HOF, full of GOATS??

[Thinking Skins]

I was thinking last night about Monk going to the Hall of Fame. What brought this up was the consideration about Palmero going to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I'm not really for or against Palmero, but I didn't really know he was that highly regarded. I mean, I know the Orioles love him, but I didn't know he was that good when compared to the rest of the players.

Now, I'm starting to put Monk into that same category. When I think of the Hall of Fame, I think of the 'best of the best'. I mean these players should be the GOATS - (Greatest Of All Times). So when I think of the Hall of Fame in that regard, I'd probably vote no on Monk going because I'd find it hard to argue that Monk is amongst the GOATS. Especially when fans consistently made the argument that Monk wasn't even the best WR on his team.

When I think of the WR's I'd start a franchise with, Monk isn't a guy I'd even consider as the top WR. I'd definately like him as a second guy with consistincy who I can depend on. But the passes to him would just be part of a larger plan to set up the plays to my top guy.

Monk has great stats, and maybe that makes him more worthy, but when I ask the question 'Who are the GOATS at WR?', his name doesn't come to mind.

I have to admit though that because of the large gap between the Jerry Rice and the rest of the field, it does kinda make everybody else seem unworthy of even being listed amongst the GOATS.

[Khun Kao]

I don't understand your logic, but it may simply be a matter of perspective.

Monk is the kind of player you build an offense around. Someone that you can depend on, ALWAYS, to play his assignment regardless or not he is the focal point of the play or not.

I can "sorta" understand why people question whether or not he is HOF material, but he retired with the best stats at his position of anyone before him. Monk belongs in the Hall of Fame.....

[Thinking Skins]

I kinda would have rather done this thread by just saying to list your top five WR's, but I know that this board is so biased that everybody will have Monk on there.

[ThatGuy]

The problem with your arguement is that the baseball hall of fame has a MUCH higher standard for induction than the football hall of fame.

[RedskinsMarchingBand]

Originally posted by blakman211

I was thinking last night about Monk going to the Hall of Fame. What brought this up was the consideration about Palmero going to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I'm not really for or against Palmero, but I didn't really know he was that highly regarded. I mean, I know the Orioles love him, but I didn't know he was that good when compared to the rest of the players.

Now, I'm starting to put Monk into that same category. When I think of the Hall of Fame, I think of the 'best of the best'. I mean these players should be the GOATS - (Greatest Of All Times). So when I think of the Hall of Fame in that regard, I'd probably vote no on Monk going because I'd find it hard to argue that Monk is amongst the GOATS. Especially when fans consistently made the argument that Monk wasn't even the best WR on his team.

When I think of the WR's I'd start a franchise with, Monk isn't a guy I'd even consider as the top WR. I'd definately like him as a second guy with consistincy who I can depend on. But the passes to him would just be part of a larger plan to set up the plays to my top guy.

Monk has great stats, and maybe that makes him more worthy, but when I ask the question 'Who are the GOATS at WR?', his name doesn't come to mind.

I have to admit though that because of the large gap between the Jerry Rice and the rest of the field, it does kinda make everybody else seem unworthy of even being listed amongst the GOATS.

I think monk well deserves to be in the HOF, how old are you and did you see all the great crap he did for us while he played for us?? I am only 22 but I remember monk doing great stuff, he even had the record for number of catches in a season for a while. One thing he did not have was GREAT speed, which he made up for with some HEART.

[skinstzar]

When Art Monk retired he had the record for the most catches in the history of the game. His job was to catch passes and he did that better than anyone else who had preceeded him. Jerry Rice is an anamoly. You can't judge a player on what those after him have accomplished. If we did that the HOF would loose all credibility. Any argument against Art Monk being in the HOF carries no weight at all. The argument that Monk wasn't the best receiver on his team is also horribly inaccurate. He may not have been the flashiest or best deep threat but there is much more that goes into being a reciever and for several years he was not only the best on his team but the best in the league. Other factors to concider are SB rings, 3 aint too bad. The only intangible that he doesn't posses is flair and outgoingness, instead he is active in the community and a tremendous, tremendous role model.

[Blade]

There is something to be said for being highly dependable as both a blocker and a WR who knew EXACTLY where the first down marker was and ran precise routes... in addition to NEVER being afraid to take a hit going across the middle.

Toss in all the 'mosts' that Monk had in the stats box, the fact that he was integral to 3 Super Bowl teams (although not that huge in the playoffs, which shouldnt count against him when one considers Largent was rarely even on a playoff team).... I am not sure how you can NOT consider Art Monk a GOAT?

Peter King routinely calls Monk a 'very good' WR, and that he campaigns against him because its not the Hall of Very Good. Yet ALL of the stats, the professionalism, the precision blocking, the dependability, EVERYTHING Monk did *was* GREAT.

I think you must be looking through jaded glasses, blackman, if you really dont believe Art Monk to be a GOAT. Either that, or you have been listening to that know-nothing blowhard from SI far too much.

[Mr. S]

agree with Khun Kao, Monk is a stalwart player who you can build an offense around. Look at the Steelers, they are never bashed for their offense, mainly because Hines Ward is there. Like Ward, Monk is the guy you can really count on to do things for you, either making plays or blocking or whatever. Hines Ward is considered one of the best all around receivers right now, he isnt a playmaker, and though the pro bowl is biased, he still makes it with average stats.

[scottb]

You don't have to be the greatest of all time to make the HOF. You make it based upon your own merits and contributions. Monk held significant records when he retired. The fact that Rice broke them doesn't tarnish Monk's accomplishments...it just enhances Rice's achievements.

[[[ghost]]]

i never saw him myself, seeing as im too young. but to somebody with hands soo reliable, and such a guarantee on third downs, AND a player who held at one point, what was it, most catches, or most accumulated recieving yards, im sure he was great.

[Thinking Skins]

Originally posted by skinstzar

Any argument against Art Monk being in the HOF carries no weight at all.

Yeah, well Pastabelly is arguing against Monk being in the Hall, and that man's belly alone carries A WHOLE LOT of weight. :laugh:

But seriously, this is a hilarious statement and I'm sure that you don't really mean it so I won't give it too much time.

[Thinking Skins]

Originally posted by scottb

You don't have to be the greatest of all time to make the HOF. You make it based upon your own merits and contributions. Monk held significant records when he retired. The fact that Rice broke them doesn't tarnish Monk's accomplishments...it just enhances Rice's achievements.

Yeah, you have a good point. I would think that the 'optimal' Hall of Fame contains the players that were once considered GOATS amongst the media. But with all the bias and hometown favorites and rewarding big markets, it can be argued that the Hall of Fame is not just for GOATS.

However, we need some axioms, or accepted principles.

If we assume that axiom to be that the Hall is for GOATS, then you haven't attacked the argument. You've just said "I dont wanna play this game cause you have mean rules."

I understand, but here I am if you ever want to play my game.

[Thinking Skins]

Originally posted by [[ghost]]

i never saw him myself, seeing as im too young. but to somebody with hands soo reliable, and such a guarantee on third downs, AND a player who held at one point, what was it, most catches, or most accumulated recieving yards, im sure he was great.

But what do stats mean? Emmit played on a hospital bed so that he could break Walter's record. Does that make him better than Walter, or even in the same class of running back? NO?

Stats are definately not everything.

[Thinking Skins]

Originally posted by Blade

There is something to be said for being highly dependable as both a blocker and a WR who knew EXACTLY where the first down marker was and ran precise routes... in addition to NEVER being afraid to take a hit going across the middle.

Toss in all the 'mosts' that Monk had in the stats box, the fact that he was integral to 3 Super Bowl teams (although not that huge in the playoffs, which shouldnt count against him when one considers Largent was rarely even on a playoff team).... I am not sure how you can NOT consider Art Monk a GOAT?

Peter King routinely calls Monk a 'very good' WR, and that he campaigns against him because its not the Hall of Very Good. Yet ALL of the stats, the professionalism, the precision blocking, the dependability, EVERYTHING Monk did *was* GREAT.

I think you must be looking through jaded glasses, blackman, if you really dont believe Art Monk to be a GOAT. Either that, or you have been listening to that know-nothing blowhard from SI far too much.

You're right. The willingness and effort he put into his play definately is something that should be accounted for. But I think it is when I compare him to any other WR. I'm not just comparing them with numbers, but also how much they won, their team chemistry, and yes, their effort. Probably more that I can't think of.

But from what you mention, Monk excelled at the things that a WR is supposed to do. Does your son deserve a treat because he followed the correct route to school every day? Or because he held the door open for his wife?

These are things that WRs are supposed to do. Because the rest of the class doesn't do them well, doesn't make Monk a great, it makes the class or WR's look bad.

[Thinking Skins]

When I think of the players who should be considered amongst the GOATS, several things come to mind:

The first, of corse, is that the player himself must be a really good player.

Secondly though, it needs to be a situation where he makes every other player on the team that much better. Think about Darrell Green. That guy was great not just because he could go 1 on 1 with anybody in the league and shut them down, but the fact that it made the defense that much better. They never needed to double guys like Irivn because Darrell Green could take him 1 on 1.

You think about guys like Randy Moss and T.O. These are guys that command attention from the other team no matter what. They need at least 2 guys on them at all times or else something bad's gonna happen (good for the offense, bad for the defense). This changes the entire defensive scheme cause they've got to account for that guy.

Monk didn't do that. Monk was great at what he did, but our success didn't go through Monk. We had 'the possie', remember? We had a triple threat on offense so that we could always create a mismatch. This is the excellence of Gibbs, not the playmaking of Monk.

Like I said earlier, Monk did his job by running the routes and blocking when asked, and catching the ball, but thats not all thats required of a GREAT WR, let alone, the GREATEST OF ALL TIME.

[Thinking Skins]

Originally posted by skinstzar

The argument that Monk wasn't the best receiver on his team is also horribly inaccurate.

I like that word, horribly. It kinda adds some flavor to your message. I can see you were one of the people who really backed Monk back in the day. But the truth is, as much as I liked Monk (and contrary to some opinions, I am a Redskins fan; and a fan of Art Monk), Gary Clark is BY FAR my favorite Redskin of all time.

The argument was made every week that Clark was better than Monk. Many argued the opposite, so I'm not saying that Clark is definately better.

But if Monk can't even win an argument over his own teammate, why should I annoint him as one of the GOATS.

[Blade]

blakman,

The only thing in your argument against Monk is that Clark was considered better by some... To that I say, "So what?"

Clark *WAS* great! Having Stallworth opposite Swan didnt stop either of them from getting to the HOF... why should it stop Monk or Clark?

You even admit that Monk excelled at all the things a WR is supposed to do... and he WAS the GREATEST at catching passes for several years during his career. He had the MOST catches EVER in one season... and he had the MOST catches EVER by a WR... he did this by excelling at EVERYTHING a WR is supposed to do. What the hell else can one measure a WR by?

Id hope that you have something more than the fact that Monk had some excellent WRs around him for much of his career to justify your opinion of him.... if you dont, then you truly dont have much ground to stand on here.

His numbers, skill, selflessness, and professionalism all make him HOF-worthy.... and the fact that he isnt there shows how hypocritical the process is to get in.

[SkinsFTW]

And lets not forget that he only had both Sanders and Clark there in the 2nd half of his career and them being there could have only hurt his production. In 1984 he led the league with 106 catches. The next best WR in the league had 80 catches. We had no "Posse" that year with Charlie Brown catching 18 passes. The posse started around the time of the 2nd SB win.

Monk wont ever be given the credit he deserved for his route running and blocking but he was the best in the league at both. I don't remember him ever stopping 1-2 yards short of a first like most every other receiver does almost 1/2 the time. If Gardner had been as clutch for us last year as Monk was every year this team would have easily made the playoffs.

Steve Largent is in the HOF with fewer receptions and no Super Bowl appearances but they all said that since he broke Charlie Joyner's receptions record he deserves to be in the HOF.

Now somehow Monk doesn't?

[Thinking Skins]

Originally posted by Blade

blakman,

The only thing in your argument against Monk is that Clark was considered better by some... To that I say, "So what?"

Clark *WAS* great! Having Stallworth opposite Swan didnt stop either of them from getting to the HOF... why should it stop Monk or Clark?

You even admit that Monk excelled at all the things a WR is supposed to do... and he WAS the GREATEST at catching passes for several years during his career. He had the MOST catches EVER in one season... and he had the MOST catches EVER by a WR... he did this by excelling at EVERYTHING a WR is supposed to do. What the hell else can one measure a WR by?

Id hope that you have something more than the fact that Monk had some excellent WRs around him for much of his career to justify your opinion of him.... if you dont, then you truly dont have much ground to stand on here.

His numbers, skill, selflessness, and professionalism all make him HOF-worthy.... and the fact that he isnt there shows how hypocritical the process is to get in.

Man, this really hurts me cause I dont like to argue against the Redskins. So I hope people will not take this next comment the wrong way.

There's a line that I'm talking about. One is what the system does for you, and one is what you do for the system.

Some coaches have a system, just throw the ball to "this guy". And when a system that crazy and non-structured can surivie, you'd say that "this guy" is bringing everything to the system.

Some coaches have a system where they put the players in a certain spot, and the players can do so much more with it; whether it be a nice cutback and run; or just a nice deep ball. Kinda like T.O. He doesn't have much speed, but he's still able to make the big plays. So he brings a lot to the system.

Now I want to talk about Joe Gibbs's system. Gibbs has a beautiful system that is so complicated that once you learn it (and Monk mastered it), it will put you exactly where you need to be to get the first down. Of corse, Monk is expected to run the correct routes and catch the ball, and he does deserve some acclaim for that. Even with his blocking, he's doing what the system told him to do.

To get into that realm of greatness in my eyes means that you've got to be somebody that actually brings a new element to the system; somebody who actually changes the system.

Monk definately helped the syetem, and if he wasn't there we probably would not have been as good. But even with Monk's greatness as a consistent route runner, pass catcher, and blocker, if we took Monk out and replaced him with another WR who was good in these areas, the system would do well; not as great, but well.

This is why the sports reporters use the 'big play' argument against Monk. Because even though Monk wasn't "asked" to make big plays in the system, the fact that he's a "GREAT" player should have just make those plays come to him.

And Blade, notice that I'm not saying that Monk is a bum or that Monk doesn't deserve any credit; just that there's a dividing line between being very good and being GREAT. I think Monk belongs to the very good category.

[Blade]

blakman,

The problem with your argument is that you are NOT recognizing the fact that Gibbs 'systems' were designed around the talents of his players... he was a great enough coach to be able to do that. Art Monk was GREAT at doing EVERYTHING a WR was supposed to do, thus its why he set the single season record for receptions.... its why he set the record for most consecutive games with a reception... its why he retired with the most receptions of any WR.

He didnt need to change the system because the system was BUILT with his talents and strengths being showcased. Thus, his ability to achieve all of those milestones was not due to the system, but because the SYSTEM was built to take advantage of a the GREATNESS that was Art Monk.

Now, please.... do me a favor and get Peter Kings fat stubby hands off of your keyboard, and bring back blakman, the skins fan who knows better

[Henry]

Monk definately helped the syetem, and if he wasn't there we probably would not have been as good.

Gee, thanks for making that concession. How open-minded of you.

If Gibbs could simply plug any ol' WR into his system, why is he dumping WRs off this current team right and left? It's more than the system. It's the player too. Monk was the only skill position player on the Redskins to get all three rings with Gibbs. He was the one constant. To simply write him off as a system player, when he succeeded with three different QBs, three different RBs, two different WRs opposite him ... that's just insulting. Maybe those other guys were system players ... but Monk, he WAS the system.

[Raub]

Steve Largent is in the HOF and Monk isn't. That's all the argument you need. Monk was a better receiver than Largent.

[Rocky21]

:point2sky What Blade said.

[scotman]

How about a little Cowboy Fan objectivity?

I watched every game Monk ever played against the Boys. Monk not being in the HOF is a joke.

You shouldn't have to be the best of all time to be considered. Heck, they are bringing in around 5 guys a year. You can't keep that up if you only bring in BOAT guys. Monk was a stud during his time. Longevity counts for something , too.

Could we not make the same arguements against Emmitt Smith going into the HOF? You could easily launch an argument he wasn't even the best of his time?

The HOF voting process is silly at best. Anytime "journalists" have input, the whole process comes into question.

I put no stock in it what-so-ever. Until there's a little bit of objectivity and sense to the selection process, I could care less who the put into Canton.

[MaddogCT]

Signature catch? Monk's tip toe catches do it for me.

If you want to talk about system reciever look at Rice.

Rice made most of his catches inside ten yards. The other reciever made a pick so Rice could get more yards after the catch. To say that he didn't is wrong. The defining aspect of The "West Coast" offence is SHORT, controled passes. Passes inside ten yards.

Here is what I posted earlier in the year:

Below are excerps from articles from the Washington Post on their Redskins History page.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ticles/list.htm

The excerps are focused on Art Monk and show how much he was a central cog to the sucsess of the Redskins. A basic afront to Peter King's notion that he was fourth or fifth choice on his team.

Redskins Start on Right Foot — Moseley's, 37-34

Monday, Sept. 13, 1982

This was a game in which quarterback Joe Theismann overcame his normal impatience and produced the performance of his professional career. This was a game in which Art Monk, whose 27-yard reception set up the final field goal, gave notice that he could be emerging as one of the National Football League's best receivers…..

Monk was just as good. He caught eight passes, hist most in a game as a pro, for 134 yards and a touchdown. He made the hard catches, including three on the Redskins' final two possessions that set up Moseley's tying and winning field goals……

Monk's marvelous, 43-yard catch over the middle began a comeback that resulted in two touchdowns — a leaping, five-yard reception by Monk and an eight-yard catch by Brown — and a 14-10 lead with 35 seconds left in the half…….

In overtime, the Redskins began at their 28…. Gibbs called a crossing pattern for Monk. He went from right to left across the field inside Don Warren's out move, caught the ball in midfield, stepped away from linebacker Jerry Robinson and was downed after gaining 27 yards to the Eagles' 42. The crowd grew silent…...

Three plays later, the Redskins ran "dash left, 69 comeback." Monk lined up on the right, went in motion left and then ran 10 yards downfield and came back toward Theismann. The ball met him there as Herman Edwards tried desperately to cut in front and knock it down. When he failed, Monk turned and dashed to the nine.

That was enough for Gibbs. In came Moseley for the game-winning kick.

Theismann Out for the Year; Redskins Win

Tuesday, November 19, 1985

The first play from scrimmage was a quarterback's dream -- a deep, arching spiral that floated into Monk's arms inside the 10. The crowd, worked into an emotional lather after Theismann went out, went wild. The pass traveled 50 yards and set up the Redskins at the New York four........

Redskins Dethrone the Bears, 27-13

Sunday, January 4, 1987

On second down, on an audible, Schroeder backpedaled and found defensive tackle Steve McMichael in his face. He threw the ball as fast as he could downfield, where Monk and Clark were running next to one another. They said later they were too close together. The play worked anyway. Covered by rookie cornerback Vestee Jackson, Monk caught the ball and pulled Jackson and fellow cornerback Mike Richardson into the end zone for a 28-yard touchdown. …

The Redskins regained the lead in the third quarter on Monk's second touchdown, the 23-yard reception with 7:09 left in the third quarter…. On third down, Schroeder rolled right, then spotted Monk alone in the right corner of the end zone, behind Richardson, for an easy touchdown and a 14-13 lead.

Gibbs Gains His 100th as Redskins Survive, 26-21

Monday, December 11, 1989

On a sentimental note, wide receiver Art Monk surpassed Hall-of-Famer Charley Taylor on the Redskins' career receiving list with nine catches and is in third place all-time in the NFL with 651 receptions. Monk nearly put Taylor (649) in tears when he said afterward he wants Taylor to present him in Canton, Ohio, if he ever reaches the Hall of Fame himself.

Rypien sprinted to his left, pump-faked a pass downfield to Monk and then threw deep right to Sanders for the score. Washington had run this play earlier in the game, but Mike Tice failed to occupy cornerback Gill Byrd (who didn't cover the tight end) and Byrd intercepted. But on the touchdown play, the subtle trick of placing wide receiver Clark at the line of scrimmage and making him stay there after the snap eliminated one San Diego defensive back and kept Sanders from facing double coverage.

"One thing I've learned in coaching," Gibbs said, "is how a big play before the half can change things."

Rutledge Pulls Redskins From Lions' Den, 41-38

Monday, November 5, 1990

Art Monk tied his club record with 13 catches.

Rutledge then completed what may have been his biggest pass of the day, going down the left sideline to Monk, who beat LeRoy Irvin on a 40-yarder to the Washington 45. Bryant caught a screen pass for 11 and Monk caught a six-yarder. When Ricky Sanders caught an eight-yarder, the Redskins were down to the 30, and five plays later, Rutledge took the snap and dived to the middle of the field to put Lohmiller in perfect position.

Redskins Silence Screaming Eagles, 20-6

Sunday, January 6, 1991;

From the Washington 32 with 8:24 left in the half, Byner gained one. Rypien threw an incompletion. On third and nine, he hit Art Monk for 28, then Byner in the flat for 23 and Monk for a 16-yard touchdown.

“And Art Monk -- he made some great plays in there. He's one of the standup guys on this team. He's one of those guys you count on. He never says two words, but he leads by example and by the way he carries himself." -Gibbs after the win.

Redskins Make It Super Bowl V, 41-10

Monday, January 13, 1992

Early in the fourth quarter, Rypien audibled to wide receiver Art Monk for a 21-yard scoring pass. Monk caught five for 94 yards. The Redskins got it at their 46, and Ervins rushed for five and zero, then on third and five, Rypien hit Monk for 13. Ervins gained 11 and four. Then Monk got behind cornerback Melvin Jenkins to make it 34-10 with 10:45 left.

Monk Gains Record, Redskins Regain Form, 34-3

Tuesday, October 13, 1992

He had 817 catches when the Redskins got the ball back with 4:21 left, and Gibbs decided to go for the record instead of having Monk endure a week when he would be forced to think and talk about it. He called a pair of dodge routes, which have accounted for about 400 of Monk's receptions. They went for six and 18 yards, then he went to the right sideline for the record.

"The toughest one all night was the last one to Art,"

Rypien said. "We all wanted him to get the record, and I wanted to get the ball there. I guess now I'll be the guy people talk about when they're sitting in a bar in 2010 wondering who threw that 820th pass to Art Monk."

“There was a lot of emotion out there and a lot of good things happened. Our defense was just awesome. It was great to see Art get the record. The only three I've ever padded for him was at the end there. I wanted to get it over with. He's one of the classier guys in pro sports. Family. Community. Dedication. You name it, and Art Monk is tops." –Gibbs

"You don't know what a relief this is to get it behind me," Monk said. "I've tried not to think about it for a while, but people kept bringing it up. They were doing that on the sideline, counting them down. Before the last one, Ron Middleton said, 'This is it.' That kind of put the pressure on me."

:logo: