed out, Monk played on a run-first team in a different era than today or before. So can you compare him to the WR's of his day? I'd be interested in seeing how he stacks up against those WR's. Note that if you could also compare Monk to other WR's that were on pass first offenses and run first offenses during that era that would be great too.

Regardless... I hope I speak for everyone here (maybe not you SF55) in saying that Monk deserves to be in the HOF regardless of how long it takes (IMHO it shouldn't be 19 years like Swann)

Steve Spurrier III wrote:I just did a quick study on Monk's recieving yards compared to other Hall of Famers.

A normalised annual statistic is an interesting estimate. Like all statistical measures, it pretty tells you only one aspect of a player.

The untold story about this analysis is that:

1) it puts players with vastly different years as a player on the same level. It is not the same to attain certain numbers over five years than over 15 years. In other words (and in the stochastic case), the probability value associated with each statistical estimate changes vastly from one player to the next.

2) The total number of yards does not tell the whole story about the quality of those yards. What would the Redskins have given to have Art Monk instead of Taylor Jacobs in the playoff game against Seatle? No, he may not have produced even a 100 yard game but the quality of those receiving yards at a time when the chains needed to be moved would have made the difference between victory and defeat, as it did in numerous games during his tenure.

3) The statistic ignores the fact that the Redskins were not a deep pass threat team and, the few instances when they were at the time, other speedier receivers, such as Clark and Sanders, were chosen to be the targets.

It is the WHOLE package that makes Art Monk a worthy HOF inductee.

I take note of the fact that you have never responded to the stats that I presented:

Regular Season

Player___________Career__Receptions_____Yards_____TD's

Charlie Joiner_____1969-86_____750________12146______65
James Loften_____1978-93_____764________14,004_____75
Steve Largent____1976-89_____813________13,089____100
Art Monk________1980-94_____940________12,721_____68
John Stallworth___1974-87_____537_________8,723_____63
Lynn Swann______1974-82_____336_________5,462_____51

Playoffs

Player________Games___Receptions___Yds___TD's___SB Rings

Charlie Joiner_____8________33_______599_____5_____0
James Loften____12________41_______749_____8_____0
Steve Largent____7________23_______434_____4_____0
Art Monk________15________69_____1,062_____7_____3
Lynn Swann_____13________43_______830_____8_____3
John Stallworth___15________52_____1,014____12_____3

Super Bowls

Player________Games_Receptions_Yds__TD's__SB Rings

Charlie Joiner____0_______0_______0____0____0
James Loften____2_______8_____153____0____0
Steve Largent___0_______0_______0____0____0
Art Monk________3_______9_____179____0____3
Lynn Swann_____3______16_____364____3____3
John Stallworth___3_______8_____244____3____3

next page

thaiphoon wrote:So can you compare him to the WR's of his day? I'd be interested in seeing how he stacks up against those WR's. Note that if you could also compare Monk to other WR's that were on pass first offenses and run first offenses during that era that would be great too.

I don't think a study is needed to prove that Monk was one of the best recievers of his era. Besides, we are trying to determine whether or not Monk belongs in the Hall, not on the 1980's All-Decade Team.

The run-first pass-first question is a good one, but there are two problems. First, teams often decide whether or not to be run-heavy or pass-heavy depending on their personel. Some of the teams that the Hall of Famers were on were pass-heavy teams because of the Hall of Famer (if that makes any sense).

Second, I'm not entirely sold on the fact that Monk played on strictly run-heavy teams. Obviously the Redskins did quite a bit of it over the years, but the 1983 and 1991 teams, for example, were very proficent through the air.

I will definitly take a look at the pass-heavy/run-heavy thing tomorrow (it's pretty time-consuming), and will also try to add the receptions and touchdown receptions breakdowns as well. Thanks for the suggestion.

Again, I send out a plea to anyone who knows to use/fix the "code" function on this website. It would make all this much easier.

The funniest part about this whole debate is how passionate the "he should be in!" people get when in fact by "stats", "pro bowl appearances", "professional opinions of the majority of people who saw and played with or around Monk", "comparison to other probowl members", etc. the only conclusion you can really come to is that Art is clearly a fringe guy.

It seems that just because Art is a Redskin, some of you are quite biased, when in fact you should be able to simply admit that he is clearly a fringe guy that "could" get in eventually, but who probably should not.

(Oh..and I can't wait for RIC to tell me I'm disrespectful and a complete moron for stating the obvious)

Thanks SSIII - I thank you for trying to do another analysis that includes another aspect.

I take issue (cheerfully) with only a ferw things...

I don't think a study is needed to prove that Monk was one of the best recievers of his era. Besides, we are trying to determine whether or not Monk belongs in the Hall, not on the 1980's All-Decade Team.

So... things like the 5 yard bump rule and changes in Pass interference calling won't affect how many yards a WR gets?? There are other factors that influence why certain WR's now are getting more yards than before which is why we need to compare the player to the era in which he plays as well as those who are already in. The problem you get when you look at it the way you're looking at it is that with each passing year and each year that the NFL competition committe votes another rule to "open up offenses" and increase scoring, you'll see Monk fall further down the list.

The run-first pass-first question is a good one, but there are two problems. First, teams often decide whether or not to be run-heavy or pass-heavy depending on their personel. Some of the teams that the Hall of Famers were on were pass-heavy teams because of the Hall of Famer (if that makes any sense).

Yes I understand and it makes sense. However, it still plays apart in the stats the player gets.

2) The total number of yards does not tell the whole story about the quality of those yards. What would the Redskins have given to have Art Monk instead of Taylor Jacobs in the playoff game against Seatle? No, he may not have produced even a 100 yard game but the quality of those receiving yards at a time when the chains needed to be moved would have made the difference between victory and defeat, as it did in numerous games during his tenure.

-This point doesn't even make sense. The quality of yards?

Quality yards are ones that end in scores. Are you saying that Art Monk was a sort of Point Guard who set OTHERS up to score more often? That's not really recognized in football.

Also, there's no numbers, and not much subjective value placed on how many first downs he could convert.

Yeah, Monk was good, but even if I were to accept all of your arguments for him (I won't some are ridiculous) then I would still say he falls short.

3) The statistic ignores the fact that the Redskins were not a deep pass threat team and, the few instances when they were at the time, other speedier receivers, such as Clark and Sanders, were chosen to be the targets.

-So what you're saying is Monk wasn't able to fulfill his potential because of Clark and Sanders?

That's ridiculous.

The idea that Monk would have had better numbers if he'd been used as the deep guy is also irrellevant.

You're really grasping at straws RiC.

The only way you can make a serious, serious case for Monk is with a pair of burgundy and gold tinted glasses.

He was a great Redskins, but not an all time great NFL player.

Redskin in Canada wrote:The untold story about this analysis is that:

1) it puts players with vastly different years as a player on the same level. It is not the same to attain certain numbers over five years than over 15 years. In other words (and in the stochastic case), the probability value associated with each statistical estimate changes vastly from one player to the next.

I hear what you are saying about longevity, but I'm not sure how important that really is. All of the Hall of Famers spent at least seven years in the league, and most had well over ten like Monk.

Redskin in Canada wrote:2) The total number of yards does not tell the whole story about the quality of those yards. What would the Redskins have given to have Art Monk instead of Taylor Jacobs in the playoff game against Seatle? No, he may not have produced even a 100 yard game but the quality of those receiving yards at a time when the chains needed to be moved would have made the difference between victory and defeat, as it did in numerous games during his tenure.

That may be true. But unless you have some sort of "quality catch" metric (something combining catches for first downs and touchdowns, or something of that sort), you can't just assume that Monk was better at it than all of the other guys. (And for the record, I think Monk is better than Taylor Jacobs.)

Redskin in Canada wrote:3) The statistic ignores the fact that the Redskins were not a deep pass threat team and, the few instances when they were at the time, other speedier receivers, such as Clark and Sanders, were chosen to be the targets.

I'll take a look at the run-heavy, pass-heavy argument (one that may have validity). I don't really buy the Clark/Sanders argument. By my statistic above, Monk's best season came in 1984 (before Clark and Sanders arrived). But his yards per catch (12.9) was one of the lowest of his career, and actually went up once Clark and Sanders joined the team. If Clark and Sanders were taking away Monk's deep balls, shouldn't his YPC go down once the duo arrived?

Redskin in Canada wrote:I take note of the fact that you have never responded to the stats that I presented:

Sorry, I was trying to add a new perspective to the discussion. If you want to repost the numbers, I'd be happy to respond.

thaiphoon wrote:So... things like the 5 yard bump rule and changes in Pass interference calling won't affect how many yards a WR gets?? There are other factors that influence why certain WR's now are getting more yards than before which is why we need to compare the player to the era in which he plays as well as those who are already in. The problem you get when you look at it the way you're looking at it is that with each passing year and each year that the NFL competition committe votes another rule to "open up offenses" and increase scoring, you'll see Monk fall further down the list.

Right, but the point is that the new rules will affect all the recievers equally. Recievers today may be getting higher and higher yardage totals, but they shouldn't be getting higher Yards per Game/League Yards per Game. (Santana Moss had a YPG/LYPG of .456 in 2005 while Tom Fears had a YPG/LYPG of .473 in 1948.)

Riggmonkman wrote:It seems that just because Art is a Redskin, some of you are quite biased, when in fact you should be able to simply admit that he is clearly a fringe guy that "could" get in eventually, but who probably should not.

(Oh..and I can't wait for RIC to tell me I'm disrespectful and a complete moron for stating the obvious)

I am quite happy to disagree and exchange views with intelligent posters. SSSIII and I have had long debates over this issue.

The last time we exchanged views he stated that he was convinced that Art Monk would be a Hall of Famer. He said that it was a matter of time. We may have even agreed that the mechanism put in place to elect inductees was the main reason at fault.

But that is -one- thing. Quite another is that Art Monk is not a worthy member of the HOF. Call me biased if you might. But do so together with a hell of a lot other highly respected people, including Joe Gibbs, who are on my side.

I can not believe that several of you are actually arguing on his merits. It is a sad day on this board for me.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:That may be true. But unless you have some sort of "quality catch" metric (something combining catches for first downs and touchdowns, or something of that sort), you can't just assume that Monk was better at it than all of the other guys. (And for the record, I think Monk is better than Taylor Jacobs.)

That is the problem about statistics and quantification in general. It is VERY difficult to quantify quality.

There are several INTANGIBLES that are difficult if not impossible to quantify when it comes to this subject. I am not saying that numbers are not important. They are. And my point all along is that Art's numbers alone at least compare quite favourably against or are better than other already inducted HOFers.

But there are other qualitative factors that must be kept in mind. Such as the role that a player had in the collective game to allow others and the system to shine.

Hey! Stephen, the first poster in the article by Peter King had it right when he emphasised the effective but low-key way in which Art made the whole Redskins offense work.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Sorry, I was trying to add a new perspective to the discussion. If you want to repost the numbers, I'd be happy to respond.

Done in a post above.

Redskin in Canada wrote:That is the problem about statistics and quantification in general. It is VERY difficult to quantify quality.

It's possible to quantify the quality you speak of, it's just that we don't have the best statistics available to us. You won't be able to wrap up everything into one number, but it's a tool we need to utilize.

Regular Season

Player___________Career__Receptions_____Yards_____TD's

Charlie Joiner_____1969-86_____750________12146______65
James Loften_____1978-93_____764________14,004_____75
Steve Largent____1976-89_____813________13,089____100
Art Monk________1980-94_____940________12,721_____68
John Stallworth___1974-87_____537_________8,723_____63
Lynn Swann______1974-82_____336_________5,462_____51

Playoffs

Player________Games___Receptions___Yds___TD's___SB Rings

Charlie Joiner_____8________33_______599_____5_____0
James Loften____12________41_______749_____8_____0
Steve Largent____7________23_______434_____4_____0
Art Monk________15________69_____1,062_____7_____3
Lynn Swann_____13________43_______830_____8_____3
John Stallworth___15________52_____1,014____12_____3

Super Bowls

Player________Games_Receptions_Yds__TD's__SB Rings

Charlie Joiner____0_______0_______0____0____0
James Loften____2_______8_____153____0____0
Steve Largent___0_______0_______0____0____0
Art Monk________3_______9_____179____0____3
Lynn Swann_____3______16_____364____3____3
John Stallworth___3_______8_____244____3____3

I'm not sure what these numbers really tell us other than the fact that Monk played longer than some of these other guys (and that Lynn Swann doesn't deserve to be in the Hall).

Steve Spurrier III wrote:I'm not sure what these numbers really tell us other than the fact that Monk played longer than some of these other guys (and that Lynn Swann doesn't deserve to be in the Hall).

The operating word being "some" here.

But be fair! It is actually only -ONE- HOFer in this list with fewer seasons than Monk!

There is Joiner (18 seasons), Largent (14 seasons), Loften (16 seasons), and Stallworth (14 seasons) against Art Monk (14 seasons).

Only Swann (8 seasons) has fewer seasons than Monk. Come on!

So, we can not compare the raw statistics of Monk against players that had at least the same seasons or more? Why?

Their seasons overlapped at least some of the seasons in which they played. They are the nearest players in the HOF to compare against.