I have been posting on these boards for a long time. I would hope that my thousands of posts and participation in several mock drafts (you were in some of them as well) would have established my reputation as someone who has followed the game of football for some time and has a fair idea of what he is talking about. As I stated the errors were due to a rushed attempt to incorporate 15 years of pro bowl data into an arguement. For those of us who do not have a photographic memory of every pro bowl game played over two decades ago this requires some research. I used the best site I could find in a short period of time and only made a couple minor mistakes. Your repeated attempts to nitpick over minor errors and to malign me would seem to indicate that you lack confidence in your case regarding Monk and will stop at nothing to win the arguement anyway. Let me know when you are ready to grow up and talk about football.
On another forum years ago, there was a discussion about black quarterbacks. We were trying to produce a complete list. I added several obscure backups to the list. However, I also mentioned a guy who was white. Guy Benjamin played with the Dolphins, Saints, and 49ers in the late 70s/early 80s. I never saw a photo or trading card of the guy and he played his final game before I began to watch football on a regular basis. I thought he was black because one time I saw a black 49ers QB in a follies film. By process of elimination, I felt the guy was Benjamin. Turned out I was wrong. When somebody else noted I was mistaken, I then took myself out of the discussion. "Okay, that's it. I have no credibility anymore here." I wrote something like that and never posted in the thread again even though I had correctly added about a dozen obscure black QBs to the list. I don't lack any confidence in this Monk debate. Thing is, how many times must I make it? I've debated this guy's NFL career in at least three or four threads at TGG and probably at another ten places on the internet within the past five or so years.
(regular season numbers only here) Ellard- 228 games, 814 receptions, 13777 yards, 16.9 average, 65 TDs Monk- 224 games, 940 receptions, 12721 yards, 13.5 average, 68 TDs I would like to add W-L-T records to those lines, but there are two problems. 1. football is a team sport 2. I have to do extensive research to find out which particular games Ellard did not play during the seasons in which he missed games. I do have all the Monk numbers. Monk's teams had a record of 134-90 when he played. That is a winning percentage of .598. If we discard his final year in Washington, his year with the Jets, and his year with the Eagles, the record would then be 122-67 (.646). Those were the three years where he was just hanging around as a mediocre player. He played all 16 games for the 4-12 Redskins in 1993 and played in all 16 for the 6-10 Jets in 1994. He played in three games for the 1995 Eagles and the team went 2-1 in those games. I would have to do research to get the exact Ellard numbers but I do know they were substantially worse. He really started to blossom as a receiver in 1988 which was also undoubtedly his finest season (86-1414-10). He played all 16 games that year and his team went 10-6. In the next eight seasons, six times he eclipsed 1000 yards. He missed four games over the course of those eight years. Look at his teams' records over that span- 11-5, 5-11, 3-13, 6-10, 5-11, 3-13, 6-10, 9-7. So we can see that Ellard's teams went 58-86 (.403) in his best years. Can somebody say "fantasy numbers?" Check back to an earlier post I presented here wherein I compared Ellard to Irvin. I contend that Monk contributed more to his team than did Ellard. I'm not sure how somebody could argue the other way. Monk caught a lot of short passes by design. He was a tough, physical receiver with great hands. Monk excelled on hitch patterns and slants and curls and short outs. He worked the middle of the field. Ellard, on the other hand, did a significantly higher percentage of his work outside the numbers and down the field. Ellard also did so for shittier teams that were often trailing in games and playing against defenses that would allow yardage in exchange for time. I'm not foolish enough to suggest that happened all the time for Ellard. Maybe 15% of his yardage came in 4th quarter garbage time and maybe it was 5% for Monk. It would be possible for us to reach some sort of numbers on that if we looked at old Rams and Redskins gamebooks, but we're talking about many, many hours of research. We'd have to define garbage time as trailing by 14 or more with less than 7 minutes to go or something to that effect. We can save ourselves the time because I think everyone here would have to admit that Ellard probably had a significantly higher yardage total in those types of situations. You wrote, "Completions are all well and good but TDs and yardage contribute more to the success of the team." In regards to Ellard, I ask, "What success?"
He probably does not think Martin was dynamic/dominant/great enough to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. I believe Martin belongs in the Hall of Fame, but that he might not get in on the first ballot.
I always assumed that Martin was a first ballot hall of famer...however, I'm only 17 years old so I'll concede that I am outclassed in terms of football knowledge in this thread. I do remember a couple things from the small amount of years I watched him, though. I think he's 3rd or 4th on the all time yards list (I'm using my phone so I can't check) and he had 10 straight years of 1,000 yards...doesn't that merit a first ballot hall of famer?
Your age shouldn't keep you out of these types of discussions. Researching players from before your time through books, magazines, newspapers, and film (even if just of the highlight variety) can get you up to speed. Edit- Let me just explain my view further. Research will help to a certain degree, but you just can't make up for not having seen certain players on a week in, week out basis. I'm much more knowledgable on 1984 to present day football then I am on stuff that happened prior to 1984 even though I've read many NFL related works that were published prior to 1984. When I first learned how to read as a 1st grader, I would go with my father to flea markets and have him buy me old football magazines from the 1970s. I also watched all sorts of NFL Films stuff. By age 8, I knew a lot about players who had retired prior to my birth. The problem is one can never know or learn everything. I have had problems when making an assumption about a player from before my time. See the Guy Benjamin comment I made earlier today. Also, I once assumed Claude Humphrey was injured in 1978 (he played 4 games that season and came back to play all 16 in 1979). An older gentleman, one who had been watching football in 1978, pointed out to me that Humphrey had voluntarily retired during that season. I think the problem is all the other players who will be up for induction with Martin. It may be a numbers game and could result in him having to wait a year. To specifically answer your question, I do believe his accomplishments merit induction to the Hall of Fame. I do not believe he was one of the top 10 RBs of all-time, but I do think he was just as good or better than Hall of Famers Frank Gifford, Leroy Kelly, Franco Harris, Thurman Thomas, Bill Dudley, and Doak Walker. Then there are also all the single platoon backs in the Hall, guys like Ken Strong, Johnny Blood, Charley Trippi, George McAfee, Tuffy Leemans, and Cliff Battles. They were all probably better football players than Martin because they had to play on offense and defense whereas Martin was really just a specialist (which basically everyone is nowadays), but I don't think any of them were better as pure runners than Martin.
Thanks, but not having the benefit of watching these guys while they played (like you, and Junc, among others) will definitely put me at a disadvantage and put me at risk of making a fool of myself. I will, however, continue to read more of everyone's arguments and learn a lot more about football while doing so. I guess you're right, but I just don't think it's right that since he's going up against a lot of other great players for induction that he shouldn't be a first ballot HOFer. If I remember correctly he was basically the perfect RB except for speed. He had great vision, cuts, power, you name it. And 10 straight seasons with 1,000 yards is the epitome of consistency and durability, though he did have knee problems (I think?) throughout his career.
He will be up against Marshall Faulk, Jerome Bettis, Deion Sanders, and Willie Roaf, among others, as far as first year eligibles are concerned. Then, there are guys like Dermontti Dawson, Tim Brown, Shannon Sharpe, Cris Carter, Andre Reed, Richard Dent, Cortez Kennedy and Chris Doleman. All those guys came close to induction in recent years. The voters might select only one RB next year and if they do that it'll probably be Faulk. There is a lot of sentiment out there for Bettis but it's probably from Steelers fans and/or people who thought "The Bus" was not an incredibly corny nickname like I did. Bettis had two bad years with the Rams. Martin didn't have a bad year till his final one. Bettis- 13662 rushing yards, 91 TDs; 200 catches for 1449 yards, 3 TDs Martin- 14101 rushing yards, 90 TDs; 484 catches for 3329 yards, 10 TDs Martin was the better blocker and it is clear to me a more useful all-around running back. Bettis got a Super Bowl win as a backup whereas Martin played in a Super Bowl for the losing team. That, Bettis' personality (which I find incredibly overrated just like everything else about him), and Bettis being "the last big back" (saw somebody go that route on another board) seem to be the only three points made by the Bettis backers.
I'm with you on that one, I always thought that Martin was the better running back between the two (my friend was a Steelers fan and we would get into that debate often) but Bettis always got more attention. He also had the benefit of winning a Super Bowl, which Martin unfortunately never got.
Of the three (Monk, Irvin, and Ellard) I would say that Michael Irvin is the most deserving. I don't think he is in the top 10 WR of all time conversation but he had a solid career and racked up a few spectacular years in a row. He was the # 1 WR on his teams and contributed greatly to their success. I think that the competition between Monk and Ellard is more of a dead heat. Had either player started their careers in 1975 and put up similar numbers there is no question that they would be in the hall of fame. From 1986-1996 the talent level at the receiver position increased exponentially. The last ten years are no different. Players like Lofton can be measured against smaller and slower receivers from the 70s. Ellard and Monk in their prime played with Jerry Rice, Al Toon, Sterling Sharpe, Michael Irvin, Tim Brown, Andre Reed and others. Hall of fame voters evaluating Tim Brown and Andre Reed have to leave room for Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, TO, and others. If Monk or Ellard are hall of famers, how do you tell Tim Brown and Andre Reed that they aren't good enough? Wins and losses are very hard to pin on a modern day football player who is only one of eleven guys on offense or defense and only plays on the other side of the ball on a stunt (Fridge, Vrabel on offense) or hail mary formation (Keyshawn and others have played Db with seconds left on the clock). Monk won more games than Ellard but he had a hall of fame coach, a hall of fame running back, one of the best offensive lines ever, and a great young QB in Joe Theisman. Ellard had a lot less help.
Much like this situation I think you overreacted there as well. The boards would probably shut down if people dropped out of threads every time they got called out on a single error. I have seen many posters argue a point until they are blue in the face when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I really didn't feel that my limited knowlege of 1982-1985 pro bowl participants disqualified me from a conversation regarding hall of fame talent at the WR position.
Ellard's and Monk's career lines are not terribly different. It's not like one guy was 900-12000-110 and the other was 500-6500-35. So I think in this case you can look at team success and draw some conclusions. Do you think it is fair to suggest that Ellard's numbers didn't mean as much as Monk's? I did write and imply that football is a team sport and looking at W-L-T records when comparing players is not the best thing to do. That said, I did it anyway as a direct response to your comment about TDs and yardage being the biggest contributor to team success.
I am hopeful we can end this sidebar today so that I can finally get around to reading the nyjunc and Murrell battle and add my two cents to some of their points. When you made the Brown and Ellard Pro Bowl mistakes and botched a St. Louis Cardinals player's name, I felt that perhaps you really were not watching the NFL circa 1985 and that you were fudging stuff (even if through accident of relying on confusing data at pro-football-reference) in an effort to get Murrell2878 and myself to change our minds on Monk.
Well, I don't think Ellard belongs in the Hall of Fame and although their numbers are not vastly different, I don't think Monk and Ellard are in a dead heat. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on these players.
While I don't think either of us is going to get the other one to change their minds I would be curious as to what Monk did that sets him apart from Ellard. Their stats are very similar.
Like I said it was an honest mistake. I knew that Monk only made three pro bowls and that I could make a pretty good case that he wasn't a top 5 receiver in his era because he was passed over for other receivers. If they made the pro bowl presumably they were better than Monk. 4 NFC receivers X 15 years is 60 pro bowl appearances. It is very easy to make mistakes with so much data. I watched football in the 80s but as a Jet fan I was more focused on the AFC. I cared a lot more about the Jets, Dolphins, etc. than the Redskins at the time. I may be somewhat biased against Monk because he didn't do so great as a Jet at the end of his career.
Monk was an instrumental player for four Super Bowl teams. He retired as the all-time leading receiver. He was selected to the 1980s All-Decade Team. The other three WR choices were Jerry Rice, Steve Largent, and James Lofton. All-Decade recognition is greater than All-Pro recognition which is greater than Pro Bowl honors. Ellard cannot match any of that. per game averages- Ellard- 3.57 receptions, 60.43 receiving yards, 60.64 scrimmage yards, 0.29 touchdowns Monk- 4.20 receptions, 56.79 receiving yards, 58.27 scrimmage yards, 0.30 touchdowns Monk was a great route runner with great hands. He caught passes all over the field. He played a key role in the Redskins ball control attack whether it be as a blocker or by catching a lot of short passes. Monk was such a tough player with great hands and excellent running ability that Joe Gibbs designed the offense in such a way that the team would have success with Monk catching a lot of underneath passes and then doing damage after the catch. Monk's detractors point to a low Pro Bowl total and not enough All-Pro seasons, but they conveniently ignore the All-Decade team selection. They also engage in revisionist history. I remember Monk being a no-brainer future Hall of Famer while he was active. It wasn't until 1999, 2000 or so (he retired during the 1995 season) when I first started to hear people say that Monk shouldn't make the Hall of Fame. What had happened was guys like Randy Moss, Herman Moore, Marvin Harrison, Carl Pickens, Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, Cris Carter and some others put up some huge numbers and some people said, "Oh boy, those Monk numbers don't look good anymore. Maybe I need to rethink his candidacy." Maybe you and nyjunc were Monk detractors while he was active. That's fine. It's possible. All I can tell you is that I never heard serious anti-Monk talk while he was active- not from fans, not from the print media, not on TV, and not on WFAN.
