Art Monk was a compiler...

[BlueDemon]

He's not a HOF player...he's sorta like Eddie Murray the hitter....both played forever and hung on...b ut neither were ever the best or near the best at what they did....

Gary Clark was the threat -0 he was the guy you gameplanned around....Monk was 7 for 75 - Clark was the big hitter and big play over the middle guy....

I like Monk - but I never thought he was a HOF'er - in Jerry Rice's prime - Irvin battled him in every category. And Irivin played in an offense where the pass set up the run but by the 2n half it was Emmitt time...95 Times Irivn was leading or tied at half time....and his stats were still Superb - not to mention - he was on his way to becomiing Monk as a top shelf possession guy before his spin injury - he was 34 but could have played made years and "compiled" more stats.

 

[SkinsFan07]

If Monk isn't than Clark should at least be considered. He and Irvin had similar numbers. And Clark had the same # of TD's and played 1 less year.

But none of the HOF voters even take him into consideration. It's sad really.

 

[HoleInTheRoof]

Exactly.

Monk was a compiler. That isn't what the Hall is about. No kid grew up saying "I want to be Art Monk!".

 

[Cochese]

If Monk isn't than Clark should at least be considered. He and Irvin had similar numbers. And Clark had the same # of TD's and played 1 less year.

But none of the HOF voters even take him into consideration. It's sad really.

New topic, same whining. Sad really.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

He's not a HOF player...he's sorta like Eddie Murray the hitter....both played forever and hung on...b ut neither were ever the best or near the best at what they did....

Gary Clark was the threat -0 he was the guy you gameplanned around....Monk was 7 for 75 - Clark was the big hitter and big play over the middle guy....

I like Monk - but I never thought he was a HOF'er - in Jerry Rice's prime - Irvin battled him in every category. And Irivin played in an offense where the pass set up the run but by the 2n half it was Emmitt time...95 Times Irivn was leading or tied at half time....and his stats were still Superb - not to mention - he was on his way to becomiing Monk as a top shelf possession guy before his spin injury - he was 34 but could have played made years and "compiled" more stats.

Great points. The fact that he played on the same team with the ALL Time leading rusher in football history and STILL compiled great stats, says a lot about Irvin and the team.

 

[zrinkill]

Art monk deserves to be in the HOF ...... but he is not as good as Irvin

 

[bbgun]

You owe Eddie Murray an apology. He was one of the finest switch hitters in MLB history, not to mention all the Gold Gloves. Raffy Palmeiro was the compiler.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Art monk deserves to be in the HOF ...... but he is not as good as Irvin

I agree, but he doesn't deserve to be in over Bob Hayes.

Hayes should go in before Monk just because he was a pioneer. A guy who changed the way teams played defense.

Monk did none of that.

But i think when you retire as the all time leader in any catagory you should be in the HOF.

 

[Cochese]

I agree, but he doesn't deserve to be in over Bob Hayes.

Hayes should go in before Monk just because he was a pioneer. A guy who changed the way teams played defense.

Monk did none of that.

But i think when you retire as the all time leader in any catagory you should be in the HOF.

Quit listening to that Commander propaganda. Rice had more catches than Monk when he retired.

 

[AmishCowboy]

This is the part the Commanders fans just don't get.

 

[CF74]

I was just a kid in the 80's but I remember hating Monk because he was good. I'm saying he's been snubbed..

 

[Henry]

Numbers over the first 12 seasons:

Monk: 801 rec 10984 yds 60 TDs
Irvin: 750 rec 11904 yds 65 TDs

It took Largent 14 years and change to break the career receptions record. It took Monk 12 and change. Was Largent a compiler too?

Look, Irvin was a great player and deserves his place in the Hall. But I think it's crazy to suggest Monk should have to wait at least three times as long for the same honor. Those number are pretty darn comparable.

 

[Rack]

Exactly.

Monk was a compiler. That isn't what the Hall is about. No kid grew up saying "I want to be Art Monk!".

Art monk deserves to be in the HOF ...... but he is not as good as Irvin

No, he doesn't. IMO only players that were at one point considered "Elite" during their players should be considered for the HOF. Monk was never EVER in his career an "Elite" reciever.

 

[Henry]

No, he doesn't. IMO only players that were at one point considered "Elite" during their players should be considered for the HOF. Monk was never EVER in his career an "Elite" reciever.

At the VERY least Monk was an elite player when he broke the single-season receptions record. That's not even debateable.

 

[Cochese]

It slightly restores my faith in humanity that the voters wont let in a player like Art Monk into the HOF. Good, not great, not elite just isnt good enough to warrant immortality in canton. Monk isnt even as good as Andre Reed.

 

[random Cs]

Tell me you didn't just call Eddie Murray a compiler. One of the best switch-hitters of all time, an 8time all-star and for someone who you claim was never near the best he was top 10 in MVP votes in 8-10 different seasons...


As for Art, he's everything a HOF player should be, but unfortunately those things aren't taken into consideration as much as other parameters. I wonder if Lynn Swan would be in the HOF if he dropped that catch.

 

[Rack]

At the VERY least Monk was an elite player when he broke the single-season receptions record. That's not even debateable.

No he wasn't.


And you're right, it isn't debateable. Cuz there's no way in hell anyone with at least half a brain would think of Monk as EVER being an elite player. He wasn't even "Very good". He was just "Good".

 

[riggo]

No he wasn't.


And you're right, it isn't debateable. Cuz there's no way in hell anyone with at least half a brain would think of Monk as EVER being an elite player. He wasn't even "Very good". He was just "Good".

you are insane, cowboy fan or not. did you not see henrys first post? he and irvin have very similar stats over the first 12 years of their career. yet he didnt even get into other stats that may be over your head. check out the stats of the WR's of the 80's and the WR's of the 90's and tell me why monk was 'good' but not 'great'.

look- i would put irvin in, despite his lack of rice-esque numbers. i would put him in cuz he was damn good- at times, the best. monk wasnt flashy. he didnt talk to the media. he played with some other good WR's. but his numbers are sick for his era.

monk a 'compiler', random c's? you need look no further than your age to know you have no idea where youre coming from. when you talk about a player you didnt even see play, you'd better have a clue. when you're getting ripped by your own, you know you dont.

 

[Rack]

you are insane, cowboy fan or not. did you not see henrys first post? he and irvin have very similar stats over the first 12 years of their career. yet he didnt even get into other stats that may be over your head. check out the stats of the WR's of the 80's and the WR's of the 90's and tell me why monk was 'good' but not 'great'.

look- i would put irvin in, despite his lack of rice-esque numbers. i would put him in cuz he was damn good- at times, the best. monk wasnt flashy. he didnt talk to the media. he played with some other good WR's. but his numbers are sick for his era.

monk a 'compiler', random c's? you need look no further than your age to know you have no idea where youre coming from. when you talk about a player you didnt even see play, you'd better have a clue. when you're getting ripped by your own, you know you dont.

Stats don't define a player.

At one point Irvin was right up there just behind Jerry Rice as the best WR in football. Monk was never close to being considered the best WR in football. Period.

you need look no further than your age to know you have no idea where youre coming from. when you talk about a player you didnt even see play, you'd better have a clue. when you're getting ripped by your own, you know you dont

Monk was a compiler. And I'm only 2 years younger then you, Moron.

 

[riggo]

Stats don't define a player.

At one point Irvin was right up there just behind Jerry Rice as the best WR in football. Monk was never close to being considered the best WR in football. Period.





Monk was a compiler. And I'm only 2 years younger then you, Moron.

first off, i was talking to random C's with regards to age. sorry you missed that.

second, how is he a 'compiler' when his numbers are so close to irvins throughout their first 12 seasons? 12+ seasons to set the receptions record, but he's a compiler? 106 receptions for an NFL record, but he's a compiler?

if you had some facts to back up your position, i'd listen. the facts are not on your side. but when you call monk not even 'very good', but only 'good', you may be beyond reason.