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

OK, Irvin is currently 11th on the all-time list for receptions by wideouts. Two of those ahead of him have been enshrined, three others should be someday and five more are maybes (Tim Brown, Andre Reed, Art Monk, Irving Fryar and Henry Ellard). How does he rate against the maybes? I like him better than all except Andre Reed. Irvin's dossier--go-to receiver on multiple Super Bowl champs. Except for a year or two, he was the most serious deep threat. Dropped a few but not an inordinate amount. Pushed off a lot but seemed to get away with it more than anyone else did. I didn't like him at all on the ESPN show last year ... wait a minute, that's not supposed to count. Strike that one. Do I think he deserves it? Yes. Will I vote for him? Depends who he's up against. I'd said that right now I probably would. Does that cover it, Mr. Ripper from Portland?

Read it closely.

link?

flock mrs z. that prick couldn't tell his from a hole in the ground, much less a good wide out if he saw it. a crackhead hooker havin puke? what the F ever. maybe z needs another line. hey z, pull your freakin head out and smell the fresh air.

hailskins666 wrote:link?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/w ... index.html

thanks 1niksder. and form the very first line of that:

Note to all you concerned Americans who are unhappy about my reference to President Bush's self-glorification in the last Mailbag: If this guy gets re-elected the Redhead and I seriously considering moving to New Zealand ... which would give you another reason to vote for him.

all the more reason to vote bush. get mrs.z the hell out of the country!

As liberal as I am saying that makes me want to vote Bush........The only reason why I still can't is that I have to be guarenteed there won't be a Dr Z jr. to take his place.

Z hates the Redskins. And anyone that is associated with them.

That is all you need to know

What a bunch of crap! This jerk needs to either open his eyess or get the "h" "e" double toothpicks outa this country. At the bare minimum, he should come forward and say he is anti-redskin. What a jerk! Don't get me started.....

Kilmer wrote:Z hates the Redskins. And anyone that is associated with them.

That is all you need to know

I think Z was in Irvin's Hotel room cutting the lines for him when he got busted. Z does hate us, and most of us feel the same about him. Irvin was a great player and I'll give him that, but so was Monk and he was high on adrenaline NOT cocaine!

I think Dr z is using crackboys drugs, No way Irvin was ever close to being as good as Art Thats funny..

No, Irvin was more of a "Gary Clark" type. He wasn't the same type of receiver as Monk. Fast, flashy and fun to watch (if you liked the Cowboys). He always drew the opposition's best corner. Monk ? They'd sic a linebacker or a safety on him because everybody knew he'd only want a four yard pass on third-and-eight. He'd drill you in the face for the extra needed yardage. Irvin ? Uh-uh.
It's apples and oranges.

"PLAY MAKER" THAT PHRASE IS NOW POPULAR CAUSE OF IRVIN WAS THE MAN. Funny a bunch of fans that live in a glass house thowing stones about a mans past. When your own history is tainted with players with indescetions.

Art will get his place one day soon despite Z

Z sold crack to Irvin ... he had the best "rocks" around ..... Or was he holding the camcorder for D. Russell?

Liberals like Z are liars because if they wern't Cher, Madonna (or is it Ester) Alec Baldwin .. Etc. would have all kept their word and moved to England after the last election.

Good job on bringing politics into a football debate. I'm sure Z sits up at nights plotting against Monk because he saw him with a replican campaign sign on his front lawn.

General Failure wrote:Good job on bringing politics into a football debate. I'm sure Z sits up at nights plotting against Monk because he saw him with a replican campaign sign on his front lawn.

actually, mrs. z brought it up in the article, but it had nothing to do with him being against monk....

Note to all you concerned Americans who are unhappy about my reference to President Bush's self-glorification in the last Mailbag: If this guy gets re-elected the Redhead and I seriously considering moving to New Zealand ... which would give you another reason to vote for him.

And it still has nothing to do with his like or dislike of Monk, Irvin, or hermaphrodite migets.

Dr Z gets tiresome, doesn't he?

- Monk was not just a big, slow, "possession" receiver. Monk was the team's number one receiver every season -- I mean, not just the leader in catches, though he usually was, but the big play guy.

- Monk was not a short-pass receiver. He ran as the H-back, replacing Clint Didier, when Gibbs went to the three-wide package, which they called "posse", but otherwise he was the number one WR, with Clark and Sanders alternating.

- Physically, yes, Irvin was a lot like Monk. That's probably what Johnson/Jones thought when they draftedhim: we need a big guy, a lot like Art Monk.

- Playmaker? I think it was more Mr. E. Smith on those teams, although I wouldn't argue hard against Irvin. He was good, (ignoring character, and the fact that he always pushed off against Darrell Green.)

gambit187 wrote:"PLAY MAKER" THAT PHRASE IS NOW POPULAR CAUSE OF IRVIN WAS THE MAN. Funny a bunch of fans that live in a glass house thowing stones about a mans past. When your own history is tainted with players with indescetions.

no, one fan. the rest here have been calmly discussing the football merits of each player. don't make it more than it is.

welch wrote:- Monk was not a short-pass receiver. He ran as the H-back, replacing Clint Didier, when Gibbs went to the three-wide package, which they called "posse", but otherwise he was the number one WR, with Clark and Sanders alternating.

Okay, whatever. It's not like you said anything bad about the man, so I'll accept what you write. Here's my thing...nobody was more effective at the short-and-medium routes over the middle, or the ten yard "out" patterns than Monk. Unlike many receivers, Monk was first a TE. When you threw him the short ball on third and long, you knew you were getting a fresh set of downs because that man would stop at nothing.
When most guys were simply Redskins fans or Riggins fan or (God save us all) Theismann fans, I was a Monk fan, and I watched him intently. His bag was the tough, over the middle shorties that you really had to not give a crap whether you lived or died to make work.
He always gave us everything he had.
Oh, man. I got feelings about this, so I'm getting out of here.
Somebody, get me a frickin' kleenex.
By the way, I'd've given him that touchdown in the SuperBowl even if he'd come down behind the goalpost.
"One toe out-of-bounds", my butt.

TC wrote:

By the way, I'd've given him that touchdown in the SuperBowl even if he'd come down behind the goalpost.

Me, too. But I've watched the tape enough times to be sure that he was pushed as he came down. Therefore, legal catch.

I mentioned the "possession receiver" tag because Z. and others have used that as their excuse to vote aginst Monk for the Hall of Fame. Agreed: Monk made the toughest catches. And the long ones, and the ones in between. And he ran the reverse, and he was a serious blocker.

For anyone who worries about "the numbers", he also:

- broke the record for catches in a single season, and did it on a team that had a balanced offense

- broke the record for most catches in a career

Belongs in the Hall. No question.

Dr Z is already planning not to vote for Monk in 05

Art Monk is another four-timer. A great possession receiver. Caught a lot of balls in Joe Gibbs' system. Every time I mention that I didn't vote for him because I simply felt that other people were more deserving than a guy who caught 900 eight-yard hooks, I wake up all the Washington diehards, who start screaming about my anti-Redskins bias. Start stirring, you folk out there. It will happen again.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/w ... index.html

Thankfully, he's not the only voter.

I don't even understand the "he's just a possesion reciever" argument. So what? He was probably the greatest possesion reciever of all time. To me, saying that since Monk wasn't a great deep threat he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame is like saying Ozzie Newsome or Mike Ditka don't belong in the Hall of Fame because they weren't a deep threat. Or better yet, it's like saying Barry Sanders doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame because he wasn't a power runner...

Spurrier, you're preachin' to the choir. I want to take a more organized approach this year in another effort to drum up some Pro-Monk sentiments.
Any ideas ? I've already got an almost complete list of email addresses for the Selectors.