From the WR department: Wesley Walker Al Toon Keyshawn Johnson Jimmy Smith Keenan McCardell Rod Smith Gary Clark Henry Ellard Antonio Freeman
"Compiler" is more of a baseball term than a football one. Don Sutton reached certain numbers in baseball by compiling. He was never a dominant pitcher. He pitched so long and stayed good for a long time that he was able to reach certain career marks, which basically made him an automatic enshrinee in the eyes of many voters. There are not any particular numbers in football, however, that automatically result in enshrinement. If there were, then Cris Carter and Tim Brown would be in already. Monk was still okay in 1992. He was good to very good to great in the first 12 years of his career. He was mediocre or maybe even less than mediocre in 1993 and 1994. 1995 was just three games, so big deal there. So with Monk we are talking about a guy who was at least good every year for a dozen years for winning teams. I posted his 1980-91 statistics to show you that he had a good career line to that point in his career. The okay/mediocre/less than mediocre portion of his career is the only part where he "compiled." See? This is nuts. We cannot even agree on what constitutes compiling. Jerry Rice was a compiler for crying out loud. Everyone who plays a long time will compile stats (so long as we are talking about a skill position player). Joe Montana compiled. Steve Largent compiled. Don Maynard compiled. Play, compile stats. Play more, compile more. I get it, though. The term is used derisively to suggest a player was average or a little bit above average, but was able to be good enough to keep a job for over a decade and somehow, by luck perhaps, he got enough passes thrown to him and was then able to pull the wool over voters' eyes and land himself in the Hall of Fame.
I agree with what was bolded. We've experienced enough of these Monk battles. He's in the PFHOF now. I am satisfied with that. So why should I waste time debating this guy's right to be in the Hall of Fame? It was something to do a few years ago, but he's in now. Time for everyone to move on. Now, what we could do someday is to have a debate about the worst players in the PFHOF. I am certain, based on comments from nyjunc and James Hasty in this thread, that Monk would be featured in such a discussion. I would be game for that thread chiefly because it would be something different. There we would be comparing Monk to other Hall of Famers as opposed to the tired debate we've had here. For those who don't like Monk being in the Hall of Fame- you can make your voices heard by choosing to stay away from the museum. You could also send complaint letters to everyone who voted in 2008. There were 39 voters and we don't know which ones in particular voted for Monk, right? In that case, Monk haters would have to send out 39 letters.
Sutton is a good comparion, he is sort of like the Art Monk of baseball. Played forever and compiled some nice overall #s w/ a few HOF worthy seaons. Monk was good, he wasn't great and you should have to be great to make the HOF. Rice was top 5-10 most of his career, I know what you are trying to do but please don't put Monk and Rice in the same sentence. I don't lose sleep over poor selections to the HOF but in a debate about it I am not going to lie and say the man belongs when he clearly does not. I have never been to the Hall but b/c Monk and other underserving players got in it wouldn't keep me away. Distance keeps me away. It took Monk a long time to get in, he was on the ballot 7-8 years. he played his entire career where the NFL was the most popular sport and in the media all the time. If he wasn't a HOFer the first 3-4 chances how does he make it in year 7-8? He doesn't belong in, he was a good guy, a good player and there was a big media campaign to get him in(much like Swann). Not every player that makes it truly deserves it.
RE: what I bolded- He clearly does not? Earlier in this thread I was able to see the other side of the argument. I listed the marks against Monk. (I suggested Murrell2878 do the same and I suggested you and James Hasty take the pro-Monk side. All of you passed on that.) When you write that Monk clearly does not belong, you are essentially saying you cannot even see the case for Monk. "Clearly does not belong" is strong language. To me, "clearly does not belong", would apply to players like Siupeli Malamala, Jeff Criswell, Kanavis McGhee, Ken Oxendine, and Anthony Johnson. I have issues with some of the members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, as you do with Monk. However, there is not a single member who I feel clearly does not belong. I can see the argument for every single member.
I cannot see the case for Monk, obviously he's not on a level w/ those other players you listed but I do not believe Monk belongs. The case for him is all about compiled #s, I feel the Hall is supposed to be for the best of the best and in my opinion he does not belong up there. I think there are tons of guys in the Hall not worthy, it has been dilluted w/ good to very good players. I look at the #s against his peers, the yearly #s not the compiled #s and he has so few top 10 seasons(it really should be about top 5 not top 10, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt) that he does not belong. Monk is a local guy, he's a good guy. I am glad for him he is in but that doesn't change my opinion that I feel he does not belong.
