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

With the announcement that Michael Irvin has been nominated for the HOF it's time to bring up the travesty of Art Monk not in the HOF.

Rankings among ALL WRs
Career stats Monk Irvin
Receptions 5th T-13th
Receiving Yards 9th 11th
Receiving TDs T-29 T-34
Yards from Scrimmg 26 31

They have similar Postseason stats.
Arrests - Monk-none Irvin- 2 many 2 mention

Let me start off by saying that my intention isn't to say that Monk isn't a worthy HOF candidate, it is simply to say that Irvin was in fact the better receiver. It is true that Monk leads Irvin in virtually every career receiving statistic, but as I will show you, that was due the fact that Monk played 16 seasons to Irvins 12.
In this statistical comparison, for all seasonal averages, in order to avoid skewing the numbers as much as possible, I threw out all seasons in which the player did not play in at least 8 games. Thus Irvin played 10 more or less full seasons and Monk played 15 more or less full seasons. I gathered all of these statistics from pro-football-reference.com if any of you wish to verify them.

Monk:

Games: 224

Receptions: 940 total
62 per year
4.1 per game

Yards: 12,721 total
840.5 per year
56.8 per game
13.5 yards per catch

Touchdowns: 68 total
4.5 per year

Irvin:

Games: 159

Receptions: 750 total
71.4 per year
4.7 per game

Yards: 11,904 total
1,135.9 per year
74.9 per game
15.9 per catch

Touchdowns: 65 total
6.0 per year

patrickg68 wrote:Let me start off by saying that my intention isn't to say that Monk isn't a worthy HOF candidate, it is simply to say that Irvin was in fact the better receiver. It is true that Monk leads Irvin in virtually every career receiving statistic, but as I will show you, that was due the fact that Monk played 16 seasons to Irvins 12.
In this statistical comparison, for all seasonal averages, in order to avoid skewing the numbers as much as possible, I threw out all seasons in which the player did not play in at least 8 games. Thus Irvin played 10 more or less full seasons and Monk played 15 more or less full seasons. I gathered all of these statistics from pro-football-reference.com if any of you wish to verify them.

Monk:

Games: 224

Receptions: 940 total
62 per year
4.1 per game

Yards: 12,721 total
840.5 per year
56.8 per game
13.5 yards per catch

Touchdowns: 68 total
4.5 per year

Irvin:

Games: 159

Receptions: 750 total
71.4 per year
4.7 per game

Yards: 11,904 total
1,135.9 per year
74.9 per game
15.9 per catch

Touchdowns: 65 total
6.0 per year

Irvin was a outstanding wr but he is not better than Monk. Something to take into consideration is the fact that Monk played with Gary Clark.
Clark took numbers away from Monk and vice versa.In fact, Clark's number are not too far off from Irvin's
+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1985 was | 16 | 2 10 5.0 0 | 72 926 12.9 5 |
| 1986 was | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 74 1265 17.1 7 |
| 1987 was | 12 | 1 0 0.0 0 | 56 1066 19.0 7 |
| 1988 was | 16 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 59 892 15.1 7 |
| 1989 was | 15 | 2 19 9.5 0 | 79 1229 15.6 9 |
| 1990 was | 16 | 1 1 1.0 0 | 75 1112 14.8 8 |
| 1991 was | 16 | 1 0 0.0 0 | 70 1340 19.1 10 |
| 1992 was | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 64 912 14.2 5 |
| 1993 pho | 14 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 63 818 13.0 4 |
| 1994 ari | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 50 771 15.4 1 |
| 1995 mia | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 37 525 14.2 2 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 167 | 11 54 4.9 0 | 699 10856 15.5 65 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+


Seasons among the league's top 10
Receptions: 1986-10, 1987-9t, 1989-7, 1990-5
Receiving yards: 1986-4, 1987-3, 1989-8, 1990-4, 1991-2
Receiving TDs: 1987-7t, 1988-9t, 1989-6t, 1990-6t, 1991-5t
Yards from scrimmage: 1991-7


Among the league's all-time top 50
Receptions: 19
Receiving yards: 14
Receiving TDs: 34t
Yards from scrimmage: 37


Postseason data
Please read this fine print before using this data or sending questions or corrections.

Year Opp Result | RSH YD TD | REC YD TD
---------------------+-----------------+-----------------
1986 ram W,19-7 | 0 0 0 | 1 8 0
1986 chi W,27-13 | 0 0 0 | 5 37 0
1987 chi W,21-17 | 1 -6 0 | 4 56 0
1987 min W,17-10 | 1 5 0 | 3 57 1
*1987 den W,42-10 | 1 25 0 | 3 55 1
1990 phi W,20-6 | 0 0 0 | 4 63 1
1990 sfo L,10-28 | 0 0 0 | 6 63 0
1991 atl W,24-7 | 0 0 0 | 6 64 0
1991 det W,41-10 | 0 0 0 | 4 77 1
*1991 buf W,37-24 | 0 0 0 | 7 114 1
1992 min W,24-7 | 0 0 0 | 6 91 1
1992 sfo L,13-20 | 0 0 0 | 7 100 0
1995 buf L,22-37 | 0 0 0 | 2 41 0
---------------------+-----------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 3 24 0 | 58 826 6


* - Super Bowl

Fantasy Football Data
Explanation

Year Value Pos. Rank Overall Rank
--------------------------------------------------
1985 15 19 55
1986 67 6 20
1987 79 3 13
1988 23 15 42
1989 70 7 24
1990 50 3 19
1991 90 3 10
1992 31 12 37
1993 0 31 80
1994 0 51 125
1995 0 67 175
--------------------------------------------------
425

So Patrick..you could make the argument that Clark was as
good as Irvin..don' t you think?..And remember who Irvin
played along side...the Alvin Harpers of the world. That's
a big difference...in my opinion.

BRAVEONAWARPATH wrote:So Patrick..you could make the argument that Clark was as
good as Irvin..don' t you think?..And remember who Irvin
played along side...the Alvin Harpers of the world. That's
a big difference...in my opinion.

Good one!

You are exactly right. Not only is Michael Irvin better than Monk, so is Gary Clark. You could say that Clark lessened the opportunities for Monk, but the Cowboys also had several good, but not great receivers.

From 91 to 94 Harper averaged 31 catches, 621 yards, and 4.5 touchdowns.

Over that same period Jay Novacek averaged, 54 catches, 553 yards, and 3 touchdowns.

Kelvin Martin averaged, 40 catches, 520 yards, and 2 touchdowns.

Emmitt Smith, averaged 53 catches, 337 yards, and 1 touchdown.

Daryl Johnston averaged, 38 catches, 297 yards, and 1.5 touchdowns.

The Cowboys spread the wealth very effectively, and Michael Irvin wasn't getting the ball every single pass play. Of course, you could also say that Irvin demanded more attention from the defense than did Monk, and still had better numbers.

Patrick, I think you are saying that you agree that both should be in the HOF.

I think that Monk should already be there and that at some time I would expect that MI will be there too.

Art Monk is the sort of player that I think the HOF is all about.

Have you been there? That is where we should have this conversation! With Art Monk!

patrickg68 wrote:Let me start off by saying that my intention isn't to say that Monk isn't a worthy HOF candidate, it is simply to say that Irvin was in fact the better receiver. It is true that Monk leads Irvin in virtually every career receiving statistic, but as I will show you, that was due the fact that Monk played 16 seasons to Irvins 12.
In this statistical comparison, for all seasonal averages, in order to avoid skewing the numbers as much as possible, I threw out all seasons in which the player did not play in at least 8 games. Thus Irvin played 10 more or less full seasons and Monk played 15 more or less full seasons. I gathered all of these statistics from pro-football-reference.com if any of you wish to verify them.

You "threw out" 2 years of stats for Irvin and 5 years worth for Monk but those years were apart of their careers and should be used whenever comparing carrer stats
The bottom line is Monk should already be in and Irvin's off feild issuses shouldn't keep him out. They were used by there respective teams in different ways and each had a different types of players arpund them. Monk isn't in because "they" say he didn't catch enough TDs or he ran short routes like he was calling the plays (the guy calling the plays is in). If Irvin doesn't get in it be because of what he did in hotel rooms. In both cases I think it's wrong and would bet that Dr Z will have something to do with it

I only threw out Monks final year, and that was because he only played 3 games. I threw out the years when they played fewer than 8 games only when comparing their per season averages. I wanted to get the most accurate representation of what their production was year in and year out. Had I left Monks final year in, it actually would have been a real benefit to my argument. I'm not debating whether or not Art Monk should be in the HOF because frankly, I don't care. My arguement is just that Michael Irvin was a better receiver, and I think that if you look at production, the statistics support my argument.

Patrick, you make a decent argument when it comes to career numbers when you take into perspective that Irvin only had 12 seasons to Monk's 16.

You might even say that Irvin was better because you perceive him to be a bigger impact player and that the stats line up a little better when you adjust them to take longevity out of it a bit.

But I don't care if Irvin's career ended on retirement or an injury, the fact that Monk produced good numbers for those extra seasons does indeed serve to show that he was the better receiver. HOF has to take longevity into account because it's a key part of what makes the great players. 12 season is a long time--but to play 16 and produce is remarkable.

I'll let the other stat guru's do the main arguing--they're way better at it than I--I just wanted to make that one point.

Good Grief! Michael Irvin is trash. A big mouth, crack head, dope head moron. Classless. Was he good? Oh yeah, he was great, no argument here, but he was and is everything I hate about the NFL. Monk was great, but he was not the self proclaimed "Playmaker" that Irvin was. Had Michael Irvin had the class of Monk I would rank him as one of the very best to play the position, and from a talent standpoint, I guess that's what he was, but as a Redskin fan I'm glad he was a cowboy. Art Monk was a gentleman in every sense of the word. Why he is not in the hall is a mystery to me. I remember well the Monday night against Denver when he became the all-time leading receiver, if that is not worthy what is?

I'm gonna spend more time on this later, but if you say that Joe Gibbs won three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks, then you have to say that Monk had to catch balls from all three. There were also many more, in between.
Didn't Irvin have the luxury of playing with the same guy for his entire career ?
Additionally...the hit that took Irvin out for good ? Monk would've shrugged it off, drilled the guy in the chest, and picked up four more yards.
They were two entirely different receiver types. Irvin's style compares more favorably to Clark.
There are some things, too, that don't show up in the stats. I, for one, believe that Monk was/is not only a better receiver, but a better man. That should count, but it doesn't.

Truth be told Irvin was a great receiver. Gotta admire a player who can play while snorting during halftime. But Monk was the consimate professional he was an example to teammates.And brought out the best in his teammates.He had the intangibles in which cant be measured in stats.Sanders Clark and Monk is all i have to say. Cowboys have never had a Receivers corp that compares to the Three amigos. Maybe you got us in the running back department but please dont go to the receivers.lol But just remember We now have portis and the skys the limit.Watch us in the Superbowl soon enough .Toodles

The simple fact that Monk played longer is proof only that he was a better Football professional.He was there for his team longer and thus more durable. He has more years ,catches touchdowns why is there even a debate. More years means more contributions. More production.More time to mold young receivers to play like him.More is better . Less is not. Irvin has less Monk has more. Monk helped his team get better Irvin helped his team get high.Im only speaking the truth.If it wasnt for Irvins talent they would have booted him long ago. Irvin belongs in the hall of fame but when you say better than Monk. It makes me think have you been hitting the pipe with him too.

Hey, tcwest, how would Monk have shrugged off the hit that Irvin took if he couldn't move either? Saying that crap is no different than the scumbag Eagles fans cheering him when he was down on the field.

No, it's not the same as "(blah-blah-blah Scumbag Eagles)".
Monk was a natural born TE. A big bruiser. He wasn't the flashy speedster type Irvin was. It wasn't a knock on Irvin, per se...although having reread my own post I can certainly see how it could be seen that way. That's my piss-poor writing skills coming into play. Monk COULD take that hit, and get more yards...
Irvin, it seems, had a pre-existing condition anyway.

I still disagree with you because the hit that Irvin took wasn't a big one. It was just that the angle of how he was hit drove his head into the turf. And as you said, he had a prexisting condition, something like an abnormally narrow spinal column or something like that, that prevented him from coming back.

tcwest10 wrote:No, it's not the same as "(blah-blah-blah Scumbag Eagles)".
Monk was a natural born TE. A big bruiser. He wasn't the flashy speedster type Irvin was. It wasn't a knock on Irvin, per se...although having reread my own post I can certainly see how it could be seen that way. That's my piss-poor writing skills coming into play. Monk COULD take that hit, and get more yards...
Irvin, it seems, had a pre-existing condition anyway.

Let me correct you on one thing my friend....Irvin was not
a speedster..not even close. That was one of the knocks
against him comming out of college.

[quote="tcwest10"]No, it's not the same as "(blah-blah-blah Scumbag Eagles)".
Monk was a natural born TE. A big bruiser. He wasn't the flashy speedster type Irvin was. It wasn't a knock on Irvin, per se...although having reread my own post I can certainly see how it could be seen that way. That's my piss-poor writing skills coming into play. Monk COULD take that hit, and get more yards...
Irvin, it seems, had a pre-existing condition anyway.[/quote

And you are correct about Irvin and his pre-existing
condition.

Seemed plenty speedy to me. Elusive, too.
Ever try to tackle him ?

tcwest10 wrote:Seemed plenty speedy to me. Elusive, too.
Ever try to tackle him ?

Let me repeat myself.."Irvin was not a speedster..a great
receiver..yes..but not a speedster.

tcwest10 wrote:Seemed plenty speedy to me. Elusive, too.
Ever try to tackle him ?

Irvin's forty times when he came out of Miami were
in the upper 4.5s. That's not a speedster, my friend.
And no..I have never had the opportunity to tackle
Irvin...have you?

You DO repeat yourself.
Every time you post. It's called "padding".
That's your business.
So, apart from this one word in my posts...you generally agree ?

tcwest10 wrote:You DO repeat yourself.
Every time you post. It's called "padding".
That's your business.
So, apart from this one word in my posts...you generally agree ?

Agree with you that Irvin was a great wr?
Of course...And I'm sorry if you disagree with my "PADDING"
(SARCASM)

Hmmm...
I'm gonna watch this one, kids.
Watch the old man. He won't be drawn into a peeing contest by a newbie.