Some issues with the HoF...

[YosemiteSam]

Let me ask you this... is Lynn Swann Hof?

I would say no 100 times. The guy never had more than 880 yards in a season and never had more than 61 receptions. Tight end numbers from your wideout? What got him into the HoF where the two SuperBowls against Dallas (play wise 11 receptions for 285 yards and 2 TDs) and having four SuperBowl rings.

I don't think two games should get you in the HoF no matter if they are SuperBowls or not.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Here is one to consider. NFL observers now say it's time for Monk to get in. So take off your blinders and riddle me this - Pearson or Monk?

Monk by a mile. Drew Pearson doesn't deserve the HoF.

 

[sacase]

Monk by a mile. Drew Pearson doesn't deserve the HoF.

Monk wasn't even the best reciver on his team. I don't think an overglorified possesion reciever belongs in the hall. He was good and reliable, but he was not game changing. People had to worry about Sanders more than Monk.

 

[Hostile]

Bravo Hos, Bravo! :clap2:

Very nice Hos,

Very nice!

:skins: :thankyou:

Thank you.

It galls me that people can't think past an issue that Hayes had off the field, after hsi playing days. Anyone who votes no on the man simply has no idea what football is about.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Monk wasn't even the best reciver on his team. I don't think an overglorified possesion reciever belongs in the hall. He was good and reliable, but he was not game changing. People had to worry about Sanders more than Monk.

To me its not all about complete domination. It's about playing at a high level and producing over the long haul too.

Some of Monks numbers:

• 940 total receptions
• 12,721 total yards
• 106 receptions in 1984
• (5) 1,000+ yard seasons
• (3) SuperBowl rings
• 16 years played
• #6 all-time in receptions.
• #11 all-time in yards.

Longevity is a valid reason that should be considered when deciding about a player for the HoF.

 

[2233boys]

It's almost like comparing Monk to Irvin.... Monk has more yards, catches and TDs and has a couple rings. it's just well, I'm not voting so as long as we get a couple in the hall I guess we are OK. lol

It isn't anywhere close. Monk wasn't near the wr Irvin stat totals be damned. If you watched them play and didn't just relay on Stat Totals at the end of their carrers you would know this.

Monk has 3 rings.
Monk only had 5 1000 yrd seasons, Irvin had 7 in a career that was 4 years shorter
Monks best year he had 1373 yrd Irvin passed that 3 times.
Monk Played in 65 more games and scored all of 2 more tds than Irvin
In those extra 65 games he only managed 817 more yrds. Yeah they were similar... LOL A awesome 12 yrds per game.

Monk wasn't even the same level as Irvin. Not even close.

 

[sacase]

To me its not all about complete domination. It's about playing at a high level and producing over the long haul too.

Some of Monks numbers:

• 940 total receptions
• 12,721 total yards
• 106 receptions in 1984
• (5) 1,000+ yard seasons
• (3) SuperBowl rings
• 16 years played
• #6 all-time in receptions.
• #11 all-time in yards.

Longevity is a valid reason that should be considered when deciding about a player for the HoF.

I know what his numbers are, but let me ask you this....How did Art Monk Change football?

 

[Zaxor]

This is just my 2 cents...but I don't think Pearson belongs in the Hall because he was just a very good player. He deserves to be in the Ring of Honor, but not the Hall. He didn't change the game in any special way nor was he the catalyst on any of those teams he played for. I love Drew, loved watching him play, but he is not a HOFer in my opinion. I also don't think John Stallworth was, but I do think Swann was. Swann always showed up in big games, which I hated. I don't think Monk is a HOfer either. He and Drew are the same type of receiver in my opinion, very good, but not Hall worthy. Hayes is Hall worthy as he changed the sport because of his speed and athleticism. No one that could run track in those days could also play football. They never would have been able to take the pounding. Hayes was the physical freak of his era because he could do many things well. A 21 year old Bob Hayes today would torch the receiving records if given the chance. I am praying he gets in this year and a sever injustice is fixed....ray:

Jake we are all allowed our opinion...but let me ask you if you consider playoff games as Big games or a game that determines who goes to the playoffs and who stays home...because if so Pearson was huge... everybody knew where the ball was going, I mean everybody and they could not stop him

 

[percyhoward]

Combined Seasons finished in Top Five in receptions, yards and TD'S
Bob Hayes 11
Andre Rison 11
Cliff Branch 7
John Stallworth 7
Drew Pearson 5
Art Monk 5
Andre Reed 5
Lynn Swann 3

These are just the guys mentioned in this thread. Looks good for Hayes and Rison until you add in the red numbers: TD's per post-season game.

Bob Hayes 11 .17
Andre Rison 11 .33
Cliff Branch 7 .27
John Stallworth 7 .70
Drew Pearson 5 .36
Art Monk 5 .47
Andre Reed 5 .47
Lynn Swann 3 .56

 

[JakeCamp12]

Zax,

I see your point, and to an extent I agree with you. But Drew just never got us over the hump in a really big game. Yes he did well in playoff games, maybe if we won one of the 3 championship games in the 80's and he was a huge factor in a win getting us to the Super Bowl, I would have a different opinion. I just think he was a good player and not an elite player that belongs in the Hall like Bullet Bob and Michael Irvin. Loved watching him play, but I don't think stats will change my mind on it.

 

[lurkercowboy]

My two cents is this: There are players in the HOF now that do not deserve it, like Swann and Stallworth. If these guys are in, then Pearson and Monk deserve it as well. They were all very good WRs.

Speaking of Drew Pearson, he was a superb big game player. Any game when you go home if you lose is a big game. Look at the Hail Mary game. Drew came up big on that drive with two huge catches. Also the Atlanta playoff game in 1980.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I know what his numbers are, but let me ask you this....How did Art Monk Change football?

How did Aikman change football? Answer: He didn't.

 

[sacase]

How did Aikman change football? Answer: He didn't.

You mean other than being the most visible leader on a team that won three superbowls in 4 years and become the Superbowl XXVII MVP, have more passing yards than any cowboys QB and have more wins in the 90's than any QB in any decade?

Not much I guess....

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Aikman was one of the very best players at his position in his day... Maybe the best.

Monk NEVER was. Ever.

If longevity is so important, guess we better remove Gale Sayers.

 

[percyhoward]

Aikman was one of the very best players at his position in his day... Maybe the best.

Aikman was also the best BIG game player the Cowboys ever had--on offense. Howley on defense.

 

[lurkercowboy]

Aikman was also the best BIG game player the Cowboys ever had--on offense. Howley on defense.

That was one of the things that was so great about the triplets. They were all terrific big game players.

On a historical note, other than the 1980 wild card game versus the Rams, what was Dorsett's best playoff performance? It is not a trivia question, I'm looking for someone to jog my memory.

 

[blindzebra]

This is just my 2 cents...but I don't think Pearson belongs in the Hall because he was just a very good player. He deserves to be in the Ring of Honor, but not the Hall. He didn't change the game in any special way nor was he the catalyst on any of those teams he played for. I love Drew, loved watching him play, but he is not a HOFer in my opinion. I also don't think John Stallworth was, but I do think Swann was. Swann always showed up in big games, which I hated. I don't think Monk is a HOfer either. He and Drew are the same type of receiver in my opinion, very good, but not Hall worthy. Hayes is Hall worthy as he changed the sport because of his speed and athleticism. No one that could run track in those days could also play football. They never would have been able to take the pounding. Hayes was the physical freak of his era because he could do many things well. A 21 year old Bob Hayes today would torch the receiving records if given the chance. I am praying he gets in this year and a sever injustice is fixed....ray:

Playoff stats:

Swann: 48 rec, 907 yards, 9 TDs

Pearson: 68 rec, 1131 yards, 8 TDs

Stallworth: 57 rec, 1054 yards, 12 TDs

That sound you hear is your argument going POOF!

 

[blindzebra]

Aikman was also the best BIG game player the Cowboys ever had--on offense. Howley on defense.

And why should being a big game player be the deciding factor?

Payton played 90% of his career on a terrible team, his playoff numbers are almost nonexistent, he was invisible in his only SB.

Thurman Thomas is the biggest choker in NFL history...lost helmets, fumbles, mysterious injuries.

 

[percyhoward]

And why should being a big game player be the deciding factor?

Payton played 90% of his career on a terrible team, his playoff numbers are almost nonexistent, he was invisible in his only SB.

Thurman Thomas is the biggest choker in NFL history...lost helmets, fumbles, mysterious injuries.

When all else is equal, it makes sense to look at a player's performance in big games. Seems obvious enough.

Since no other running back equaled Payton's career numbers when he retired, his Super Bowl performance didn't weigh into it when he was being considered for the HOF. (And anyway, Payton's 61 yards on 22 carries was the biggest reason Jim McMahon (who had a career 7.1 ypa) averaged 12.8 ypa in that game.)

Thomas retired in the top 5 all-time in yards from scrimmage, so he didn't need help from playoff games either, but 21 post-season TD's in 21 games couldn't have hurt.

 

[YosemiteSam]

You mean other than being the most visible leader on a team that won three superbowls in 4 years and become the Superbowl XXVII MVP, have more passing yards than any cowboys QB and have more wins in the 90's than any QB in any decade?

Not much I guess....

Aikman was one of the very best players at his position in his day... Maybe the best.

Monk NEVER was. Ever.

If longevity is so important, guess we better remove Gale Sayers.

The question was how did Monk change the game of football. I said, Aikman didn't either. Aikman was a great football player, but he didn't change the game of football in anyway.

btw, I didn't say you needed longevity, I said it's something that you consider.

Aikman was also the best BIG game player the Cowboys ever had--on offense. Howley on defense.

I disagree. Irvin and Emmitt would be in that mix and so would the Dodger.