Green, Grimm, Monk finalists for HOF

[welch]

Also, there's no such thing as inflated stats. They are what they are.

This makes no sense. What, exactly, are stats?

Has the argument against Monk been made by anyone watched football in the Monk / Gibbs era? Or is this simply fantasizing from selected stats?

No one in '82 or '83 thought that Charlie Brown was the number 1 receiver on the Redskins. No one thought that Brown was anything more than a small, fast, guy who might complement Monk[b] In fact, [b]Monk was the lead guy, the number one, during every one of the Gibbs seasons. Could Gibbs judge his own players accurately?

Monk a role player????? OK, but his role was "star receiver, long pass threat, medium threat, first down threat", and no one ever doubted that role. That's the point about SB 17: the Redskins overpowered their tournament opponents even though they had lost their deep threat. That's incredible.

Stats? Broke the record for receptions in a single season, and broke the record for all-time receptions.

TDs? Covered convincingly above. Count the TDs that the Redskins scored: Riggins, Rogers, Riggs.

OK. Enough.

[Skinsfan55]

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."

It's not just about numbers, if it was, we wouldn't even have one offensive lineman in the Hall of Fame, but it seems to an outside observer (me) that Monk was an above average role player who surely elevated the Redskins but never became a star himself.

What he did was important, and helped the Skins a lot but is the Hall of Fame for role players?

[welch]

but it seems to an outside observer (me) that Monk was an above average role player

Never saw him play? Or the Gibbs Redskins?

OK, repeating myself: his role was "star". Acknowledged by everyone on the team, and by his coaches. The number one, the go-to receiver, the deep threat.

For those who didn't see Art Monk, then imagine if Terrell Owens was a real football player. All-around skills, ex-running back, played seriously on every play.

[skinsfan#33]

- 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.

So you think if Jerry Rice played in the 40's or even the 70's with Jeff Rutledge and Jay Schroeder throwing the ball to him he would still be the current NFL all time leading reciever? No way he even ends up w/1000 catches let alone his 1500+. I would wager he wouldn't break 700.

Plain simple fact, WR's ever since the 90's catch more balls (30%) more than WR's in the 80's. WRs in the 80's caught about 25% more passes then WR's in the 70's.

You would have to be stuburn as a mule to not ackknowlede that QB play, offensive systems, and what period a player played in don't greatly effect their #s. You don't have to be a "homer" to recognize facts! I wasn't making excuses for Monk, just putting his play in context to the periord, system, and QBs he had around him. If you still refuse to pull your head out of the sand, then that is your right to go on making statements that you can't back up w/any credible facts.

[Skinsfan55]

You're not making any sense.

In any case, Monk caught a lot of passes, so I'm not sure how your era argument holds any water.

He didn't catch many touchdowns, or get many yards... but he caught a lot of passes.

[skinsfan#33]

You're not making any sense.

In any case, Monk caught a lot of passes, so I'm not sure how your era argument holds any water.

He didn't catch many touchdowns, or get many yards... but he caught a lot of passes.

If you can't understand simple facts, then I'm done! You will never see the light.

Maybe someone else can help you.

[RedskinsFreak]

It's not just about numbers,

OK, then how come your retread response to each of our counters is some form of:

He didn't catch many touchdowns, or get many yards... but he caught a lot of passes.

[welch]

1. How is it possible to look no deeper than stats and decide that Monk was a "role player"?

2. How, outside of fantasy football, is it possible to conclude that Gary Clark was a more dangerous receiver than Art Monk? Yes, Peter King drew that conclusion after talking with members of the Giants defense when he covered them in 1986. But (a) the same defense had a panic attack whenever it faced the simple offense of the Eagles, who had an unpredictably mobile QB, someone that the Redskins' defense routinely trapped, and baffled, and stopped; and (b) King changed his opinion after talking with Joe Gibbs, who knew Monk and Clark, and his team better than anyone. Gibbs knew Monk against all opponents...not just against the Giants.

[Skinsfan55]

It's not 100% stats, but more 90% stats.

Some people want to just concentrate so much on intangibles and use that as their main argument for the Hall of Fame, and that's stupid.

The statistics are the lasting evidence of what happened on the field.

I know everyone remembers Monk fondly, but it's hard to believe that no one thinks you can look at the evidence and possibly conclude anything other than that Monk belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Even the guys who's job it is to watch sports, the guys who were around in the 80's and loved NFC East football, the sports writers are killed for not voting for Monk. I mean, everyone treats non voters like Dr. Z and Peter King with such contempt because they are "biased" and "won't acknowledge his talent". Even though Peter King (a really good writer btw) converted and began to vote for Art Monk for the Hall of Fame, people hate him still for all the years he refused to vote.

The fact he's not in the Hall of Fame is not evidence of some vast conspiracy of people
who are jealous of Art Monk's accomplishments. It means a lot of smart people who watch sports for a living agree he never had quite the level of talent needed for enshrinement.

[BossHog]

I mean, everyone treats non voters like Dr. Z and Peter King with such contempt because they are "biased" and "won't acknowledge his talent". Even though Peter King (a really good writer btw) converted and began to vote for Art Monk for the Hall of Fame, people hate him still for all the years he refused to vote.

Completely flip-flopping your 'position' and 'converting' is an obvious sign of being a 'really good writer'. Formulating a real opinion is vastly overrated.

It's kind of like telling people not to be concerned with statistics and then continually pointing to them... well, 90% of the time anyway.

[Redskin in Canada]

If you can't understand simple facts, then I'm done! You will never see the light.

Maybe someone else can help you.

You can lead an ass to water, but you can't make it drink.

A saying compiled in John Heywood's "A dialogue conteinyng the nomber in effect of all the prouerbes in the Englishe tongue" since the XVI century.

To which I might add: The ass will invarably turn around.

[Countertrey]

Even though Peter King (a really good writer btw) converted and began to vote for Art Monk for the Hall of Fame, people hate him still for all the years he refused to vote.

It is no coincidence that Peter King changed when his buddy, Irvin, became eligible. He was using completely arbitrary criteria to disqualify Monk. Had he been consistent, he would have needed to apply those same criteria to Irvin... guess what? He realized that unless he changed on Monk, he could not vote yes on Irvin. Peter King has no soul.

[SkinsJock]

When Monk gets into the Hall of Fame does that mean that all the guys who for years pointed to the reasons why he was not in the Hall of Fame are now admitting they were wrong? If they were wrong about Monk does that not also mean there is a good chance that there are some people in the HoF that should not be there because the HoF voters are comprised of people that make mistakes about who is eligible.

I disagree that all the voters for the Hall of Fame are "a lot of smart people who watch sports for a living" and that "a lot of smart people ... agree that Monk never had quite the level of talent needed for enshrinement" I do not think there is "some vast conspiracy of people who are jealous of Art Monk's accomplishments" - that is so misguided a statement - to me that is an perfect example of someone (YOU) trying to embellish the fact that there are some Monk supporters who saw this guy play and thought that what he did on the field was pretty special - we are not all screaming obscenely at anyone who "opposes" Monk - we just think Monk belongs in the HoF.

I have always felt that if your accomplishments on the field were good enough to ensure your enshrinement then you should just be elected to the HoF. Why are there players who should be there, not there? What you did on the field does not change after you stopped playing - why are those who "belong" like an Art Monk, not just put into the HoF when they become eligible?

Why should we not question the integrity of those "voters" who suddenly "see the light" and might have influenced others not to vote for Monk - we do not all think of Peter King with "contempt" but why should we give him any credibility, when the facts have not changed but suddenly he's allowed to say "I was wrong about Art Monk" - I ask you to please tell me who else could he have been wrong about - he should not be allowed to continue - he should go to whatever place sportswriters go who have no credibility.

No sportswriter can make it up to those HoF players who were eligible because of what they accomplished but were kept out because some of the voters were misguided.

[skinsfan#33]

I just can't help myself and I will try this one more time.

Some people want to just concentrate so much on intangibles and use that as their main argument for the Hall of Fame, and that's stupid.

Intangibles should never be ignored and neither should stats. You need both. Like Lynn Swann, he had the intangibles (great in big games) but not the stats. He shouldn't be in.

Monk had both. He should be in.

The statistics are the lasting evidence of what happened on the field.

Yes they are, but they need to be put into context. Comparing players of the 90s and 2000 era with players from the 70's and 80's isn't a fair comparison. Just like if you look at Sammy Baugh's #s from the 40's He was a pioneer and by far and away the best QB of his time (and in Skins history) but if you just go by stats you might think Randle Cunningham, Ken Anderson, Mark Brunell, and Kerry Collins were better QBs than him. And you would be laughed at.

Same goes for WRs:

Charley Taylor was better than Monk, but his numbers don't say that. Heck the numbers say Ricky Prohel, Andre Rison, Mushin Mohammad, and Terance Mathis were better than Taylor. If you just look at some of the stats.

Compare Ricky Sanders' stats with Lynn Swann's and you would think Sanders is the one that should be in the HoF. It was Swann's SB record that Ricky broke, BEFORE HALF TIME!, in SB 22.

Stats must be taken into context to mean anything.

Even the guys who's job it is to watch sports, the guys who were around in the 80's and loved NFC East football, the sports writers are killed for not voting for Monk. I mean, everyone treats non voters like Dr. Z and Peter King with such contempt because they are "biased" and "won't acknowledge his talent". Even though Peter King (a really good writer btw) converted and began to vote for Art Monk for the Hall of Fame, people hate him still for all the years he refused to vote.

First, I don't believe for a second that Peter King actually voted for Monk. I know he "said" he was going to, but I don't believe him.

Second, King and Dr Z ARE biased against the Redskins, not just Monk. Every Skins fan knows that.

Sport writers have been scorned by Monk because he never gave them a sound bite or something really interresting to print. He wasn't media friendly. He was never rude to them, but didn't give them much time.

Now had he given himself a nickname like "Primetime" or "The Playmaker" and got a job in TV after he retired and bragged about how good he was or was a media circus like Chad Johnson or TO he would have been in on the first ballot.

The people that should select HoF players are former players and coaches. Rod Woodson has been very vocal about Monk not getting in. Parcells thinks he should be in. John Madden thinks he should be in. Every ex-player or coach that faced Monk when asked, all say the same thing. That it is ridiculous or a travisty that Monk is not in. These are the guys that should know the best and they say he should be in.

[Redskin in Canada]

First, I don't believe for a second that Peter King actually voted for Monk. I know he "said" he was going to, but I don't believe him.

Second, King and Dr Z ARE biased against the Redskins, not just Monk. Every Skins fan knows that.

Read my signature people. Read.

[UK Skins Fan]

Well, I see it's that time of year again.

I thought I gave up caring about Monk getting in the HOF after last year, because the HOF ceased to mean anything after last year. It stands for nothing. What we should be asking is whether the HOF is worthy of storing Art Monk's bust.

And yet, WHEN he gets in, I may just jump on a 'plane and wave him into the hall myself. But I will never be able to wash the stained image from my mind, of Michael Irvin getting in first.

[HEROHAMO]

I know that this will just anger every one of his fans, but I don't know that Art Monk deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He just doesn't have the numbers, and I don't think he was ever the best WR on his own team.

In any case, DG needs to be inducted, he was one of the best cornerbacks in the history of the NFL and played at an extremely high level for like 20 years. He's a no brainer.

Monk has the stats. Like mentioned before he has more receptions than most of the receivers already enshrined.

Also besides the stats, Monk was the type of player to throw a block so receivers like Clark and Sanders can get extra yards. Rarely do you see a receiver throw a block in a game anymore. He is a leader and was clutch in big time games. Monk belongs in the hall and it shouldnt be too long from now.

[HEROHAMO]

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."

It's not just about numbers, if it was, we wouldn't even have one offensive lineman in the Hall of Fame, but it seems to an outside observer (me) that Monk was an above average role player who surely elevated the Redskins but never became a star himself.

What he did was important, and helped the Skins a lot but is the Hall of Fame for role players?

Honestly this is the most important question.


Did you see Art Monk play?


I promise you if you would have watched him play your opinion would be different.

All of his peers , who played along side and against him without a doubt think Art Monk belongs in the Hall.

Bill Parcells coached against Monk in many games. One of the greatest football minds ever and he thinks Monk belongs.

I still dont understand how these journalists and writers get to vote football players into the Hall. It should only be former football players.

[Warmother]

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."

It's not just about numbers, if it was, we wouldn't even have one offensive lineman in the Hall of Fame, but it seems to an outside observer (me) that Monk was an above average role player who surely elevated the Redskins but never became a star himself.

What he did was important, and helped the Skins a lot but is the Hall of Fame for role players?

Honestly this is the most important question.


Did you see Art Monk play?


I promise you if you would have watched him play your opinion would be different.

All of his peers , who played along side and against him without a doubt think Art Monk belongs in the Hall.

Bill Parcells coached against Monk in many games. One of the greatest football minds ever and he thinks Monk belongs.

I still dont understand how these journalists and writers get to vote football players into the Hall. It should only be former football players.

Skinsfan55 please ansewer the question.

Did you see him play?

[SkinsJock]

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."

It's not just about numbers, if it was, we wouldn't even have one offensive lineman in the Hall of Fame, but it seems to an outside observer (me) that Monk was an above average role player who surely elevated the Redskins but never became a star himself.
What he did was important, and helped the Skins a lot but is the Hall of Fame for role players?

Did you see Art Monk play?


All of his peers , who played along side and against him, without a doubt, think Art Monk belongs in the Hall.

Bill Parcells coached against Monk in many games. One of the greatest football minds ever and he thinks Monk belongs.

I still don't understand how these journalists and writers get to vote football players into the Hall. It should only be former football players.

Skinsfan55 please answer the question.

Did you see him play?

I think I know the answer BUT I have another question to add to that:

Did you see him play and did you see the piece that Redskin in Canada put together?








It is that time of year Trevor but I have a feeling that this is it - I hope all those who previously voted against Monk, after Monk is elected will remove themselves from the HoF committee as an expression of knowing the wrong they have committed - it's a travesty that they should be held accountable for (a) not putting Monk in the Hall earlier AND (b) putting Irvin in before him

[skinsfan#33]

Monk has the stats. Like mentioned before he has more receptions than most of the receivers already enshrined.

That is almost a correct statement. Monk has more recptions than ANYONE currently enshrined in the HoF.

67 more than Swann and Stallworth, COMBINED!
- (on a side note - go and compare Stallworth to Gary Clark and Swann to Ricky Sanders and tell me if the two Stealers belong)

Almost 200 more than Irvin.

Largent is the closest at 819

Monk's TD numbers are hurt by the fact that he was part of the best trio of WRs in NFL history, in a run first offense, with suspect QBs. Yet he still ended his career holding the NFL's biggest record for a WR, plus two more NFL records.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Monk's TD numbers are hurt by the fact that he was part of the best trio of WRs in NFL history,

As has been pointed out before, Monk's numbers (including touchdowns) increased with the arrival of Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders.

in a run first offense

That was true from 1980-1985, but from 1986-1993, the Redskins threw more than they passed in every year save two. Relative to the rest of the league, the Redskins generally did run the ball more, although not every year.

with suspect QBs.

I don't know about that. He got to play with Theismann for five years, and his numbers went up with the Schroeder/Williams/Rypien pu-pu platter. The quarterbacks weren't consistently great, but I don't think Monk had it any worse than Steve Largent.

With all that being said, Monk does belong in the Hall.

[SKINFAN]

The more they try and keep Sir Monk out the more the hall loses it's credibility as a true representation of great players, at this point it's like Prom, pure popularity contest. "He was Jerry Rice, before Jerry rice was Jerry rice". I think maybe this is his year, Danny is on the chair up there isn't he? I know #28 is a shoe in he's got a signature play.

[PulpExposure]

I know #28 is a shoe in he's got a signature play.

I remember when Schefter (?) said that. That is the dumbest criteria I've ever heard.

[SkinsJock]

Well almost the dumbest reality with the process is the media using every tactic they can to try to convince everyone that a deserving player does not belong in the Hall of Fame mainly because he did not make himself as available to them as they would have liked. This fact was being reported even while Monk was still playing.

to all those voters who are not big enough to go against the grain in that voting room