Who would you rather start on your team? Art Monk or...

[TruBlueCowboy]

Food for thought for Skins fans. If I had a team and had to pick from any of these wideouts in their prime, I don't think I would put Art Monk ahead of any of the guys on this list. They're all receivers during his days and afterwards. Maybe, just maybe, Monk doesn't deserve the HOF yet? :

Jerry Rice
Michael Irvin
Chris Carter
Marvin Harrison
Randy Moss
Torry Holt
Chad Johnson
Andre Reed
Sterling Sharpe
Steve Largent
Terrell Owens

I get to the second tier of receivers. Names like Mark Clayton, Terry Glenn, Keyshawn Johnson, Keenan McCardell, Mushin Muhammad before I start to think Monk has a chance to even start on my team. Maybe Monk doesn't belong in the debate over greatest receivers?

 

[AmishCowboy]

As was said before, Andre Reed has better stats then Art Monk. 6 Times M:redwhine: onk was passed over, that should tell you something!.

 

[Way 'nuff]

Ignorance is bliss.

http://www.monk4thehall.com/ Watch the video. Note the commentators/peers who know a bit more about football than you or me.

I'm a Skins fan and I'll be the first to admit that Monk was a pretty boring, quiet guy. However you can't discount what he did on the field.

I'll spin it this way... Other than Pete Rose, you can't find someone who retired from ANY sport as the all time leader in a major category and not get elected to their respective Hall of Fame. You just can't.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

Ignorance is bliss.

http://www.monk4thehall.com/ Watch the video. Note the commentators/peers who know a bit more about football than you or me.

I'm a Skins fan and I'll be the first to admit that Monk was a pretty boring, quiet guy. However you can't discount what he did on the field.

I'll spin it this way... Other than Pete Rose, you can't find someone who retired from ANY sport as the all time leader in a major category and not get elected to their respective Hall of Fame. You just can't.

This has nothing to do with flashiness, I just think those receivers I listed were more solid players than Monk who I would take first if my goal was the Super Bowl.

This all-time stat stuff is junk. Football is not about all-time stats like baseball. There are a lot of QBs out there with impressive all-time stats, but there is no magic # to get in the HOF in football, sort of like how 300 wins or 500 HR guarantees HOF enshrinement in baseball. Longevity always helps if you were one of the top players in the league, but the NFL is mostly about what you do in that short window when the age and injuries haven't caught up. Think Gale Sayers. Give me a guy who was the most dominant receiver in the league for 5 years but doesn't have the career stats of Art Monk.

 

[AmishCowboy]

Take this Garbage to Extremelosers, we don't care!. Once Again, the Pro Football writers have decided for the 6 time that Art Monk is not HOF material.:redwhine:

 

[AmishCowboy]

Monk reminds me of Baseball's Jim Rice and Dale Murphy, guys who had stats, but are not considered Difference makers.

 

[Rack]

Ignorance is bliss.

Yes. Yes it is.


And you're as blissful as it gets.

 

[Rack]

I'll spin it this way...

If Monk were TRULY a HoFer, there would be no need to "Spin" at all.

 

[Way 'nuff]

This has nothing to do with flashiness, I just think those receivers I listed were more solid players than Monk who I would take first if my goal was the Super Bowl.

This all-time stat stuff is junk. Football is not about all-time stats like baseball. There are a lot of QBs out there with impressive all-time stats, but there is no magic # to get in the HOF in football, sort of like how 300 wins or 500 HR guarantees HOF enshrinement in baseball. Longevity always helps if you were one of the top players in the league, but the NFL is mostly about what you do in that short window when the age and injuries haven't caught up. Think Gale Sayers. Give me a guy who was the most dominant receiver in the league for 5 years but doesn't have the career stats of Art Monk.

I see where you're coming from, the Gale Sayers comparison works...you could use Koufax and Puckett in baseball.

Baseball places more of an emphasis on stats, this is true. However, basketball doesn't.

And don't we spend quite a bit of time talking about the stats of football players anyway? Haven't people compared Monks stats to Irvin's stats ad nauseum? I agree football doesn't have magic numbers like 300 wins or 500 homers, but that wasn't my argument. My argument was being the undisputed leader in ANY category in ANY sport at the time of retirement.

The games change. Dave Kingman, Jose Canseco, Andre Dawson...400 homers was once a benchmark for induction. Nowadays, 400 homers doesn't mean anything. Perhaps one day, 500 won't, either.

But when you retire as the undisputed leader of a statistical category, that should count for something. Maybe it only makes sense in my head. Probably does.

If you're going to argue about stats not mattering, then I'll argue what Monk meant to the Skins. The video I referred you to talks about what Monk meant to the Skins on 3rd down. He was also a hell of a downfield blocker.

In your initial post, you mentioned Jerry Rice and Steve Largent. Those two were part of the NFL's all decade team for the 1980's. So was Art Monk.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'll take the playmaker please

 

[Sarge]

Monk is more than deserving of being inb the HOF.

 

[Carl23]

Without doubt, Monk belongs in the Hall...

 

[THUMPER]

Monk reminds me of Baseball's Jim Rice and Dale Murphy, guys who had stats, but are not considered Difference makers.

That is exactly right. Monk wasn't even considered among the best WRs when he played, only being named to the Pro-Bowl 3 times in his 16 years in the league. He only has 5 1000+ yard seasons to his credit, and only 6 when he caught more than 70 passes. Compare that with Irvin who had 7 seasons of each in his 12 years. Had Irvin not gotten hurt he would have accumulated better numbers.

Monk played in 65 more games than Irvin and has almost 200 more receptions, yet he has only 3 more TDs than Mike. He was not a big play guy. In fact the best comparison for Monk is Keyshawn Johnson, another guy who makes the tough catches, gets 1st downs, collects a lot of numbers, but isn't a big play guy.

All that said, I do think Monk belongs in the HoF but he's got a lot of guys ahead of him (Bob Hayes for instance).

 

[burmafrd]

Monk deserves the hall- AFTER BULLETT BOB gets in. AND maybe in the same class that Pearson gets in. That would be about right.

 

[jimmy40]

Ignorance is bliss.

http://www.monk4thehall.com/ Watch the video. Note the commentators/peers who know a bit more about football than you or me.

I'm a Skins fan and I'll be the first to admit that Monk was a pretty boring, quiet guy. However you can't discount what he did on the field.

I'll spin it this way... Other than Pete Rose, you can't find someone who retired from ANY sport as the all time leader in a major category and not get elected to their respective Hall of Fame. You just can't.

He should get a job in the national media covering the NFL, that seems to be the final piece of the puzzle to get in for a lot of players. Art Monk should be in.

 

[jman]

Art Monk belongs.

Not before anyone, not after anyone, not until anything happens first.

Mistakes happen, things are over looked, plain and simple bias occures.

There are a lot of players deserving that will never get in, and will never be debated to this length.

There is no need to put someone down to elevate another.

Maybe it rights itself, maybe it doesn't.

 

[jimmy40]

This has nothing to do with flashiness, I just think those receivers I listed were more solid players than Monk who I would take first if my goal was the Super Bowl.

This all-time stat stuff is junk. Football is not about all-time stats like baseball. There are a lot of QBs out there with impressive all-time stats, but there is no magic # to get in the HOF in football, sort of like how 300 wins or 500 HR guarantees HOF enshrinement in baseball. Longevity always helps if you were one of the top players in the league, but the NFL is mostly about what you do in that short window when the age and injuries haven't caught up. Think Gale Sayers. Give me a guy who was the most dominant receiver in the league for 5 years but doesn't have the career stats of Art Monk.

Does this mean we never have to hear about stats on this forum again?
You must have been a huge Lynn Swann backer for the HOF and how many guys are in that were just good for that short short window your talking about. Swann, Sayers???????? The HOF is all about longevity.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I'll spin it this way... Other than Pete Rose, you can't find someone who retired from ANY sport as the all time leader in a major category and not get elected to their respective Hall of Fame. You just can't.

The zone coverage defense was invented to stop one WR back in the day. That means that player was a game changing player. He changed the way the game is played. That players name was Bob Hayes. Until he gets in, Monk doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Cbz40]

The zone coverage defense was invented to stop one WR back in the day. That means that player was a game changing player. He changed the way the game is played. That players name was Bob Hayes. Until he gets in, Monk doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Way 'nuff]

The zone coverage defense was invented to stop one WR back in the day. That means that player was a game changing player. He changed the way the game is played. That players name was Bob Hayes. Until he gets in, Monk doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I'm not gonna argue that. IMO, the whole "Player X deserves to be in before player Y" argument is a dumb one. Once players are in, no one remembers who was in before them or after them.

I will say, however, that there are two factions to the HOF, the first ballot HOFers and the ones who took multiple times.

I don't know anything about Bob Hayes. I'm too young and never saw him play. How come he isn't in the HOF?