Art Monk Passed Over

[Franklinnoble]

Say what you will about him, this one bit from the Washington Post sums up my feelings on this:

Monk played on three Super Bowl-winning teams in 14 seasons with the Redskins and has more catches than anyone currently enshrined in Canton.

Personally, I think he's getting screwed because he did his job in a quiet, dignified, and professional manner, and was not at all outspoken or flamboyant.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Personally, I think he's getting screwed because he did his job in a quiet, dignified, and professional manner, and was not at all outspoken or flamboyant.

Owens should be a lock for the Hall of Fame!

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Say what you will about him, this one bit from the Washington Post sums up my feelings on this:



Personally, I think he's getting screwed because he did his job in a quiet, dignified, and professional manner, and was not at all outspoken or flamboyant.

The Bert Blyleven of the NFL.

[SuburbanPimp]

Yeah, Art getting shafted again is a crime. I know a lot of the "blue collar guys" from the first Gibbs era that deserve to be there never will, but Art has to get there. The Skins fans just gotta keep the faith...

[albionmoonlight]

I read somewhere a few days ago that Monk did/does not like sports reporters/writers and did not bother hiding that during his career. The catch (pardon the pun), of course, is that sports writers hold the keys to Canton.

I think that he should be in.

[Sun Tzu]

This is a shame. While guys like Joe Namath and Lynn Swann get into the HOF based on popularity (because they definetely didn't make it in based on stats), somebody like Art Monk gets the shaft. Is there no justice in the world?

[/overdramatic]

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I don't even like the Redskins, but yeah, he should be in.

Throughout the 80s, the guy was top notch. Throw in the stat you mentioned and it cements it.

[cthomer5000]

Please see the thread Darkiller started (2004 Hall of Fame class I believe) to see the reason why Art Monk should not be in the HOF.

You know you've got a weak case when you say "Well... that guy got in!" Yes, there have been some questionable selections in the past, but there is no need to continue that trend.

[oykib]

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

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yeah, but Andre Rison should be in the hall of fame too!

[stevew]

Andre Rison wont make the HOF, if merely for the fears of it getting set on fire.

[Subby]

What is more valuable? A possesion receiver who moves the chains or a home run hitter that connects every once in a while...

Receptiions - particularly taken in the context of the era that Monk played - are a valid and valuable statistic. Monk did not have the fortune (?) to play in those chuck and duck offenses that Andre Rison did. Who knows how many catches he would have had otherwise.

[TrendNet]

Originally Posted by oykib

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.

Bob Hayes was an Olympic gold medalist who could catch the ball. He was the fastest man in the NFL, who averaged over 20 yards a catch and a TD for every 5 passes he caught.

Prior to Hayes, teams played a man-to-man defense, but because of Hayes's speed and ability, opposing defenses came up with what is now known as the zone defense.

Bob Hayes, the world's fastest human, revolutionized the way the game is played. Hayes impact on the game is still seen today in the way teams design coverages.

For Hayes NOT to be elected to the HOF, is a travesty to the highest degree.

Hayes is far more deserving than Art Monk. As is Rayfield Wright.

[QuikSand]

I think Monk's claim is marginal... and since I'm one of those "standards should be tighter" guys anyway, I'd pass him over, too. He was always solid, but never really brilliant or dominating. I think the Andre Rison stats comparisons are illuminating, for instance - I like the "years in the top ten" measuring stick, where neither guy looks all that dominating to me. And while I recognize there is some value in longetivity, I don't think it ought to be have primary weight in HOF considerations, which often seems to be the case. How much more of a case did Monk make for the HOF by completing his last three or four mediocre seasons? Not much in my mind, but it boosts the "most catches by..." argument forever, which I think just rings hollow.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think the Andre Rison stats comparisons are illuminating, for instance - I like the "years in the top ten" measuring stick, where neither guy looks all that dominating to me.

Agreed. Frankly, that comparison is the best evidence I've seen yet that he (Monk) should not be in the hall of fame. Even if someone wants to rely on era-based offense comparisons (they didn't pass as much then), the fact that Monk was rarely in the top 10 in anything is striking. It shows that in any given season, he was rarely among the elite WR's.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by TrendNet

Hayes is far more deserving than Art Monk.

That's what I said. At least, that Hayes belongs in before Monk.

And that Monk has no more claim than Andre Rison.

[VIKING FAN]

I think the whole football Hall-of-Fame voting is a sham. Here you've got an outstanding player like Carl Eller, who has to wait 25 years to get in. He wasn't qualified enough for 25 years, but now he is? How many Viking players total have been either overlooked, or had to wait an exorbitant amount of years to finally get in?....as good as they were, Tarkenton waited 8 years; Alan Page waited 7 years; Paul Krause..all-time NFL interception leader..had to wait 19 years!; Ron Yary waits 19 years. Jim Marshall, Zimmerman, Tingelhoff are still waiting. So they lost 4 out of 4 Super Bowls. Is that the main criteria? No disrespect to any of these other guys, really, but: Barry Sanders never got into a Super Bowl, walked away at 31 and gets in the hall in his first attempt. Mike Munchak gets in in 8 years...barely heard of him actually; Billy Shaw, who plays only 9 years in the AFL in the 60's is in; Jackie Slater, good tackle, has longevity..gets in in 6 years; Mike Webster...oh yeh, he played for the Steelers in 4 Super Bowls..that explains it; Lou Creekmur, never heard of him; Tom Mack, LG for the Rams, Dave Wilcox, DL of the 49ers, waited a lot fewer years than the above mentioned Vikings. Part of it is politics plus the system they have in place to elect members is swayed towards any 1 or 2 outstanding individuals available in their 1st year, which each year eliminates players who have waited for too many years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I saw the thread title and thought Monk had died.

[j51]

Originally Posted by VIKING FAN

I think the whole football Hall-of-Fame voting is a sham. Here you've got an outstanding player like Carl Eller, who has to wait 25 years to get in. He wasn't qualified enough for 25 years, but now he is? How many Viking players total have been either overlooked, or had to wait an exorbitant amount of years to finally get in?

How do you think Cowboys fans feel? They actually won championships and they still get gypped.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by TrendNet

Bob Hayes was an Olympic gold medalist who could catch the ball. He was the fastest man in the NFL, who averaged over 20 yards a catch and a TD for every 5 passes he caught.

Prior to Hayes, teams played a man-to-man defense, but because of Hayes's speed and ability, opposing defenses came up with what is now known as the zone defense.

Bob Hayes, the world's fastest human, revolutionized the way the game is played. Hayes impact on the game is still seen today in the way teams design coverages.

For Hayes NOT to be elected to the HOF, is a travesty to the highest degree.

Hayes is far more deserving than Art Monk. As is Rayfield Wright.

Hayes belongs in the track hall of fame. Monk was actually a football player. You talk about average per catch and TDs per reception like they mean something. Hayes impacted every 5th game he played in. Monk impacted every drive.

[Franklinnoble]

It's called the HALL OF FAME. "Fame" being the key word. Statistics count, but the bottom line is that Monk was renowned and respected by the fans and by his peers for 15 years. He was a key component on three Super Bowl championship teams, and he's presently in the top ten for all time receptions and receiving yards. That's more than enough.

He's getting screwed because he didn't (and still doesn't) care for the media. Given the chance, his peers in the hall of fame would vote him in without question.

[Bad-example]

Art Monk? He was a solid receiver for a long while, but never good enough to be considered among the elite of all time. Sure, he had a nice career, but not HOF worthy.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

It's called the HALL OF FAME. "Fame" being the key word. Statistics count, but the bottom line is that Monk was renowned and respected by the fans and by his peers for 15 years. He was a key component on three Super Bowl championship teams, and he's presently in the top ten for all time receptions and receiving yards. That's more than enough.

He's getting screwed because he didn't (and still doesn't) care for the media. Given the chance, his peers in the hall of fame would vote him in without question.

Art Monk's career rankings are about longevity-- not greatness. His season average is 59 receptions for 795 yards and 4 touchdowns. That's greatness?!

Bob Hayes' is 37 receptions for 751 yards and 7 touchdowns. Now remember, in Hayes' time they played two less games a season. Also, the defense was allowed to manhandle recievers all the way down the field. If he were just a sprinter, he wouldn't have survived.

Hayes got in the endzone in half the games he played in-- as opposed to one in every four. He also racked up more yards per game than Monk. The point on offense is to get into the endzone. Hayes did more to help his offense do that than Monk.

Hayes got more yards per game than Monk and scored twice as many touchdowns. Also, I don't know how you can say that Monk had a great impact on every drive when he averaged four catches for less than fifty yards a game-- with a touchdown only every four games.

Of course, those last four hang around years damage his season and game averages. But if you take those away he loses 140 catches and 1700 yards off of his career totals. Which would knock him out of the top ten in yards and just about do it in receptions.

Monk was a class guy forom all accounts. But you can't put him in the Hall just because he started for Joe Gibbs. Go back to these questions:

1. Is he the best eligible player that's not in the Hall of Fame?
2. Is he the best eligible player at his position that's not in the Hall of Fame?
3. Was he ever the best player in the league?
4. Was he ever the best player in his conference?
5. Was he ever the best player at his position?

For Bob Hayes some of these wuestions are arguable. But the answers seem to be no. For Art Monk the answers are just no. If you want to talk about someone getting shafted, then talk about Harry Carson.

Harry Carson
Linebacker
Born: 1953
9-time Pro Bowler: 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987

Nine-time All-Pro-- that alone should be enough to get in. Only two linebackers currently enshrined have more All-pro selections than Carson. He was among the best at his position for most of his career. He went to Hawaii nine years out of a thirteen-year career.

[Noble_Platypus]

I think the whole whole "he played on 3 super bowl teams" line is bullshit. So F***ing what?So did a lot of other guys with mediocre career stats, should they get in too? This is why soon it wont be a big deal to get in to the HOF, beacuse its getting watered down. How can you vote a guy in because he was on 3 super bowl wining teams? That just means he had a great team around him. Its crap. Monks numbers werent enough to warrent induction. Like someone said earlier, if he gets in you have to let a journeyman like Andre Rison in. The super bowl angle is garbage. Look at Elway. He is " one of the greatest" now beacsue he won 2 super bowls. Nobody brings up the fact his ass lost 3 of them, nor do they mention that it wasnt until Terrell Davis came along that he won the 2. What does that mean? A: one man doesnt win a Super Bowl, he needs a team around him. B: That if Elway had lost the 2 Super bowls he wouldnt have been elected in because he would have worn the collar in the big game, even though his #s stand for themself. The fact is that no matter what they did in the super bowl, if they even played in one, a player should get voted in based on his greatness aand his numbers.

[TrendNet]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Hayes belongs in the track hall of fame. Monk was actually a football player. You talk about average per catch and TDs per reception like they mean something. Hayes impacted every 5th game he played in. Monk impacted every drive.

Hayes impacted the entire NFL.

Because of Hayes, zone defenses were invented.

Hayes impact in the NFL is still seen. Monk's impact?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by TrendNet

Hayes impacted the entire NFL.

Because of Hayes, zone defenses were invented.

Hayes impact in the NFL is still seen. Monk's impact?

Yeah, cause Hayes was the only fast guy ever to play.

Monk's impact: about 300 first downs more that Hayes.

Oh, and zone defenses were NOT invented because of Bob Hayes. They had been played in the NFL before 1965.

You also keep quoting averages to mask the fact that Hayes really did not do very much in the NFL. 371 receptions in 11 seasons. Those numbers are very similar to a Ricky Proehl. Talk about totals (which is the measuring stick used) and Hayes looks like a good 4th WR.

[Subby]

I thought Skeets Nehemiah was the reason zone defenses were created...

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by TrendNet

Bob Hayes was an Olympic gold medalist who could catch the ball. He was the fastest man in the NFL, who averaged over 20 yards a catch and a TD for every 5 passes he caught.

Prior to Hayes, teams played a man-to-man defense, but because of Hayes's speed and ability, opposing defenses came up with what is now known as the zone defense.

Bob Hayes, the world's fastest human, revolutionized the way the game is played. Hayes impact on the game is still seen today in the way teams design coverages.

For Hayes NOT to be elected to the HOF, is a travesty to the highest degree.

Hayes is far more deserving than Art Monk. As is Rayfield Wright.

The Tallahassee paper (I believe Hayes went to FAMU, which is here) had a nice column on Hayes and how it is a shame that his off-field issues have likely cost him the HoF. He was in prison for drugs the year before he became eligible for the HoF, and it's stuck with him since. I think that's really the reason he's not in.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

It's called the HALL OF FAME. "Fame" being the key word. Statistics count, but the bottom line is that Monk was renowned and respected by the fans and by his peers for 15 years. He was a key component on three Super Bowl championship teams, and he's presently in the top ten for all time receptions and receiving yards. That's more than enough.

He's getting screwed because he didn't (and still doesn't) care for the media. Given the chance, his peers in the hall of fame would vote him in without question.

If your point is that "fame" is the key word, shouldn't caring for the media be a big part of the process?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by oykib

If you want to talk about someone getting shafted, then talk about Harry Carson.

Harry Carson
Linebacker
Born: 1953
9-time Pro Bowler: 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987

Nine-time All-Pro-- that alone should be enough to get in. Only two linebackers currently enshrined have more All-pro selections than Carson. He was among the best at his position for most of his career. He went to Hawaii nine years out of a thirteen-year career.

The guy is really getting robbed. Of course, his childish reaction to this last one ("take my name off the list") likely won't help his case. If he just calms down and largely ignores the hype, he'll find himself in the hall eventually. Yes, it will take longer than it should, but there's no doubt he belongs. It's just a shame he isn't in already.

[TrendNet]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Yeah, cause Hayes was the only fast guy ever to play.

Monk's impact: about 300 first downs more that Hayes.

Oh, and zone defenses were NOT invented because of Bob Hayes. They had been played in the NFL before 1965.

You also keep quoting averages to mask the fact that Hayes really did not do very much in the NFL. 371 receptions in 11 seasons. Those numbers are very similar to a Ricky Proehl. Talk about totals (which is the measuring stick used) and Hayes looks like a good 4th WR.

From SI

Hayes' world-class speed forced defenses -- unable to cover him with traditional man-to-man schemes -- to come up with many of the zone defenses that are common in today's game.

From SI's Don Banks: Hayes' speed undeniably changed the way pass coverage was played in the NFL

From: http://www.footballproject.com/story.php?storyid=127

Coaches like Lombardi and Shula, Noll and Knox had to find a way to force Hayes to catch the ball in front of the defense, so they could tackle him before he got his motor going. Thus was born the zone defense as we know it today.

Hayes impact is far more than statistical numbers, none of which I quoted in my reply to you BTW. Hayes impact was on how the game is played.

Can the same be said about Monk? NO.

[Samdari]

Go ahead and think someone who touched the ball 30 times a year had tremendous impact. It simply allows knowledgeable fans to completely discount your opinion from now on.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Art Monk? He was a solid receiver for a long while, but never good enough to be considered among the elite of all time. Sure, he had a nice career, but not HOF worthy.

you truly are a bad example of a football fan if you believe this load of horse shit =)

Monk was the prototype big strong 3rd down reciever. he played every down and he made catch after catch.

I spent my youth in awe of his continuous work ethic and no frills style.

Yes Hayes deserves to be in, but Monk also deserves to be in and I for one hope he gets his due next year.

[Noble_Platypus]

If Hayes was as world class as everyone says then he would have had a better than 30 catch a year average. And on top of that, if he was the reason they invented the zone then it must have worked because of his low numbers.I dont think he or Monk should be in. Its not the hall of mediocre.

[Subby]

If it isn't the Hall of Mediocre someone needs to tell Stallworth and Swann

[Noble_Platypus]

I am not defending the induction of other people who got in because they played on great teams, I am just saying the bleeding should be stopped now.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Noble_Platypus

If Hayes was as world class as everyone says then he would have had a better than 30 catch a year average. And on top of that, if he was the reason they invented the zone then it must have worked because of his low numbers.I dont think he or Monk should be in. Its not the hall of mediocre.

Again, lack of knowledge is killing you here

Hayes deserves the Hall because he was a 30+ catch reciever in an era where th ball was barely thrown 100 times a season. He was a speed deamon in an era when no-one used the pass to really win games. Hayes was 20 years ahead of his time.

If you think Monk is mediocre i think you have some serious over the top standards. How many recievers have 900+ receptions? how many recievers average 70+ receptions over a 15 year career? how many recievers last 15 year? The man delivered the goods and was the number 1 wideout on his teams for all but 2 or 3 seasons. and those were well beyond when most other "mediocre" recievers have already lost their talent and quit.

man, people need to look at the history of a player, the time they played in and the comparable players at his position. You can't compare Hayes to Rice because they played in utterly opposite eras.Rice, if he played during hayes timeframe, would have put up similar numbers to hayes, probably bit better, but not by much because they just didn't utilize the pass like they do in modern games.

Monk played in the 80's which started out as smashmouth, 3 yards and a cloud of dust football, and went through a run and gun period and ended with more smashmouth. he put up those numbers steadily through both stylistic periods.

If Monk doesn't deserve the Hall, I don't know a reciever who ever will.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Again, lack of knowledge is killing you here

Hayes deserves the Hall because he was a 30+ catch reciever in an era where th ball was barely thrown 100 times a season. He was a speed deamon in an era when no-one used the pass to really win games. Hayes was 20 years ahead of his time.

If you think Monk is mediocre i think you have some serious over the top standards. How many recievers have 900+ receptions? how many recievers average 70+ receptions over a 15 year career? how many recievers last 15 year? The man delivered the goods and was the number 1 wideout on his teams for all but 2 or 3 seasons. and those were well beyond when most other "mediocre" recievers have already lost their talent and quit.

man, people need to look at the history of a player, the time they played in and the comparable players at his position. You can't compare Hayes to Rice because they played in utterly opposite eras.Rice, if he played during hayes timeframe, would have put up similar numbers to hayes, probably bit better, but not by much because they just didn't utilize the pass like they do in modern games.

Monk played in the 80's which started out as smashmouth, 3 yards and a cloud of dust football, and went through a run and gun period and ended with more smashmouth. he put up those numbers steadily through both stylistic periods.

If Monk doesn't deserve the Hall, I don't know a reciever who ever will.

There's some 'knowledge' that you're overlooking. Neither Hayes nor Monk were world-beaters. They both were 'only' three-time All-Pros. That number indicates a very good reciever who was not quite great. I think that Hayes was closer to great than Monk, though.

Neither one is more than a borderline HOFer. I can't get upset either way. Harry Carson and Ray Guy are the ones that are really getting the shaft. Those two guys are among the best ever at their positions. Guy probably is the best.

[Noble_Platypus]

Lack of knowledge?? I hardly think after your rant you should call anyone else out on a lack of knowledge. By your standards then Andre Rison is a lock. Also, my major beef is determining a players HOF worth by super bowl rings. Dont bring up Monk has 3 rings. By than reasoning a mediocre player on a good team gets in the hall faster than a great player bogged down on a subpar team. How Barry Sanders got in without a "he never won a ring" I'll never know, I guess he dodged that curse just like he did defensive players. Of course, that seems to apply more to QBs than other postions. I also realize that the passing game wasnt then what it is now, however Raymond Berry managed to average 48 catches a year, and Lance Alworth 49. Thats a far cry better than the 33 average Hayes had.

[Ksyrup]

FYI, this is from Peter King's column today:

"For the record, I voted "yes" on Barry Sanders, Elway, Bob Brown, Carl Eller and Rayfield Wright, and "no" on Bob Hayes. They were the six finalists for election to the Hall this year. I don't think Hayes belongs. He's a sort of Roger Maris to me -- significant to the history of pro football but deserving of entry in the Hall of Very Good, not the Hall of Fame. I have tremendous respect for his game-breaking ability and 71 touchdown catches in 11 years. But overall I'm not crazy about his numbers (he averaged 34 catches a year -- 2.8 a game -- and in eight playoff games had 10 catches for 128 yards and no touchdowns), and I'm skeptical about his long-term impact on the game. While I do think he was obviously a gamebreaker, speed was part of the NFL before he got there (Don Hutson ran a 9.4-second 100-yard dash in 1935) and it would still be a key element now had he never played."

[Huckleberry]

Objectively speaking, I don't think Art Monk or Bob Hayes deserve to be in. Rayfield Wright certainly does, as do some other 1970s Cowboys.

However, I find the mini-debate on this thread regarding catches vs. yards/touchdowns fascinating. Personally, give me yards and touchdowns every time. I'm pretty sure the object of offense is to score points. Not complete passes.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Noble_Platypus

Lack of knowledge?? I hardly think after your rant you should call anyone else out on a lack of knowledge. By your standards then Andre Rison is a lock. Also, my major beef is determining a players HOF worth by super bowl rings. Dont bring up Monk has 3 rings. By than reasoning a mediocre player on a good team gets in the hall faster than a great player bogged down on a subpar team. How Barry Sanders got in without a "he never won a ring" I'll never know, I guess he dodged that curse just like he did defensive players. Of course, that seems to apply more to QBs than other postions. I also realize that the passing game wasnt then what it is now, however Raymond Berry managed to average 48 catches a year, and Lance Alworth 49. Thats a far cry better than the 33 average Hayes had.

Why don't you actually read my post? I used Rison aas n example of why Monk shouldn't get in. No one thinks Rison is a Hall of Famer. Yet, his career was as good as Monk's, maybe better. The only thing seperating them is that one guy played for Joe Gibbs and one guy played for Jerry Glanville and a group of clowns.

It comes down to the fact that Hayes was a better player. He just didn't have the longevity Monk had. Hayes had a much bigger impact per game than Monk. He had more Yards and Touchdowns per game. Who cares how many receptions he had doing it? Would you rather have a reciever thaat has a 5-60-0 day or a 2-65-1 day?

Those are fairly typical game numbers for Monk and Hayes, respectively. Then, remember that Hayes did it in the bruising NFL that didn't let recievers run downfield freely. Do you want the better player or the player who hags around an extra few years and pads his career stats?

[RendeR]

The Monk/Hayes debate aside, I have to say I'm thoroughly dissapointed in the entire HOF class this year. I mean WTF? Earl Campbell? I love the guy and watched every game I could, but HOF? wow.....

But hey, if we gauge those we let in now by the standards of those who are already in, the wuality is at an all time low anyway. Swann? Stallworth? holy hell.

[Anthony]

i wanted to post someting about Tits LaBouche, but i can't think of anything. funny name though.

[tucker342]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

FYI, this is from Peter King's column today:

"For the record, I voted "yes" on Barry Sanders, Elway, Bob Brown, Carl Eller and Rayfield Wright, and "no" on Bob Hayes. They were the six finalists for election to the Hall this year. I don't think Hayes belongs. He's a sort of Roger Maris to me -- significant to the history of pro football but deserving of entry in the Hall of Very Good, not the Hall of Fame. I have tremendous respect for his game-breaking ability and 71 touchdown catches in 11 years. But overall I'm not crazy about his numbers (he averaged 34 catches a year -- 2.8 a game -- and in eight playoff games had 10 catches for 128 yards and no touchdowns), and I'm skeptical about his long-term impact on the game. While I do think he was obviously a gamebreaker, speed was part of the NFL before he got there (Don Hutson ran a 9.4-second 100-yard dash in 1935) and it would still be a key element now had he never played."

Okay, he was significant to the history of pro football but he doesn't deserve to be in the hall of fame? WHA?!?!

different era people, as mentioned plenty of times in this thread....

and RendeR stated my reason for why I think Art Monk should have been selected.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The Monk/Hayes debate aside, I have to say I'm thoroughly dissapointed in the entire HOF class this year. I mean WTF? Earl Campbell? I love the guy and watched every game I could, but HOF? wow.....

am I missing something, or did you type this post in 1991 and just finally got around to hitting the submit button?