I'm glad you asked. Monk(15 full seasons): -top 10 in recs only 4 times(led once) -top 10 in rec yds only 3 times -top 10 in TDs only once(tied for 9th) Curtis(11 full seasons): -Top 10 in rushing yards 7 times(led once, 2nd 2 times, 3rd once) -Top 10 in rush TDs 6 times(2nd once, 3rd once, 4th once) -Top 10 8 times in yards from scrimmage That tells me Curtis was near the top for 70-80% of his career while Monk was near the top 20-25% of his career. Tell me which one is better?
Namath belongs for what he mant off the field, he was an immensely important player to the development of the game today. His #s indicate he does not belong in canton but he was more important than his medicore #s.
Do Super Bowls matter to you junc? How about being such a great WR on a run first team? How about never having a solid QB to throw to you?
It can be a difference maker but when monk played so poorly in his SBs and they won one w/o him I tend not to let that influence a vote like this. In 2 of Monk's 3 SBs he had 1 rec, he never scored a SB TD in 3 games and again Washington won in '82 w/o him playing and lost in '83 when he did play.
Did gary Clark play on that run first team? Why did Clark put up better #s? he never had a solid QB to throw to him? Again how did Clark put up better #s and he had Theismann, Doug Williams, jay Schroder made Championship games w/ 2 diffferent teams and Rypien was the NFL MVP in 1991. Theismann was a 1st team all-pro once and 2 time PBer, Schroeder made the PB in '86 when he led Wash to the title game, Williams was once a top QB and he did lead Wash to a SB title and Rypien was NFL MVP and a 2 time PBer. In Ny he had Boomer and in Philly he had Rodney peete who was ok. He never had all-time great QBs but he played w/ alot of good QBs. Curtis never had a HOF QB to take pressure off the running game.
2 different positions... There's 1 HB on the field & 3 - 5 WR's on the field... to compare the two is unfair
I see you still want to talk about Pro Bowl appearances. If Pro Bowl appearances have to be used for one to make an argument, then it's a poor argument. The Pro Bowl is utter junk. from a post I wrote in February- I have all or near all of Monk's game-by-game stats. He had some of his very best games in the Redskins 14th, 15th, and 16th games in various regular seasons. You'll appreciate this- several times Monk finished with better season stats than some of the WRs selected over him to play in the Pro Bowl because the voting was closed around Week 13. Everything about the Pro Bowl is ridiculous. It'd be akin to giving out the Cy Young Awards in August and the NBA MVP in March. Ugghh. The Pro Bowl. What a fu----' joke.
I got confused w/ his SB MVP award while Thurman was looking for his helmet. Rypien was great in 1991 either way. Have we argued before? I am NOT a Pro Bowl guy, I'm an All-pro guy but when the guyys played in the same era, when Monk had a better reputation and when fans weren't voting yet Monk still had less PBs than Clark that should tell you something. Who cares when Monk had some of his best games? Clark still put up better #s and was the better player on those teams. I don't care about PBs but only 4 top top finihses in recs, 3 in yards and 1 in TDs tells us all we need to know that he wsn't a deserving HOFer.
He was really not just a wide receiver. He was also used from time-to-time as an H-Back and even a tight end. Monk was an excellent blocker. Other WRs who were/are great blockers include Charley Taylor, Rod Smith, Keyshawn Johnson, and Hines Ward. Monk was the best I've seen in this department. Here is a Joe Gibbs quote on the issue- "What has hurt Art- and I believe should actually boost his credentials- is that we asked him to block a lot. He was the inside portion of pass protection and we put him in instead of a big tight end or running back. He was a very tough, physical, big guy." I don't think I'd put Monk on my list of top 20 WRs, but was very good and is deserving of enshrinement. He was a better player than his stats would indicate.
Because if the voting was done at the conclusion of the regular season as opposed to 75% of the way through the season, Monk would have been in more Pro Bowls.
I really liked both players. I liked Clark ever since his Jacksonville Bulls days. I am unwilling to say that one was clearly better than the other. They were very different players.
I understand the concept but putting PBs aside Clark was a better player so no matter what way you look at it Clark comes out on top btw the 2.
I'm truly not interested into getting into another argument with you because all we do is go around in circles and it's simply not fun. I'll attempt to end this soon. Can you explain to all of us why Clark was the better player without posting statistics?
When watching washington as a kid I always knew the better played was Clark, whenever big plays were there to be made it was Clark. Stats are used to help discussions like this, they keep them for a reason. Clark was the better player, Defenses knew it, skins fans knew it and knowledgable NFL fans knew it. Monk was a consistently GOOD player but he only had 1 great season. You cannot compare Monk to players of today b/c the game is different but you can compare them to players of his era and he falls hsort in those comparisons.
This is what I was looking for although I don't know if everything you wrote is true. Monk did make a lot of clutch catches for the Redskins. I remember three games against the Bears where he came up big. He had 10 catches for 122 yards in the Redskins 23-19 loss in the '84 playoffs. He caught two TD passes in the '86 playoffs at Soldier Field. The Bears were going for back-to-back Super Bowl titles, but their efforts were stymied in part by Monk. Monk had a huge late reception off a dodge pattern in the 10-9 win in 1990. That game was played at RFK. The best Clark moment that comes to mind for me is Super Bowl 26. He had 7 receptions for 114 yards and one score. Monk in that same game? Identical number of catches and one fewer yard. I don't know that defenses feared Clark more than they feared Monk. A lot of research would have to be done. I'd need to see some comments from the Redskins' opponents of those days, particularly those from defensive backs and defensive coordinators.
