Green, Grimm, Monk finalists for HOF

[DEHog]

55…very hard to compare Monk to today’s WR. I think when you look at HOF'ers you have to judge them during their era. I'm not impressed at all with what Brady did this year...the TD record will be broken soon enough. There's just no arguing that Monk was one of the best in his era. Anytime you leave the game as the number 1 guy in a "positive" category you have to be considered a HOFer. To compare him to Carter is unfair, different era…look at the numbers that are going up in the game today?????

[Warmother]

Did you ever see Monk play?
Monk could have scored more TD's had the Redskins not had such a great running game. When they would get inside the 10 yd line the Hogs would pave the way for Riggins, Byner, Riggs etc to get to the endzone, oh yeah on the jumbo packages Monk lined up tight and became a hog. He wasn't replaced by a extra o-lineman or TE.
If they kept a stat that Monk would have been a leader of it would be getting first downs. When it was 3rd down and whatever Monk very rarely did not get the first down when the ball came his way.
Monk was a great football player, not just a reciever. If you saw him play over the years there is no doubt about his HOF credentials.

[Skinsfan55]

I'm not trying to compare Monk to today's players, or by todays game.

Monk's contemporaries were guys like Henry Ellard, Steve Largent, Jerry Rice, Andre Reed, Andre Rison, Mark Clayton, James Lofton, John Stallworth, Irving Fryar, and others. All of these players were at least as good as Art Mont and most were better.

Art Monk's only real case IMO is longevity, but I just don't think you should be in the HOF just for being good for a long time. You need to be great. The HOF is a museum and putting a good player in there because they played for a long time is like putting an ugly painting in a museum just because it's very old.

[Irn-Bru]

but Chris Carter scored touchdowns and was considered a top receiver, where are Monk was only considered above average

By whom? At the time he retired, it was popular in the media to refer to Monk as "future hall of famer Art Monk".

[Skinsfan55]

but Chris Carter scored touchdowns and was considered a top receiver, where are Monk was only considered above average

By whom? At the time he retired, it was popular in the media to refer to Monk as "future hall of famer Art Monk".

The local media?

Look, I am a die hard Red Sox fan in addition to being a Skins fan, and yet every year when the topic of Jim Rice's HOF candidacy comes up, I just can't understand the big deal with why he ought to be in the HOF. He just doesn't seem worthy of induction (though, he and Monk's arguments are pretty much opposite. Rice was great for just a few years where as Monk was good for many.)

I've seen how people can be homers for their candidate in two sports and the best arguments are based on facts, not what reporters said at the time.

[Irn-Bru]

The local media?

No: NFL films. Coaches press conferences. Print media.

[JansenFan]

I hope people also see some fans steer the argument about Monk's HOF candidacy away from facts by saying anyone who disagrees has an alternate agenda (that they just want attention.) Obviously no one could disagree based on the facts...

I can't speak for everyone, but I didn't take the time to refute the arguments in your posts because they've been refuted exhaustively every year since I've been on this board. Your opinion is your opinion. You think your opinion is the only correct one (as usual), and you present it by picking out a few stats you think support your argument and mixing it with conjecture. SSIII makes a decent argument worth refuting. Your arguments are fairly weak (as usual) and contrarian to popular opinion (as usual, hence the seeking attention comment), and frankly, not worth the time it takes to put together a proper response.

[Irn-Bru]

I agree. . .I was assuming that SF55 had looked at the statistical debate, which (unless you're out to get Monk) favors his induction. His further comment that Monk was 'considered to be an above-average receiver' was an additional point that needed smashing, which is why I chimed in. Calling Monk an above-average receiver at best is an invention of this decade, not the era in which he played.

[VetSkinsFan]

To say that Monk was not the best receiver, I can buy that. To say that Monk doesn't deserve to be inducted into the HoF with the stats he has compared to the stats of some of his peers is simply ignorant. The HoF is based upon careers, not an individual season(s) broken down and trivialized based upon an out of context detail against someone who has a better detail. The man was/is/will be a legend and that's a fact. ANYONE who watched football in the 80s knows who Art Monk was and anyone who knows anything about the Redskins in the 80s KNOWS that they're known for run first (HOGS AND RIGGINS anyone??!!??) To, yourself, note Riggins accomplishments trying to pale Monks accomplishments supports the opinion (fact to some) that you are trying to trivialize (which is a lonely opinion on this board!).

[LOSTHOG]

I remember Parcells who was still with the Giants at the time in a post game news conference said something to the effect that Art Monk is headed to the HOF on roller skates. In 16 seasons 2were shortened by strikes. He also had a toe injury in 82 and a knee injury in 87 causing him to miss a lot of our post seson play as well. That is probably what hurts him the most. He had a 3 game year with the Eagles that still in history counts as one of his 16 seasons.

To go further inside why his numbers were not more eye popping look at the team. The argument that 55 made helps prove the point. We did also have Clark and Sanders. Gibbs said it many times that Monk didn't cry in the huddles begging for the ball, he was a team guy. If had been more of an egomaniac like todays prima donnas that over celebrate doing nothing more than the job they are paid to do, he would have had earth shattering stats. Would that have made the team better? Probably not, in fact I dare say it would work against the teams success. In 89 all three receivers had 1000 yds. Did Irvin ever have anyone on the other side that was also successful? No. He was the guy, everything had to go through him.

Monk was more than a receiver. Anyone who ever watched him play knows this. Not only would he block downfield against DBs for the running game, but often he would cut inside and seal off LBs. Try to find that in your stat sheets.

The final thing I will say in comparison to yesterdays and todays receivers is the rules have changed. There was a time when pass interference was just that. None of this breathing on a guy too hard that gets called today. Corners used to be able to really body up on receivers. Today guys get to run unmolested all over the secondary because the NFL put in rules that prohibits the DB from almost all contact. Why? The NFL found fans like more scoring and excitement opening up the pass first NFL that we now see today with all these "me first" receivers that will end up with higher numbers than Monk. Unfortunately too many people that either are too young to have seen Monk in his prime, or just doesn't understand the game have votes for the HOF. Thus a guy like Mike Irvin gets the nod before Monk.
Older guys like myself can tell you that Drew Pearson was a better receiver than Irvin, but to these young guys stats don't lie. So a classy Cowboy receiver is out when all around crackhead jerk is in. The HOF is becoming a joke.

[spenser]

Does anyone have the link to that Art monk Video that someone put together to send to the voters? That, to me, was very valid, and disputed every myth (never had a signature catch, made a carrear of 10 yard outs etc..) that so called "experts" use to deny him.

[LOSTHOG]

Anyone remember the game in Atlanta in 91 when Rypien threw 6tds. The Falcons tried both Deion Sanders and Tim McKeyer on Monk. I think Monk had like 170 yds and 2 TDs. Clark had something like 200 yds and three TDs. Looking back, Deion was as mouthy then as now.

[RedskinsFreak]

This debate centers on many things other than stats.

An assessment based solely on numbers is totally baseless. (Curse you, Bill James!)

You HAVE to have seen him play -- in the context of a full game or a full season.

Video highlights don't do him justice. He wa hardly flashy and he doesn't have that signature "NFL Films moment" -- one that gets replayed repeatedly during all that Super Bowl programming we'll see in the next month.

But those who saw him play don't need a single statistic to know who he was or what he was.

But, to throw one in -- when he retired, he was #1 all-time in doing what people at his position do.

[Redskin in Canada]

When will you people realize that posts like this are just a cry for attention and ignore them?

I have. Others have. IGNORANT AND STUPID screams for attention deserve nothing but to be left in the garbage trash can they came from.

Respect is earned or lost by each and every poster based on his/her track record in this board. Each post speaks for itself and its poster.

[SkinsJock]

The HoF should be just that - a place where the greats can be seen and remembered. If you think back to that period of time and make a selection of wide receivers from that time and if one of those receivers that immediately comes to mind is not Art Monk, then you are just missing something.

The fact that he played for so long is sometimes used against him but the fact that he played for so long at such a level and is not highly regarded makes no sense of that whole thought process.

I am amazed that the people who are responsible for selecting the members of the Hall of Fame cannot seem to understand that most people who are known to be able to discern great receivers from very good receivers would unanimously agree that Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame.

The fact that the Hall of Fame includes some players who do not belong there should not be used against players who should be included.

Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame.

[Skinsfan55]

I agree. . .I was assuming that SF55 had looked at the statistical debate, which (unless you're out to get Monk) favors his induction. His further comment that Monk was 'considered to be an above-average receiver' was an additional point that needed smashing, which is why I chimed in. Calling Monk an above-average receiver at best is an invention of this decade, not the era in which he played.

I looked at the numbers, and the numbers versus his contemporaries and I just don't see how anyone could objectively think Monk belongs in the Hall of Fame. I can deal with comments like yours because we're all free to disagree and two smart people can look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions. Not everyone is respectful of differing opinions though.

[Irn-Bru]

* There's quite a debate to be had on the stats that happens every year. For me, the fact that Monk was setting as many records as he did while playing suggests that he was above his peers in production.

* Not all of Monk's qualities or skills that make him hall-worthy have stats to go along with them. That's why contemporary witness helps make the case. Again, calling hiim a mediocre to above-average receiver wasn't common until the past 10 years or so. While he was playing, and when he retired, perceptions were different.

[skinsfan#33]

I looked at the numbers, and the numbers versus his contemporaries and I just don't see how anyone could objectively think Monk belongs in the Hall of Fame. I can deal with comments like yours because we're all free to disagree and two smart people can look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions. Not everyone is respectful of differing opinions though.

Ok, then do it. Show us his Numbers against his contemporaries. His Contemporaries would be WRs that played most of their career in the 80's on a run first team with two other great WRs on their team for a large part of that time. Also, they have to set three NFL records, one of which is the BIGGEST record for a WR!

Here I'll do it for you:


There's the list!

Monk had no contemporaries.

But I'll humor you.

Monk's contemporaries were guys like Henry Ellard, Steve Largent, Jerry Rice, Andre Reed, Andre Rison, Mark Clayton, James Lofton, John Stallworth, Irving Fryar, and others. All of these players were at least as good as Art Mont and most were better.

Henry Ellard - a contemporary and should be in the HoF
- 814 rcp, 13,777 yds, 65 TDs, 16.9 y/r
- was a starter for 8 years in the 90s (90s WRs have inflated #s)
- Jim Everett was his QB!

Steve Largent - a contemporary and is in the HoF
- 819 rcp, 13,089 yds, 100 TDs, 16.0 y/r
- it was Largent's record Monk broke, that alone should get Monk in!

Jerry Rice - not a contemporary - played the entire 90s decade
- best WR ever (stat wise)
- played for TWO HoF QBs
- West coast offense

Andre Reed - not a contemporary - play the entire 90s decade
- Had a HoF QB for a good chunk of his career

Andre Rison - not a contemporary - played almost exclusively in the 90s
- less receptions and yards than Monk
- more TDs than Monk
- played in the Chuck and duck offense, in the 90s, inflated stats.

James Lofton - a contemporary - in the HoF
- 764 rcp, 14,004 yds, 18.3 y/r
- played for a HoF QB for part of his career in a chuck and duck offense

Stallworth and Swann - not a contemporary - played in the 70s (Stallworth played half in the 80's)
- 70s WR caught 25% less passes then 80's WR
- They caught 873 rcp (67 less passes than Monk COMBINED!)

Irving Fryar - not a contemporary - 90s WR

Other fact for you:
- Of all the WRs in NFL that started playing prior to 1985 Monk leads them all in receptions.
- Monk is the only NFL player EVER to catch more than 100 balls in a season, prior to 1990.
- Monk NEVER played for a HoF QB or even a very good QB. His QBs were average at best. Ask Wes Welker and Randy Moss how much of a difference a HoF QB makes.
- Monk was past his prime when the rules were changed in 1993 preventing DB from mugging WRs before the ball was in the air.
- Top ten WRs in the 90's caught 30% more passes then WRs in the 80s.

[Countertrey]

Look, I am a die hard Red Sox fan in addition to being a Skins fan, and yet every year when the topic of Jim Rice's HOF candidacy comes up, I just can't understand the big deal with why he ought to be in the HOF. He just doesn't seem worthy of induction (though, he and Monk's arguments are pretty much opposite. Rice was great for just a few years where as Monk was good for many.)

A pathetic cry for attention...

Monk should not only be in the hall... but it should be retroactive several years. Failure to understand this requires the effort of a deliberate act. In other words, in order to conclude that Monk does not belong, you must decide the outcome prior to informing yourself, and you must, even then, completely ignore the overwhelming evidence. Skinsfan#33 has laid it out for you. You will, I have no doubt, ignore his research. Monk was ahead of his time. Apparently, not enough glitter for you, though...

[PulpExposure]

I'm pro-Art Monk in the hall of fame, but I've heard are the rather legit arguments statistical arguments against him:

1. TDs. Art Monk had 68 touchdowns his entire career. That's good for 31st all time. Despite playing in 224 games...that's about 1 every 3 games, which isn't good at all (averaged what...5 TDs per season?)
2. Playoff Performance. Art Monk's 2 best games were in losing performances, and otherwise, most of his games were completely nondescript in the playoffs.

Now I argue for #1, Art wasn't the primary red-zone target, since Gibbs always preferred to ram the ball in via the running game. However, people then bring up Michael Irvin, who despite having the touchdown machine Emmitt Smith on his team, had 3 less TDs than Monk in his career...but played in roughly 60 less games. Same with Gary Clark...I mean the same guy on his own team had 65 TDs, and played in 60 less games than Monk.

And for #2, I'm not sure what I can say. He didn't contribute to the 1982 SuperBowl...since he was injured. And while he was very valuable in the other 2 SuperBowl wins, other WRs had bigger games (Ricky Sanders in 1987, Gary Clark in 1991) that more directly contributed to the win.

[SkinsJock]

If we are to judge QBs by their Super Bowl wins then Dan Marino and a bunch of other great QBs should not be in the HoF - the playoffs and Super Bowls are not the most important part of a player in the NFL's resume - you have to look at his contribution to making his team better not by just his stats but by his ability and his teamwork. Better teams win more games by having players on that team that contribute.

Using stats alone are the reason there are no hogs in the HoF - that's another tragedy - Players should be judged as players not as players with great stats.

Monk is a better receiver than Irvin because he made his team better - Irvin has great stats but he did not make the other receivers or the passing game on his team better.

Stats are important in Baseball and politics, not in the NFL - the NFL unlike baseball is a team game - a great baseball player doesn't need other players to make him great - great players in the NFL are great because of other players around them.

[SkinsJock]

Dan Marino is in the Hall of Fame for his contributions on the football field - no one questions his status because of his failure to win a Super Bowl any mor than anyone should question Monks stats - the only thing important is did he play well enough when he was on the field between the lines.

Just ask the HoF QBs from that era if they would have selected Monk as one of their receivers if they could have?

There is no other answer but YES - Art Monk should be in the Hall Of Fame

[Skinsfan55]

- Monk NEVER played for a HoF QB or even a very good QB. His QBs were average at best. Ask Wes Welker and Randy Moss how much of a difference a HoF QB makes.

This doesn't really enter into the argument. I mean that's the kind of thing a homer does to mitigate someone's lack of credentials.

Also, there's no such thing as inflated stats. They are what they are. No one says Roger Craig (49ers RB) ought to be in the HoF because his numbers would be better if the 9ers ran more... that's retarded.

Anyway, I'll never ignore any research done on Monk. I have a lot of respect for him, and I know the Redskins wouldn't have been nearly as good without him. (A good role player can really improve a team without being a star, and intangibles don't belong in the HoF.)

What I will be ignoring are personal attacks and people who can't argue based on facts.

[Countertrey]

What I will be ignoring are (snip) people who can't argue based on facts.

It will be interesting to see you ignore yourself!

[RedskinsFreak]

What I will be ignoring are personal attacks and people who can't argue based on facts.

But an argument based solely on facts -- and I assume you mean stats -- is incomplete and hardly worth the time.

"Better numbers" is not an automatic equivalent of "better player."