Yakuza Rich
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 18,043
- Reaction score
- 12,385
Here's my latest blog. And yes, I'm fully in "be prepared to duck" mode:
Irvin's Induction Will Likely Bring Drama to the Hall of Fame
by Yakuza Rich
http://yakuzarich.blogspot.com/
With the Playmaker Michael Irvin finally getting into the Hall of Fame, it's quite certain that we'll see some drama when future Hall of Fame voting committees get together to decide upon candidates. And the main source of controversy is likely to be about Art Monk and I'm telling you right now, it's probably going to get ugly.
You can deem this post as my annual "Why Art Monk Shouldn't Be in the Hall of Fame." Despite being a Cowboys fan, I consider myself unbiased when it comes to Monk as he played at my favorite college, Syracuse University. And in reality it doesn't really matter to me if somebody makes the Hall of Fame since it's certainly no skin off my back.
Normally I wouldn't be so vociferous in my belief about Monk, who was a good player, a good teammate, and a good guy. But there seems to be an overly aggressive and hostile nature towards the voting committee by Monk supporters to the point of using intimidation tactics instead of looking at the facts, looking at stats, and using logic. ESPN's Mark May has threatened voters in the past by saying that he "dares anybody to say that Art Monk doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame to his face." I guess if you don't agree with somebody like May on the game of football, he has the courage to imply that he would beat you up over it, akin to the dim witted high school bully who doesn't get his way.
Cowboys announcer Brad Sham probably said it best when it came to watching Irvin while he was playing for the University of Miami "I thought he was the type of game you would love to have on your team. But if he was on the other team you would really hate the guy." That's Michael Irvin right there, a guy who could be thought of as the antithesis of Art Monk. I've heard of Irvin described even as "Apollo Creed, but without the class." He's known as a guy that screamed for the ball, didn't mind taunting the opponent, got in trouble with the law and many other negative adjectives. So as Irvin was inducted, it's causing a bigger stir of seething Art Monk supporters who use Irvin's induction as their current rallying cry for Monk's induction. Irvin is the Monk supporter's Anti-Christ and his induction just goads them to no end.
The thing that Monk supporters fail to understand or just plain neglect is that when you put Monk's year-to-year stats against his peers, they just don't add up to a WR like Irvin's. If I was a voter for the Hall of Fame, I'd want to make sure that anybody I'm voting for is a player that was, for a decent amount of time, at the top or near the top of his position during the era he played.
The Monk supporter looks at Monk's total stats and compares them to many of the other HOF wide receivers. This doesn't take into account that as you go from the 50's to today's football, teams throw the ball more and throw shorter pass patterns.
Where Monk excels is in receptions. But does anybody really believe that reception totals are more important or as important in the game of football as receiving yards or receiving TD's? Does that mean Mike Furrey (98 receptions in 2006) had a better year than Lee Evans (82 receptions)? I certainly don't think so. Offense is about scoring and yards are the definitive means to the end when it comes scoring.
Where I wouldn't vote for Monk is his yards and TD's. Monk only finished in the top 10 in yards in only THREE years of his career. Receiving TD's? Even worse as only once Monk finished in the top 10 in TD's. Hell, he only finished in the top 10 in receptions in 4 different seasons...so it wasn't like he was exactly lighting it up out there.
Compare that to Irvin, who matched Monk in top 10's in receptions...but had 6 years in the top 10 in receiving yards, 5 years in the top 10 in receiving TD's (with Emmitt scoring all of those TD's) and 4 years in the top 10 in yards *from the line of scrimmage*. Monk "deserves it more" than Irvin? On what planet?
What's sad is that former Monk teammate, Gary Clark, gets almost no mention of Hall of Fame induction. He matched Monk in top 10's in receptions (4), and had five top 10's in both receiving yards and receiving TD's. But perhaps the most laughable one is Skins fans believing that Monk is more deserving that Steve Largent who had NINE top 10's in receptions (doubling Monk), and had EIGHT top 10's in receving yards and receiving TD's.
Art Monk was a good player who had the ability to play for a long amount of time. If that qualifies for being in the Hall of Fame, so be it. I would never have a problem with Monk getting into the Hall of Fame on a legitimate basis. But if he's going to Hall because of hostile and intimidation tactics by his supporters, the NFL Hall of Fame will become a bigger joke than anybody that thinks that now.
YAKUZA
Irvin's Induction Will Likely Bring Drama to the Hall of Fame
by Yakuza Rich
http://yakuzarich.blogspot.com/
With the Playmaker Michael Irvin finally getting into the Hall of Fame, it's quite certain that we'll see some drama when future Hall of Fame voting committees get together to decide upon candidates. And the main source of controversy is likely to be about Art Monk and I'm telling you right now, it's probably going to get ugly.
You can deem this post as my annual "Why Art Monk Shouldn't Be in the Hall of Fame." Despite being a Cowboys fan, I consider myself unbiased when it comes to Monk as he played at my favorite college, Syracuse University. And in reality it doesn't really matter to me if somebody makes the Hall of Fame since it's certainly no skin off my back.
Normally I wouldn't be so vociferous in my belief about Monk, who was a good player, a good teammate, and a good guy. But there seems to be an overly aggressive and hostile nature towards the voting committee by Monk supporters to the point of using intimidation tactics instead of looking at the facts, looking at stats, and using logic. ESPN's Mark May has threatened voters in the past by saying that he "dares anybody to say that Art Monk doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame to his face." I guess if you don't agree with somebody like May on the game of football, he has the courage to imply that he would beat you up over it, akin to the dim witted high school bully who doesn't get his way.
Cowboys announcer Brad Sham probably said it best when it came to watching Irvin while he was playing for the University of Miami "I thought he was the type of game you would love to have on your team. But if he was on the other team you would really hate the guy." That's Michael Irvin right there, a guy who could be thought of as the antithesis of Art Monk. I've heard of Irvin described even as "Apollo Creed, but without the class." He's known as a guy that screamed for the ball, didn't mind taunting the opponent, got in trouble with the law and many other negative adjectives. So as Irvin was inducted, it's causing a bigger stir of seething Art Monk supporters who use Irvin's induction as their current rallying cry for Monk's induction. Irvin is the Monk supporter's Anti-Christ and his induction just goads them to no end.
The thing that Monk supporters fail to understand or just plain neglect is that when you put Monk's year-to-year stats against his peers, they just don't add up to a WR like Irvin's. If I was a voter for the Hall of Fame, I'd want to make sure that anybody I'm voting for is a player that was, for a decent amount of time, at the top or near the top of his position during the era he played.
The Monk supporter looks at Monk's total stats and compares them to many of the other HOF wide receivers. This doesn't take into account that as you go from the 50's to today's football, teams throw the ball more and throw shorter pass patterns.
Where Monk excels is in receptions. But does anybody really believe that reception totals are more important or as important in the game of football as receiving yards or receiving TD's? Does that mean Mike Furrey (98 receptions in 2006) had a better year than Lee Evans (82 receptions)? I certainly don't think so. Offense is about scoring and yards are the definitive means to the end when it comes scoring.
Where I wouldn't vote for Monk is his yards and TD's. Monk only finished in the top 10 in yards in only THREE years of his career. Receiving TD's? Even worse as only once Monk finished in the top 10 in TD's. Hell, he only finished in the top 10 in receptions in 4 different seasons...so it wasn't like he was exactly lighting it up out there.
Compare that to Irvin, who matched Monk in top 10's in receptions...but had 6 years in the top 10 in receiving yards, 5 years in the top 10 in receiving TD's (with Emmitt scoring all of those TD's) and 4 years in the top 10 in yards *from the line of scrimmage*. Monk "deserves it more" than Irvin? On what planet?
What's sad is that former Monk teammate, Gary Clark, gets almost no mention of Hall of Fame induction. He matched Monk in top 10's in receptions (4), and had five top 10's in both receiving yards and receiving TD's. But perhaps the most laughable one is Skins fans believing that Monk is more deserving that Steve Largent who had NINE top 10's in receptions (doubling Monk), and had EIGHT top 10's in receving yards and receiving TD's.
Art Monk was a good player who had the ability to play for a long amount of time. If that qualifies for being in the Hall of Fame, so be it. I would never have a problem with Monk getting into the Hall of Fame on a legitimate basis. But if he's going to Hall because of hostile and intimidation tactics by his supporters, the NFL Hall of Fame will become a bigger joke than anybody that thinks that now.
YAKUZA
