But, he does belong there due to his performance on the field at that particular time in the game, and his contribution to the nfl. He did do alot for the game. I also agree with you when you said a few other former team members should be in the HOF as well.
Yeah, since Irvin is in, Monk should be in. Monk- 940 rec, 12721 yards, 13.5 average, 68 TDs (224 games) Irvin- 750 rec, 11904 yards, 15.9 average, 65 TDs (159 games) Each received All-Pro nods three years. Each was a consensus 1st team All-Pro only one year. Both played for three Super Bowl champions. However, Monk did not play in the 1982 postseason. He was replaced by 5'7" Smurf Alvin Garrett. Garrett caught five TD passes in the 1982 playoffs, including one in the Super Bowl win over the Dolphins.
Monk played 16 seasons and Irvin played 12. Irvin was a 5 time Pro Bowler and 3 time All Pro. Monk was a 3 time Pro Bowler and 3 time All Pro. Irvin broke 1000 yards 7 times, Monk only 5. Irvin also averaged almost 2.5 yards per catch than Monk. Irvin averaged 74.9 yards per game and Monk 56.8. Monk caught 3 more TD's than Irvin but he also played in 65 more games. Monk was a compiler and Irvin was an impact player, that's why Irvin is in the hall and Monk is not.
A little Joe Namath for you fans.... http://http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6614614079205003659&q=namath+2min&pr=goog-sl
You could say Monk compiled with the Jets in 1994. He caught 46 passes for a mediocre team. In his 12th year, Monk did not "compile". He was an impact player for a Super Bowl champion. His final season was inconsequential- 3 games and 6 catches for the Eagles.
I don't smoke pot, either, but does it really matter if/where Namath got it from? Thanks for sucking the fun out of it.
My point was that I don't know if Namath ever even said that. If he did say it and I find proof or you find proof or somebody else finds proof, then I will admit a mistake.
Yes, Irvin played 4 games in his final season. There's also this- Irvin had a Hall of Fame QB throwing passes to him. Monk did not. I don't see how anybody could cleary say one of these guys was better than the other. I would give a slight edge to Irvin.
Monk was a very good possession WR the second best reciever on the team for most of his Washington years, rarely doubled, covered by the No. 2 CB most of the time and wasn't thought of highly enough by the writers to get into the HOF by those who saw him day in and day out. He only made 3 pro bowls while compiling unbelivable stats. Irvin was a game changing stud No. 1 WR on some great teams. More pro bowls, more double coverages, always covered by the No. 1 CB, just flat out better and those who saw him voted him in based on his performance against his peers.
I don't pay attention to Pro Bowl appearances unless one guy appeared in 10 and the other guy appeared in 1. It's All-Pro honors that we need to care about and they are even in that department. I saw them both play and just like the stats say, there is no major difference. I'm also not sure about that stuff I bolded. We both probably only saw Monk play about 6 or 7 games a year. I think he drew the opposition's #1 CB often.
I don't think he did because Gary Clark was taking the No. 1 most of his career and was often doubled even with Monk in the game. Monk was Cothchery with a healthy Coles on the field. I know you're a stat monkey but the fact is guys get voted into the HOF by people who saw them play. Irvin is universally known as an ass and is hated. Monk is a class act and gets shilled for all the time and hasn't come close. You put it out there that you can't see the difference but those that did see it saw it.
Monk was much better than Cotchery. That's not even debatable. choice cuts from http://artmonk.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/cris-carter-on-monk/
