I have seen many great receivers including Jerry Rice and Art Monk drop passes. No one is perfect. The reason the pro bowl could be important is that the pro bowl selections are an attempt to determine the greatest players of that year at their respective positions. If a player is selected as a starter in the pro bowl every year (ex. Jerry Rice) it is because some people who made the decision believed that he was the greatest WR in the NFC in each of those years. If a player was passed over for the pro bowl that means some people did not think he was among the four greatest WRs in the NFC that year. Considering that injury replacements also go to the pro bowl, sometimes being passed over bumps a WR out of the top 5. With that being said, the NFC only includes half of the players in the league. Being passed over for the pro bowl (assuming the AFC and NFC have similar levels of talent) could mean that there are 7-10 WRs in the NFL that had a better year. The hall of fame is supposed to include the greatest players to ever play professional football. Each year only 4-6 players are selected. WRs have to compete with QBs, RBs, TEs, DEs, DTs, LBs, and DBs for these spots. To say a player had a great career but isn't worthy of the HOF is not an insult. There is only room for the best of the best. Usually when a player that isn't worthy gets in he has multiple SB rings. Monk took a spot in the HOF away from someone else who deserved it more and will have to keep waiting to get in. Great players including Joe Klecko, Mark Gastineau, Chris Carter, Shannon Sharpe, Sterling Sharpe, Kenny Easley, are passed over because there is so little room. At the WR position alone Tim Brown and Andre Reed may never get in because they have to compete with Jerry Rice, Chris Carter, TO, Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, Tory Holt, Isaac Bruce, etc.
Again, Brown did not make the Pro Bowl as a receiver. It is similar to how Steve Tasker never made the Pro Bowl as a receiver, but you'll probably see him listed in with the WRs on other p-f-r pages. EDIT: Brown is bolded because he was the starting kick returner for that Pro Bowl. It is shoddy work on the part of pro-football-reference.com that Brown is listed with the WRs. His 1985 numbers: 14 rec, 215 yards, 15.4 avg, 3 TDs 28 KO ret, 918 yards, 32.8 avg, 3 TDs This is not the only instance of p-f-r either presenting something in a confusing manner or of making an outright error. I have caught errors on that site and e-mailed the guys to get them fixed. I could respond to your recent posts in full during the day, but likely won't till the evening or night. Murrell2878 should seriously consider creating an Art Monk thread and then pin it to this forum. It's crazy how many threads we've spent on the guy. It's the same arguments all the time, too.
Stats do not tell the whole story b/c when you look at his career #s you might be confused thinking he is a HOFer. Why wasn't he the go to guy for more of his career? He had ONE great season, that's not a HOFer. Monk did more than Clark except for recs, yards, TDs, etc... So his coach had great things to say about him? Shocking, I guess he does belong in the Hall Come on Murrell, you are better than that to bring up meaningless quotes. I hate using pro bowls b/c the big name guys get in when they don't deserve it. Art was a big name guy and he only made 3. Clark started on 2 of their 3 SB Championship teams.
You're not looking at his entire body of work. You're not acknowledging his blocking, his first down receptions or the fact that a lot of his patterns were run over the middle into the teeth of the defense. Instead you are focusing way too much into stats. Think of it another way. If the Redskins used Monk in a TE type role, then let's compare him to other TE's. Monk 940 / 12721 / 68 Top 20 TEs All Time Receptions Tony Gonzalez 999 / 11807 / 82 Shannon Sharpe 815 / 10060 / 62 Ozzie Newsome 662 / 7980 / 47 Kellen Winslow 541 / 6741 / 45 Jason Witten 523 / 5965 / 27 Frank Wycheck 505 / 5126 / 28 Ben Coates 499 / 5555 / 50 Steve Jordan 498 / 6307 / 28 Jackie Smith 480 / 7918 / 40 Antonio Gates 479 / 6223 / 59 Jeremy Shockey 469 / 5280 / 30 Mickey Shuler 462 / 5100 / 37 Todd Christensen 461 / 5872 / 41 Wesley Walls 450 / 5291 / 54 Keith Jackson 441 / 5283 / 49 Mike Ditka 427 / 5812 / 43 Todd Heap 427 / 4893 / 36 Jay Novacek 422 / 4630 / 30 Bob Tucker 422 / 5421 / 27 Jerry Smith 421 / 5496 / 60 It's a fair comparison considering his role in the Redskins passing offense. And doing the comparison it's fair to say that he was one of the best players in the TE role. Again, Monk's role on the offense changed. Why do you insist on ignoring all of his other attributes? Stats only tell half the story when debating Monk. I think it's quite appropriate to bring up a quote from Monk's former Head Coach when discussing his role in the offense.
He wasn't a TE, you don't get to the HOF based on blocking as a WR and it's not fair to judge his #s against TE #s when he wasn't a TE. If monk was as great of a WR as you say his role wouldn't have changed that much and w/ the change he would have adapated and still been great, he wasn't even the best WR on his team most of his career and he had ONE great season. he got into the hall b/c he played a million years and had good overall #s, he wasn't great.
They asked him to block on running plays, he was great at blocking downfield and his routes were over the middle and in the seam...Sounds like a TE to me.
Why isn't it fair. He played a TE role. He was essentially a standup TE. How were you going to play Monk, Clark and Sanders? Maybe they should have had Sanders go over the middle of the field and be an inside blocker just so Monk's role wouldn't have changed. They asked him to change his role because he was best suited for that job in the offense. When he needed to be the go-to guy he put up Big time, Record Breaking stats. You say he got into the hall because he palyed a lot of years, yet using statistical data - from 1984-1991 no one had more catches. From 1988-1991 only 3 players had more catches. Was he productive on the field? Yes. He converted 64% of his passes for first downs. Did he contribute to help the offense in other ways? Yes. He is known to be a great downfield blocker and assisted in the running game as a blocker. Are there more ways to determine whether a football player is worthy of HOF recognition than stats? Absolutely. Was Monk the greatest WR ever to play? No, of course not and no one is suggesting otherwise. But he was much, MUCH more than just someone who played a long time and compiled receptions.
He wasn't a TE, he was a WR and the fact that he ran routes across the middle and blocked doesn't make him a TE. If monk was so great he'd be the skins #1 option and they wouldn't have changed his role. WRs do go across the middle, it's part of the job description. You act like this is groundbreaking stuff he did for Washington. He was consistently GOOD not great. His compiled #s look much better than he actually was, he was not a great WR. The HOF should be reserved for the best of the best which he was clearny not one of.
He compiled numbers? Then why did no other receiver have more receptions than him from 1984-1991? Or the fact that only 3 receivers had more than him from 1988-91? His role on the offense was very similar to a TE, so it's not insane to compare him to TE's. From The Pro Football Historical Abstract: Even though Monk lined up as a wide receiver, his role was really more like that of a tight end. He used his physicality to catch passes. He went inside and over the middle most of the time. He was asked to block a lot. All of those things make him a different creature than the typical speed receiver, guys who stayed outside, used their speed to get open, and weren't expected to contribute as a blocker. ......."What has hurt Art-and I believe should actually boost his credentials-is that we asked him to block a lot" Gibbs said. "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" Define best of the best? I know you like to refer to statistics to determine the best of the best. But football isn't always about statistics. Monk has statistics to back up his career (Single season reception record, All-Time reception record) but he has done much more and should be recognized
He was consistently GOOD, he wasn't great. Why, in 15+ seasons was he top 5 in recs only 3 times? He wasn't a TE, he was asked to do what WRs do. He doesn't get a medal for going over the middle or blocking. You have me confused w/ someone else. It's not all about stats but when a guy is only top 5 3 times in his 15+ year career in recs that's not HOF worthy. YOU are the one citing his career #s, he was a compiler not a great player- he had ONE great year. Best of the best are guys like Rice and Hutson in the past, WRs like Fitz and Andre Johnson today. Art Monk was a GOOD player, he was not great. The Hall is supposed to be for great players but they let in too many good players. The subject of this thread is about players like Art Monk.
Very few WR's are asked to take on a more blocking responsibility. Gary Clark wasn't. Compilers don't have the most or are near the top in receptions during a specific time period. When Monk was asked to be their go to guy he responded by setting a record for most receptions in a season. He followed that up with a 91 catch season. He could have continued to do that but the Redskins asked him to take on a TE role in the offense. A person can play a different role than their position states. Just because he wasn't listed as a TE doesn't mean he didn't play that role.
Parcells once said - "Monk is going to Canton downhill on rollerskates" ... That's all I need to know considering Parcells had to coach against him for 8 years during his prime.
Being top 10 for just 4 of 15+ seasons and still being top 10 all time recs is called compiling. Those 2 seasons were the only HOF caliber seasons he had and even w/ all those recs he only had 9 TD recs in 2 seasons. I don't care what parcells said, it's about play on the field not quotes from coaches and players. You can drag out all the quotes you want but the proof was in his play. There's not a wing for HOF blocking WRs and he didn't do enough as a receiving WR which is what he is judged on.
By definition, that is exactly what compilers do. The rack up statistics in specific categories (in this case completions) over a long period of time while other better players surpass them in single years or shorter periods of time. Once compiled this career statistic (total receptions) gives the illusion that the compiler did better at this category than others due to longevity and not greatness.
That's right....it's about the play on the field not statistics and yes there is a difference. I chose his prime seasons (8 years - 1984-91) and I also chose a 4 year span after you suggested he had fallen off (1988-91). How is that compiling? Monk was in the Top 10 for receptions by Wide Receivers every year from 1984-1991 except 1987.
Re: what I bolded- You have to stop with this. Ellard was not a Pro Bowl wide receiver in 1984. He was a Pro Bowl returner. Those of us who paid attention to the NFL in 1984 and 1985 know that Ellard was voted to the Pro Bowl in '84 as a special teams player and ditto Ron Brown in '85. Now, unlike Brown in '85, Ellard was at least a good WR in '84. He started all 16 games and caught 34 passes and 6 for scores. Sorry to say this and possibly offend, but the mistakes you've made here indicate that you don't know what you're talking about. With the "James Tilley" error and the Ellard and Brown mistakes, it does not seem you followed the NFL closely in the mid-1980s and that would be a huge problem here when discussing Monk's career and how he compared to his contemporaries.
I feel this is relevant last August during an Irvin-Ellard debate I wrote the following- http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=1315514&postcount=77 Well, they have similar enough career numbers as far as receptions, receiving yards, yards per reception, and touchdowns are concerned. However, Irvin accumulated his numbers in significantly fewer games and did so for generally better teams (Ellard played for Rams playoff teams in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, and 1989; from 1990-98 the only playoff team he played for was the 1998 Patriots and they dumped him in October of that season if I recall correctly). Irvin averaged 4.7 receptions per game and 74.9 receiving yards. Ellard averaged 3.6 catches and 60.4 yards. We'll throw out the 1998 season when Ellard played in 7 total games with NE and WAS as a backup. In the other years in the 1990s, Ellard was a regular starter with pathetic or mediocre Rams and Redskins teams. Five of his seven 1000 yard seasons came in the 1990s. He also had a 945 yard effort in 1993. I contend that Ellard's stats would not look as good if he had played for better teams during the second half of his career. I betcha he put up a lot of garbage stats from 1990-97 in the 2nd half of blowout games where the other team wasn't all that interested. Certainly, he made big plays early in games, but, at some level, there has to be a garbage element to his numbers from the 1990s. Let's look at 1994, for instance. Cowboys- 12 wins, 4 losses Redskins- 3 wins, 13 losses Irvin- 79 catches, 1241 yards, 15.7 avg, 6 TDs Ellard- 74 catches, 1397 yards, 18.9 avg, 6 TDs Remember, the Redskins were also pathetic in 1993. That was the Richie Petitbon year. In 1994, the Redskins had a last place schedule, back when such a thing meant something. The awful Buccaneers were on the 1994 Redskins schedule twice and the only AFC teams they had to play were 1993 bottom feeders Indianapolis and Seattle. So the question is whose line was better? Their numbers were similar enough, but Irvin played for a much better team. How often was Irvin even targeted in 4th quarters of games? The Cowboys had some big blowout wins that year. How many times did Ellard make 20+ yard receptions with his team down by two scores with 4 minutes remaining in a game? You probably get my point. Just from the eyeball test, Irvin was a much better player. Was Irvin a top 10 all time WR? Not in my opinion. I do think he deserves his spot in the PFHOF, however. Also, be careful with Pro Bowl honors. I try to avoid mentioning Pro Bowls if possible. Art Monk, for instance, got screwed out of Pro Bowl spots multiple times due to the fact that voting was finished in November. Look up some of Monk's December numbers. He came up big late in seasons. Look at the fact that Ken O'Brien made the Pro Bowl in 1991. Then look at his 1991 numbers. All time great Ray Nitschke made one Pro Bowl. Bengals cornerback Ken Riley received All-Pro recognition in four different seasons (1975, 1976, 1981, 1983) and was a consensus 1st team choice in 1983. Guess what? He was never a Pro Bowler. Two notes on Riley's All-Pro season of 1983- it was the final season of his 15-year career and the other 1st team cornerback was Lester Hayes EDIT- I forgot to add the fact that Ellard played in three Pro Bowls, but the first time he was selected was as a punt returner. He was only a Pro Bowl wide receiver two times- after the 1988 and 1989 seasons. This is yet another example of why we need to be careful when pointing out how many times a player made the Pro Bowl.
It was a rhetorical question. You can disagree all you want, but you won't change my opinion that Monk had a great set of hands and rarely dropped a pass. Cris Carter probably had the best hands of all-time, but I really do believe Monk was right up there high atop the hands rankings, if you will. Raymond Berry (before our time, but we've seen the film and what not) might be #2. Larry Fitzgerald is up there, as well. You made some good comments here, but again, the NFL schedule called for 16 games for each team during Monk's career (save 1982 and 1987). Pro Bowl voting ended after 12 or 13 games during his career. Was Brett Favre one of the top AFC QBs in 2008? According to his Pro Bowl appearance he was (I know he was named to the team, but am unsure if he played in it- that's how much I actually pay attention to that exhibition game). I think through 12 games one could make a case for Favre in '08. Very tough to make a case for him after 16 games, though. I do not think we are going to get anywhere. Murrell2878 and I have no problem with Monk being in the Hall of Fame. You and nyjunc have a problem with it. I highly doubt any of the four of us will change our mind on Monk.
