Monk V. Irvin

Even though I hate all things Commanders, I've never understood why Monk isn't a shoe-in for the HOF. Rice is probably the only WR of the 80's that I would say was definitely better than Monk. I think he's better than a lot of WR's who have gone to the HOF in his era, especially Largent.
 
InmanRoshi said:
Even though I hate all things Commanders, I've never understood why Monk isn't a shoe-in for the HOF. Rice is probably the only WR of the 80's that I would say was definitely better than Monk. I think he's better than a lot of WR's who have gone to the HOF in his era, especially Largent.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you look at things.

When it comes to wide receivers, I generally look at yards and touchdowns. Receptions have their place, but I believe yards and TD's are far more important.

I also tend to look at how WR's stack up against their peers on a season by season basis rather than how they stack up against WR's from a different era because the game changes so much.

From my perspective, Monk shouldn't sniff the HOF because he rarely was in the top 10 in receiving yards in a season and rarely in the top 10 in TD's as well.

However, the HOF doesn't really have any rhyme or reason to their voting. So while I don't believe Monk belongs, I can see a supporter's point when they look at guys like Charlie Joiner and Lynn Swann are in the HOF and they weren't all that great statistically.

Irvin on the other hand should definitely be in. He played in on a run oriented team in an era where passing records with the run and shoot and West Coast offenses were going through the roof. Despite that, his stats stack up very well on a year by year basis against his peers.


Rich............
 
Both deserve it but Irvin is a much better player. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of their mind. There isn't a football coach anywhere who would take Monk over Irvin if both were available and in the prime of their lives.
 
Hostile said:
Both deserve it but Irvin is a much better player. Anyone who thinsk otherwise is out of their mind. There isn't a football coach anywhere who would take Monk over Irvin if both were available and in the prime of their lives.
Click to expand...


Yes sir.
 
When it comes to wide receivers, I generally look at yards and touchdowns. Receptions have their place, but I believe yards and TD's are far more important.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't look at TD's for a WR much at all. Irvin always had terrible TD numbers because when the team was in the redzone they went with Emmitt and the OL or they got Novacek matched up against a LB. WR's that lead the league in TD's tend to be WCO wide receivers who's team run 5 yard slants on the 3 yard line instead of pounding it in.
 
posession recievers dont' belong in the Hall of Fame.
 
Hostile said:
Both deserve it but Irvin is a much better player. Anyone who thinsk otherwise is out of their mind. There isn't a football coach anywhere who would take Monk over Irvin if both were available and in the prime of their lives.
Click to expand...


Both should be in.
Bad thing I think is that Monk has been waiting longer.

So I agree with you in that area.

However I will argue that you are wrong about the second part of your post.

There is ONE coach who probably would have taken monk over Irvin.

The one that coached Monk in Gibbs.:laugh1:
 
Rich brings up an interesting point and a relivant one, IMO. You can look at all sorts of criteria to decide how to evaluate a given player but to me, I put a lot of credince in what other players think. Michael Irvin is the only player I ever saw, beat Deion Sanders, consistently when both were in there primes. Jerry Rice couldn't do it, Tim Brown couldn't do it, Herman Moore, Cris Carter, Isaac Bruce, name the WR of that era and none, save Irvin could bet the best cover CB of that era IMO. I think that says a great deal about who should be in. Of course, I'm a Cowboy fan and thus, a bit bias.
 
BrAinPaiNt said:
Both should be in.
Bad thing I think is that Monk has been waiting longer.

So I agree with you in that area.

However I will argue that you are wrong about the second part of your post.

There is ONE coach who probably would have taken monk over Irvin.

The one that coached Monk in Gibbs.:laugh1:
Click to expand...
I don't think even Gibbs would say that. I really don't. Had Irvin not got he might be talked about in the top 5 WRs ever and might be anyway, based on talent. Monk isn't anywhere close to that level. I say that with no bias and I'll even admit I like Monk.
 
of course Bullett should have been in. SHOULD still be in before Irvin, FRANKLY. Monk was never all that great- as was pointed out, he was never a leading WR- which to me is the FIRST thing that should be looked at. If a player lasted 10 years, then he should be among the league leaders at least 7 of those years to be considered for the HOF.
 
burmafrd said:
of course Bullett should have been in. SHOULD still be in before Irvin, FRANKLY.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna be frank here.

OK, can I still be Garth?
 
i agree with a lot of you, both should be in. Wouldnt it be nice if both Monk and Irvin got in the same year?? Monk has been waiting a bit longer though so it has been more painful. No doubt in my mind that Irvin will get in, it just depends on how long the voters will make you cowboys fans wait. Will it be as long as they have made us Commander fans wait?? Doubt it.
 
Yakuza Rich said:
It depends on how you look at things.

When it comes to wide receivers, I generally look at yards and touchdowns. Receptions have their place, but I believe yards and TD's are far more important.

I also tend to look at how WR's stack up against their peers on a season by season basis rather than how they stack up against WR's from a different era because the game changes so much.

From my perspective, Monk shouldn't sniff the HOF because he rarely was in the top 10 in receiving yards in a season and rarely in the top 10 in TD's as well.

However, the HOF doesn't really have any rhyme or reason to their voting. So while I don't believe Monk belongs, I can see a supporter's point when they look at guys like Charlie Joiner and Lynn Swann are in the HOF and they weren't all that great statistically.

Irvin on the other hand should definitely be in. He played in on a run oriented team in an era where passing records with the run and shoot and West Coast offenses were going through the roof. Despite that, his stats stack up very well on a year by year basis against his peers.


Rich............
Click to expand...




Monk may not have gotten the huge stats, but he didn't have some of the advantages that Irvin had. Irvin never had a homerun hitter on the opposite end of the field like Monk did in Clark. That's like playing opposite of Santana Moss.

Monk also didn't have a guy of Troy Aikman's caliber throwing him the ball every year. He had a bunch of role players that got the job done. Theisman was probably the best and then there was Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien. None of them world beaters.

You also have to factor in two strike shortened seasons and that Ricky Sanders came in and along with Monk and Clark also got over 1000 yards recieving.

I don't think Irvin ever had a reciever on the same field that got over 1000 yards did he? Let alone 2 other guys.


Now don't take any of this as me bashing Irvin, because I agree he was one of the best and belongs in the Hall, I'm just saying that Monk performed pretty well considering the circumstances.
 
Both deserve it.

There are three Commanders that I've always sort of liked....Monk, Green, and Gibbs.

Irvin clearly is better. Monk never put any fear into DCs.....Irvin was someone that defenses knew they needed to stop.

He was also the heart and soul of a three-time champion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 124 more.
Total: 7,911 (members: 224, guests: 7,687)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,054
Messages
13,786,143
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top