Art Monk was a compiler...

[ZeroClub]

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.

My take on Monk is that he was a very good player who played at a very good level for an unusually long period of time. The length of his career is a credit to him. Few are able to be very good for so long.

Irvin's numbers are only part of his story. He is widely credited as having been the emotional leader of a dynasty team. It is this intangible, supported by the statistics, that requires his induction.

Irvin is a first ballot Hall of Famer who had to wait until his third year.

I'd guess that Monk will get in someday, as did Rayfield Wright.

 

[random Cs]

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.

Wow, thanks for the rant. What the hell are you talking about? I said Art was everything a HOF player should be. I didn't call him a compiler, that was the original poster, who obviously doesn't even know what he's talking about at all because he claimed Eddie Murray was just a compiler.

And I went to my first Commanders game when I was 3 years old. I went to at least 5-8 games a season at RFK every season. I enjoyed watching Art play as one of my favorite players for 7 straight years til he left for NY. Many fond memories of watching the late 80's and early 90's Skins with my father. So maybe you should get a clue before you start throwing out blind accusations.

 

[zrinkill]

Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame ...... But he is not as good as Irvin ....

Look at their stats against the best Corners of their times


No one played as well vs the Best Corners like Irvin did .....

I loved that Commercial where he had all the different corners in the leagues drawers on the wall .....

NO ONE could play Mike one on one ...... Deion had to cheat to win the 94 NFC game .....

 

[Henry]

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".

In 1984 Monk caught 106 passes. Nobody else that year even caught 90.

You shouldn't need even half a brain to know a guy who caught 17 more passes than anyone else in the league is an elite player.

And that's just for those of you who obviously never saw him actually play.

 

[Henry]

Irvin's numbers are only part of his story. He is widely credited as having been the emotional leader of a dynasty team. It is this intangible, supported by the statistics, that requires his induction.

Funny, that's exactly what Monk's teammates say about Monk.

 

[Rack]

In 1984 Monk caught 106 passes. Nobody else that year even caught 90.

You shouldn't need even half a brain to know a guy who caught 17 more passes than anyone else in the league is an elite player.

And that's just for those of you who obviously never saw him actually play.

Larry Centers once caught 100 passes. Was he an elite player?


If you say yes, jump off a high bridge.


Gary Clark wasn't even elite and he was BETTER then Monk.

 

[Henry]

Larry Centers once caught 100 passes. Was he an elite player?


If you say yes, jump off a high bridge.


Gary Clark wasn't even elite and he was BETTER then Monk.

Wow. That's what you got? Yer killin me guy.

Centers was 9th in receptions that year, 1995. In the mid 90's anyone with a pulse and a dream was catching 100 balls. Coincidentally 1995 was Irvin's best year, by far, and the only year he ever broke 100 receptions.

But when Monk hit 106 in 1984, no NFL receiver had ever done it before. Ever. And noone would again for eight years. In 1995, nine players broke 100. Clearly the game had changed by then.

In 1984, 106 receptions was not only elite, it was unprecedented. Even the most staunch Dallas fan should be able to admit something so blatantly obvious.

I'm happy for you all that Irvin made the Hall. But when you throw out ridiculous statements about Monk like spaghetti on a wall and hope something sticks, your insecurity starts coming through. You shouldn't need to tear down a rival player to prop up your own.

 

[HoleInTheRoof]

Wow. That's what you got? Yer killin me guy.

Centers was 9th in receptions that year, 1995. In the mid 90's anyone with a pulse and a dream was catching 100 balls. Coincidentally 1995 was Irvin's best year, by far, and the only year he ever broke 100 receptions.

But when Monk hit 106 in 1984, no NFL receiver had ever done it before. Ever. And noone would again for eight years. In 1995, nine players broke 100. Clearly the game had changed by then.

In 1961, Lionel Taylor had 101 receptions in the AFL. No one had done that before.

In 1964, Charlie Henigan had 104 in the AFL.

I guess by your logic, both of these players are "elite" and should be in the Hall of Fame.


Art Monk was never great.

Not only do the Hall of Fame voters not believe so, but neither did Art Monks own peers.

Sure, you can get the players in the fraternity to throw out some complimentary comments now and talk about how its a shame Monk isn't in... but action speaks louder than words.

In only 3 of Art Monks 16 years, was he a Pro Bowler. Only 3 out of 16 years did his peers even consider him one of the best 8 receivers league.

Thats greatness?
:laugh1:

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Art Monk is the debil.

Ok...enough fun for me.

 

[ZeroClub]

Funny, that's exactly what Monk's teammates say about Monk.

If Monk and his teammates think they were part of a dynasty, they need to be committed, not inducted.

 

[Henry]

In 1961, Lionel Taylor had 101 receptions in the AFL. No one had done that before.

In 1964, Charlie Henigan had 104 in the AFL.

AFL in the early 60s. I can only think of one AFL WR that ever made the Hall. It was a lesser league at the time, but those guys were absolutely positively elite in that league. I guess because you don't remember them personally they don't count. That sort of thinking seems to be going on a lot around here these days.

But fine, if you want to amend my statement to say Monk was the first player in 20 years to break 100 catches and the first player ever to break 106, go right ahead.

I guess by your logic, both of these players are "elite" and should be in the Hall of Fame.

My logic states that a player that catches 17 more balls than anyone else in the league on any given year is elite in that league for that year. The statement I was refuting was that Monk was never elite ever ever EVER. That's false.

Art Monk was never great.

Facts do not support that opinion.

Not only do the Hall of Fame voters not believe so, but neither did Art Monks own peers.

Sure, you can get the players in the fraternity to throw out some complimentary comments now and talk about how its a shame Monk isn't in... but action speaks louder than words.

Unless those players vote on who goes into the Hall, that logic is flawed. But you are welcome to value the opinion of some columnist from Green Bay over that of, say, Michael Irvin when it comes to who's a great WR and who isn't.

In only 3 of Art Monks 16 years, was he a Pro Bowler. Only 3 out of 16 years did his peers even consider him one of the best 8 receivers league.

Thats greatness?

Charlie Joiner went to 3 pro-bowls in 18 years. Stallworth went to 3 in 14 years. That didn't keep either of them from being recognized as great players.

Besides, I'm done arguing for Monk's induction into the Hall of Fame. I wouldn't expect any concessions from a majority of Cowboy fans for any Commander player.

What I was arguing was that Monk was never great. If you want to amend your statement to suggest that he was only great for a short period of time, I could see why someone might say that. But NEVER great? That's just bias talking.

 

[Henry]

If Monk and his teammates think they were part of a dynasty, they need to be committed, not inducted.

Whatever guy.

Monk's teammates credit him with being a leader on a team that went to 4 superbowls and won 3 of them. In fact, he's the only skill position player that was on all three superbowl teams. That's hardly coincidence.

 

[HoleInTheRoof]

Besides, I'm done arguing for Monk's induction into the Hall of Fame.

Good call. It's a pointless discussion.

No matter how much you try and argue... he isn't going in. He's been deemed not Hall worthy.

 

[AmishCowboy]

Monk has a shot next year and with Darrell Green up to maybe you'll have a nice present.

 

[Henry]

Good call. It's a pointless discussion.

No matter how much you try and argue... he isn't going in. He's been deemed not Hall worthy.

Ah yes, the old fingers-in-the-ears approach. I get that a lot from Monk-bashers. Good stuff.

 

[Henry]

Monk has a shot next year and with Darrell Green up to maybe you'll have a nice present.

One can only hope. Sadly, I think Monk's window has closed. At this point I'm waiting for voters to think up ways to keep Green out.

 

[riggo]

Wow, thanks for the rant. What the hell are you talking about? I said Art was everything a HOF player should be. I didn't call him a compiler, that was the original poster, who obviously doesn't even know what he's talking about at all because he claimed Eddie Murray was just a compiler.

And I went to my first Commanders game when I was 3 years old. I went to at least 5-8 games a season at RFK every season. I enjoyed watching Art play as one of my favorite players for 7 straight years til he left for NY. Many fond memories of watching the late 80's and early 90's Skins with my father. So maybe you should get a clue before you start throwing out blind accusations.

sorry- random. i meant to refer to blue demon, not you. my bad.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

One can only hope. Sadly, I think Monk's window has closed. At this point I'm waiting for voters to think up ways to keep Green out.

I see no way that Green would be left out.

Don't give up on Monk...it may come down to the senior committee down the road.

Look how long the cowboys fans had to wait on Rayfield.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

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

When /Monk retired, he had more catches than anyone else. Rice took that record eventually, but when Monk retired that was his record. Which is exactly what that poster was saying. Slow down on your blind hatred and actually comprehend what you're reading.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

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.

In his prime, he was way better than Reed. And please explain how players like Charlie Joiner, Lynn Swann and Stallworth get in the Hall, but Monk doesn't deserve to. Take the blue and silver glasses off and see it for what it really is.