I made the comment in response to a factually incorrect statement from James Hasty. He wrote, "When the Redskins were winning SBs Gary Clark was their # 1 WR, not Art Monk." That sentence implies that Clark was the #1 Washington WR for all the Redskins Super Bowl teams. They won their first Super Bowl when Clark was playing college football at James Madison. I am very aware that Clark started Super Bowls 22 and 26. I am also aware that Clark had two big drops on 3rd down passes in the first quarter of Super Bowl 22. Of course, he did later score a touchdown. Clark and Monk both had nondescript games from pure stat standpoints. Super Bowl 26 was a different story, though. Both were great in that game.
If the PFHOF voters are as silly as you are implying they are and that they are married to statistics, then it stands to reason that Cris Carter, Tim Brown, Henry Ellard, Andre Reed, and Irving Fryar would already have been inducted. After all, all five of those guys "compiled" more receiving yardage than did Monk. Similarly, the theory would hold that Tim Brown should have been inducted this year due to his immense reception-compiling.
So now, in addition to all your factual errors, you are struggling with reading comprehension. Edit: Just so that maybe you'll understand what I wrote last night- post #122 contained sarcasm. The use of quotations around one of the words was particularly important. Also, I informed you earlier that the guy's name is Cris Carter. Why do you continue to spell his first name with a "h"? It's embarrassing already. Did you ever watch the guy play for the Eagles, Vikings, or Dolphins? Numerous times his name was displayed on your TV screen. Again, I'm dumbfounded as to how and why Cris Carter and Peyton Manning have their first names misspelled on a regular basis. It's not like we are talking about two obscure people here. There's no excuse for a big football fan to get those names wrong.
His play on the field did not warrant electrion to the Hall. Now the excuse is top 10 for WRs? so you think the 10th best WR in a given era is a HOFer? You can spin all you want on this issue, the man clearly doesn't belong. When the best argumenbt you have are some quotes from coaches you know you don't have much of a argument. O'Brien made the Pro Bowl in 1991 as an injury replacement. I'm w/ you on PB spots for the most part but great players w/ name recognition always get the benefit of the doubt, I don't catre if Monk had 50 recs in his last 2 games after voting was done, w/ his name recognition he easily would have made 7-8 pro bowls if he was truly great. I use all-pros ahead of PBs and he only made ONE 1st team all-pro and ONE 2nd team all-pro in his 15+ seasons. That's not a HOFer. yep and while winning that first SB Art monk didn't play in postseason. The first time Art played and won a SB Gary Clark was on the other side of him.
I haven't spun anything. I said stats don't tell the whole story with Monk but considering that's all you go on, I resorted to using stats. That's my fault. He was worth much more to the Redskins than you are giving him credit for. His play on the field did warrant election to the HOF. Now, speaking your language. Statistically speaking, he may have played 16 seasons but his last was a waste and two seasons during his career were shortened due to player strikes. Yet, he still is the first player to have 900 receptions. He was valuable over the middle converting 64% of his passes for first downs. No receiver had more receptions over the 8 year stretch from 1984-1991 and only 3 had more from 1988-91. Prior to 1994 there were only 2 players who had more 60+ catch seasons than Monk (Rice & Largent) He wasn't the 10th best WR of his era. I know you want to brush aside what coaches thought of Monk, but they are valuable resources as they are the experts in determining how good a player was. They also don't rely on stats to make that determination.
During the first SB, Charlie Brown was the man in Washington. Afterwards it was Clark. Except for 1984, Monk played second fiddle in Washington.
There are a million players more valuable to their teams that we don't see in stats but to be a HOFer you need the #s and he has the compiled #s but he doesn't have the #s of a great player that belongs in the HOF. I said 15+, I didn't use the 16th since he barely played. So what? he had 3 60+ catch seasons, you act like he had 10. I understand the #s have changed w/ the pass happy era we have been in but the bottom line is in 15+ seasons he was top 10 in recs just FOUR times, he was top 10 in yds just 3 times and top 10 in TDs just ONCE(tied for 9th). Those aren't Hall #s. I'll use 15 years for Monk, his top 10 %s were: recs: 17%(meaning he was top 10 27% of his career) yds: 20% TDs: .07% Let's look at other HOFers that played around the same time as Monk: James Lofton(16+ years): recs: 2, 13% yds: 8, 50% TDs: 4. 25% John Stallworth(14 years, full time starter for only 8 but i'll use 14): recs: 3, 21% yds: 4, 29% TDs: 5, 36% (I don't believe Stallworth belongs either) Michael Irvin(11+ seasons): recs: 4, 36% yds: 6, 55% TDs: 5, 45% Steve Largent(14 seasons): recs: 9, 64% yds: 8, 57% TDs: 8, 57% Lynn Swann(9 seasons): recs: 2, 22% yds: 3, 33% TDs: 3, 33% (I don't believe Swann belongs in either) Jerry Rice(21 seasons- just for laughs): recs: 12, 57% yds: 12, 57% TDs: 12, 57% Which WR on this list clearly does not belong? Quotes tell us nothing, coaches and players will always talk up guys in their era.
he had SEVEN 60+ catch seasons Stats only tell part of the story. Being in the top 10 only tells part of the story. How far off was he to being in the Top 10? Was he 1-5 catches off or was he 10-20? There's a big difference. Did some receivers that finished ahead of him play on teams that threw more than the Redskins or were trailing late in games where their teams threw more in the 4th quarter than the Redskins did. His lack of Touchdowns was a direct result of the Redskins running the ball more when they got inside the redzone. His lack of yards are due to being the receiver that went over the middle. Like I've said to you nearly a million times, stats do not tell the entire story especially when it comes to Monk.
Furthermore - Prior to 1994 no receiver in the history of the game had more 70+ catch seasons than Monk. Some compiler.......
It doen't matter how far off he was, he wasn't in the top 10. if he couldn't be in the top 10 somewhat consistently how is he a HOFer? I get that there is mroe to the game than #s but WRs are judged on recs, yds and TDs NOT on how well they block. Why did other WRs and TEs have more TDs for Wash? They only ran on plays where Art would have caught TDs? I can put the TDs aside, WRs can help their teams score by setting up TDs BUT when his rec % and yd % is that low as well that tells me he's not a HOFer.
His rookie year was 1980, 2 years earlier they switched to 16 games making it easier to catch 70 balls in a season. prorate Alworth's career to 16 games a season and he has as many 70+ rec seasons, rayond berry would have had 5 in an era where they didn't throw nearly as much, largent had as many while being top 10 in recs 9 times in less seasons, top 10 in yds & TDs 8 times in less season. 4 top 10 recs seasons in 15+ years 3 top 10 rec yds season in 15+ years 1 top 10 rec TD season in 15+ years NOT A HOFer
Top 10 doesn't tell the entire story. I'll quote myself because you ignored my entire post ETA - Who else did Seattle have to throw the ball to other than Largent? Even when you prorate Alworth's stats he still didn't have more 70+ reception seasons and he played in the pass happy AFL.
I said I'm sure he helped set up Tds but show me 1st down %s of other WRs, i'm sure they are close or better. That could make things more difficult for Steve as he had no help, right? Of course one piece of info doesn't tell the whole story but when he had so few top 10s in many different, important categories that tells us most of the story. Alworth had as many 70+ rec seasons prorated in LESS seasons. From 1963-1970 w/ SD they averaged 425 passes a year. From 1980-1992 Monk w/ washington they averaged 511 passes a year (I prorated 1982 and 1987)
That is a different debate, that debate is about manning vs. Brady and Manning being a top 5 QB. We know Manning is great and deserves to be a HOFer, he's just not as great as Brady and some others b/c he doesn't elevate his play when his team needs him most. That is a completely different argument.
You’re going to get more passes thrown your way when there are no other options right? There was nothing to indicate that Alworth was going to have another 70+ prorated season if he had continued to play. I noticed you prorated Alworth’s receptions and prorated the strike shortened seasons of 1982 and 1987 but did not prorate the average passes per season for the Chargers. They averaged 487 passes (prorated) per season or a measly 1.5 passes less per game than the Redskins.
he Had 61 recs in 14 games in'63, using his 14 game average if he played 16 games he would have had 70. In '62 he had 61 in 12 games, in '67 he had 52 in 11 games, in '68 he had 68 in 14, in '69 he had 64 in 14. B/c Monk was a new player when they moved to 16 games doesn't mean he was better than guys that were clearly much better than him. Is 1.5 less than Washington less or more? You said he played in the pass happy AFL yet Wash passed more than that "pass happy" team. I await the next excuse.
