Monk, Green highlight HOF
 

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

Surprised and happy to see Andre Tippett in.

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

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

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.

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

No Derrick Thomas?

Dola,


Fixed.

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

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).

Monk making the hall is definitely not highlighting the HOF.

Carter had like 52 more TD catches.

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.

I'm thrilled Zimmerman got in.

Another USFL'er = w00t!

+1

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

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.

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.

How does Ray Guy not make it?


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

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?

Meh. This will be a very boring induction ceremony.

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

Fixed.

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.

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

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


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.)?

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

Where's Andre? Reed that is.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

...

:)

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.

Are you saying you usually find the induction ceremonies interesting?

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.

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.

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).

+1

Sad to see 'Bad Moon' Monk get in.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...


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.