Peter King Challenge (no, not that other one)

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:11 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote: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!

Monk actually played in 16 seasons.

You can compare raw numbers all you want, but putting them in perspective in terms of time periods is much more valuable, in my opinion.

Joiner, Swann and Stallworth's careers only partly overlapped with Monk's. It may seem close, but Joiner started his career in 1969 - a far different time period than 1980, when Monk began his.

Lofton and Largent played during roughly the same time period, but their numbers are the ones that really outshine Monk's (both with higher recieving yards and touchdowns). Again, I just don't see what those numbers really tell us.

I have to run, but I promise I'll be back tomorrow with more stuff.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:16 pm

According to those numbers it shows Loften and Largent are better, Joiner and Stallworth are comparable (at least for now) and that Swann shouldn't be in the hall.

In the playoffs Monk doesn't stand out at all from his "peers".

Stallworth played in the same number of playoff games and caught 5 more TD's. Swann played in 2 less and caught 1 more TD... Loften played in 3 less and caught one more. Largent and Joiner don't show up because they played in less games but played as well as Monk when they were in the playoffs.

Monk has like 60 yards a catch in the superbowl with NO TD's while Swann and Stallworth have 3 each.

Loften and Largent were better than Monk so this Superbowl info doesn't really change anything... the only beef is with Charlie Joiner...

He was a legit star and played almost 20 years in the league, he had things besides his durability to push him over the top.

Monk had no defining moments, only steady production, that unfortunately was not compelling enough to land him in the Hall.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:24 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Monk actually played in 16 seasons.

He really did not play over his last season for Philthy. That is why the stats are so deceiving when you average them.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:45 pm

I have a question for the couple (or so) Skins fans on here that don't believe Monk belongs in the Hall. You imply other players and football personalities, with first-hand perspective and thereby more credibility, also don't believe he belongs in the Hall. I'm curious to find whether *you* have enough perspective, from watching him on TV or from the stadium, to lend any credibility to the discussion. That is, how old are you guys?

(34)

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:52 pm

So wait, are you saying the sportswritters who haven't voted Monk in and have made compelling arguments for their actions are qualified because they are old enough to have seen Monk play?

So then you respect the dicision of the voters?

Riggmonkman · Post by **Riggmonkman** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:15 pm

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

To use Joe Gibbs saying he should be in (something OF COURSE...MR.NICE GUY, COACH OF THE ACTUAL PLAYER is going to say) as part of your argument is ludicrous. Simply dumb.

Oh..and I'm 33..and watched Monk every year while growing up a die hard skins fan.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:57 pm

Riggmonkman wrote:To use Joe Gibbs saying he should be in (something OF COURSE...MR.NICE GUY, COACH OF THE ACTUAL PLAYER is going to say) as part of your argument is ludicrous. Simply dumb.

Why? Joe does not make that same statement about many other players who played at the same time as Art.

I do not believe that Joe says that because Art was his player. Joe says that because he knows his career better than most people. Joe has the ability and a track record to recognise talent in players that played for other teams.

There is nothing dumb about having the support of Joe Gibbs.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:20 am

When RiC (whom I am loathe to defend...he knows I think he's a weenie

) (( Just kidding, RiC)) says "quality of yards", he means to say that every damned inch on the field that Monk got, he worked for. Nothing came easy in the NFC East in those days. We were easily the most competitive division in football for a good number of those years, and our schedules were no cakewalk. Monk went up against some of the very best of all time, and won. Some of those guys are in the Hall now, and support his induction.
Ronnie Lott, who had a finger chopped off so that he could play the next game without distraction, calls Monk a "tough guy who deserves to be inducted".
What could I possibly add to that ?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:24 am

Again, some of you are arguing between a pass oriented offense and a run oriented one. You can "average" out just about anything but the fact remains that Art Monk in an era that wasn't as easy for WR's as it is now caught 900 balls and over 12,000 yards.

SSIII - I see your point ... but you're averaging one player vs the "league average". I can go out and catch 100 yards and be 100% of my team's offense through the air... meanwhile you could go out for another team as their QB and throw to 8 different receivers 1 pass for 30 yards each for a total of 240 pass yards. Lets say I average 100 yds a game (but 100% of my teams receiving yards)and the league does even better than your team and the rest of the teams average 240-300 (but individually the WR's were worse than me). I should then be compared to the WR's in my era and not agaisnt the average of pass yards for the teams in my era. I'm not competeing agaisnt teams. I'm competing agaisnt other WR's (or did I misinterpret your numbers and they are the WR averages?) Do you see where I'm coming from here? This is why you must compare Art to the WR's of his day as well as the HOF...

I'm not being biased here. I think he was one of the greatest WR's I've ever seen play. Was he flashy? Nope. He got the job done though in a tough smash mouth division on a run first team. And in this age of WR's like T.O. and Meshawn that is something the league may not ever see again.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:25 am

Skinsfan55 wrote:Monk had no defining moments, only steady production, that unfortunately was not compelling enough to land him in the Hall.

This is exactly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. In essence, this is saying that highlight reel plays win over steady production.
Yours are the leanings of a young fan, and should be disqualified in any discussion of a player who worked in the era in which you were wetting the bed.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:25 am

Ronnie Lott, who had a finger chopped off so that he could play the next game without distraction, calls Monk a "tough guy who deserves to be inducted".
What could I possibly add to that ?

Thank you TC .. .amen !!

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:35 am

"So wait, are you saying the sportswritters who haven't voted Monk in and have made compelling arguments for their actions are qualified because they are old enough to have seen Monk play?"

Nope, didnt say that...sounds like a Fuax News Channel technique. I have to assume you never really watched Art Monk play football.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:40 am

tcwest10 wrote:Yours are the leanings of a young fan, and should be disqualified in any discussion of a player who worked in the era in which you were wetting the bed.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:55 am

This is exactly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. In essence, this is saying that highlight reel plays win over steady production.
Yours are the leanings of a young fan, and should be disqualified in any discussion of a player who worked in the era in which you were wetting the bed.

TC - I know I've never said this to you before ... but ...

I love you man !!!

=D>

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:09 am

Sucks being old, doesn't it ?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:15 am

Yes... it does but I suspect you're a tad older than I (36 ... 37 in July)

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:23 am

thaiphoon wrote:Yes... it does but I suspect you're a tad older than I (36 ... 37 in July)

Don't be like that. I got a year on you.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:34 am

thaiphoon wrote:SSIII - I see your point ... but you're averaging one player vs the "league average". I can go out and catch 100 yards and be 100% of my team's offense through the air... meanwhile you could go out for another team as their QB and throw to 8 different receivers 1 pass for 30 yards each for a total of 240 pass yards.

If you averaged 100 yards per game, and the league average was 240 yards, then your YPG/LYPG would be .417, and those other recievers would have a YPG/LYPG of .125. Monk (or you) would be rated significantly better.

thaiphoon wrote:...the fact remains that Art Monk in an era that wasn't as easy for WR's as it is now caught 900 balls and over 12,000 yards.

I think you don't understand what I am trying to do here. By comparing a player's numbers to the league average, the difference in "difficulty" is erased.

For instance, if in 2005 Santana Moss averages 100 yards per game when the league average is 200, his score would be identical to a player in 1905 who averages 10 yards per game when the league average is 20. The "easiness" of accumulating a certain number of catches or yards is irrelevant, because the relative "easiness" remains the same.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:56 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:
Steve Spurrier III wrote:Monk actually played in 16 seasons.
He really did not play over his last season for Philthy. That is why the stats are so deceiving when you average them.

You didn't have a problem with Stallworth's 4-game 1983 season.

But your point is taken. My numbers need to be re-worked to adjust for the number of games a player played each season. Under my originial model, the league's 1995 YPG was counted the same as the league's YPG in 1984 - which is not fair considering Monk played 16 games in 1984 but just 3 in 1995.

I will rework everyone's numbers tonight, but I re-did Monk's just to see what would happen. His original YPG/LYPG was .256, and adjusting for games played each seasons, his new YPG/aLYPG was .258. A slight bump that would move into a tie with Charlie Joiner and John Stallworth. However, I would expect a similar jump for the other players - but I will have to check on that.

I do appreciate everyone's suggestions and criticisms. I am still planning on adjusting for the run-heavy/pass-heavy problem (that should be very interesting).

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:22 am

I wish we had access to that database that ESPN uses. (I'm thinking here of the left-field nature of their "Did You Know?"). We could run all kinds of different filters on stats that would help us to see some of Monks intangibles a bit more clearly (if that even makes sense?)

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:03 pm

Some interesting stuff after adjusting for games played per season. Just a reminder, the new metric is now the player's yards per game divided by the league yards per game, adjusted for games played in different seasons. Monk's 1995 season, in which he only played three games, will count significantly less than the full 16 game seasons he played.

PLAYER (PYPG/aLYPG)
Lance Alworth (.380)
Elroy Hirsch (.357)
Tom Fears (.338)
Bobby Mitchell (.327)
Don Maynard (.314)
Steve Largent (.311)
Raymond Berry (.311)
Charley Taylor (.296)
Pete Pihos (.285)
Paul Warfield (.279)
Tommy McDonald (.279)
James Lofton (.279)
Fred Biletnikoff (.272)
Dante Laveli (.267)
John Stallworth (.260)
Art Monk (.258)
Charlie Joiner (.256)
Lynn Swann (.248)

So as you can see, Art Monk passes Charlie Joiner and extends his lead over Lynn Swann, but he was not able to make up any ground on John Stallworth. These adjustments were pretty even; six players were hurt by the adjustment, with Paul Warfield taking the biggest hit (.023). Eight players were helped, with Fred Biletnikoff benefiting the most (.008). Four players saw no change. Great stuff - and definitly a neccessary adjustment.

Hopefully I will have the run-heavy/pass-heavy adjustments up tonight.

Punu · Post by **Punu** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:36 pm

he funny thing about his column is that even when he gets the advantage to pick one among hundreds of messages, he also gets the advantage to write the last and final word. The original poster does not get a chance to respond to his lousy arguments.

I didnt go through all 8 pages of responses. (in a hurry)
But I just wanted to say I agree with what you said here RIC. Because it's the most important thing ppl should realize when reading these types of articles.... He gets the last word! There were many other e mails he probably felt threatened by or just e mails that he felt his "last word" wouldnt have sounded good enough against. It's pretty hard for me to explain, It's also hard for me to think about what to do about it. So i'm with you. DUMP SI.

spenser · Post by **spenser** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:37 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:I'm sorry guys, I can't hold this in any more, and as a Redskins fan it's tough to even say aloud:

A Redskin fan? Your IGNORANT and STUPID POST are only a match to your newly acquired ego.

Your post is so IGNORANT and STUPID that it is not worth even discussing it.

Quite frankly, I do not even think that this has anything to do with Art. I do not think that you are even old enough to have watched his games.

I think that this post has to do with enhancing your personal ego and have an argument to try to bolster your self-esteem. You know what? I am not going to waste any posts or time with your posts anymore.

The day you begin to post intelligent and informed posts, I will respond to you. Right now, it is not worth my time or effort.

As somebody put it in Smack: Maybe you should go and spend a bit more time with Matt. No, actually a lot more time.

Dude, you need to chill Canadian. His post is absoulty valid, and whats more i am somewhat in agreement. And for the record im sure ive seen as many or more redskins games as yourself so dont flater yourself. Just because someone doesnt agree with you, you dont need to freak out on them dawg. Do i think art should be in? YES. but do i also think he is a "fringe" player? YES. If he wasnt a on the fringe guy he would be in.I am in total and complete agreement about peter king being an incompetant boob, he is NOT the ONLY person keeping art out. Im not here to say he shouldnt be in, but just to say that skinsfan55 does have some valid points, and if it is his OPINION that he shouldnt be in, then fine. Obviously its your OPINION that he should.

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:11 pm

spenser wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:I'm sorry guys, I can't hold this in any more, and as a Redskins fan it's tough to even say aloud:

A Redskin fan? Your IGNORANT and STUPID POST are only a match to your newly acquired ego.

Your post is so IGNORANT and STUPID that it is not worth even discussing it.

Quite frankly, I do not even think that this has anything to do with Art. I do not think that you are even old enough to have watched his games.

I think that this post has to do with enhancing your personal ego and have an argument to try to bolster your self-esteem. You know what? I am not going to waste any posts or time with your posts anymore.

The day you begin to post intelligent and informed posts, I will respond to you. Right now, it is not worth my time or effort.

As somebody put it in Smack: Maybe you should go and spend a bit more time with Matt. No, actually a lot more time.

Dude, you need to chill Canadian. His post is absoulty valid, and whats more i am somewhat in agreement. And for the record im sure ive seen as many or more redskins games as yourself so dont flater yourself. Just because someone doesnt agree with you, you dont need to freak out on them dawg. Do i think art should be in? YES. but do i also think he is a "fringe" player? YES. If he wasnt a on the fringe guy he would be in.I am in total and complete agreement about peter king being an incompetant boob, he is NOT the ONLY person keeping art out. Im not here to say he shouldnt be in, but just to say that skinsfan55 does have some valid points, and if it is his OPINION that he shouldnt be in, then fine. Obviously its your OPINION that he should.

Just out of curiosity, would you have told RiC to chill if you agreed with him?

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:20 pm

lol, I would hope he would.

I was pretty reserved and respectful stating my opinion I thought, and RiC freaked out.

I'm glad SOME people recognize that as an unwarranted response.