Monk VS Brown

[Thinking Skins]

Head to head, who is a better WR, Art Monk or Tim Brown?

Monk's stats are here

and Brown's stats are at

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/177/career;_ylc=X3oDMTBpcTFhbmEwBF9TAzk1ODYxMDU5BHNlYwN0bQ--

I know were at ExtremeSKINS so we're going to get a lot of Pro-Monk stuff, but try to include a line of reasoning in your argument.

[gridironmike]

I can tell you that Mike & Mike (ESPN Radio) were saying they thought Art Monk was better....and then toned it down to say both should be in the Hall Of Fame.

[Thinking Skins]

Originally posted by gridironmike

I can tell you that Mike & Mike (ESPN Radio) were saying they thought Art Monk was better....and then toned it down to say both should be in the Hall Of Fame.

I want your opinion. I don't care what the media, with all their bias, says or who they promote.

I want to know who the fans like?

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

I think both are equals. If you look at both stats and consider that Brown played in about 31 more games than Monk, their stats are very similar. It's hard to say one over the other because of how close their numbers are to each other.

[Art]

I think the big difference here really is Tim Brown only at the tail end of his career ever had another pass catching option on the team and never really had a No. 3 receiver who was in the mix. Monk played with Sanders and Clark, creating one of the better three-receiving sets in the history of the game over a few year stretch.

I think Monk's willingness to sacrifice personal stats for the good of the team while at the same time putting up one of the greatest receiving careers ever is what puts him in the Hall.

[Henry]

Monk's post-season numbers:

15 games 69rec 1062yds 7TDs

(3SB - 9 rec 179yds)

And Brown's:

12 games 45rec 581yds 3TDs

(1SB - 1 rec 9yds)

Monk stepped up much MUCH bigger when it mattered most. And considering that Monk was merely a role-player whereas Brown was the primary option, the difference is even more pronouced.

[Burgold]

Works both ways. Art had other players who were great which meant that defences also couldn't tilt towards him. Although, the year where he had to be the guy was the year where he was the first receiver ever to break 100 catches. Didn't Brown start as a returner and have an amazing run of td's? I would lean towards Monk just because he broke record after record, but both are worthy.

[rydemps]

Originally posted by gridironmike

I can tell you that Mike & Mike (ESPN Radio) were saying they thought Art Monk was better....and then toned it down to say both should be in the Hall Of Fame.

I heard that too. They also said that Irvin and Reed are better than Monk and Brown.

[GSF]

Monk was the first player to catch more than 900 passes, the first to catch 106 passes in a single season, and the first to catch a pass in 183 CONSECUTIVE games(talk about consistency). Monk also was the first to have 820 career receptions. He OWNED the record books when he was playing, and is still ranked very high in most categories. Monk also helped his team win superbowls.

Brown had a great career, and actually leads Monk in some categories, like TDs, but I don't think he set any NFL records during his career, and he never won the big one.

Advantage Monk.

[VaBeachSkinzFan]

Originally posted by GSF

Monk was the first player to catch more than 900 passes, the first to catch 106 passes in a single season, and the first to catch a pass in 183 CONSECUTIVE games(talk about consistency). Monk also was the first to have 820 career receptions. He OWNED the record books when he was playing, and is still ranked very high in most categories. Monk also helped his team win superbowls.

Brown had a great career, and actually leads Monk in some categories, like TDs, but I don't think he set any NFL records during his career, and he never won the big one.

Advantage Monk.

That's what I was thinking. Monk set records. Monk was at one point in his career considered the best and Monk has a big ring on three of his fingers. I'm going with Monk.

:point2sky

[[[ghost]]]

Originally posted by Art

I think the big difference here really is Tim Brown only at the tail end of his career ever had another pass catching option on the team and never really had a No. 3 receiver who was in the mix. Monk played with Sanders and Clark, creating one of the better three-receiving sets in the history of the game over a few year stretch.

I think Monk's willingness to sacrifice personal stats for the good of the team while at the same time putting up one of the greatest receiving careers ever is what puts him in the Hall.

i love it when he says tings i dont understand

[prophet]

Originally posted by VaBeachSkinzFan

That's what I was thinking. Monk set records. Monk was at one point in his career considered the best and Monk has a big ring on three of his fingers. I'm going with Monk.

:point2sky

take jerry rice away tim has all the records

Tim Brown will be an imeditate HOF'er

he had 9 str8 1000 yard season's if i'm not mistaken that is a record. He played on awful teams for most of his career and still produced.

Monk had 5 1000 seasons and was a 1 part of some really good teams

If i'm going by pure numbers outside of jerry rice. tim brown may not have been the flashiest or best ever, but like emmitt smith... he proved to to it consistently at a very high level for the long haul.

[triple6mafia]

I love monk, but i am gonna have to go with Tim Brown. He didn't play that many more games, but he does have better statistics. Even still, there is reason that Art Monk should not be in the Hall of Fame and it makes me so mad and makes me believe that you almost have to b e a little flashy to make it there right away because people are saying that Tim Brown may not be a first ballot inductee.

[Henry]

Originally posted by prophet

take jerry rice away tim has all the records

Tim Brown will be an imeditate HOF'er

he had 9 str8 1000 yard season's if i'm not mistaken that is a record. He played on awful teams for most of his career and still produced.

Monk had 5 1000 seasons and was a 1 part of some really good teams

If i'm going by pure numbers outside of jerry rice. tim brown may not have been the flashiest or best ever, but like emmitt smith... he proved to to it consistently at a very high level for the long haul.

You take away Jerry Rice and how much better does Monk's career look? How many more pro bowls does he go to? How much longer does he hold his records? Remember, Monk DID have all the records.

If you're going by pure numbers outside of Jerry Rice, Monk's a shoo-in.

[MCnDaHouse]

I'm biased of course but i'd go with Monk. He held all the records and played on teams with other quality WRs.

MC

[Mr. S]

Brown has better stats, but looking at average, 13.5 for Monk, 13.7 for Brown. If Monk was in the extra 31 games or whatever, 2 seasons basically, he woulda been over the 13,000 yard mark, and over the 1000 receptions mark probably. A posession receiver that posts those kinda stats is big Id say. Plus his records, granted Brown may have broken just as many. Either way, both deserve to be in.

[prophet]

Originally posted by Henry

You take away Jerry Rice and how much better does Monk's career look? How many more pro bowls does he go to? How much longer does he hold his records? Remember, Monk DID have all the records.

If you're going by pure numbers outside of Jerry Rice, Monk's a shoo-in.

the question was monk vs brown.. i just stated the facts

nothing personal against monk...

btw, I think it was lofton that broke monks records two years later

[Spaceman Spiff]

blakman, whats your vendetta against monk? this is the 2nd thread you've started about this.

I think it'd be a classy move if someone like irvin or brown said they wouldn't accept candidacy for the hall unless Monk goes in before they do. that'd send a message to a lot of these dumbass voters.

[Thinking Skins]

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff

blakman, whats your vendetta against monk? this is the 2nd thread you've started about this.

Man, its two weeks before training camp. We've argued almost every other issue to death, so I figured it may be fun to play devils advocate a little and try to understand some of the reasons that the media is voting against Monk going to the Hall.

But understand, I BLEED burgendy and gold.

Hail Skins. :dallasuck

[Ghost of]

Uh, they played in different passing eras.

Comparing stats doesn't tell the whole story.

In fact, it's ridiculous.

Monk played in an era when getting 100 plus catches was a huge deal.

Brown played in an era, where I think I caught 85 passes one year.

Brown was never as good as Monk, I witnessed both of their careers. Brown also took some time to really become a great receiver.

Brown was drafted in 1988 and didn't break 50 passes until 1993.

It's a joke to compare someone who came in and made an impact to someone who needed years and relaxed pass defense rules to truly emerge.

Brown had one year of being out for injury while Monk had an injury and one year with a big time strike and another with a 3 game strike.

[Spaceman Spiff]

They both deserve the hall.

[Ghost of]

I'd add that not only did Monk get 106 and lead the league one year, but he also led the league's WIDE RECEIVERS(Roger Craig had one more catch) in 1985.

Again, a different era, even the PLAY CLOCK was different.

[Jaron]

3 Super Bowl Rings vs 0 Super Bowl Rings

People seem to downplay this, but I feel this is a big advantage for Monk over Brown. I mean thats what all these guys are striving for in the end.

[Jimbo]

I thing both are deserving for the Hall as well but I guarantee Peter Queen and his idiot buddies saw a lot more of Tim Brown's career than they did Monk's and that is, sadly, why Brown makes it before Monk. In addition, Brown has the magical 1,000 career receptions on his side. Without Clark or Sanders and those missed games Monk ironically missed during the Super Bowl seasons of 1982, 1983 and 1987, he'd have over 1,000 as well and is already in the Hall.

The comparison between the two is extremely close but this whole HOF thing just blows. :mad:

[mcfara]

Monk needs to be in. One of the top 5 ever. Brown should prob be in too but I think he is a notch below...even if the numbers don't necessarily say so.