For Skins fans: Is Emmitt the best RB ever?

[AmishCowboy]

When Bob Hayes, a true pioneer, gets in, then we'll worry about Monk.

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

LOL. You really don't get the point of this thread.

I do get the point of this thread. It's to try and show how some people have double standards towards people. however im sure no one here ever does that, right? However, I think it is compeltly irrelevant since the whole monk/irvin thing should have never been brought up in the first place.

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

*yawn*


Clark > Monk

very compelling

 

[apickmans]

and Michael Clayton said Skyler Green was the best WR on LSU's squad, so what?

so what? Um, Skyler Green is not up for consideration for the HOF. Neither or them have had a long NFL career. Neither are respected in the NFL. I know the point youre trying to make is that Clark was just being a a good teammate, but the fact that plenty of HOF'ers (Jerry Rice, even your own Irvin) have adamantly stated Monk should be in the HOF shoud carry some weight.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

so what? Um, Skyler Green is not up for consideration for the HOF. Neither or them have had a long NFL career. Neither are respected in the NFL. I know the point youre trying to make is that Clark was just being a a good teammate, but the fact that plenty of HOF'ers (Jerry Rice, even your own Irvin) have adamantly stated Monk should be in the HOF shoud carry some weight.

I thought the point of dicussion was whether CLark was better than Monk? I think Monk deserves to be in the Hall

 

[apickmans]

I thought the point of dicussion was whether CLark was better than Monk? I think Monk deserves to be in the Hall

Well that wasnt the original point of this thread but Rack had to go and say Clark was better than Monk. Who do you think was better? I wish more of your fellow zone members would feel the same about Monk.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Well that wasnt the original point of this thread but Rack had to go and say Clark was better than Monk. Who do you think was better? I wish more of your fellow zone members would feel the same about Monk.

as a big-play threat, Clark was better, he stretched the field, as a possession receiver, it was Monk, so whoever was better is all about preference really, and alot of people on here feel that Monk should be in the Hall

 

[SultanOfSix]

I do get the point of this thread. It's to try and show how some people have double standards towards people. however im sure no one here ever does that, right? However, I think it is compeltly irrelevant since the whole monk/irvin thing should have never been brought up in the first place.

A double standard has to do with treating one group more leniently than another.

This thread has to do with inconsistent rules of logic that Commanders' fans use in order to bias the stats (or whatever) in their players favor.

The whole Irvin/Monk thing was brought up by your fellow Commanders' fans due to the fact that Irvin got into the HOF prior to Monk, and complained on this very forum as if the he kept Monk out of it even though Monk was up for the HOF six times prior to Irvin. You were one of the said party who whined about it here.

 

[Rack]

So then....

Gary Clark for the Hall....right?

Nope. He wasn't an elite player in his time.

as a big-play threat, Clark was better, he stretched the field, as a possession receiver, it was Monk, so whoever was better is all about preference really, and alot of people on here feel that Monk should be in the Hall

except for the Monk in the Hall part. He was never an elite player during his career. The HOF should be reserved for the best of the best of the best. Monk is nowhere near that company.


Monk = Keyshawn

 

[random Cs]

Or course not.

Unless he was a Commander.

Then he'd be the best and the greatest ever, without a shadow of a doubt, and no one would be able to touch his awesomeness.

It goes both ways.

How many times do you see people who aren't Cowboy fans put Emmit as the #1 RB of all time?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

except for the Monk in the Hall part. He was never an elite player during his career. The HOF should be reserved for the best of the best of the best. Monk is nowhere near that company.


Monk = Keyshawn

to survive as long as he did, to put up the stats that he did, I think he deserves HOF recognition

 

[NickZepp]

Skins are right that Monk is hall of fame worthy. I don't think he's better then Irvin but he should be in the Hall already. It's a joke he isn't. Emmitt is my favorite running back of all and one of the 5 greatest ever.

 

[Rack]

to survive as long as he did, to put up the stats that he did, I think he deserves HOF recognition

Sorry but playing a lot of years and cathing a lot of 4 yard curls doesn't make someone HOF worthy.


He was never and elite player in his career. Ever. The HOF shouldn't be a place for someone just cuz they were durable and played a lot of years. I'd sooner put Terrell Davis in the HOF then I'd put Monk, and I don't think Davis is worthy either.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Sorry but playing a lot of years and cathing a lot of 4 yard curls doesn't make someone HOF worthy.


He was never and elite player in his career. Ever. The HOF shouldn't be a place for someone just cuz they were durable and played a lot of years. I'd sooner put Terrell Davis in the HOF then I'd put Monk, and I don't think Davis is worthy either.

fair enough, I don't care either way lol

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

A double standard has to do with treating one group more leniently than another.

This thread has to do with inconsistent rules of logic that Commanders' fans use in order to bias the stats (or whatever) in their players favor.

The whole Irvin/Monk thing was brought up by your fellow Commanders' fans due to the fact that Irvin got into the HOF prior to Monk, and complained on this very forum as if the he kept Monk out of it even though Monk was up for the HOF six times prior to Irvin. You were one of the said party who whined about it here.

yes, and since I have said I was wrong about that. What dont you understand?

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

Sorry but playing a lot of years and cathing a lot of 4 yard curls doesn't make someone HOF worthy.


He was never and elite player in his career. Ever. The HOF shouldn't be a place for someone just cuz they were durable and played a lot of years. I'd sooner put Terrell Davis in the HOF then I'd put Monk, and I don't think Davis is worthy either.

well jeez, I guess Bruce Matthews doesnt deserve to be in either, huh?

 

[Way 'nuff]

Sorry but playing a lot of years and cathing a lot of 4 yard curls doesn't make someone HOF worthy.


He was never and elite player in his career. Ever. The HOF shouldn't be a place for someone just cuz they were durable and played a lot of years. I'd sooner put Terrell Davis in the HOF then I'd put Monk, and I don't think Davis is worthy either.

No, I guess All 80's decade team with 3 other HOF receivers isn't elite.

Or first receiver to have 100+ catches in a season in a run oriented offense.

I know you'll roll your eyes, but take a few mins to watch this piece. He did a lot more than 4 yard curls.

http://www.redskinsdb.com/resources/Monk4theHall.wmv

 

[superpunk]

well jeez, I guess Bruce Matthews doesnt deserve to be in either, huh?

Bruce Matthews never caught any curls.

He straight BURNED people.

 

[SultanOfSix]

yes, and since I have said I was wrong about that. What dont you understand?

I don't chase you around the forum, and thus I do not follow nor read all of your posts.

Perhaps you should understand the point of a thread before making remarks.

 

[SultanOfSix]

It goes both ways.

How many times do you see people who aren't Cowboy fans put Emmit as the #1 RB of all time?

LOL. What kind of question is that? I've never felt the need to take a statistic like that.