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

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:37 pm**

COWBOYSFAN ..I thought my point about the Skins spreading the ball around was valid but you seem to disagree. And that's ok..we'll agree to disagree. But in all seriousness..
where do you think Gary Clark ranks in comparison to Irvin?
I've been having this argument with a COWBOYS fan for a while now.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:22 pm**

I admire loyalty, Cowboysfan. Stick with it, but without the statistics.

For instance: two of Monk's seasons were played during strike years. The NFL cancelled gamnes in '82, and played with scabs in '87. How do you adjust?

Stats are for fantasy leaguers.

Monk was the starting tailback at Syracuse until his senior year. He was a well-practised blocker and runner

Recall the MNF game against the Cowboys in his first year. Riggins was temporarily retired, and the Redskins had a spotty team; the Cowboys overpowered them. Monk took a pass over the middle, about 15 yards downfield. He turned, didn't fake, lowered his shoulder, and knocked the Cowboys defender about two yards into the air. Monk was frustrated, so he just flattened the guy.

Monk hit harder, ran faster, had better hands. In most qualities, the two were very close. Monk has the edge.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:43 pm**

Good point..Welch. I didn't take into consideration
the games Monk missed due to the two strike seasons.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:48 pm**

If stats are for Fantasy Leaguers then why did we keep up with them when we didn't have Fantasy Football? Since you guys aren't that familiar with how stats work, you should know that if he doesn't play he gets no stats. So those games don't hurt and don't help. Stats are figured off games played, balls caught, TD's scored. I have already showed you how Irvin had better Avg's in Fewer Games, the argument was Monk had more competition. I disprove the competition angle and you say he hit harder, ran faster, caught better. Let me see your next angle will be his dad could beat up Irvins dad? Stats are how a player is measured against other players, that's how they have always done it and always will.

As for Clark I think he was very much Irvin like or Irvin was Clark like. They have very similar numbers and both have better numbers than Monk (Avg's, not longevity). I think Irvin was a little better of course and the numbers show that. Irvin did all the little things to help his team win, he was a leader on the field, he made everyones intensity rise, we are still looking for his replacement.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:57 pm**

For arguments sake, DCF...would you say that Irvin was the lead receiver during his career ?

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:24 pm**

tcwest10 wrote:For arguments sake, DCF...would you say that Irvin was the lead receiver during his career ?

From about 91 through the first four games in 99. Wouldn't you say Monk was until Clark joined the team or maybe even year two of Clark?

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:49 pm**

Okay...but we got got Clark in 1985.
Figure in the strike year, and the injury year...that's 3 1/2 seasons.
Don't forget Rickey Sanders, either.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:23 am**

tcwest10 wrote:Okay...but we got got Clark in 1985.
Figure in the strike year, and the injury year...that's 3 1/2 seasons.
Don't forget Rickey Sanders, either.

Would you not agree that the two starting WR's have the same oppurtunity to catch the ball? Well maybe the same, the best WR will generally face the best corner on most teams. So if your saying he was the second best WR, it's safe to assume he got the second best corner, correct?

I think it's safe to say that the leading receiver was the #1 receiver for any given year, don't you?

Monk led the team in receptions in 80, 81, 82(yep, even the strike year), 84, 85, 89 and 91. Irvin led the team in 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98. So Monk led his team 7 seasons and Irvin 8 seasons. Notice Monk even led when Clark was there in 85, 89 and 91. In 86 he had one less reception than Clark and in 88 Sanders led and Monk was one less than Sanders.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:35 pm**

DCF..stats can be very telling..or not at all. I don't know
where you feel Emmitt Smith ranks among the all-time great
rbs..but consider this: Terrell Davis has him beat in just
about every statistical category..at least when it comes to
career averages. Obviously, Davis didn't have the longevity that Smith had.

But longevity wasn't a factor you used with Monk and Irvin
so I'll leave it out.If you think that Davis was/is
better than Smith.I'll have to find another comparison.
Either way though..stats can be misleading.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:20 pm**

BRAVEONAWARPATH wrote:DCF..stats can be very telling..or not at all. I don't know
where you feel Emmitt Smith ranks among the all-time great
rbs..but consider this: Terrell Davis has him beat in just
about every statistical category..at least when it comes to
career averages. Obviously, Davis didn't have the longevity that Smith had.

But longevity wasn't a factor you used with Monk and Irvin
so I'll leave it out.If you think that Davis was/is
better than Smith.I'll have to find another comparison.
Either way though..stats can be misleading.

Denver backs are a bit overrated in my book. When Anderson, Gary and Droughns can do what TD did. I will help you out Jim Brown doesn't have the longevity that Smith has and I think he is a much better back than Emmitt! Jim Brown probably also has better averages, I will look when I don't have the baby asleep in my lap.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:27 pm**

DCF wrote:

If stats are for Fantasy Leaguers then why did we keep up with them

I don't. I have talked about size, speed, hands, skill, toughness. Irvin played a lot like Monk, although Monk was faster and, IMHO, tougher. Monk was a tall, strong WR with the training and soul of an I-formation tailback. That's rare in modern football.

You trip yourself when you pull in Clark "by the numbers". Clark was smaller and faster, but Monk always drew the extra coverage. If the "numbers" make Gary Clark look similar to Irvin, then that is plain evidence that the "numbers" are misleading.

*

A baseball example. The Mets once had a young outfielder named Darryl Strawberry; he was "young" and had "giant potentential" until he was into his thirties.

New Yorkers always though Strawberry was a flat tire.

One week, the Village Voice worked "the numbers" to prove that New Yorkers were treating him unfairly. The Voice write worked and jiggled the stats to show that in every numeric category, Strawberry was the best black baseball player ever in New York.

Better than Willie Mays.

Baseball fans saw that Strawberry had the quickest bat on the team, had the strongest throwing arm in the outfield. They saw that he could steal bases and make spectacular catches.

They also saw that Strawberry over-swung, and looked silly swinging on breaking balls in the dirt. They saw him take a single in right and make a perfect rope-throw home about two steps behin the runner scoring from second, overhtorwing the cutoff man, allowing the hitter to go to second. They saw that Strawberry could steal, but not when the Mets needed it. He would stretch for an extra base and get tossed out.

That is, he had all the individual skills. He was a great athlete and a poor baseball player, but from the numbers, some expert could make him look like Mays.

*

Look at them play. Irvin was a lot like Monk, but not quite as good in a few areas. If "numbers" make him look like Clark, then forget the "numbers".

Talk about the playing.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:30 pm**

So, Monk was better over a longer time, but that doesn't count, because Irvin played less years?

I don't follow your logic.

Length of time play in racking up the stats is part of racking up the stats.

So Monk was more durable than Irvin, in an era when the passing game was less protected, that means Irvin should go into the hall first?

If Irvin gets in the hall first it will be because he has a bigger mouth, and no other reason.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:09 pm**

From Pro Football Reference.com
*Among The Leagues all time Top 50 Receivers
#5 in Receptions (Irvin- #13)
#9 in Receiving Yards (Irvin-#11)
#29(t) in Receiving TDs (Irvin-#34(t) )
#26 in Yards From Scrimmage (Irvin-#31)

This should be enough. Even if stats shouldn't count, they do.
Seven years after he left the game, Monk is still in the top five.
Who's better in the receptions category ? Rice, Carter, Brown (I think) and probably Andre Reed. Carter and Reed are done for. Nobody is ever gonna catch Jerry Rice.
Monk is deserving.
Irvin ? He's down there in the mid-teens. He never had to carry his team. That was Emmitt's job. He was most likely as much a distraction to his team as he was an asset.
I thought Alvin Harper was better than Irvin, for a while, to be honest.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:27 pm**

If that's the logic then....

*E Smith 17877
W Payton 16726
B Sanders 15269
E Dickerson 13259
T Dorsett 12739
*J Bettis 12417
*C Martin 12352
J Brown 12312

Emmitt is better than Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, etc. Because he has lasted longer he is better than the rest. Jim Brown does have better averages, about a yard more per carry to be exact.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:33 pm**

DallasCowboysFan wrote:If that's the logic then....

*E Smith 17877
W Payton 16726
B Sanders 15269
E Dickerson 13259
T Dorsett 12739
*J Bettis 12417
*C Martin 12352
J Brown 12312

Emmitt is better than Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, etc. Because he has lasted longer he is better than the rest. Jim Brown does have better averages, about a yard more per carry to be exact.

No one said he was better than those guys, but he sure is better than the #13 guy, isn't he?

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:49 pm**

Wait a minute. Are you saying that Emmitt doesn't belong in the same breath as those guys ? That's insane.
I believe Emmitt Smith WAS better than a good two-thirds of that list, and I hate Emmitt Smith !

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:20 pm**

It's summary time.

This thread has begun to make no sense.

DCF argues my extended statistics that Irvin is better than Monk, I think. The argument is not clear.

Then he adds a hook to E Smith and Jimmy Brown.

Does it matter that Brown played as long as he felt, and then retired? Or than Brown retired when he was so far ahead of the next runner, in total yardage per career and per season that Number 2 was lost in the dust?

Or that Brown was the biggest running back and one of the fastest RB's when he retired (ignoring Cookie Gilchrist, who was bigger, but a joke). In fact, Brown was about the size of the average linebacker or OG.

No, we're wandering.

Does Aikman belong in the HOF because he has bigger stats than Roger Staubach? Roger certainly was a better QB, and compared to ther QB's in the '70s, such as Bradshaw he was nearly the top.

No, this is making less and less sense.

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:57 am**

DallasCowboysFan wrote:If that's the logic then....

*E Smith 17877
W Payton 16726
B Sanders 15269
E Dickerson 13259
T Dorsett 12739
*J Bettis 12417
*C Martin 12352
J Brown 12312

Emmitt is better than Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, etc. Because he has lasted longer he is better than the rest. Jim Brown does have better averages, about a yard more per carry to be exact.

these are hard facts. Emmit Smith is definately one of the greatest running backs. This is coming from a Redskins faithfull. Barry could of would of should of but didnt break the record.Emmit Smith in my opinion was the best between the tackles. In his prime.The stats clearly prove that Emmit Smith was and is one of the all time greats. Which brings us to the Monk vs Irvin argument. Monk leads in virtually every category.Stats matter of course they do . You cant ignore the stats. Many guys have been talented . Like Bo Jackson he was well on his way to being one of the Greatest but he unfortanately got injured. In the end when its all said and done its what did you contribute to your team. What did you acomplish in your career as a professional football player. And what do you turn to the stats . And the word of others who played along side each individual. Both Irvin and Monk have contributed much to there respective teams. And you cant say "oh he played less years" bottom line is what did he accomplish and the stats are one of the things we turn to see what each guy has accomplished. So theres no way you can throw out stats. "what ifs and only if he played longer dosent mean jack". Both deserve to go in the hall but the stats indicate Monk has done more on the feild.

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:11 am**

BRAVEONAWARPATH wrote:
DallasCowboysFan wrote:
tcwest10 wrote:Art Monk Facts

-From Pro Football Reference.com
*Among The Leagues all time Top 50 Receivers
#5 in Receptions (Irvin- #13)
#9 in Receiving Yards (Irvin-#11)
#29(t) in Receiving TDs (Irvin-#34(t) )
#26 in Yards From Scrimmage (Irvin-#31)

-11 Seasons with at least 16 starts (Irvin-7)
-224 Total Games Played (Irvin-159)
-63 Yards Rushing for 332 yards (5.3 avg.) (Irvin-6 Rushes, 6 yards, 1.0 avg. (See ? Different type of receiver.)

16 seasons compared to 12 seasons is really comparing apples to oranges....Notice the difference of 8 in receptions but only the difference of two in yards? Like I said Monk definitely deserves in, this year, next year, whatever, he should be in by now. My point is going to be that Irvin shouldn't get bumped for Monk! All these numbers were also taken from pro-football-reference and I have them in an excel spreadsheet, pm your email address and I will send it to you. My attempt here is the rebuttal for TC and the overall record.

Irvin played 65 less games but has higher averages in every category. Receptions per game...Monk has 4.20, Irvin has 4.72. Yards per game...Monk has 56.79 yards, Irvin has 74.87 yards per game. Average yards per reception...Monk has 13.53 Y/R, Irvin has 15.87 Y/R. TD's per game...Monk has a .30, Irvin has .41 TD's per game played.

To compare games played I took Irvins average in every category and the lowest. The average receptions of 4.72 times 65 more games would be 307 more receptions. 74.87 yards per game times 65 more games would be 4866 more yards. .41 TD's times 65 more games would be 27 more TD's. To put that in perspective Irvin would have 1057 Receptions, 16,770 Yards and 92 TD's in the same amount of games as Monk.

I know, I know your gonna say his average would have dropped. So I took his lowest stats available. The last year he played he only had 10 Receptions for 167 Yards in 4 games, his lowest TD's was 1 in 1998 with 16 games. So these are the numbers used.

65 more games times 1.67 receptions per game would be 109 more receptions. 65 games times 41.75 yards per game (lowest he had) would equal 2714 more yards. 65 more games times .0625 TD's and he would have 4 more TD's. That totals out to 859 Receptions, 14, 618 yards and 69 TD's.

Compare that to Monk and I still say Irvin has the better numbers. The only reason he is higher in the all time was his longevity! Look at the Averages and Irvin Rules! That is why he deserves to be a first ballot! Monk deserves to be in as well but not at the expense of Irvin. If both can go this year, great but Irvin should go first! Oh, for everyone talking character, if that was an issue LT wouldn't be in. The bar has set and it can't be changed now!
Irvin was a great wr but i'll give you something to consider:
Unlike the COWBOYS..the Skins during Monk's tenure spread the ball around quite a bit. Just think how great Monk's numbers would be if there was no Gary Clark or Ricky Sanders?
Just something to consider.

Woah....

Let me start off by saying this is one of my favorite threads since I've been here. Good, intelligent back and forth banter about a legit topic. While I do think Art Monk should have been in the HOF long ago, I still think (and I'm TRYING really hard to put my bias aside) that Irvin was better. Art Monk was awesome, no doubt. They were both leaders to their teams, but in different ways. I don't think Dallas wins 3 Super Bowls without Irvin, he was the competitive fire on those teams. Smith was too quiet and reserved and Aikman wasn't the greatest leader. I think if not for the injury, Irvin could very well still be playing. Look at him. He LOVED what he did every Sunday, just as much as Monk.

Now take this into account. While Irvin's career ended abruptly, Monk's career ended with a whimper playing for a BAD New York Jets team. During this time, I really felt like he was just padding his stats, and keeping his streak of receptions going (That Rice has since broken and had ended). While I feel that he was the best reciever that team had, it probably didn't help him as much as he thought it would.

Now, as far as you saying the Cowboys passing attack was one dimensional, I give you one word: BULL. For years, all we ever heard from the 'experts' was that Novacek and not Irvin, was Aikman's go to reciever. What about Alvin Harper? That guy caught lot of balls for us. Kelvin Martin? yep. Kevin Williams, hell even Emmitt Smith got into the act (Don't you remember he was considered by many to be the best pass catching RB in the game for a time? Before Marshall, that is)

Anyway, it's a good debate. Hopefully they both get in and we can continue the argument. :wink:

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:48 am**

Primetime42 wrote:
BRAVEONAWARPATH wrote:
DallasCowboysFan wrote:
tcwest10 wrote:Art Monk Facts

-From Pro Football Reference.com
*Among The Leagues all time Top 50 Receivers
#5 in Receptions (Irvin- #13)
#9 in Receiving Yards (Irvin-#11)
#29(t) in Receiving TDs (Irvin-#34(t) )
#26 in Yards From Scrimmage (Irvin-#31)

-11 Seasons with at least 16 starts (Irvin-7)
-224 Total Games Played (Irvin-159)
-63 Yards Rushing for 332 yards (5.3 avg.) (Irvin-6 Rushes, 6 yards, 1.0 avg. (See ? Different type of receiver.)

16 seasons compared to 12 seasons is really comparing apples to oranges....Notice the difference of 8 in receptions but only the difference of two in yards? Like I said Monk definitely deserves in, this year, next year, whatever, he should be in by now. My point is going to be that Irvin shouldn't get bumped for Monk! All these numbers were also taken from pro-football-reference and I have them in an excel spreadsheet, pm your email address and I will send it to you. My attempt here is the rebuttal for TC and the overall record.

Irvin played 65 less games but has higher averages in every category. Receptions per game...Monk has 4.20, Irvin has 4.72. Yards per game...Monk has 56.79 yards, Irvin has 74.87 yards per game. Average yards per reception...Monk has 13.53 Y/R, Irvin has 15.87 Y/R. TD's per game...Monk has a .30, Irvin has .41 TD's per game played.

To compare games played I took Irvins average in every category and the lowest. The average receptions of 4.72 times 65 more games would be 307 more receptions. 74.87 yards per game times 65 more games would be 4866 more yards. .41 TD's times 65 more games would be 27 more TD's. To put that in perspective Irvin would have 1057 Receptions, 16,770 Yards and 92 TD's in the same amount of games as Monk.

I know, I know your gonna say his average would have dropped. So I took his lowest stats available. The last year he played he only had 10 Receptions for 167 Yards in 4 games, his lowest TD's was 1 in 1998 with 16 games. So these are the numbers used.

65 more games times 1.67 receptions per game would be 109 more receptions. 65 games times 41.75 yards per game (lowest he had) would equal 2714 more yards. 65 more games times .0625 TD's and he would have 4 more TD's. That totals out to 859 Receptions, 14, 618 yards and 69 TD's.

Compare that to Monk and I still say Irvin has the better numbers. The only reason he is higher in the all time was his longevity! Look at the Averages and Irvin Rules! That is why he deserves to be a first ballot! Monk deserves to be in as well but not at the expense of Irvin. If both can go this year, great but Irvin should go first! Oh, for everyone talking character, if that was an issue LT wouldn't be in. The bar has set and it can't be changed now!
Irvin was a great wr but i'll give you something to consider:
Unlike the COWBOYS..the Skins during Monk's tenure spread the ball around quite a bit. Just think how great Monk's numbers would be if there was no Gary Clark or Ricky Sanders?
Just something to consider.
Woah....

Let me start off by saying this is one of my favorite threads since I've been here. Good, intelligent back and forth banter about a legit topic. While I do think Art Monk should have been in the HOF long ago, I still think (and I'm TRYING really hard to put my bias aside) that Irvin was better. Art Monk was awesome, no doubt. They were both leaders to their teams, but in different ways. I don't think Dallas wins 3 Super Bowls without Irvin, he was the competitive fire on those teams. Smith was too quiet and reserved and Aikman wasn't the greatest leader. I think if not for the injury, Irvin could very well still be playing. Look at him. He LOVED what he did every Sunday, just as much as Monk.

Now take this into account. While Irvin's career ended abruptly, Monk's career ended with a whimper playing for a BAD New York Jets team. During this time, I really felt like he was just padding his stats, and keeping his streak of receptions going (That Rice has since broken and had ended). While I feel that he was the best reciever that team had, it probably didn't help him as much as he thought it would.

Now, as far as you saying the Cowboys passing attack was one dimensional, I give you one word: BULL. For years, all we ever heard from the 'experts' was that Novacek and not Irvin, was Aikman's go to reciever. What about Alvin Harper? That guy caught lot of balls for us. Kelvin Martin? yep. Kevin Williams, hell even Emmitt Smith got into the act (Don't you remember he was considered by many to be the best pass catching RB in the game for a time? Before Marshall, that is)

Anyway, it's a good debate. Hopefully they both get in and we can continue the argument.

Primetime..I agree that the Cowboys were not one dimensional
when it came to their offense. Novacek I'll give you..but
to throw Harper,Williams and Bryant out there as evidence
of a diverse offense..nope. Those guys were average at best.
In Harper's best season he only caught 46 balls. Compare
the people you named numbers against those of Sanders and
Clark. Oh and one more thing..I could be wrong but when
Emmitt was in his prime..was not Thurman Thomas considered
to be the premier pass catching rb?

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:09 am**

tcwest10 wrote:Wait a minute. Are you saying that Emmitt doesn't belong in the same breath as those guys ? That's insane.
I believe Emmitt Smith WAS better than a good two-thirds of that list, and I hate Emmitt Smith !

I never said Emmitt wasn't great but if you had to pick a RB, would you pick Emmitt, Barry, Walter or Jim. I bet the majority of people would take any of the other three guys above Emmitt. Emmitt has definitely proved he should be the #1 Rusher. He is on his 15th season and still looks like he has more in the tank. My point is should Emmitt be considered better than Jim Brown or Walter Payton or Barry Sanders because they didn't have as long of careers?

Sorry Welch, I don't follow your summary either.... Aikman will be a first Ballot guy! Was he better than Roger, nope! My point is still the same should the guy with better averages and almost similar stats in less games be worth more than a guy who played longer and doesn't have the averages.

I think Bob Hayes should be in the HOF too, even though he hasn't done near what Monk or Irvin have done, has no where near the stats they do but revolutionized the WR position! Changed Defenses single handedly, neither one of our guys can say that.

So do you take longevity or the guy who did more in shorter amount time? Do you take the guy who had more threats proven by stats that he had to compete with or the guy that didn't? I will take the guy who did almost as much in 65 less games, had better averages and also had more to compete with proven with stats. Call me crazy? Like I said this shouldn't even be a discussion because Monk should have been in a long time ago. But he's not, maybe there's a reason?

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:48 am**

DallasCowboysFan wrote:But he's not, maybe there's a reason?

Because he doesn't have a big mouth and talk himself up to the media. This was pointed out previously.

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:08 pm**

cvillehog wrote:
DallasCowboysFan wrote:But he's not, maybe there's a reason?

Because he doesn't have a big mouth and talk himself up to the media. This was pointed out previously.

Bob Hayes tried and tried to get in, mentioning it everytime you saw him. Hasn't helped him any? I never heard Barry Sanders Big Mouth and he just got in? I am guessing that is a knock on Irvin.....

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:24 pm**

DallasCowboysFan wrote: I am guessing that is a knock on Irvin.....

No. I don't have any problems with Irvin, personally. He was a great player, obviously.

However, if the media isn't all up your butt, it hardly matters what you did on the field when it comes to HOF selection time.

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:29 pm**

BRAVEONAWARPATH wrote:
Primetime42 wrote:
BRAVEONAWARPATH wrote:
DallasCowboysFan wrote:
tcwest10 wrote:Art Monk Facts

-From Pro Football Reference.com
*Among The Leagues all time Top 50 Receivers
#5 in Receptions (Irvin- #13)
#9 in Receiving Yards (Irvin-#11)
#29(t) in Receiving TDs (Irvin-#34(t) )
#26 in Yards From Scrimmage (Irvin-#31)

-11 Seasons with at least 16 starts (Irvin-7)
-224 Total Games Played (Irvin-159)
-63 Yards Rushing for 332 yards (5.3 avg.) (Irvin-6 Rushes, 6 yards, 1.0 avg. (See ? Different type of receiver.)

16 seasons compared to 12 seasons is really comparing apples to oranges....Notice the difference of 8 in receptions but only the difference of two in yards? Like I said Monk definitely deserves in, this year, next year, whatever, he should be in by now. My point is going to be that Irvin shouldn't get bumped for Monk! All these numbers were also taken from pro-football-reference and I have them in an excel spreadsheet, pm your email address and I will send it to you. My attempt here is the rebuttal for TC and the overall record.

Irvin played 65 less games but has higher averages in every category. Receptions per game...Monk has 4.20, Irvin has 4.72. Yards per game...Monk has 56.79 yards, Irvin has 74.87 yards per game. Average yards per reception...Monk has 13.53 Y/R, Irvin has 15.87 Y/R. TD's per game...Monk has a .30, Irvin has .41 TD's per game played.

To compare games played I took Irvins average in every category and the lowest. The average receptions of 4.72 times 65 more games would be 307 more receptions. 74.87 yards per game times 65 more games would be 4866 more yards. .41 TD's times 65 more games would be 27 more TD's. To put that in perspective Irvin would have 1057 Receptions, 16,770 Yards and 92 TD's in the same amount of games as Monk.

I know, I know your gonna say his average would have dropped. So I took his lowest stats available. The last year he played he only had 10 Receptions for 167 Yards in 4 games, his lowest TD's was 1 in 1998 with 16 games. So these are the numbers used.

65 more games times 1.67 receptions per game would be 109 more receptions. 65 games times 41.75 yards per game (lowest he had) would equal 2714 more yards. 65 more games times .0625 TD's and he would have 4 more TD's. That totals out to 859 Receptions, 14, 618 yards and 69 TD's.

Compare that to Monk and I still say Irvin has the better numbers. The only reason he is higher in the all time was his longevity! Look at the Averages and Irvin Rules! That is why he deserves to be a first ballot! Monk deserves to be in as well but not at the expense of Irvin. If both can go this year, great but Irvin should go first! Oh, for everyone talking character, if that was an issue LT wouldn't be in. The bar has set and it can't be changed now!
Irvin was a great wr but i'll give you something to consider:
Unlike the COWBOYS..the Skins during Monk's tenure spread the ball around quite a bit. Just think how great Monk's numbers would be if there was no Gary Clark or Ricky Sanders?
Just something to consider.
Woah....

Let me start off by saying this is one of my favorite threads since I've been here. Good, intelligent back and forth banter about a legit topic. While I do think Art Monk should have been in the HOF long ago, I still think (and I'm TRYING really hard to put my bias aside) that Irvin was better. Art Monk was awesome, no doubt. They were both leaders to their teams, but in different ways. I don't think Dallas wins 3 Super Bowls without Irvin, he was the competitive fire on those teams. Smith was too quiet and reserved and Aikman wasn't the greatest leader. I think if not for the injury, Irvin could very well still be playing. Look at him. He LOVED what he did every Sunday, just as much as Monk.

Now take this into account. While Irvin's career ended abruptly, Monk's career ended with a whimper playing for a BAD New York Jets team. During this time, I really felt like he was just padding his stats, and keeping his streak of receptions going (That Rice has since broken and had ended). While I feel that he was the best reciever that team had, it probably didn't help him as much as he thought it would.

Now, as far as you saying the Cowboys passing attack was one dimensional, I give you one word: BULL. For years, all we ever heard from the 'experts' was that Novacek and not Irvin, was Aikman's go to reciever. What about Alvin Harper? That guy caught lot of balls for us. Kelvin Martin? yep. Kevin Williams, hell even Emmitt Smith got into the act (Don't you remember he was considered by many to be the best pass catching RB in the game for a time? Before Marshall, that is)

Anyway, it's a good debate. Hopefully they both get in and we can continue the argument.

Primetime..I agree that the Cowboys were not one dimensional
when it came to their offense. Novacek I'll give you..but
to throw Harper,Williams and Bryant out there as evidence
of a diverse offense..nope. Those guys were average at best.
In Harper's best season he only caught 46 balls. Compare
the people you named numbers against those of Sanders and
Clark. Oh and one more thing..I could be wrong but when
Emmitt was in his prime..was not Thurman Thomas considered
to be the premier pass catching rb?

Nah, Emmitt was better. :lol:

At least he took off his helmet AFTER he scored TD's

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

Monk better than Irvin