Nate's Thoughts on Art Monk in the HOF

[Skinsmaniac]

Monk never broke 100 catches again

Nobody did until Rice in 1990. By that time Monk had been playing 10 years. For that 10 year stretch, no one compares.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

Funny quote I just heard from listening to the Michael Irvin show. When asked about his thoughts on Monk getting into the HOF, Nate Newton sounded less than impressed. His quote;

"Art Monk is Art Monk, man. We never gameplanned for him."

Just thought that was pretty funny and sums up why Monk was left out all these years.

The offensive line didn't gameplan for Monk? How surprising.

 

[jobberone]

1st WR to ever have over 100 receptions in a season, 12,721 Receiving Yards #9 all time, eight years after retirement), 940 Receptions was #1, is now #5 eight years after retiring. Monk in my opinion belongs in the HOF. Having said that others are also deserving including some of our Cowboys but Monk belongs.

Absolutely. But Monk was not really feared although I suspect that although Nate wasn't really that aware of game planning opposing WRs, Monk was productive enough to be considered. He finally got in. But if Monk makes it then Pearson and certainly Hayes should be. Hayes should be there no matter what.

BTW, how many Pro Bowls did Monk make? How many did Howley and Jordan make?

 

[BigDFan5]

Nobody did until Rice in 1990. By that time Monk had been playing 10 years. For that 10 year stretch, no one compares.

Come on bro lets not pretend there was nobody putting up big catches except monk

The year before Monk hit over 100 Todd Christansen put up 92

Craig put up 92 the year after

Christiansen again in 1986 had 95

Receptions in the mid 90s were common at that time. So he got 10 more after a pro bowl WR went down. Not unusual

 

[AbeBeta]

Nobody did until Rice in 1990. By that time Monk had been playing 10 years. For that 10 year stretch, no one compares.

Really? James Lofton put up more yards in that 10 year stretch.

 

[Hostile]

I like Art Monk and I do think he should be in the HOF, but not over Bob Hayes.

No way on that.

 

[AdamJT13]

That's flat out misleading. A rule can be on the books but if it is not enforced, then it doesn't really have any bearing on the game. The NFL informed teams in 1996 that it would begin enforcing the rule - just as they inform teams about rule changes.

The rule was being enforced from 1978 to 1995. But the NFL felt that it needed to emphasize it even more in 1996. That could have meant that it wasn't called strictly enough in 1995 or for a couple of years before that. But if it wasn't being enforced enough for ALL of that timeframe, the NFL would have made it a point of emphasis long before 1996.

Jerry Rice alone accounts for 3 of those 11 100 reception seasons.

I didn't say there were 11 100-reception seasons. I said Monk's total of 106 was surpassed 11 times before the rule emphasis. Rice accounted for two of them.

Now, I'm not comparing Monk to Rice. But it is interesting to note that in Rice's first 5 seasons 85-89 he averaged 69.2 catches per season (missing 4 games). In the next five (in the 90's), he averaged 94.8 (missing none). This was despite playing on better teams in the 80s. Did Rice just get that much better, or did the game change?

Did you forget what you've been arguing? According to you, the "game changed" AFTER the rule emphasis in 1996. That would mean it was more difficult to pass before then, particularly in the few seasons before 1996, because those were what spurned the rule emphasis. But when were Rice's most productive seasons before 1996? Yep, the last few, when it supposedly was the most difficult to pass, and before the rule emphasis "changed the game."

 

[masomenos]

What does Key have to do with this? I think there are many who do deserve the HOF who are not in it. I think Monk deserves it

They had very similar careers but you would be hard pressed to hear people say Key belongs in the Hall.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

The rule was being enforced from 1978 to 1995. But the NFL felt that it needed to emphasize it even more in 1996. That could have meant that it wasn't called strictly enough in 1995 or for a couple of years before that. But if it wasn't being enforced enough for ALL of that timeframe, the NFL would have made it a point of emphasis long before 1996.



I didn't say there were 11 100-reception seasons. I said Monk's total of 106 was surpassed 11 times before the rule emphasis. Rice accounted for two of them.



Did you forget what you've been arguing? According to you, the "game changed" AFTER the rule emphasis in 1996. That would mean it was more difficult to pass before then, particularly in the few seasons before 1996, because those were what spurned the rule emphasis. But when were Rice's most productive seasons before 1996? Yep, the last few, when it supposedly was the most difficult to pass, and before the rule emphasis "changed the game."

My argument is that the 1996 rules opened up the game, yes. The number of 100 catch seasons after it supports that contention. But it is also true that the first half of the 90s was much more explosive than the 80s. Am I not allowed to make two arguments?

 

[Skinsmaniac]

Really? James Lofton put up more yards in that 10 year stretch.

This is a very good point. Over that stretch Lofton average 65.7 yds/game to Monk's 65. I was a little overzealous when saying "no one compares."

 

[Skinsmaniac]

They had very similar careers but you would be hard pressed to hear people say Key belongs in the Hall.

That's because they played in different eras with different rules. (or to make Adam happy, different enforcement of the rules).

 

[AbeBeta]

This is a very good point. Over that stretch Lofton average 65.7 yds/game to Monk's 65. I was a little overzealous when saying "no one compares."

No problem. Here at CowboyZone we realize Skins fans are not as smart as we are.

 

[jobberone]

BTW, Art Monk was named to three Pro Bowls and was All-Pro twice.

Jordan was a 2 time All Pro and 5 time Pro Bowler.

Howley was a 6 time All Pro and 6 time Pro Bowler.

Hayes was a 4 time All Pro and 3 time Pro Bowler.

Hmmmmm.

 

[lurkercowboy]

I remember those years well. The key to Gibbs offense was the running game. Stop that, and the Commanders lose. Look at the stats from that era. I personally never thought much of their passing game, although they put up numbers.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

No problem. Here at CowboyZone we realize Skins fans are not as smart as we are.

You do realize that the only comparable player to Monk is a Hall of Famer right?

 

[BigDFan5]

Nobody did until Rice in 1990. By that time Monk had been playing 10 years. For that 10 year stretch, no one compares.

How about Steve Largent, Jerry Rice was better in half as many years that decade.

 

[jterrell]

Monk wasn't "the guy" when he caught 104 balls in 1984? That might not sound a lot today, but Monk played almost his whole career before the new rules on DB contact (which is one of the reasons it's so silly to say that his statistics are because of a move towards a more aerial game - that happened after him). He was the only receiver to break 100 receptions in the 80's - even Jerry Rice couldn't do it in five seasons. It wasn't until the new stricter rules on what kind of contact DBs could have with wide receivers that 100 reception seasons became the norm. He far exceeded the output of any other receiver of his generation. People like to say that he wasn't feared, that's fine - people are more scared of looking stupid than losing it seems.

Art Monk was only a 3 time Pro bowler an only one time an All-Pro. Yes his 100+ catch season was awesome--his all pro year. But he never got near it again. He played 16 years and he broke 80 receptions 3 times. He never got to 10 TDs scored in any one year.

The truth is he had one Hall of fame caliber season and other than that he just lasted a long time. He ranked top 10 in receptions 4 times and top 10 in receiving yards only 3 times. He only ranked top 10 in receiving TDs one time and that was 9th.

He was a good, good player but he basically had 1 season where he was an elite Wr and 2 more where he was a top 10 WR. That just doesn't add up to Hall of Fame.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MonkAr00.htm?redir

Gary Clark made more Pro Bowls and Charlie Brown made 2 Pro Bowls. Often surpassing Monk on the same team.

 

[AbeBeta]

You do realize that the only comparable player to Monk is a Hall of Famer right?

So what. Being the best in a certain decade doesn't make you great. In Monk's case it reflects more that he was drafted in 1980 so his best years weren't spread across different decades.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

I don't begrudge Monk his place in the HoF but for him to go in over Pearson and Hayes is just ridiculous.

I agree Monk is a Hall of Fame player but Mr. Hayes and Pearson should be in the Hall as well.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Art Monk was only a 3 time Pro bowler an only one time an All-Pro. Yes his 100+ catch season was awesome--his all pro year. But he never got near it again. He played 16 years and he broke 80 receptions 3 times. He never got to 10 TDs scored in any one year.

The truth is he had one Hall of fame caliber season and other than that he just lasted a long time. He ranked top 10 in receptions 4 times and top 10 in receiving yards only 3 times. He only ranked top 10 in receiving TDs one time and that was 9th.

He was a good, good player but he basically had 1 season where he was an elite Wr and 2 more where he was a top 10 WR. That just doesn't add up to Hall of Fame.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MonkAr00.htm?redir

Gary Clark made more Pro Bowls and Charlie Brown made 2 Pro Bowls. Often surpassing Monk on the same team.

:signmast: Well done.

Think about it, Roy Williams has already made more Pro Bowls than Monk ever made.