Ehem, you were saying...?:up: I'd Love to see Curtis in the HoF, I just think he's on the fence seeing as he never won the big one(sadly), something that Bettis and Faulk did, and he was more a reliable workhorse than an explosive playmaker. We'll see, he deserves recognition for sure.
I'm going back a few days here and will respond to some stuff I skimmed through the first time around. "Compiler" is used as a derisive term in Hall of Fame discussions. The term is used in an attempt to show that the player was all about quantity and not quality. In my book, Monk played quality football for a dozen years. Starting for numerous winning teams, playing in three Super Bowls, the numerous clutch receptions in big games, the stats, the postseason honors, the quotes from teammates, coaches, and competitors, etc. If you do not agree with me that Monk played quality football, then I don't know what to tell you other than to watch old games and/or read game summaries and pore through gamebooks. I think he began to get old and slip in 1992. He was a mediocre player from 1992-95. He caught 139 passes in 51 games during those four seasons. 1980-91: 801 recepts, 10984 yards, 13.7 avg, 60 TDs 1992-95: 139 recepts, 1737 yards, 12.5 avg, 8 TDs He was elected on his 8th ballot. I truly believe he would have had to wait only half that time had he suffered a career ending injury in the 1992 training camp. It's only those last four seasons (and 1995 was just an abbreviated 3-game cup of coffee with Phila.) that he was "compiling." If 1991 was his final year, he would have been eligible for induction in 1997. I betcha he would have gotten in no later than 2000. A great football book is the The Pro Football Chronicle. It was published in 1990 and has long been out of print, but you should be able to find a copy online. I know Murrell2878 has a copy. Anyway, here is the commentary on Monk on page 304- "Monk has enough receptions and yards to get into the Hall of Fame right now. It's his touchdown total that might give the selection committee pause. He's scored less often than any wide receiver in the all-time top 20 (7.1 percent of the time). In one 20-game stretch in 1984 and '85, he had two TDs in 120 catches. Part of the explanation is that he runs a lot of short and underneath routes that gain ground but usually don't get you in the end zone. If he stays healthy, however, he could break Steve Largent's career reception record. Then the Canton question would be moot." As I stated earlier in the thread, if I were anti-Monk I'd attack the low touchdown percentage. That, and a low number of All-Pro seasons are the only two marks against him, in my opinion. The former is a factual matter, but the latter is based upon voting done by writers. So with that in mind, maybe the low TD number is the better way to attack Monk. There is, of course, a way to combat that and Murrell2878 touched upon it. Wayne Millner was an end for the Redskins from 1936-41 and 1945. He might be the weakest member of the HOF. Then again, Alex Wojciechowicz might be the weakest. Others that are questionable to me- Doak Walker, Charley Trippi, Lynn Swann, Emmitt Thomas, Ace Parker, Johnny Blood, Howie Long, John Stallworth, Jackie Slater, Fred Dean, Elvin Bethea, and Dutch Clark. I do not think Monk is one of the greatest Hall of Famers, but I also do not think he is the weakest. If we divided up the Hall of Famers into four tiers, Monk would in the 3rd or 4th tier for sure, but I absolutely think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
I defended you earlier, but I can't do so here. How can you give Bettis any real credit for getting a Super Bowl win as a backup? Martin contributed more to a Super Bowl team (the '96 Patriots) than Bettis did to a Super Bowl team (the '05 Steelers).
I'm not sure where that is coming from. It looks like revisionist history based upon some reasonable statistical evidence. Clark tended to better Monk in yardage and certainly yardage per catch. Charlie Brown and Ricky Sanders also had some good years while playing with Monk, but the general consensus throughout was that Monk was the leader of the receiving corps. It's similar to the Vikings of the late 90s/early 00s. Cris Carter was #1 WR even though Randy Moss may have had the better numbers and was more explosive. It's similar to the Rams of the same time. Bruce was like Monk. He had been with the team longer than Torry Holt and was the leader of that receiving corps and was the #1 WR. Same deal with Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne for a good half decade. Late in Harrison's career, Wayne was outproducing him even though Harrison was still looked at as the team's #1 WR. By the way, how exactly do you define #1 WR? Is he simply the guy who gains more yardage? Or is it the guy who usually draws the opposition's best cornerback?
I agree that Monk would have looked much better in the hall of fame debate if he retired three years earlier. As a Jet fan, his performance on our team has significantly impacted my perception of him as a player. The biggest problem with Monk hanging on those last three years is that the competition at WR in those years was so strong. Also his overlap with Irvin, Sharpe, and others from 1990-1995 raises the bar on who his peers were. Not only were the receivers in the 1990s very good, but they also stayed healthy. In the 1980s, guys like Wesley Walker and Al Toon had a lot of trouble staying on the field for 16 games. If you look at Monk as a 1980s guy, Gary Clark and Henry Ellard are probably the best guys that get shut out of the hall. In the 1990s you start talking about Andre Reed, Tim Brown, Sterling Sharpe, and Herman Moore possibly left on the outside looking in. I guess if you put on blinders and forget about Monk's last three years his hall of fame resume looks alot better. As long as we are talking about receivers, will someone please explain to me how Art Powell never made the HOF.
I asked because I have seen people define #1 WR in different ways. I define it as the WR whose presence is most important to the team. Most often, that is the one who draws the better cornerback. I think it's hard to define the #1 WR as the one with more TDs and yardage. It would be a revisionist thing because you wouldn't be able to define a particular team's #1 WR till games were played. Before the Week 1 kickoff, all the WRs' stats would be 0-0-0. Sometimes there are clear cut cases. See the early 1990s Cowboys as one great example. There are many examples that include two guys who complemented one another and had similar enough stats. Examples include Sauer and Maynard with the Jets, Harrison and Wayne with IND, Bruce and Holt with STL, Monk and Clark with WAS, Holmes and Ward with PITT, Clayton and Duper with MIA, Joiner and Jefferson and then later Joiner and Chandler with SD, etc. It is my contention that Monk was a better all-around WR than Clark and it is my recollection that Clark caught more passes in space in part due to ability to get open but also in part because Monk would draw heavy coverage and, in turn, make it easier for Clark to get open. It was hard for cornerbacks to handle Monk 1-on-1. Clark was a much smaller receiver and would rarely draw double coverage from what I can recall. I do know that when Clark scored his touchdown in Super Bowl 22 he was covered by Steve Wilson who was the weaker of the two Denver cornerbacks (the other one was Mark Haynes and he was an excellent CB for a number of years).
They did score a lot of touchdowns on the ground. During the Monk years, John Riggins had seasons of 13, 24, and 14 rushing touchdowns. George Rogers scored 18 one year and Gerald Riggs scored 11 times on the ground in another year. When they got close to the goal line, the team tended to keep the ball on the ground. Riggins and Riggs are both at the top of the 1-yard TD chart. I think they are both in the top five on the esoteric list of highest percentage of career TDs being of the 1-yard variety. I would have to do extensive research to confirm that as a fact, though. Monk was 2nd in receiving TDs a number of times for the team. Brown led the Redskins in receiving touchdowns in 1982 and 1983. The interesting thing about him was that, despite being a Pro Bowler, he did not put up great numbers in the '82 postseason. The next year, he put up huge numbers in the postseason. Don't get me wrong- Brown was not bad in the 1982 postseason. It's just that he wasn't great, either. He was actually outshined by Alvin Garrett in a couple of those games. You can look it up. Brown put up his best numbers when Monk was on the field with him. When Monk was out with an injury in the '82 postseason the opponents' top cornerbacks were then put on Brown and then Monk's replacement, Garrett, drew the #2 cornerback. Jets fans saw this phenomena a couple years ago when an injury bumped Jerricho Cotchery to the "#1 receiver" role for a game and he did not respond with a good statistical game. A similar thing happened the following season. I noted earlier in the thread that Monk missed the first four games of the 1983 season with a sprained knee. In those four games, Brown averaged 64 yards. In his other 11 games (he missed one due to injury), all played with Monk, Brown averaged 80.75 yards. To me, it looks like we have statistical evidence that Monk was a valuable teammate. Also, we can say that during the Monk years the Redskins won with Brown and they continued to win after they shipped Brown to Atlanta. We can also say they won before Clark came aboard. In the four seasons before Monk, the Redskins had a nondescript receiving corps. During Monk's rookie season that couldn't be said anymore. Monk was a possession receiver and I don't think anyone would disagree. A possession receiver on a top flight team with a good ground game and highly effective short yardage runners is not a guy you would expect to score a ton of touchdowns. That said, Monk should have scored another dozen touchdowns based upon his high reception total. 940 and 80 would have looked a lot more appealing than 940 and 68 to the Hall of Fame voters.
Top 10 WRs, Receptions, 1980s 662- Art Monk 595- Steve Largent 507- James Lofton 493- J.T. Smith 488- Dwight Clark 468- Roy Green 459- Wes Chandler 435- Stanley Morgan 417- Cris Collinsworth 405- Mark Clayton Ellard had 345 in the 1980s and 469 in the 1990s. I thought Roy Green was just as good a receiver as Ellard, if not better. Wes Chandler was also very good. If you exclude 1979 and 1980 when Green was a defensive back, his per game receiving numbers are similar to Ellard's. Gary Clark is one of the best pre-1994 WRs not in the Hall of Fame. I can't put him ahead of Mac Speedie or Harold Jackson, but maybe I'd put him 3rd on the list. He was probably born about five years too early. If he put up the exact same numbers from 1964-73 he would probably be in the Hall of Fame. As it was he played from 1959-68 and his 7-year stretch of quality play occurred from 1960-66. Unfortunately, the Hall of Fame voters felt that the AFL was a subpar league till around 1965 or 1966. When the league became better and grew more competitive, Powell faded. Of course, age had to have been a big culprit and was likely the main factor.
Gary Clark was one of my favorite(non Jets) WR back in the day. He had great seasons in the Skins championship seasons of 1987 & 91 & had I think 3 or 4 TD catches in a postseason game against Atlanta in 91. Loved that little runt.
Clark never scored more than once in any postseason game. The game you are thinking of was the 1991 regular season game vs the Falcons which the Redskins won 56-17. Clark- 4 catches, 203 yards, 3 touchdowns Monk- 7 catches, 164 yards, 2 touchdowns In the 1980s, the non-Jets WRs I really liked were Roy Green, J.T. Smith, Eric Martin, Art Monk, and Gary Clark.
But he wasn't top 10, right? it doesn't matter that he was close. NE was close to the Giants a few years ago- do they now have 4 SB rings? No. Close doesn't count. You haven't proven anything about him not being a compiler. everything you post proves that he was a compiler. Monk had 627 recs, 8687 yds and 43 TDs Alworth had 542 recs, 10,266 yds and 85 TDs The 2 aren't close and in these reuslts includes when Alworth wasn't a starter at the beginning and end of his career. :up: Ellard isn't in the HOF though and he will never get there. Monk's #s in 3 SB runs(he was injured for their SB title run in 1982): 1983(3 games):8 recs, 121 yds, 2 TDs 1987(1 game, didn't play in playoffs only in SB): 1 rec, 40 YDs, 0 TDs 1991(3 games): 15 recs, 252 yds, 1 TD. none of those games were ever close and his lone TD made it 34-10 in the 4th qtr of the NFC Title Game. In 3 SB runs(7 games): 24 recs, 413 yds, 3 TDs averages: 3.4 recs/gm, 59 yds, .43 TDs Also of note, his 3 Tds in those SB runs came during blowout wins. He had 2 against Rams in 51-7 win in 1983 and one against Det in the 1991 title game rout of 41-10. I always thought Monk was a GOOD player, I never considered him great. I always thought Gary Clark was better and you know how much I despise the Giants so I watched alot of skins games as a kid when he was playing. By the way, Monk was a classic compiler. When a player has only 4 top 10s in recs in 15+ years, 3 top 10s in rec yds and one in TDs that is a compiler and you can say he began to slip from 1992-1995 but haven't other WRs slipped late in their careers? do we remove their later years? and if we remove 1992-1995 he still is top 10 in recs only 4 of 12 years, top 10 in yds only 3 of 12 years and top 10 in tds only 1 of 12 years. 1980s pass attempts: There's only 1-2 other HOF worthy players on that list and the fact that he finished top 10 so few times against those types of WRs is another piece of evidence as to why he shouldn't be in the Hall. and recs don't tell the whole story, monk isn't ven int he discussion w/ a guy like Largent yet he had more recs than him. Let's look at yds and TDs of HOF caliber players Art Monk: 8368 yds, 47 TDs Steve Largent: 9336 yds, 69 TDs James Lofton: 9465 yds, 47 TDs Wes Chandler(only played 118 games): 7425 yds, 48 TDs Largent is on another level from these other players.
I love Wayne, and I think the Jets should retire his number but.... Well yeah, the Hall of Very good is a great place for him. lol
As much of a waste of time it really is I guess I'll respond anyway. When discussing whether someone made it into the Top 10 it's important to put it into perspective. He missed the Top 10 twice by one reception. It's absolutely ludicrous to put a negative spin on something that's really pretty meaningless anyway, when there is such a narrow margin involved. The comparison with the Patriots isn't a good compairson, so I'll just ignore it. Monk was so much more than a compiler. He had the most receptions from 1984-91 and 3rd most from 1988-91. His Touchdowns are lower because the Redskins typically ran the ball in the red zone and his yard totals are lower because his role in the offense was the underneath, over the middle and in the seam pass patterns that limited his big yardage opportunities. Monk wasn't the Redskins big playmaker, but that shouldn't take away from his accomplishments. Monk thru 136 games 642 / 8884 / 44 (I had the receptions incorrect, but you had all three incorrect) The reason why I brought that up was because you're excuse was that Monk played in more games than everyone else and that's why he had more receptions. Now you're excuse is that Alworth wasn't the starter at the beginning of his career and at the end of his career (which is inaccurate because he was the starter at the end of his career for Dallas). Alworth was the deep threat in San Diego's offense which is why he had more yards and TDs (46 TDs over 30 yards). I've proven to you that Monk was much more than a compiler. You choose to ignore the facts and instead focus on fantasy stats. I've become very bored with this. Maybe you can bring something better to the argument than he wasn't top 10 blah blah blah.
Proving someone isn't a compiler would be to prove that for X number of years he had the most of something (completions, TDs, yards) for each of those years. To say that a player had the most completions over a 7 year period and another 4 year period would be to prove that he is a compiler because his stats were gathered over a longer period of time. All you have done is strenghened the case that Monk was a compiler (whether he was one or not).
Did he miss the top 10? it doesn't matter if it was by one or 20 recs did he miss the top 10? All the excuses about low TDs, how come Gary Clark in 6 less years w/ Wash had only 7 less TDs? Ricky sanders had a `12 TD season w/ Washington while Art's career high was only 8. No excuses needed for Alworth, he was a MUCH better WR than Art Monk. You have proven over and over how much of a compiler Art was not that he wasn't one.
