Monk, Green highlight HOF

[vtbub]

PHOENIX (AP) Art Monk, Darrell Green, Fred Dean, Gary Zimmerman, Andre Tippett and Emmitt Thomas have been elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

[Buccaneer]

I am very, very pleased that Art Monk finally made it!

[molson]

Surprised and happy to see Andre Tippett in.

[Surtt]

I am kind of surprised that Cris Carter was passed over.
I guess they decided it was Monk's year.

[korme]

Wait, Cris Carter was seriously eligible and wasn't first-ballot? That's unbelievable.

[Glengoyne]

Carter > Monk

Carter "All he does is catch touchdowns"

Monk "All he does is catch passes"

Not even close in my mind.

[Chief Rum]

Carter > Monk

Carter "All he does is catch touchdowns"

Monk "All he does is catch passes"

Not even close in my mind.

While I agree, how long has this been coming for Monk? Carter will be fine and get in next year.

[vtbub]

This isn't baseball, first ballot really means nothing here.

[General Mike]

No Derrick Thomas?

[General Mike]

Dola,

This isn't baseball, Hall of Fame really means nothing here.

Fixed.

[Warhammer]

Surprised and happy to see Andre Tippett in.

This one had me stupefied. I mean he was a fine player, but I never thought of him as a HOFer.

[revrew]

The one that really stupefies me here is Randall McDaniel. 12 straight pro-Bowls, 14 total? How many people can even name a guard? But many people in the 80s and 90s knew McDaniel. I'm a Vikings hater, but McDaniel should have been a no-brainer inclusion. For that matter, I'm a Broncos fan, and I just don't see Zimmerman (who made it), over McDaniel (who has yet to).

[stevew]

Monk making the hall is definitely not highlighting the HOF.

Carter had like 52 more TD catches.

[QuikSand]

Carter and McDaniel should have both waltzed right in. I don't really begrudge Zimmerman his spot, but Art Monk has no business getting in without buying a damned ticket.

[RedKingGold]

I'm thrilled Zimmerman got in.

Another USFL'er = w00t!

[JAG]

Carter and McDaniel should have both waltzed right in. I don't really begrudge Zimmerman his spot, but Art Monk has no business getting in without buying a damned ticket.

+1

[cthomer5000]

Any belief I had that the HOF still mattered dissolved when I heard the Art Monk news.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This one had me stupefied. I mean he was a fine player, but I never thought of him as a HOFer.

It's amazing, but your opinion is shared by many. For whatever reason, his name just never comes up. But he was dominant LB (playing from the SLB position) that unfortunately played at the same time as LT (the real LT).

But when you delve into the details of what he did, his selection is a rather easy one. Check this out:

- member of NFL 1980s All-Decade team
- 5 straight Pro Bowls
- his average of 0.662 sacks per game is 4th highest all time for NFL linebackers
- 2 All-Pro first team selections, 2 All-Pro second team selections
- All AFC linebacker 7 times (only LT has more conference selections)
- 3 times NFL linebacker of the year award (only LT won more)
- during his career, not a single NE defensive lineman went to the pro bowl (i.e. he got no help)
- he did all this while playing on the strong side against the TE and Tackle
- unfortunately LT played at the same time and won most of the awards Tippett would have won in his absence

Anyways, I can now say that the only good thing Ron Borges did in his entire career was making the case for Tippett at the HOF meeting.

[Surtt]

The one that really stupefies me here is Randall McDaniel. 12 straight pro-Bowls, 14 total? How many people can even name a guard? But many people in the 80s and 90s knew McDaniel. I'm a Vikings hater, but McDaniel should have been a no-brainer inclusion. For that matter, I'm a Broncos fan, and I just don't see Zimmerman (who made it), over McDaniel (who has yet to).

Amen,...

I am a Vikings fan
i am pissed Carter got passed by but Randall deserved it as much as anyone.
Quite frankly more then Carter did.

[14ers]

How does Ray Guy not make it?


Ray Guy was the only player this year that you could say "Best of all time" about.

[Cringer]

Very nice to see Art Monk get in.

Just curious, the guys who are againts Monk going in, are you against Irvin being in the HoF?

[Schmidty]

Meh. This will be a very boring induction ceremony.

[Chubby]

I'm glad Monk got in, he does deserve it. Carter should have gotten in but he will next year.

[Buccaneer]

Any belief I had that the HOF still mattered dissolved when they let everyone from the 70s Steelers in, regardless of merit.

Fixed.

[Clark]

Monk making the hall is definitely not highlighting the HOF.

Carter had like 52 more TD catches.

You don't understand how different the two offenses were that they played in and that's why Carter has more touchdowns. Monk was Cris Carter in his day, without all the fucking whining whenever the ball did not go to him. And yes Monk has the Super Bowl titles and that counts for something.

[RedKingGold]

How does Ray Guy not make it?

Agreed (that he should've made it; not on your last statement)

[Chief Rum]

Agreed (that he should've made it; not on your last statement)

All right, I'll bite. Here's his last statement:

Ray Guy was the only player this year that you could say "Best of all time" about.

Who else in this class was the best of all time at their position or in their positional style (blocking tight end, pass rushing LB, etc.)?

[Swaggs]

Andre Tippett in the Hall of Fame and Derrick Thomas not in the Hall of Fame makes no sense, whatsoever, to me.

[Apathetic Lurker]

Where's Andre? Reed that is.

[stevew]

Where's Andre? Reed that is.

If Art Monk got in, he should have no worries.

[Cringer]

So do guys who can't stand Art Monk, is it all stats based? I mean the guy broke records, and did it on a team that was known for it's running game and offensive line. If Monk's stats aren't good enough because they don't match up to guys who played after him, then I want to see you guys ripping on the HoF for having any pre-Art Monk WRs as members.

He had more receptions then any WR before him. That's pretty damn impressive. He had more receptions in a season then anyone before him ever had. That's pretty damn good. He deserves it IMO.

He gets caught in the change between two eras of football and I think that is part of the problem maybe with guys looking down on his stats.

[molson]

Andre Tippett in the Hall of Fame and Derrick Thomas not in the Hall of Fame makes no sense, whatsoever, to me.

Thomas surpasses Tippett in all on-field criteria. The voters must not like the off the field stuff.

[QuikSand]

So do guys who can't stand Art Monk, is it all stats based?

In general, I think it's that Monk represents, to a lot of people, a standard case of being good for a long time, but never really great. His career numbers are impressive, and he had a few years with a lot of catches, but hardly anyone remembers being "afraid" of Art Monk beating you, or worried about how to defend him. That is, if I'm going to be fair about it, possibly an unfair bias against possession receivers (who obviously do have a place in the game) rather than "playmaker" receivers... but I think that wraps up what I think about Monk. I think for a fair portion of his career, he wasn't even the most dangerous receiver on his own team, much less one of the top handful at his position in the whole league. To me, that's the Hall of Good For A Long Time, and he and Tim Brown should rightly be sidled up together at that bar.

[stevew]

Thomas surpasses Tippett in all on-field criteria. The voters must not like the off the field stuff.

Yeah, bankrupt with 5-6 illegitimate kids is not usually a plus.

[JAG]

In general, I think it's that Monk represents, to a lot of people, a standard case of being good for a long time, but never really great. His career numbers are impressive, and he had a few years with a lot of catches, but hardly anyone remembers being "afraid" of Art Monk beating you, or worried about how to defend him. That is, if I'm going to be fair about it, possibly an unfair bias against possession receivers (who obviously do have a place in the game) rather than "playmaker" receivers... but I think that wraps up what I think about Monk. I think for a fair portion of his career, he wasn't even the most dangerous receiver on his own team, much less one of the top handful at his position in the whole league. To me, that's the Hall of Good For A Long Time, and he and Tim Brown should rightly be sidled up together at that bar.

Again agreed. And I'd also like to point out that 'Most consecutive games with a catch' is a record that never did a single thing for me.

[twothree]

Yeah, bankrupt with 5-6 illegitimate kids is not usually a plus.

I'm confused. Doesn't that mean he was also productive off the field?

...

:)

[Subby]

I agree that Carter got completely screwed, but I also think it has become fashionable for folks to denigrate Monk and his accomplishments. He was a *great* posession receiver. His single season reception record stood for eight seasons. When he retired he was second all time in receptions (he is still ninth overall) and 5th all time in receiving yards.

Sure, scoring is the point of the game (Monk did reach the end zone over 60 times) but so is moving the chains - and during his era, Monk did that.

[Passacaglia]

Meh. This will be a very boring induction ceremony.

Are you saying you usually find the induction ceremonies interesting?

[Chief Rum]

In general, I think it's that Monk represents, to a lot of people, a standard case of being good for a long time, but never really great. His career numbers are impressive, and he had a few years with a lot of catches, but hardly anyone remembers being "afraid" of Art Monk beating you, or worried about how to defend him. That is, if I'm going to be fair about it, possibly an unfair bias against possession receivers (who obviously do have a place in the game) rather than "playmaker" receivers... but I think that wraps up what I think about Monk. I think for a fair portion of his career, he wasn't even the most dangerous receiver on his own team, much less one of the top handful at his position in the whole league. To me, that's the Hall of Good For A Long Time, and he and Tim Brown should rightly be sidled up together at that bar.

IMO, the "he isn't great so he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame" crowd is as off their rocker in football as they are in baseball.

There is value in being productive over a long period of time. It might not be the height of greatness, but being good for an exceptionally long time should be rewarded as well. The "greatness" is in being that good for so much longer than the average superhuman athletes in the sport.

[mckerney]

Carter > Monk

Carter "All he does is catch touchdowns"

Monk "All he does is catch passes"

Not even close in my mind.

Yes, but players who Sid Hartman is promoting for the hall of fame typically struggle to get in, it seems other voting members of the media don't like him (though I can't really blame them for it). Rumor was last year that the reason Paul Tagliabue didn't get in is that Hartman was pulling for him.

[oykib]

IMO, the "he isn't great so he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame" crowd is as off their rocker in football as they are in baseball.

There is value in being productive over a long period of time. It might not be the height of greatness, but being good for an exceptionally long time should be rewarded as well. The "greatness" is in being that good for so much longer than the average superhuman athletes in the sport.

The problem is that Monk wasn't even very good for a long time. The 106 reception season is the only one that was borderline great. He was very good in a few other seasons. He was merely good for a few more. Then he stuck around for five mediocre years.

And to Quik, comparing Monk to Tim Brown is a disservice to Tim Brown. Brown may not be a HOFer. But he at least is close enough that it isn't a ridiculous discussion. Monk's induction is the most ridiculous induction for a skill position player (where we have clear, comparable stats ) that I can think of with the possible exception of Lynn Swann.

[Chief Rum]

The problem is that Monk wasn't even very good for a long time. The 106 reception season is the only one that was borderline great. He was very good in a few other seasons. He was merely good for a few more. Then he stuck around for five mediocre years.

And to Quik, comparing Monk to Tim Brown is a disservice to Tim Brown. Brown may not be a HOFer. But he at least is close enough that it isn't a ridiculous discussion. Monk's induction is the most ridiculous induction for a skill position player (where we have clear, comparable stats ) that I can think of with the possible exception of Lynn Swann.

Hmm, well, all I have to say that is:

A) Not sure Tim Brown doesn't deserve to get in, too.
B) Monk was the all time receiving leader when he retired. Like I said, good for a long time. He was "good" longer than anyone else at his position in the first, what, 70 years of the NFL?
C) Lynn Swann, you said it right there. How on Earth do you keep Monk out if Swann is in?

And one last comment: I really think eras need to be taken into account, too. It was mentioned before, and I think it has strong bearing here. Receivers tend to rack up big stats easier now than in Monk's day (or in Swann's).

[Bad-example]

The problem is that Monk wasn't even very good for a long time. The 106 reception season is the only one that was borderline great. He was very good in a few other seasons. He was merely good for a few more. Then he stuck around for five mediocre years.

And to Quik, comparing Monk to Tim Brown is a disservice to Tim Brown. Brown may not be a HOFer. But he at least is close enough that it isn't a ridiculous discussion. Monk's induction is the most ridiculous induction for a skill position player (where we have clear, comparable stats ) that I can think of with the possible exception of Lynn Swann.

+1

Sad to see 'Bad Moon' Monk get in.

[Subby]

That's fucking ridiculous.

Sad? Give me a break.

Maybe Monk isn't a slam dunk for the Hall, but his induction is hardly as egregious as people are making it out to be.

[Swaggs]

Agreed.

I think he belongs, but can understand folks thinking he is borderline (or worse).

I don't even think he is the most questionable selection in this class.

That's fucking ridiculous.

Sad? Give me a break.

Maybe Monk isn't a slam dunk for the Hall, but his induction is hardly as egregious as people are making it out to be.

[Warhammer]

I don't even think he is the most questionable selection in this class.

Paging Fred Dean and Emmitt Thomas...

Paging Fred Dean and Emmitt Thomas...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Paging Fred Dean and Emmitt Thomas...

Paging Fred Dean and Emmitt Thomas...

Certainly shouldn't be Emmitt Thomas you're questioning. He had more career interceptions (58 for his career) in less starts that Green. He also put up those numbers at a time when there weren't even that many passes being thrown compared to more recent decades.

It should also be noted that Green likely has Emmitt Thomas to thank for his HOF career. Emmitt was his position coach for several years in Washington.

Also, I'm happy to see Tippett go in as it means that there's little question that Derrick Thomas will get in eventually.

[st.cronin]

Just curious, how does Monk compare to Steve Largent? When I was growing up, I always heard Steve Largent described as one of the greatest receivers of all time, and he was a "possession" guy too.

[Warhammer]

Monk had 121 more receptions than Largent averaged .1 more receptions per game than Largent. However, Largent had more TDs and averaged 16.0 YPC vs. 13.5 for Monk. That 13.5 YPC for Monk is higher than Marvin Harrison's 13.4.

EDIT: Only reason I mention Marvin Harrison is many think he is a lock for the HoF. One of the knocks on Monk was that he was not a home run threat.

[oykib]

Hmm, well, all I have to say that is:

A) Not sure Tim Brown doesn't deserve to get in, too.
B) Monk was the all time receiving leader when he retired. Like I said, good for a long time. He was "good" longer than anyone else at his position in the first, what, 70 years of the NFL?
C) Lynn Swann, you said it right there. How on Earth do you keep Monk out if Swann is in?

And one last comment: I really think eras need to be taken into account, too. It was mentioned before, and I think it has strong bearing here. Receivers tend to rack up big stats easier now than in Monk's day (or in Swann's).

A - I'd take Brown by a mile

B - Rice passed him before he retired

C - One bad selection is not worth another one

I realize it's bad form to quote oneself... but...

Look at his touchdowns and his yards-per-catch. He's not a Hall of Famer more than Bob Hayes is. He's not significantly better than Andre Rison.

Receptions are nice. But he was never the most dangerous guy in the NFL...



All-Pro seasons are in bold

Bob Hayes


+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1965 dal | 13 | 4 -8 -2.0 1 | 46 1003 21.8 12 |
| 1966 dal | 14 | 1 -1 -1.0 0 | 64 1232 19.2 13 |
| 1967 dal | 13 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 49 998 20.4 10 |
| 1968 dal | 14 | 4 2 0.5 0 | 53 909 17.2 10 |
| 1969 dal | 10 | 4 17 4.2 0 | 40 746 18.6 4 |
| 1970 dal | 13 | 4 34 8.5 1 | 34 889 26.1 10 |
| 1971 dal | 14 | 3 18 6.0 0 | 35 940 26.9 8 |
| 1972 dal | 12 | 2 8 4.0 0 | 15 200 13.3 0 |
| 1973 dal | 13 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 22 360 16.4 3 |
| 1974 dal | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 7 118 16.9 1 |
| 1975 sfo | 4 | 2 -2 -1.0 0 | 6 119 19.8 0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 132 | 24 68 2.8 2 | 371 7514 20.3 71 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Seasons among the league's top 10
Receptions:
1966-4, 1968-5
Receiving yards:
1965-4, 1966-2, 1967-4, 1968-6, 1970-8, 1971-3
Receiving TDs:
1965-1t, 1966-1, 1967-3t, 1968-3, 1970-5, 1971-4
Yards from scrimmage:
1965-10, 1966-7
Rush/Receive TDs:
1965-3, 1966-4, 1967-7t, 1968-5t, 1970-6t


Among the league's all-time top 50
Receiving TDs:
25t


Art Monk


+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1980 was | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 58 797 13.7 3 |
| 1981 was | 16 | 1 -5 -5.0 0 | 56 894 16.0 6 |
| 1982 was | 9 | 7 21 3.0 0 | 35 447 12.8 1 |
| 1983 was | 12 | 3 -19 -6.3 0 | 47 746 15.9 5 |
| 1984 was | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 106 1372 12.9 7 |
| 1985 was | 15 | 7 51 7.3 0 | 91 1226 13.5 2 |
| 1986 was | 16 | 4 27 6.8 0 | 73 1068 14.6 4 |
| 1987 was | 9 | 6 63 10.5 0 | 38 483 12.7 6 |
| 1988 was | 16 | 7 46 6.6 0 | 72 946 13.1 5 |
| 1989 was | 16 | 3 8 2.7 0 | 86 1186 13.8 8 |
| 1990 was | 16 | 7 59 8.4 0 | 68 770 11.3 5 |
| 1991 was | 16 | 9 19 2.1 0 | 71 1049 14.8 8 |
| 1992 was | 16 | 6 45 7.5 0 | 46 644 14.0 3 |
| 1993 was | 16 | 1 -1 -1.0 0 | 41 398 9.7 2 |
| 1994 nyj | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 46 581 12.6 3 |
| 1995 phi | 3 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 6 114 19.0 0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 224 | 63 332 5.3 0 | 940 12721 13.5 68 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Seasons among the league's top 10
Receptions:
1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t
Receiving yards:
1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10
Receiving TDs:
1991-9t


Among the league's all-time top 50
Receptions:
5
Receiving yards:
9
Receiving TDs:
28t
Yards from scrimmage:
26

Andre Rison


+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1989 ind | 16 | 3 18 6.0 0 | 52 820 15.8 4 |
| 1990 atl | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 82 1208 14.7 10 |
| 1991 atl | 16 | 1 -9 -9.0 0 | 81 976 12.0 12 |
| 1992 atl | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 93 1119 12.0 11 |
| 1993 atl | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 86 1242 14.4 15 |
| 1994 atl | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 81 1088 13.4 8 |
| 1995 cle | 16 | 2 0 0.0 0 | 47 701 14.9 3 |
| 1996 gnb | 5 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 13 135 10.4 1 |
| 1996 jax | 10 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 34 458 13.5 2 |
| 1997 kan | 16 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 72 1092 15.2 7 |
| 1998 kan | 14 | 2 12 6.0 0 | 40 542 13.6 5 |
| 1999 kan | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 21 218 10.4 0 |
| 2000 oak | 14 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 41 606 14.8 6 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 184 | 9 23 2.6 0 | 743 10205 13.7 84 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Seasons among the league's top 10
Receptions:
1990-2, 1991-5t, 1992-2, 1993-4t
Receiving yards:
1990-3, 1992-4, 1993-4
Receiving TDs:
1990-2, 1991-2t, 1992-2, 1993-1t, 1994-8t
Rush/Receive TDs:
1991-4t, 1992-6t, 1993-2t


Among the league's all-time top 50
Receptions:
15
Receiving yards:
18
Receiving TDs:
10t
Yards from scrimmage:
45
Rush/Receive TDs:
28

The fact was that Monk was not dominant in his era. Look at his top tens. That's in his era compared to his peers.

[Synovia]

I wouldn't call any of those guys his era. He doesn't overlap Hayes at all, and the decline of his career overlaps Rison's.


I don't think Monk belongs (hes a compiler, in my mind, and not a great player) but I think that comparison isn't particularly useful.

[Swaggs]

Among the league's all-time top 50
Receptions:
5
Receiving yards:
9
Receiving TDs:
28t
Yards from scrimmage:
26

These are acceptable numbers for a Hall of Fame receiver/skill position player, in my opinion. By the looks of it, there are 19 modern-era receivers in the Hall of Fame (26 total receivers), and the statistics stack up well enough on their own, regardless of whether or not he was a dominating player or the absolute best of the best. When you factor in 4 Super Bowl appearances and 3 Super Bowl rings, the argument for him is, at the very least, is as reasonable as the argument against him.

So we can conclude that he is not in the same zip code as Jerry Rice, but he is statistically one of the best 20 receivers in history, was one of the best players on a team that won a lot of games and Super Bowls, and was a gentleman on and off the field (which seems to matter to many voters).

I think the problem here is that a lot of people have a much more strict definition of what a Hall of Fame player is/should be than the Hall of Fame, itself. The debate is fun and part of the entertainment. My personal opinion is that Art Monk is much more deserving than probably 25-35% of the guys already in the Hall of Fame, so to take up the cause that he is not worthy sort of demonstrates that some folks' guidelines are out of kilter with the reality of the players that currently comprise the Hall of Fame (ie: you think there are only 10 all-time receivers that are deserving of being in the HoF, when there are currently 20-25 WRs in the Hall of Fame).

[Warhammer]

Let's not forget the type of teams they played on. Washington was 3 yards and a cloud of dust for the most part. Rison played on a run and shoot team. Bob Hayes was a vertical receiver.

The Redskins in the 80s were a problem because they were hard to cover. You could line 8 men in the box and they would go deep to Saunders or Clark. If you dropped back into coverage they would give the ball to Riggo, Rodgers, or Riggs. The man they went to when they needed a 1st down was Monk. He was always the safety blanket for Thiesman, Shroeder, Rypien, or Williams. Monk was also one of the three players there for all of the Redskin SB teams and he was a significant contributor on all of them.

At the end of the 1995 season, when he retired, he was 2 receptions behind Rice.

[oykib]

These are acceptable numbers for a Hall of Fame receiver/skill position player, in my opinion. By the looks of it, there are 19 modern-era receivers in the Hall of Fame (26 total receivers), and the statistics stack up well enough on their own, regardless of whether or not he was a dominating player or the absolute best of the best. When you factor in 4 Super Bowl appearances and 3 Super Bowl rings, the argument for him is, at the very least, is as reasonable as the argument against him.

So we can conclude that he is not in the same zip code as Jerry Rice, but he is statistically one of the best 20 receivers in history, was one of the best players on a team that won a lot of games and Super Bowls, and was a gentleman on and off the field (which seems to matter to many voters).

I think the problem here is that a lot of people have a much more strict definition of what a Hall of Fame player is/should be than the Hall of Fame, itself. The debate is fun and part of the entertainment. My personal opinion is that Art Monk is much more deserving than probably 25-35% of the guys already in the Hall of Fame, so to take up the cause that he is not worthy sort of demonstrates that some folks' guidelines are out of kilter with the reality of the players that currently comprise the Hall of Fame (ie: you think there are only 10 all-time receivers that are deserving of being in the HoF, when there are currently 20-25 WRs in the Hall of Fame).

I notice that you didn't list his years in the league top ten.

Let me take a different tack with you.

In his fourteen seasons with the 'Skins, how many seasons did Monk lead them in recieving?

4

Let's look at his peers:

Andre Rison, Falcons and Chiefs- 8 seasons, led 4 times

Andre Reed, Bills - 15 seasons, led 9 times

Gary Clark, 'Skins and Cards - 10 seasons, led 7 times

Michael Irvin, Cowboys - 12 seasons, led 8 times

Do I need to go on? Even if you say Monk's numbers were not impressive because the 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense (which is also not true), shouldn't he at least be the most dangerous reciever on the team?

[Atocep]

What about Henry Ellard?

If Art Monk is a hall of fame receiver there is absolutely no way you can say that Henry Ellard isn't as well. Ellard had more yards, 3.4 more yards per catch, was no doubt the best receiver on his team, and was also an excellent punt returner early in his career. Given the choice between having one or the other on my team, I'd take Ellard without hesitation.

[Swaggs]

With all due respect, I feel like you are making fine points and I am not disputing them.

What I am pointing out is that the real NFL Hall of Fame is quite different than the ones you find in text games like FOF or OOTP, where you need to meet x criteria + y criteria + z criteria to be a Hall of Famer.

No one is arguing that Art Monk is in the neighborhood of being the best or even one of the best 10 or 15 WR ever, just that his statistical and intangible credentials are adequate for him to be in the Hall of Fame.

You can make similar statistical arguments against (just off the top of my head) Gale Sayers, John Riggins, Larry Csonka, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Bob Griese, Joe Namath, etc. and how their statistics are lacking against what you consider the elite of the NFL, but all that does is reinforce that your baseline for a Hall of Fame player is much higher than the Hall of Fame's baseline for inclusion.

To me, unless you are comparing Monk to Jerry Rice, his stats are right in line with other Hall of Fame players. Add in that he won all the Super Bowls and was a class act off the field, and I will continue to contend that his inclusion should not raise an eyebrow compared to a great number of other players in the Hall of Fame (both at his position and in his own class).

I notice that you didn't list his years in the league top ten.

Let me take a different tack with you.

In his fourteen seasons with the 'Skins, how many seasons did Monk lead them in recieving?

4

Let's look at his peers:

Andre Rison, Falcons and Chiefs- 8 seasons, led 4 times

Andre Reed, Bills - 15 seasons, led 9 times

Gary Clark, 'Skins and Cards - 10 seasons, led 7 times

Michael Irvin, Cowboys - 12 seasons, led 8 times

Do I need to go on? Even if you say Monk's numbers were not impressive because the 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense (which is also not true), shouldn't he at least be the most dangerous reciever on the team?

[Chief Rum]

What he said.