I don't think they let in players that don't belong...well, at least not at the level that baseball does. There are guys that get in due to a reputation and may not be deserving for sure.
They always let guys in that do not belong. Baseball does too but not to the level that football does. When a guy like jack Morris cannot get into the Hall while Art Monk does on the football side you know the standards a higher in baseball.
I knew you were referring to Art Monk. Monk belongs to be in. Anyone who set two significant records at their position belongs to get in, in any sport.
consec games w/ a rec is not a significant record and the fact that he played a million years and compiled great overall #s doesn't replace the fact that he was an average player for most of his career. The man played 15+ seasons and: -top 10 in recs only 4 times -top 5 in recs only 3 times -top 10 in rec TDs only one time(tied for 9th) -NEVER top 5 in rec TDs -top 10 in rec yds only 3 times -top 5 min rec yds only once(4th) I'm not big on using the Pro Bowl but someone who is a future HOFer should make more than 3, right? It is mostly name recognition w/ that game. Good player, at times really good but he wasn't great and doesn't belong. He's one example of many.
Antonio Gates is almost a lock at this point unless he gets hurt. A couple more SB rings could also get Shockey some consideration as well. For a TE, Shockey had a lot of TDs in his first four years.
They should all be first ballot guys but with the glut at WR I wouldn't be surprised if TO had to wait a couple years.
Much like Bo Jackson, Sterling Sharpe, and Kenny Easley TD does not have enough years of playing time to make the HOF. Those four guys are what the hall of very good is all about.
You're probably right on Gates, I didn't realize that he's been in the NFL for as long as he has. It feels like just yesterday he was this big underdog story, but he's been around for seven years. One solid year, three very good years, and two all-time type years. My mistake there.
This is where you and I differ. Stats don’t tell the whole story. Monk could have put up huge numbers year in and year out. Just look at his 1984 thru 1986 numbers as proof (which he did catching balls from an aging Joe Theismann and a wildly inconsistent Jay Schroeder). Once Washington got more weapons to throw to the amount of passes that went to Monk decreased and his role in the passing offense changed to the possession receiver. I read somewhere once that nearly 2/3 of his receptions went for first downs – I don’t know how true that is, but that was his role. He essentially was a TE playing WR who was great at downfield blocking and assisting in the running game. He didn’t score many Touchdowns because when the Redskins got into the Red Zone they ran the ball in. Despite all of that when he retired he had more receptions than anyone else who played and caught a pass in more consecutive games than anyone had ever done before him.
Holt and Bruce should make the HOF. Freeman has to settle for the hall of very good. Art Monk is a compiler and may be the weakest player elected to the HOF.
Bo Jackson never led the league in rushing and only played 4 half seasons and the Raiders never won a SB with him on the team. A case can be made that Sterling Sharpe does in fact deserve to be in the HOF and Kenny Easly should be in the HOF. Art Monk was much more than a compiler.
What does it matter if Gary Clark was the "number 1" receiver in 1987 (Monk was injured and missed 3 games but caught 4.2 passes per game vs. Clark's 4.6) and 1991 (Monk caught 71 passes vs. Clark's 70 and each had over 1,000 yards receiving)? I already noted that Monk's role changed when they brought in Clark and Sanders. He had already proven he can put up big numbers. Clark may have been their big play receiver, but Monk was just as valuable to their offense. ETA - Monk was also on their team when they won the SB in 1982
Monk only had three pro bowl appearances and as NYJUNC pointed out that he failed to dominate in any statistical category in any of his 15 years.
I realize that, but stats do not tell the whole story. When he had to be a dominant pass receiver he was (look at 1984-86). When Washington changed his role to a more possession type receiver he dominated doing that (2/3's of his receptions resulted in 1st downs). When they asked him to block and become more of a TE he dominated at that (according to many coaches including Joe Gibbs). And in the end, he was the All-Time leader in receptions and had the most consecutive games catching at least one pass. He was the first player to have more than 100 receptions in a season in the NFL (Lionel Taylor and Charlie Hennigan did it in the AFL) and did so before the NFL changed to a more passing league. And he was part of 3 different championship teams with 3 different QBs.
Most great WRs have other weapons to take catches away from them. Rice had John Taylor and Brent Jones(not to mention Rbs catching the ball), did that stop him from doing what he did? Monk played long enough w/ good enough QBs to put up great #s and he didn't do it. exactly, he was a nice possession WR. Like a bigger Wayne Chrebet but he was not a great player. when the skins got inside the RZ they ran the ball? That's the excuse, then why did other Wash WRs not struggle w/ that problem? Art only led Wash WRs TWICE in his 14 years in DC. Art just doesn't belong in hall, he wasn't even the best WR on most of those skins teams- Gary Clark was. Gary in 8 years w/ Wash: 5 1,000 yd seasons, averaged 7+ TDs a season, averaged 69 recs/season, averaged 1093 yds a season, Art in 14 years w/ Wash: 5 1,000 yd seasons, averaged 4+ TDs a season, averaged 63 recs/season, averaged 859 yds/season. Art does NOT belong in the Hall. He is the definition of Hall of Very Good.
stats stats stats stats. Stats do not tell the entire story for Monk. When he was the go to guy he put up big, league leading and record breaking numbers. When his role changed he excelled as the chain mover. When they asked him to block he did that. He was much more than a compiler. He was consistantly good statistically. No one in the NFL had more receptions from 1984 - 1991. Monk has more 80+ catch seasons in Redskin History than anyone else. It's completely debatable to say Clark was their best receiver. Monk did more for the Redskins than Clark did. But he did it without the shining light of catching downfield passes. If you appreciate players being football players who have accomplished great things in the NFL then Art Monk is absolutely a Hall of Fame player. This quote I read sums up Art Monk perfectly to me. "....Unlike his louder receiving mates Clark and Ricky Sanders, Monk, according to Gibbs, never once said he wanted the ball more. “We used him almost as a tight end a lot,” said Gibbs, “and not only did he do it willingly, he was a great blocker for us. If he’d been a squeaky wheel, who knows how many catches Art would have had. But he cared about one thing — the team.”
From 1984 to 1986 Art Monk was on track for a spot in the hall of fame. After 1986, not only did his production tail off but the competition at the WR position became much greater. Jerry Rice, Al Toon, and Irving Fryer were all drafted in 1985. His own teammate Gary Clark got the pro bowl nod over Monk in 1987. Anthony Carter, Steve Largent, Al Toon, and Mike Quick were also chosen in 1987. Henry Ellard, Tim Brown, and Andre Reen made the pro bowl the following year. Art Monk didn't really get worse, the rest of the NFL receiving class got better. Either way, he shouldn't be in the HOF.
Pro Bowls don't mean that much to me. In 1987 Monk was injured and missed 3 games on top of the 4 that were missed due to the strike. You said his production tailed off after 1986 but from 1988-1991 only THREE receivers had more receptions than Monk (Rice, Reed and Drew Hill).
