Nate's Thoughts on Art Monk in the HOF

[Bizwah]

I like Monk.

I'm glad he made it in. He's a guy that represented the Skins well.

But honestly, as a Cowboy fan, he never scared me. I never was nervous about us facing Art Monk. I was nervous about the Skin OL...John Riggins...Gary Clark. Every now and then, Monk would make a nice catch, and I'd think....oh, there's Art Monk.

Anyway, if Monk makes it, then I would say that Darren Woodson should definitely make it.

I've given up hope for Hayes, Martin, Pearson, and Harris.

 

[SkinnedAlive]

"John Riggins"


Speaking of which. He made one 1 pro bowl. Their goes that argument. Though, if you want to get into it, Chris Hanburger made 9 pro bowls..........................

 

[Bizwah]

"John Riggins"


Speaking of which. He made one 1 pro bowl. Their goes that argument. Though, if you want to get into it, Chris Hanburger made 9 pro bowls..........................

No, it actually supports the arguement more. I had more to fear from a guy that made one pro bowl than Monk.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

Considering how much Monk actually DID do, maybe teams should have "feared" or "gameplanned" for him a little more. Looks like it was their mistake and he got the Commanders first down after first down, until the end zone

 

[Bizwah]

Considering how much Monk actually DID do, maybe teams should have "feared" or "gameplanned" for him a little more. Looks like it was their mistake and he got the Commanders first down after first down, until the end zone

First of all, I said earlier that I was glad he got into the hall.

Secondly, he just never scared me. I never got the feeling he was going to beat our team. Mabye it was because he was so unassuming. Or maybe it was because it was a different player in the endzone....

Again, I'm glad he made it. I think his numbers get him there.

I don't think he was a game changer like Drew Pearson or Bob Hayes.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Considering how much Monk actually DID do, maybe teams should have "feared" or "gameplanned" for him a little more. Looks like it was their mistake and he got the Commanders first down after first down, until the end zone

Except there's no real evidence of how many first downs Monk got versus other receivers in the league, even Gary Clark. Clark had the SAME AMOUNT of seasons where he was in the top 10 in receptions that Monk did (4) and was in the top 10 in yards 5 times, compared to Monk, who was only in the top 10 twice in receiving yards. And Monk certainly wasn't getting them in the end zone, as he only finished in the top 10 in receiving TD's in one season.

With those numbers it seems more likely that Clark was getting first down after first down moreso than Monk was. And the same could be said for Irvin, Cris Carter, etc. And from 1980 to 1991, the Commanders ranked an average of 13th in pass attempts per season, so the "they always ran the ball argument" doesn't really work.




YAKUZA

 

[YosemiteSam]

I think monk was a great player and deserved to be in.

What exactly is your criteria for being in?

The only thing that I see that Monk had in his career that could make him HoF material is longevity.

I mean, he only had 5 good years (1000+ yards) and 2 very good years (1200+ yards) over his entire 16 year career. His longest streak of 1000+ season was three.

Michael Irvin was considered a great receiver and Monk played four more years and ended up with just about the same stats.

I'm not against Monk getting in, but lets be clear here. He wasn't in the class of most HoF receivers. Newton makes a valid point. Nobody game planned for Monk.

Bullet Bob Hayes was game planned for. Hell he changed the way defense was played in the secondary. He was far more of a game changer than Art Monk.

So I ask. What criteria do you use to declare Monk a HoFer?

 

[YosemiteSam]

lol Monk was known for clutch 3rd down conversion. Some might say he the best possession WR of all time. He may not have caught alot of bombs like Clark, but the guy kept drives alive.

Drugs kill dude.

Michael Irvin was far and away a better possession WR and I don't believe he was the best. I would give that to Jerry Rice. Jerry Rice did it all.

 

[Hostile]

"John Riggins"


Speaking of which. He made one 1 pro bowl. Their goes that argument. Though, if you want to get into it, Chris Hanburger made 9 pro bowls..........................

Riggins is in the Hall.

 

[Bizwah]

What exactly is your criteria for being in?

The only thing that I see that Monk had in his career that could make him HoF material is longevity.

I mean, he only had 5 good years (1000+ yards) and 2 very good years (1200+ yards) over his entire 16 year career. His longest streak of 1000+ season was three.

Michael Irvin was considered a great receiver and Monk played four more years and ended up with just about the same stats.

I'm not against Monk getting in, but lets be clear here. He wasn't in the class of most HoF receivers. Newton makes a valid point. Nobody game planned for Monk.

Bullet Bob Hayes was game planned for. Hell he changed the way defense was played in the secondary. He was far more of a game changer than Art Monk.

So I ask. What criteria do you use to declare Monk a HoFer?

The criteria isn't comparing him to guys that are or aren't in the HOF.

His numbers...while not spectacular...are pretty good. People say the same thing about Emmitt's record. He only got it because he played a long time.

Well, if you can put up numbers for a long period of time, then you're a pretty good player.

Sure, he wasn't a game-changer like Michael Irvin. Sure he didn't change the game like Bob Hayes. He didn't have the signature catches like Lynn Swan. But that's not how you should determine who belongs.

Hayes belongs....no doubt....but just because he's not in, doesn't mean that Monk shouldn't be in.

 

[YosemiteSam]

The criteria isn't comparing him to guys that are or aren't in the HOF.

I didn't say it was. I just ask what criteria he was using.

His numbers...while not spectacular...are pretty good. People say the same thing about Emmitt's record. He only got it because he played a long time.

Eh? 18,355 rushing yard divided by 15 season is 1,223 per season.

I don't know about you, but 1,223 yards rushing a season is pretty damn good! He actually broke the record in his 13th season not his final season. Those seasons just extended the current record.

 

[cobra]

I wish they would define the selection criteria better. I have no idea what it is.

My own personal selection criteria is whether I would watch a player and say "Damn, that guy is a stud. I wish we had him."

Art Monk did not draw that reaction from me. Darrell Green did.

 

[Bizwah]

I didn't say it was. I just ask what criteria he was using.
Eh? 18,355 rushing yard divided by 15 season is 1,223 per season.

I don't know about you, but 1,223 yards rushing a season is pretty damn good! He actually broke the record in his 13th season not his final season. Those seasons just extended the current record.

Hey, I didn't make it up. I merely reported what folks say about him.

I agree that Emmitt's accomplishment is awesome.

But that's what folks say about him. Don't you remember the reaction of the media when he broke the record?

The longevity argument is what folks say about Emmitt. I was merely pointing out that Monk is receiving the same treatment.

I don't agree with either.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Hey, I didn't say it.

I agree that Emmitt's accomplishment is awesome.

But that's what folks say about him. Don't you remember the reaction of the media when he broke the record?

The longevity argument is what folks say about Emmitt. I was merely pointing out that Monk is receiving the same treatment.

I don't agree with either.

If Emmitt averaged 750 yards a season and broke the record, I could agree with it. The problem is 1,200+ yards is a great season by any standard. To average that for a career. Just plain stupid.

Emmitt broke Walter Paytons record in 13 seasons. It took Walter Payton 13 seasons to set that mark. So, they would be forced to apply that same argument to Walter Payton and I have never heard that before. Only a hater would make that argument.

Walter Payton averaged 1,286 yards per season in his 13 seasons.

Emmitt Smith averaged 1,223 yards per season in his 15 seasons.

Emmitt Smith averaged 1,320 yard per season in his first 13 seasons that it took him to break the record.

To try and down play what Emmitt did could only be done by someone without class as nobody in their right mind would ever downplay what Sweetness did.

 

[Bizwah]

If Emmitt averaged 750 yards a season and broke the record, I could agree with it. The problem is 1,200+ yards is a great season by any standard. To average that for a career. Just plain stupid.

Emmitt broke Walter Paytons record in 13 seasons. It took Walter Payton 13 seasons to set that mark. So, they would be forced to apply that same argument to Walter Payton and I have never heard that before. Only a hater would make that argument.

Walter Payton averaged 1,286 yards per season in his 13 seasons.

Emmitt Smith averaged 1,223 yards per season in his 15 seasons.

Emmitt Smith averaged 1,320 yard per season in his first 13 seasons that it took him to break the record.

To try and down play what Emmitt did could only be done by someone without class as nobody in their right mind would ever downplay what Sweetness did.

Well, it just goes to show you how the press does whatever they can to downplay any Cowboy achievement.

Nevermind the fact that Emmitt was the driving force behind three SB wins.

Anyway, I don't agree with the assessment that Emmitt was only good do to his longevity...Neither do I agree with that being the only reason Monk was any good.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Neither do I agree with that being the only reason Monk was any good.

I don't think anyone said Monk wasn't good. They are just questioning whether he was good enough for the Hall of Fame.

Personally, I'm more on the fence about it. I like Monk, but as I said. To me, only his longevity would be the only criteria that would punch his ticket in. He just wasn't a dominating receiver for more than a couple of years. To play at a very high level for a small portion of your career, just doesn't do it for me.

Longevitiy is all I can agree upon.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Wow...I don't know how I missed this argument 2 days ago.

Anyway I totally disagree with this notion that Monk shouldn't be in. He should and I'm glad he is. Was he first ballot? No and so I think they got that right when they didn't put him in. If Cris Carter isn't first ballot then Monk certainly wasn't.

But this notion that he has no business in the Hall is just silly.

I do agree, however, with the fact that Pearson and Bob should have been in a long time ago.

 

[Alexander]

I wish they would define the selection criteria better. I have no idea what it is.

My own personal selection criteria is whether I would watch a player and say "Damn, that guy is a stud. I wish we had him."

Art Monk did not draw that reaction from me. Darrell Green did.

It is purely subjective.

Gayle Sayers did not have a long or especially statistically impressive career, but he made it as well. I doubt they can ever define it and have a pure cutoff point.

 

[Hostile]

It is purely subjective.

Gayle Sayers did not have a long or especially statistically impressive career, but he made it as well. I doubt they can ever define it and have a pure cutoff point.

Which makes me wonder about Terrell Davis at some point.