They ain't happy in Commander land!!!!!!!!!

Om;1355747 said:
I see. Based on that kind of solid, supported objective reasoning, you'd make a fine addition to the HOF voting committee.
Click to expand...


Tell us your "supported objective reasoning"....

:confused:
 
I love how Skins fans are angry that Irvin gets in before Monk as if he has a vote.

Maybe you guys should direct your anger to those that actually vote on the process.

As for who's better, if we were to weigh it based on per games played average, Irvin would best Monk in every conceivable category.

Monk deserves to be in no doubt, but every Skins fan continually brings up 'crackhead' and other off the field issues which don't apply to the process. Seems fair. I'll keep this in mind next time any argument about Sean Taylor vs RW comes up.
 
A misconception about Monk:
A lot of people say that Monk left the game as the all time leader in receptions with 940.
Wrong.
Monk finished his career with Philadelphia in 1995.
He was inactive for the last game.
At the end of the 1995 season Jerry Rice had 942 receptions.
Monk entered the 1995 season as the leader,but Rice surpassed him on week 17 of that season.
 
Monk deserves to get in- BUT Irvin deserves to get in first. He was the better player; made the big catches in the biggest games.
 
Calico is right. Drew Pearson and Monk are pretty similar WR's. They should both be in. But as everyone has said, Irvin deserved it and was only delayed this long because of off the field problems
 
Om;1355806 said:
That's what I figured.

The HOF voters are just as dedicated.
Click to expand...


No disrespect, but, don't come here crying and moaning to Cowboy fans just because Monk did not get it! IT IS NOT OUR FAULT! UNDERSTAND?

(go back to ES and moan and groan)...

:cool:

Sheess, man, grow up!
 
5Stars;1355815 said:
No disrespect, but, don't come here crying and moaning to Cowboy fans just because Monk did not get it! IT IS NOT OUR FAULT! UNDERSTAND?

(go back to ES and moan and groan)...

:cool:

Sheess, man, grow up!
Click to expand...
Not five minutes ago, you asked me to provide "evidence" of Monk's worthiness for the HOF. I provided you a link to a recent documentary-style piece that captures the hard numbers that support it, the words of countless other HOF's (including Irvin) who support it, and point-by-poing refutation of the laundry list of misinformed reasons people give for NOT supporting it.

Any reason you now don't want to look at the evidence you asked for?
 
Om;1355829 said:
Any reason you now don't want to look at the evidence you asked for?
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is a reason...because I don't care!

Sorry...

Maybe next year?

;)
 
Om;1355720 said:
Care to share your evaluation criterea?
Click to expand...

Sure Irvin was the better reciver and I showed the stats to prove it on ES in my responce to you
 
Hunter71;1355671 said:
Weren't we the same way last year?...

And the year before that?...
Click to expand...

yeah but 88 just made them really mad.
 
Om;1355829 said:
Not five minutes ago, you asked me to provide "evidence" of Monk's worthiness for the HOF. I provided you a link to a recent documentary-style piece that captures the hard numbers that support it, the words of countless other HOF's (including Irvin) who support it, and point-by-poing refutation of the laundry list of misinformed reasons people give for NOT supporting it.

Any reason you now don't want to look at the evidence you asked for?
Click to expand...

He didn't ask you to provide evidence of Monk's Hall worthiness. He responded to you asking him to provide evidence that Irvin was more deserving of the recognition than Monk. Then he asked you to support the opposite conclusion, if you could.

I think the majority of Cowboy fans think Monk deserves strong consideration for the Hall. You can grab any one of a number of threads in the board archive to see our overwhelming opinion that Irvin is more deserving if you care to research it. It's not even an interesting question, frankly.
 
BigDFan5;1355836 said:
Sure Irvin was the better reciver and I shoed the stats to prove it on ES in my responce to you
Click to expand...
You mean the part where you said "in my heart I know Irvin was the better receiver?"

Or are you referring to where you pointed out that Monk played longer than Irvin. Apparently, longevity is a bad thing.

Compelling.
 
Why are you trying to convince us that Monk should get in before Irvin on a Cowboys board?

On ES, Cowboys fans are being blasted for supporting Irvin over Monk and it's the same strain of logic here.

No minds on either side of the coin are going to change.

And I said earlier, if anyone ever wants to debate ethics into awards then I never want to see another RW vs ST thread ever again.
 
Idgit;1355846 said:
He didn't ask you to provide evidence of Monk's Hall worthiness. He responded to you asking him to provide evidence that Irvin was more deserving of the recognition than Monk. Then he asked you to support the opposite conclusion, if you could.

I think the majority of Cowboy fans think Monk deserves strong consideration for the Hall. You can grab any one of a number of threads in the board archive to see our overwhelming opinion that Irvin is more deserving if you care to research it. It's not even an interesting question, frankly.
Click to expand...
I read his request as asking me to support Monk's HOF credentials. Seemed a pretty clear read based on his word choice.

Fact is I have zero problem with Irvin getting in. He was a great player on a great team.

I DO have a problem with Monk not being in. And I'll admit it's incredibly irritating to see the numbnuts on the voting committee continue to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence that he should be. It's also irritating to see some fans of other teams mimic said numbnuts. Particularly when the "evidence" to support just how numbnutted they are being in regards to Monk is so easily accessible. They don't even have to think for themselves any more. They can just watch the pretty moving pictures.

www.monk4thehall.com

I don't believe there's an objective fan of the NFL who could watch this short documentary and walk away still thinking that Monk's continued exclusion is anything but a travesty.
 
There aren't many on this board who would argue that Monk doesn't deserve to be in the hall. I think the problem at hand is that people are blaming Irvin for the absence of Monk when he has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

Why trash Irvin to somehow bring up Monk's credibility?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 2,418 (members: 38, guests: 2,380)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,035
Messages
13,785,243
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top