What do you all think about Monk?

[StanleySpadowski]

as long as guys like Peter King and Dr. Z have votes.....and they base those votes on the players they got close to, and the players who didn't talk to the media.

Then the HOF is busted.

Current members should vote. Many of them played against the ones they are voting for or against.

I believe that Dr. Z gave up his vote.


I'm really thinking of trying to organize a protest at the HOF game with Commander and Cowboy fans. This would be the perfect year for Cowboy fans because it can't be seen as sour grapes.

I realize that most 'skins fans are upset about Monk again but I think Grimm is the one who should be in first. Best player on arguably the best line in history. I'm also kind of surprised that Ricky Sanders doesn't get more love from the voters, maybe not making it, but final 15 type. His numbers blow away almost all current HOFers.

If you're interested, let's talk. I'm sure I can round up quite a few people that'll be more than happy to show Bob Hayes or Cliff Harris signs/banners.

 

[wxcpo]

Here's a good argument for Monk's induction:

http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2006/01/index.html#a000185

Monk and Irvin should be inducted together.

He tries to make a good arguement for Monk's induction, but as a Commanders fan that is to be expected. I think though that he kinda hurts himself when he makes statements such as;

The mark of a true professional, is consistency. Anybody can be flashy for a short period of time. Anybody can have monster years off-set by mediocre ones. But Monk was the model of consistency. And some would have you believe this is a negative, not something to be exalted.

When looking at Monk's career I would not classify him as a model of consistency. He didn't even have a 1000 yard season until his 5th year in the league. He then put together 3 consecutive 1000 yard seasons followed by consecutive sub 1000 yard seasons where he played 9 and 16 games respectively. During the last 6 years of Monk's career he didn't miss a single game yet only produced 2 more 1000 yard seasons. It's obvious when looking at Monk's career it was exactly what the writer is arguing it wasn't, flashy for a short period of time, monster years off-set by mediocre ones.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The biggest knock on Monk was he wasn't even the best WR on those dominant Commanders teams of the late 80's and early 90's. I think eventually Monk does get into the Hall, I don't think the writer's can continue to ignore the numbers and superbowl titles even if they were accumulated over a very long career.

 

[Way 'nuff]

He tries to make a good arguement for Monk's induction, but as a Commanders fan that is to be expected. I think though that he kinda hurts himself when he makes statements such as;



When looking at Monk's career I would not classify him as a model of consistency. He didn't even have a 1000 yard season until his 5th year in the league. He then put together 3 consecutive 1000 yard seasons followed by consecutive sub 1000 yard seasons where he played 9 and 16 games respectively. During the last 6 years of Monk's career he didn't miss a single game yet only produced 2 more 1000 yard seasons. It's obvious when looking at Monk's career it was exactly what the writer is arguing it wasn't, flashy for a short period of time, monster years off-set by mediocre ones.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The biggest knock on Monk was he wasn't even the best WR on those dominant Commanders teams of the late 80's and early 90's. I think eventually Monk does get into the Hall, I don't think the writer's can continue to ignore the numbers and superbowl titles even if they were accumulated over a very long career.

Played in a run heavy offense, first season by a WR with 100+ catches, SI's all 80's team with Jerry Rice.

The writers will continue to ignore as long as Peter King is there. He wields a lot of power.

 

[JokeyH]

I am a BIG TIME COWBOYS fan. That being said, I think Art Monk should have been in a long *** time ago. Monk, Hayes, and Irivn should all be in. I can hope, it is only a matter of time for the three of them.

 

[wxcpo]

Played in a run heavy offense, first season by a WR with 100+ catches, SI's all 80's team with Jerry Rice.

The writers will continue to ignore as long as Peter King is there. He wields a lot of power.

Peter King is a total jacka-- I think that's something we both can agree on. As I said Monk will eventually get there because his stats and titles will be enough to get him there. I think though there is enough of an arguement though that it causes writer's a moment of pause, especially when King is the ringleader arguing against him.

Monk has had a steady dose of WRs he has competed against for induction and that has hurt his chances as well. Some of those WRs were inducted based on having numbers better than Monk (Lofton) and some were inducted because of the titles they earned (Stallworth and Swann). That competition continues the next couple of seasons as guys like Jerry Rice (no brainer), Andre Reed, Chris Carter and Tim Brown all come up for induction as well as still having Irvin hanging around. To me Monk faces a very difficult challenge to his induction, not onlu from King, but also from the WRs he will be up against.

 

[Cowboy Junkie]

There is no doubt that Monk and Irvin should be in the Hall....
If either would have played for Pitt. They would be in...

 

[BLT]

i kind of see Monk like Harry Carson.. I dont know any 1 who didnt think Carson deserved to be in and i dont see any 1 who doesnt think Monk should be in. Also how many years has Monk been eligible??

 

[jem88]

Here's the thing that's always gnawed at me when thinking about Monk: as impressive as his numbers are, I always felt that the best receiver on those Skins teams was Gary Clark. Monk was a true possession receiver who played for a long time, but Clark was a big-time playmaker. I wouldn't object to Monk making the HOF, but I don't see his not being there as a major injustice either. Irvin on the other hand, is definately a HOFer and better get in next year (this year I can take it, seeing as how 2 other Boys were voted in.)

 

[wxcpo]

Here's the thing that's always gnawed at me when thinking about Monk: as impressive as his numbers are, I always felt that the best receiver on those Skins teams was Gary Clark. Monk was a true possession receiver who played for a long time, but Clark was a big-time playmaker. I wouldn't object to Monk making the HOF, but I don't see his not being there as a major injustice either.

That is my exact argument against Monk. He wasn't even the best WR on his own team during the Commanders dominance of the late 80's and early 90's. I am very surprised that Clark hasn't getten more attention for the HoF. Not saying he is or isn't worthy, but his stats and titles should warrant him some attention.

 

[tyke1doe]

Monk has had a steady dose of WRs he has competed against for induction and that has hurt his chances as well. Some of those WRs were inducted based on having numbers better than Monk (Lofton) and some were inducted because of the titles they earned (Stallworth and Swann). That competition continues the next couple of seasons as guys like Jerry Rice (no brainer), Andre Reed, Chris Carter and Tim Brown all come up for induction as well as still having Irvin hanging around. To me Monk faces a very difficult challenge to his induction, not onlu from King, but also from the WRs he will be up against.

Andre Reed and Tim Brown better not sniff the Hall of Fame before Irvin and Monk.

Brown was the ultimate compiler, IMO. Reed has never impressed me. And the lasting memory I have of him is throwing his helmet down and losing his composure in Super Bowl 26 against the Skins. He cost his team a costly yardage penalty. I know I shouldn't hold that against him, but his becoming unglued in a big game would cause me to let him linger in Monk-land just as I would let Thurman "Lose Helmet" "Begs out Super Bowl he was so whipped" Thomas linger a while longer before inducting him into the Hall.

 

[lane]

art monk without a doubt....deserves to be in the hall of fame.

 

[Way 'nuff]

That is my exact argument against Monk. He wasn't even the best WR on his own team during the Commanders dominance of the late 80's and early 90's. I am very surprised that Clark hasn't getten more attention for the HoF. Not saying he is or isn't worthy, but his stats and titles should warrant him some attention.

Clark was more dynamic and more explosive...but it was Monk who kept the chains going, converted huge 3rd downs and opened things up for Clark. Not only that, but Monk was a GREAT downfield blocker. No one gives him props for the Commanders running attack, but he threw a lot of great blocks.

Like it or not, Monk had a lot of the records that Jerry Rice currently has when he retired. Just because he wasn't a huge big play threat like Clark or Irvin shouldn't be held against him. Monk was such an integral part of that offense.

Comparing him to Clark is pretty unfair seeing as how their roles were entirely different in the offense. However they both opened up a lot of things together. Combined with Ricky Sanders...that was a great group of receivers.

Interesting you bring up Clark...

Lynn Swann:
+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1974 pit | 11 | 1 14 14.0 0 | 11 208 18.9 2 |
| 1975 pit | 14 | 3 13 4.3 0 | 49 781 15.9 11 |
| 1976 pit | 12 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 28 516 18.4 3 |
| 1977 pit | 14 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 50 789 15.8 7 |
| 1978 pit | 16 | 1 7 7.0 0 | 61 880 14.4 11 |
| 1979 pit | 13 | 1 9 9.0 1 | 41 808 19.7 5 |
| 1980 pit | 13 | 1 -4 -4.0 0 | 44 710 16.1 7 |
| 1981 pit | 13 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 34 505 14.9 5 |
| 1982 pit | 9 | 1 25 25.0 0 | 18 265 14.7 0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 115 | 11 72 6.5 1 | 336 5462 16.3 51 |

Receptions: 1977-7t, 1978-7t
Receiving yards: 1975-8, 1977-4, 1978-7
Receiving TDs: 1975-1t, 1977-6t, 1978-2
Rush/Receive TDs: 1975-7t, 1978-5t
Lynn Swann is not in the all-time top 50 in any major category.

I'm throwing in John Stallworth, too:

+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1974 pit | 13 | 1 -9 -9.0 0 | 16 269 16.8 1 |
| 1975 pit | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 20 423 21.1 4 |
| 1976 pit | 8 | 1 47 47.0 1 | 9 111 12.3 2 |
| 1977 pit | 14 | 6 47 7.8 0 | 44 784 17.8 7 |
| 1978 pit | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 41 798 19.5 9 |
| 1979 pit | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 70 1183 16.9 8 |
| 1980 pit | 3 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 9 197 21.9 1 |
| 1981 pit | 16 | 1 17 17.0 0 | 63 1098 17.4 5 |
| 1982 pit | 9 | 1 9 9.0 0 | 27 441 16.3 7 |
| 1983 pit | 4 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 8 100 12.5 0 |
| 1984 pit | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 80 1395 17.4 11 |
| 1985 pit | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 75 937 12.5 5 |
| 1986 pit | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 34 466 13.7 1 |
| 1987 pit | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 41 521 12.7 2 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 165 | 10 111 11.1 1 | 537 8723 16.2 63 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Seasons among the league's top 10

Receptions: 1979-6, 1984-4t, 1985-8
Receiving yards: 1977-5, 1979-2, 1981-10, 1984-2
Receiving TDs: 1977-6t, 1978-4t, 1979-8t, 1982-3, 1984-4
Rush/Receive TDs: 1982-9t, 1984-10t

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receiving yards: 45
Receiving TDs: 44t


Gary Clark:

+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1985 was | 16 | 2 10 5.0 0 | 72 926 12.9 5 |
| 1986 was | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 74 1265 17.1 7 |
| 1987 was | 12 | 1 0 0.0 0 | 56 1066 19.0 7 |
| 1988 was | 16 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 59 892 15.1 7 |
| 1989 was | 15 | 2 19 9.5 0 | 79 1229 15.6 9 |
| 1990 was | 16 | 1 1 1.0 0 | 75 1112 14.8 8 |
| 1991 was | 16 | 1 0 0.0 0 | 70 1340 19.1 10 |
| 1992 was | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 64 912 14.2 5 |
| 1993 pho | 14 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 63 818 13.0 4 |
| 1994 ari | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 50 771 15.4 1 |
| 1995 mia | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 37 525 14.2 2 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 167 | 11 54 4.9 0 | 699 10856 15.5 65 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Seasons among the league's top 10

Receptions: 1986-10, 1987-9t, 1989-7, 1990-5
Receiving yards: 1986-4, 1987-3, 1989-8, 1990-4, 1991-2
Receiving TDs: 1987-7t, 1988-9t, 1989-6t, 1990-6t, 1991-5t
Yards from scrimmage: 1991-7

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 23
Receiving yards: 17
Receiving TDs: 35t
Yards from scrimmage: 45



Rediculous. IMO, there's no way Swann and Stallworth should be in the Hall. Maybe the Hall of Fame for Highlight Reel Plays, but thats about it.

 

[The Great Number 8]

I don't think Art Monk did enough to be a hall of fame receiver. To me, a hall of fame player is somene everyone considered to be among the very best at his position.

Art Monk only ever led his team in receiving yards in 4 seasons, had only 4 seasons in the top 10 in receptions, only 3 in the top 10 in receiving yards and only one season in the top 10 in TD receptions. Only 3 pro bowl invites. Looking at the numbers above, Gary Clark was better than that.

I'm not a big believer in Swann and Stallworth either, although the only argument that could be made for them was that they produced on the Super Bowl stage a whole lot more than Monk.

Swan - 3 SB - 16 catches for 364 yards and 4 tds
Stallworth - 3 SB - 8 catches for 244 yards and 3 tds (also I think still holds the record for a TD catch in 8 straight playoff games)

Monk - 3 SBs - 9 catches for 179 and 0 Tds.

In the playoffs Art Monk's biggest games usually were when the Skins got wiped out - 10 catches for 122 in a loss versus Chicago in 1984, 8 cathces for 126 yards in a 17-0 loss to the Giants in 1986, 10 catches for 163 and a TD in a 28-10 loss to SF in 1990. So at least from my memory and from what the numbers had, Art Monk was rarely a big difference maker when the games were the biggest.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer in any of the three. I do hate arguments about letting one guy just because of another, because it tends to make the Hall of Fame about the lowest common denominator as opposed to making it about the truly worthy.

Anyway, just an opinion. Personally, I think Monk will have a hard time getting in, becuase with all the receivers getting much bigger numbers these days, he'll just fall further and further down the lists.

 

[wxcpo]

I don't think Art Monk did enough to be a hall of fame receiver. To me, a hall of fame player is somene everyone considered to be among the very best at his position.

Art Monk only ever led his team in receiving yards in 4 seasons, had only 4 seasons in the top 10 in receptions, only 3 in the top 10 in receiving yards and only one season in the top 10 in TD receptions. Only 3 pro bowl invites. Looking at the numbers above, Gary Clark was better than that.

I'm not a big believer in Swann and Stallworth either, although the only argument that could be made for them was that they produced on the Super Bowl stage a whole lot more than Monk.

Swan - 3 SB - 16 catches for 364 yards and 4 tds
Stallworth - 3 SB - 8 catches for 244 yards and 3 tds (also I think still holds the record for a TD catch in 8 straight playoff games)

Monk - 3 SBs - 9 catches for 179 and 0 Tds.

In the playoffs Art Monk's biggest games usually were when the Skins got wiped out - 10 catches for 122 in a loss versus Chicago in 1984, 8 cathces for 126 yards in a 17-0 loss to the Giants in 1986, 10 catches for 163 and a TD in a 28-10 loss to SF in 1990. So at least from my memory and from what the numbers had, Art Monk was rarely a big difference maker when the games were the biggest.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer in any of the three. I do hate arguments about letting one guy just because of another, because it tends to make the Hall of Fame about the lowest common denominator as opposed to making it about the truly worthy.

Anyway, just an opinion. Personally, I think Monk will have a hard time getting in, becuase with all the receivers getting much bigger numbers these days, he'll just fall further and further down the lists.

 

[CowboyManDan]

Monk? Well I think he was one of the best jazz pianoists ever. He came up with these quirky, yet very melodic lines that stick in your head and was essential in the bebop movement. Oh wait, I thought you meant Thelonius Monk Just kidding around...the sunday morning jazz is going and I haven't had my coffee yet.

As for Art, great, great WR. But I don't htink he did quite enough for long enough to be in the HOF.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I've gone through Monk a bunch of times.

The problem with the entire thing is that the HOF voters do not have a uniform way of voting. Typically for WR's they've either voted in guys who were great at accumulating career stats or were breakout stars that had short careers. Monk is definitely the former and when you see Charlie Joiner in the HOF, Monk is more deserving than him.

However, I don't think Monk is an HOF'er by my standards. When I look at HOF WR's, I utilize the same methods that most voters use when looking at the Baseball HOF. I want to know how the player stacks up on a year-to-year basis against other WR's that he played against. Also, I really could care less about receptions. Total Receiving Yards are far more important that receptions, then TD's are the second most. Receptions are far far behind.

With Monk, he was only in the top 10 in Receiving Yards in 3 of the seasons he played. And he was only in the top 10 in TD's once. On a consistent year-to-year basis he wasn't a top 10 WR in the game.

It does appear that more NFL HOF voters are utilizing my methodology, but then they'll bring in somebody that's another accumulator of career stats.

The thing I don't agree with when it comes to Skins in the HOF is that Gary Clark should be getting a very strong consideration for the HOF and he isn't and Russ Grimm should be in the HOF by now (and probably Joe Jacoby as well).

Rich.................

 

[Zaxor]

I've gone through Monk a bunch of times.

The problem with the entire thing is that the HOF voters do not have a uniform way of voting. Typically for WR's they've either voted in guys who were great at accumulating career stats or were breakout stars that had short careers. Monk is definitely the former and when you see Charlie Joiner in the HOF, Monk is more deserving than him.

However, I don't think Monk is an HOF'er by my standards. When I look at HOF WR's, I utilize the same methods that most voters use when looking at the Baseball HOF. I want to know how the player stacks up on a year-to-year basis against other WR's that he played against. Also, I really could care less about receptions. Total Receiving Yards are far more important that receptions, then TD's are the second most. Receptions are far far behind.

With Monk, he was only in the top 10 in Receiving Yards in 3 of the seasons he played. And he was only in the top 10 in TD's once. On a consistent year-to-year basis he wasn't a top 10 WR in the game.

It does appear that more NFL HOF voters are utilizing my methodology, but then they'll bring in somebody that's another accumulator of career stats.

The thing I don't agree with when it comes to Skins in the HOF is that Gary Clark should be getting a very strong consideration for the HOF and he isn't and Russ Grimm should be in the HOF by now (and probably Joe Jacoby as well).

Rich.................

I like Monk..but I am not sure he belongs Clark and Sanders were the real threats

Grimm and Jacoby I believe should be in...great Olineman tough as nails and of course Darrell Green

 

[Chief]

One of the problems is, the Hall voters lowered the bar when they let Swann in.

What's amazing is he got in before Stallworth.

To offset Swann's average numbers, the voters pointed to his so-called dramatic plays ... especially in the Super Bowls.

OK, Drew Pearson had better numbers than Swann AND had the dramatic plays. It's an absolute shame that Drew can't even get a sniff of Canton, and what's even worse, is that the king of the Cowboys, Jerrald Jones, won't put him in the Ring of Honor.

Monk?

I could care a less.

 

[jman]

Whats up everyone? Congrats on Aikman and Wright. I'm watching Aikman's speech right now, he is definitely a class act.

I'm a Commanders fan, occasionally I post on here since I like this site, it's a good community.

Let me first start off by saying that I do think Michael Irvin should have be a Hall of Famer. He was one of the most dynamic receivers ever, an absolute weapon.

I've come to ask you about Art Monk, though. What do you all think? Obviously as a Commanders fan you all know how I feel.

If you're gonna be a jack***, don't reply, seriously. I'm hoping this will be an intelligent discussion and people can put their biases behind, seeing as I have already.

I just had one question, and a trip to NFL.com answered that question. Steve Largent is a HOF'er. When he retired, he was the all time leading receiver in the NFL. Therefore, if Largent is a HOF'er, then so should Art Monk.

Personally, I wish all this "He ain't getting in until that person" crap stops. For crying out loud, if when a player play, he had an impact on how the game was played or made a huge contrabution to the sucess of the league or his particular team he should be given consideration.

Another personal note, I always hated playing the Skins when Monk was on top of his game. He was the go to guy and he came through many more times than not.

Put Monk in the HOF and lets move on to the next most deserving player.

 

[The Great Number 8]

Are you kidding? Steve Largent was a whole heck of a lot better than Art Monk ever was. While he caught about 120 fewer passes, he still had more yards in his career than Monk (about 400) and scored 32 more TDs. Besides, for the following:

# of Top Ten seasons receptions
Largent - 9
Monk - 4 (led NFL once)

# of Top Ten seasons receiving yards
Largent - 8 (twice led the NFL)
Monk - 3

# of Top Ten Seasons-TD Catches
Largent - 8
Monk - 1

1,000 yard receiving seasons
Largent - 8
Monk - 5

Pro Bowls
Largent - 7
Monk - 3

Although I don't believe Monk is a Hall of Fame player, I can understand arguments that say he should be in. To say he should be in because of Steve Largent? I don't understand that argument.