That was a piece put together by a PR firm trying to get him in. I'm not knocking Monk, I'm not even sure Lynn Swann or Stallworth belong in the HOF but having seen all three Monk is still 3rd best by a lot. The classic Monk type of player who is in the HOF is Steve Largent. Largent was also better than Monk. It's the HOF not the HOVG + Longevity. Gary Clark on the same team was simply better and nobody is calling for him to go to the HOF.
Maybe these older players deserve it but if can't get in w/in about a 10 year span you shouldn't be eligible. if they weren't good enough 10-20-30 years ago why are they HOfers now? The HOF is a joke.
I happen to agree with you surprisingly. If the media that saw you play against your contemporaries and don't think you're good enough, you probably aren't. This is one of the reason I think you are wrong on Namath.:shit: One of the things that does help a guy like Irvin and todays players over some of the older players is the league and networks are much better today at promoting the game and the players through their professional multi media PR firms than they were 10,20 or 30 years ago. This will tend to favor early eligibles over later eligibles going forward. Irvin played for a team that was constantly in the national spot light and on national TV. I'm sure that helps going against contemporaries that played in a mostly regional market and weren't seen or hyped to the national media during their playing days to the same level as Irvin was.
I would love to see HOF elections come down to the numbers, not memories, opinion, or hype. But thats just me. It would make it a lot less controversial that way, you could have something concrete to back up your election and we wouldn't have to argue over it.
I never said he didn't belong in the HOF, I think he does but NOT for his play on the field alone. He was bigger off the field and SB III was the single most significant game in Pro Football history. Namath also retired in '77 and didn't get enshrined until 1985 so he wasn't a slam dunk.
you have to watch all of them. Those videos are great!!! Like I've said many times, for many years how Art Monk is not in the Hall of Fame is well beyond me.
Football, unlike baseball the numbers come down to who your team mates were and what the scheme was. Take a look at Paul Warfields No. on the Dolphins or Lynn Swan on the Steelers. Football is not a game of numbers as much as some others.
Then how does one ever vote for an offensive lineman? Some of the writers are jerks. There is one guy whose name escapes me at the moment, who says he would never vote any punter into the HoF. I think there are a lot like him, given the fact that no punter has ever even come close to getting in. This guy says punters aren't football players. But, this same idiot will vote for coaches, sportscasters, sports writers, refs, ex-commissioners etc, etc. I for one don't like the abolishment of the veteran's commitee, which was made up of ex-players. Who better than they to fix ommissions that the clueless writers pass over? As for Monk, the guy held the record for most career receptions. That should be enough for the pure numbers people. Having said that, in football, I think there are rare exceptions, a few players whose game turning ability transcends the numbers. Swann was like that, a great, dangerous WR that played on a very run oriented offense. Namath was like that too. Based purely on numbers, niether belongs. In my opinion, they both belong.
You want some numbers, Monk played 16 years and had 5 1,000 yard seasons he also had 4 under 500 yards. Irvin played 12 years and had 7 over a 1,000 yards nd 3 under 500. Monk made 3 pro bowls he wasn't even in the argument of the best in the game ever. It is only he's record of most receptions that even gets him mentioned and how many years of bad football did he play to get that record? Stats in football don't mean all that much.
I spent part of the last few hours thinking about what I had said and I realized that while my standard of fairness was still what I would rather see, that the current system had its merits as well. I propose the two could be combined in such a way as to have 6 nominees per year, as we do now, but some split of 4-2 ratio could be: 4 elected, 2 automatic by numbers. You would have much less arguing over a player being overlooked who had "earned his spot" while at the same time making the 4 elected spots become less about stats and more about the overall contribution of the player. I think this makes sense, opinions?
Because Art Monk was not a Hall of Fame receiver. But because Art Monk was a really great guy, associated with really great teams, his lack of a candidacy is lamented every year. The Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best. Guys whose names are on all-time lists because they played for ever and ever don't deserve to be in there. You have to measure guys like Monk against their peers. In 16 years, Monk made 3 Pro Bowls. In 16 years, Monk lead the league in receptions ONCE. In 16 years, Monk had 5 1,000 yard seasons. Over the second half of his career, he played second fiddle to Gary Clark, and sometimes, Ricky Sanders. In short, Monk's prime was not nearly as great as it could have been and his later years showed him to be more of a complementary type. When you don't have the best numbers in the leauge that's one thing, but when you're not even the best receiver on your team and the two other guys aren't on anyone's ballots, that's another. -X-
Longevity and durability are a standard of greatness. Its not the same thing as dominance at your position, but some people are just not as physically gifted as others. Does that mean they didn't try just as hard, give even more of themselves to make it and stay in the game? If you look at Thunderbirds response earlier about election by numbers keeping out offensive linemen, how do you ever vote in a lineman? You vote them in because they have very long careers of being there every week and doing their jobs. Apply the same standard to Monk. Give him credit for his stats and his longevity, see that he has been snubbed from a spot he earned.
A "PR" firm? Huh? That is all you can manage after a collection of great plays by this player? What rubbish. Do you think that footage was created out of thin air? That his mere accomplishments were created out of thin air as well? Did you even bother to watch it? No, I bet you didn't even bother to watch it - I bet you haven't even seen Art Monk play, period. Because, if you did, then you most certainly wouldn't call Art Monk just a "3rd best," in such a dismissive manner. What an insult to a great player. The thing is, the folks that played and coached the player are the ones that ALL want Monk in the Hall, and know-it-all fans who really don't much about the player are the ones who are against him. Oh, BTW, folks are calling for Gary Clark to go to the Hall of Fame. But Monk's situation is merely representative of 'Skins teams of that era to gain respect, since they only have one Hall of Fame representative. Clark's numbers are similiar to both Monk's and Irvin's, and yet he is overlooked, even though he was one of the best decade's players, along with Jerry Rice.
What is odd is that I have heard of the 'Skins teams being great, which is what they are, but they only have one Hall of Fame representative. You know why? Because folks always say that the players on those 'Skins teams were on "really good teams." Which is such a crazy, hypocritical way of looking at the situation. Meanwhile, players that meant a lot to their teams because they were great team players are voted into the Hall of Fame. HOF voters such as Peter King and Dr. Z vote for players that they see not as being great individual players, but team leaders as well. Look at Art Monk's productive and ability of play compared to other Hall of Fame wide receivers - he easily stands in the ranks of those players. Did you watch football during the 80's? Monk was one of the leagues best during that time period. And why do you think his peers from that time period have all said that Monk is Hall of Fame worthy? Why do you think that, time and time again, while Monk was STILL A PLAYER, it was said over and over again that Monk is a future Hall of Famer? Why would Parcell's say that Monk is going to the Hall of Fame "downhill, on roller skates?" Who do you think probably knows more: The coaches and players that competed against Monk, or an average fan that probably can remember his playing? That does not lessen's Monk's accomplishments. Let me ask you something: have you ever looked at Monk's numbers compared to other Hall of Famers: Lynn Swann 336 catches 5,598 yards 43 TD John Stallworth 537 catches 8,723 yards 62 TD Charlie Joiner 750 catches 12,146 yards 65 TD Michael Irvin 750 catches 11,904 yards 65 TD Art Monk 940 catches 12,721 yards 68 TD Some of you folks are acting as if Monk was just some bum that could barely catch the ball. There is a reason why folks think of Monk being a great Wide Receiver. And let me remind you that the last two years of Monk's career were not very productive. The thing is, Monk had the above numbers while being in a system with other good wide receivers. This isn't necessarily a postive thing for a wide receivers numbers. And if you didn't think that coaches game planned for Monk, then you don't know too much about football from this time period. He was simply getting older in his later years, but he was very productive to up until the last years of his stint with the Redskins, especially in 1991. But the numbers do show that when given a chance, such as in 1984 when he had over 1,300 yards, when he given the ball, he was a #1 wide receiver. And why isn't Gary Clark or Ricky Sanders on anyone's ballet? Why are none of the famed Hogs in the Hall of Fame? As I mentioned earlier, Gary Cark was one of the most feared receivers of the decades, and had the following numbers at the end of his career: rec: 699, yards: 10856, ypg: 15.5, TDs: 65, numbers which are, againt, comparable if not better then most HOF wide receivers. Are you going to present me with the same argument that you did with Monk? That he played second fiddle to other wide recivers? As I said before, I find it hard to believe that anyone who is so against Monk's induction really watched him play or remembers much about his playing. Here is a part of the earlier posted video (which was created by a fan): http://youtube.com/watch?v=e3eMUxJFUVw&mode=related&search=
Well, Baclus, I wasn't willing to eneter the great debate with a boatload of researching all the numbers, but you did a fine job of it. However, I think it was an effort that will fall on deaf ears. When people dig their heels in as they have here, it's very difficult to influence them. Without Monk, the Skins would never have beaten the Giants as often as they did. Clark was very good, and did draw double coverage, but Monk still had to get seperation, and he burned teams that overlooked him, which few actually did. his presence on the field actually made Clark better.... not to mention the entire skins offense better. Solid post.
Were he Curtis Martin, running for the rushing title well into his old age, you might have a point, but even during Monk's prime he was never really a tthe top of his position. He lead the league in receptions ONCE. Over Monk's last nine seasons in the league, he had two 1,000 yard years. The rest was just compiling as an above average receiver Monk had a GREAT 3 years that he never really duplicated. This is not the Hall of VERY GOOD, it's the Hall of Fame, and it's meant for only the greats. Being a nice guy who tries hard doesn't matter if your numbers don't cut the mustard. Monk's don't. -X-
This is like a philosophy 101 fallacy section workbook page. You made no cogent argument. These are some very Un-Hall numbers. 7 seasons with less than 50 catches in his 16 year career 5 1,000 yard seasons over the course of a 16 year career 3 Pro Bowls over the course of a 16 year career 1 receiving title over the course of a 16 year career Monk played for a long time and his career was dotted with number 2 receiver seasons with a great 3 year run. The fact that he can't get in and the fact that he only made 3 Pro Bowls over the course of his 16 year career shows exactly how highly esteemed he is by those who played the game and those who were "paying attention to the game" during that period. Monk was only an above average player for most of his career. It doesn't really matter that he had great hands, or that he was a nice guy, because he was not a dominant player. He was GREAT for 2 seasons. His candidacy is similar to that of a Marcus Allen, a great all-time compiler who got in on his Super Bowl MVP's(Timmy Smith is still waiting for his election). Monk was certainly not a bum, but this is not the Hall of very good. When Eddie George comes up on the ballot, he shouldn't get in, nor should Keenan McCardell. By comparison, Michael Irvin's 12 year career saw him elected to 5 consecutive Pro Bowls. During his 8 year prime, he had 7 1,000 yard seasons. He lead the league in receiving yards once. He was top five in receiving yards 4 times and top five in receptions three times. People talk about Art Monk as if he were Cris Carter. He was a lot more like Rod Smith, playing well beyond his prime and moving up the list as a shadow of his former self. -X-
If you are going to discuss logical fallacies, then you need to examine your own end of the argument. Compared to what players? There are HOF wide receivers, from just the previous decade, who never even had a 1,000 yard season. What are "Hall of Fame" numbers? If he was inducted, along with Irvin, he would have some of the best career numbers of a player. And you don't seem to understand that the Hall isn't merely about numbers, per se, but also includes the little things that make a player great, and Hall of Fame great. EVERYONE who played or coached against him as well as with him believe that he is a Hall of Fame player: they have been saying that for years, time and time again. They were saying he was a future Hall of Famer when he was playing. And do you understand how the Hall of Fame voting works, and how much influence non-NFL players have in the voting? Why do you think you always hear players remark about Monk yet being voted into the Hall? Heck, just recently there were several remarks by players that immediately talked about Monk being snubbed again. Even Peter King changed his mind on Monk after talking with folks from around the league in the NFL as well as Gibbs himself. If Peter King can change his mind, then there must be a reason for it. And we all know that pro-bowl voting isn't always an indicator of a player's greatness. We all have had players from our teams that we know deserved a vote into the pro-bowl, but were snubbed for one reason or another. ThunderbirdJet in an earlier (graceful) post made a good observation: Monk made those around him into better players. And this is partially what the Hall is about. Monk took what was given to him - he never pouted or complained, so his numbers didn't always reflect what he did. He was in a system that had many players who wanted the ball, and he caught what he was thrown and made them into effective plays, especially in a system that was often run heavy (though Gibbs did have innovations in the passing game that were modern). Those Gibbs Redskins during that time period would simply not have been as effective without Monk. It can't be explained further unless you simply watched the team from that time period. Monk made differences in games, over and over again. He could change a game with his play. He could also dominant the opposition's secondary with his frame and toughness: You are speaking of Monk in terms as a guy that simply caught balls, and that is it. Too often, you knew if the team was in a tough position, Monk would come down with the ball, in traffic. Both of these players are indeed very good, but I do not see the comparision with a man who has helped lead his team to division, conference, and NFL champsionships. Irvin is a great player: No doubt. This takes nothing away from him. Monk has been ineligible before Irvin and should have already been voted: That is the point of contention. And it isn't very realistic, or logical, to start discussing players from a more pass-friendly period, which helps players such as Carter and Smith; eventually most numbers and records will be broken at one time or another, and older player's will start appearing less and less significant. That has always been a remark by observers when they discuss players getting voted into the Hall. Sorry - you aren't going to convince me, and I am not going to do the same for you. I believe we have to agree to disagree, because nothing much else will happen, but Monk simply deserves better.
This is the problem, I did see all these guys and you're right about the previous decade, so what. If you saw them there is no way you can tell me that Monk was even in the same class as either Warfield or Swann. The numbers don't tell the story. There were 3 guys from he's era that got in, Lofton, Stallworth and Steve Largent, all 3 were better and so was Irvin. This is a Jet board so you have to take my word on this, Al Toon was a better WR than either Keyshawn Johnson or Wayne Crebet, but the stats don't bear it out. He was also better than Monk but that's a different story. You can put together a compilation of Wayne Chrebet video that is more impressive then what was on the Monk Video you showed.
