Art Monk

[RedskinsMarchingBand]

okay it is kind of early to bring this up but Steve Largent barley beats monk on most stats and he got in the HOF, monk has 121 mroe receptions then the man, and and held the single season reception record for a while. If monk does not get in these next few years and Andre Reed does, there will be a problem.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Already is a problem.

[fuji869]

I am going to say what I usually say:

Art Monk broke Steve Largents Records, Largent as a first ballot Hall of Famer

Jerry Rice broke Art Monk, Rice will be a first ballot Hall of Famer

That puts James Arthur Monk in pretty good company.

[jtyler42]

Monk is my favorite all-time Skin, and it's already past being a problem that he is not in the Hall it is a travesty...

[Bigkatt]

....but Chris Hanbuger isn't in the HOF and you could care less.......sad

[scruffylookin]

My fear.

Irvin, Reed and Cris Carter all get in before Art.

This has been a disgrace for a number of years now, but if/when these guys get in........well we need to make life uncomfortable for the voters somehow.

[jrfriedm]

There is no reason out there to keep Monk out of the Hall of Fame, other than biased and Redskin hating.

[Bangee7]

this injustice needs rectified !!

Art Monk for the Hall

[bulldog]

Art Monk held more than the total reception record during his career. When ALL the stats are looked at his omission from the Hall is all the more shocking:

1. Total receptions.

2. Receptions in a season.

3. Consecutive games with a reception.

Now, how many running backs or quarterbacks held these kinds of records vis a vis their peers and are NOT in the Hall of Fame?

[gridironmike]

....but Chris Hanbuger isn't in the HOF and you could care less.......sad

WRONG. Check past threads. I've always said Hanburger is sorely overlooked.

[Thinking Skins]

I'm getting tired of the Monk vs. Largent argument, or the Monk vs. Swann.Lets see some different comparisons of monk vs WRs in the HALL.

Thats what I was trying to do this summer when I was trying to understand the reasoning behind not voting for Monk.

[Thinking Skins]

There is no reason out there to keep Monk out of the Hall of Fame, other than biased and Redskin hating.

I agree that there is Redskin hating amongst the voters, but Art Monk didn't have a Jerry Rice career as a WR. When I put him up against Tim Brown this summer, the vote was about split about who was better.

The same thing can be said for many of the other WR's in the hall. Journalists can make valid arguments to say every WR in the hall (except maybe Largent and Swann) is a better WR than Monk. And they could have valid conjectures.

I mean look at the stat sheet, It doesn't just SCREAM Hall Of Fame!

[bulldog]

What you are missing in your analysis is that Monk played a good part of his career BEFORE the rules changes to allow wide receivers greater freedom and to turn the NFL from a predominately run-oriented to a predominately pass-oriented league

When Monk caught 106 balls in 1984 those were numbers that were exceptional, especially as the Redskins were a team that ran the ball a lot and had a rusher in John Riggins that ran for 1,258 yards.

Some of the other receivers that are brought into the discussion such as Tim Brown didn't start their NFL careers until Art had already been in the NFL for 7 years and was approaching 30 years of age

Go back and check the records from the 1970's and 1980's.

Guys made the pro bowl with 60 catches and 950 yards.

What you consider to be pedestrian numbers for Monk measured by 2005 standards were top shelf at the time.

His 58 catches as a rookie were a team record up to that point and put him on the NFL all-rookie team.

Nowadays you get a guy like Rod Gardner and have him post a 70 catch season given his average skills.

Gardner was hardly a polished, experienced receiver in 2002 when he put up that 1,006 yard season.

But back in 1980 period a guy like Gardner would never have put up those kinds of numbers because only veteran receivers with advanced skills got that many balls thrown their way as coaches were busy handing off 330 times a season to a Walter Payton or Earl Campbell or John Riggins or Franco Harris.

That's the way the league was in those days. Tight coverage, bump and run all the way down the field. Compared to what we see out there now, receivers back in that time period were interfered with on EVERY play :laugh:

And they were still expected to catch the ball even with the contact

If you are going to evaluate Monk do it against his true peers.

Not guys like Cris Carter and Tim Brown that came along much later and were able to take advantage of rules changes to post outsized numbers that they would not have come close to in an earlier era.

The only receiver whose numbers I think stack up vis a vis playing in a prior era were Rice's. He was perhaps the best WR in NFL history.

There is no reason to punish Art Monk because his career, consecutive game and season record streaks were broken by such a phenomenal talent as Jerry Rice.

That is like saying that Jim Brown doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame anymore because Walter, Barry and Emmitt left his total numbers in their rear view mirror.

[Thinking Skins]

Compare the stats I just posted for monk to these stats for James Lofton.

For those who don't know, Lofton was HOF WR who started his career in GB. Ans as you can see, he played over just about the same time period as Monk.

I'm posting these stats to see how Monk compares, just like I wanted to see how Monk compared to Brown.

What stands out to me is that over the first 10 years of their respective careers, Lofton beats Monk every time but once or twice. And Lofton's worse season was 695 yards. But Monk had two seasons in the 400's.

By no means does this mean that Monk doesn't belong to the Hall, but its not as Green Light as Redskins fans are making it.

Now I wait for the comments about how that wasn't Monk's role in Gibbs's system, and that he ran great routes, had great consistency, and great hands (all of which are great qualities, but don't make you into one of the greatest WR's).

[bulldog]

We can argue this one up and down.

I just find it absurd that a team like the 1980's Redskins, that set the NFL record for points scored in an NFL season and went to three Super Bowls in six years, has ONE player in the Hall of Fame, John Riggins.

What enough people are doing that are voting for the HOF is providing an alibi why each former Redskin should not make it.

I know the litany:

Monk had the catches but didn't score enough touchdowns or make enough spectacular plays in the Super Bowl.

Clark made the spectacular catches and came up big in playoff games but didn't have the overall career numbers that Monk did

Grimm? Great player. Dominated his opponents during the Skins run. Didn't stay healthy enough to be a pro bowler at age 35 like Mike Webster or John Hannah.

Jacoby? Great player. Made some pro bowls. Won some key matchups. Helped TWO running backs set the Super Bowl rushing record. But he lost those one on one matchups with LT in 1985 and 1986 on national TV. Too bad

See? There's ALWAYS an excuse not to recognize an individual or collective achievement.

You can't tell me that ALL of the 1970's Steelers are in the HOF strictly for their individual numbers. Swann and Stallworth are in because of what they COLLECTIVELY did as a team in winning 4 Super Bowls in 6 years

Swann could have had those 375 catches in St. Louis or Green Bay and nobody would have cared how pretty they were.

At some point, though, whether it is the HOF voters finally coming to their senses or the Senior Committee making up for past errors eventually more than ONE Redskin from the 1980's teams is going to make the Hall.

You can't leave a team out there that set the then NFL scoring record and TWICE set the Super Bowl rushing record out in the cold

[The Bounty Hunter #21]

Yea today they had the 1992 redskins season recap thing on ESPN today...and they showed the game that Monk broke the record for most receptions.....it was great to see him break that record....HOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......

[Thinking Skins]

We can argue this one up and down.

I just find it absurd that a team like the 1980's Redskins, that set the NFL record for points scored in an NFL season and went to three Super Bowls in six years, has ONE player in the Hall of Fame, John Riggins.

What enough people are doing that are voting for the HOF is providing an alibi why each former Redskin should not make it.

I know the litany:

Monk had the catches but didn't score enough touchdowns or make enough spectacular plays in the Super Bowl.

Clark made the spectacular catches and came up big in playoff games but didn't have the overall career numbers that Monk did

Grimm? Great player. Dominated his opponents during the Skins run. Didn't stay healthy enough to be a pro bowler at age 35 like Mike Webster or John Hannah.

Jacoby? Great player. Made some pro bowls. Won some key matchups. Helped TWO running backs set the Super Bowl rushing record. But he lost those one on one matchups with LT in 1985 and 1986 on national TV. Too bad

See? There's ALWAYS an excuse not to recognize an individual or collective achievement.

You can't tell me that ALL of the 1970's Steelers are in the HOF strictly for their individual numbers. Swann and Stallworth are in because of what they COLLECTIVELY did as a team in winning 4 Super Bowls in 6 years

Swann could have had those 375 catches in St. Louis or Green Bay and nobody would have cared how pretty they were.

At some point, though, whether it is the HOF voters finally coming to their senses or the Senior Committee making up for past errors eventually more than ONE Redskin from the 1980's teams is going to make the Hall.

You can't leave a team out there that set the then NFL scoring record and TWICE set the Super Bowl rushing record out in the cold

I agree perfectly with that argument, and thats the argument I don't hear enough anymore.

Normally when people ask Peter King about Monk, he'll say just what I said eariler. And he will have satisfied all those fans of other teams who were wondering about Monk going to the Hall. But we as Redskins fans can put 2 and 2 together and realize that its just not adding up.

If we keep arguing this stuff player by player, then we're going to get turned down player by player. We need to say that they should ALL be in the Hall. And whenever we do those call-in shows, or the little emial Pastablelly, pose the same question you just raised. Why is there only ONE player from the 80's Redskins? How can you turn down CLARK, MONK, GRIMM, JACOBY, etc.

I feel like thats a much more powerful question and it backs them into more of a corner, so that no matter what answer they give, the fans out there, Redskins fan or not, will realize how cheated we are being.

[hands11]

Monk is my favorite all-time Skin, and it's already past being

a problem that he is not in the Hall it is a travesty...

Maybe it was the mustache.

Are there any WR in the Hall who had a mustache ?

Ya, this is way past a problem. The hall has become a joke. It doesnt mean what it used to because its become so political.

[hands11]

Art Monk held more than the total reception record during his career. When ALL the stats are looked at his omission from the Hall is all the more shocking:

1. Total receptions.

2. Receptions in a season.

3. Consecutive games with a reception.

Now, how many running backs or quarterbacks held these kinds of records vis a vis their peers and are NOT in the Hall of Fame?

and some Jewerly.

[hands11]

What you are missing in your analysis is that Monk played a good part of his career BEFORE the rules changes to allow wide receivers greater freedom and to turn the NFL from a predominately run-oriented to a predominately pass-oriented league

When Monk caught 106 balls in 1984 those were numbers that were exceptional, especially as the Redskins were a team that ran the ball a lot and had a rusher in John Riggins that ran for 1,258 yards.

Some of the other receivers that are brought into the discussion such as Tim Brown didn't start their NFL careers until Art had already been in the NFL for 7 years and was approaching 30 years of age

Go back and check the records from the 1970's and 1980's.

Guys made the pro bowl with 60 catches and 950 yards.

What you consider to be pedestrian numbers for Monk measured by 2005 standards were top shelf at the time.

His 58 catches as a rookie were a team record up to that point and put him on the NFL all-rookie team.

Nowadays you get a guy like Rod Gardner and have him post a 70 catch season given his average skills.

Gardner was hardly a polished, experienced receiver in 2002 when he put up that 1,006 yard season.

But back in 1980 period a guy like Gardner would never have put up those kinds of numbers because only veteran receivers with advanced skills got that many balls thrown their way as coaches were busy handing off 330 times a season to a Walter Payton or Earl Campbell or John Riggins or Franco Harris.

That's the way the league was in those days. Tight coverage, bump and run all the way down the field. Compared to what we see out there now, receivers back in that time period were interfered with on EVERY play :laugh:

And they were still expected to catch the ball even with the contact

If you are going to evaluate Monk do it against his true peers.

Not guys like Cris Carter and Tim Brown that came along much later and were able to take advantage of rules changes to post outsized numbers that they would not have come close to in an earlier era.

The only receiver whose numbers I think stack up vis a vis playing in a prior era were Rice's. He was perhaps the best WR in NFL history.

There is no reason to punish Art Monk because his career, consecutive game and season record streaks were broken by such a phenomenal talent as Jerry Rice.

That is like saying that Jim Brown doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame anymore because Walter, Barry and Emmitt left his total numbers in their rear view mirror.

And Bulldog knocks it out of the park. Check the relative number to the game in thier day.

Never had more then 60 catches.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/SwanLy00.htm

Receiving TDs: 1975-1st, only 11

Receptions: 1977-7st with 50, 1978-7st with 61

Receiving yards: 1975-8, 1977-4, 1978-7

Receiving TDs: 1975-1t, 1977-6t, 1978-2

Rush/Receive TDs: 1975-7t, 1978-5t

3-time Pro Bowler: 1975, 1977, 1978

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MonkAr00.htm

Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t

Receiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10

Receiving TDs: 1991-9t

3-time Pro Bowler: 1984, 1985, 1986

Maybe its a chicks dig the long ball thing. Monk never had more then 8 TDs in a season.

[hands11]

We can argue this one up and down.

I just find it absurd that a team like the 1980's Redskins, that set the NFL record for points scored in an NFL season and went to three Super Bowls in six years, has ONE player in the Hall of Fame, John Riggins.

What enough people are doing that are voting for the HOF is providing an alibi why each former Redskin should not make it.

I know the litany:

Monk had the catches but didn't score enough touchdowns or make enough spectacular plays in the Super Bowl.

Clark made the spectacular catches and came up big in playoff games but didn't have the overall career numbers that Monk did

Grimm? Great player. Dominated his opponents during the Skins run. Didn't stay healthy enough to be a pro bowler at age 35 like Mike Webster or John Hannah.

Jacoby? Great player. Made some pro bowls. Won some key matchups. Helped TWO running backs set the Super Bowl rushing record. But he lost those one on one matchups with LT in 1985 and 1986 on national TV. Too bad

See? There's ALWAYS an excuse not to recognize an individual or collective achievement.

You can't tell me that ALL of the 1970's Steelers are in the HOF strictly for their individual numbers. Swann and Stallworth are in because of what they COLLECTIVELY did as a team in winning 4 Super Bowls in 6 years

Swann could have had those 375 catches in St. Louis or Green Bay and nobody would have cared how pretty they were.

At some point, though, whether it is the HOF voters finally coming to their senses or the Senior Committee making up for past errors eventually more than ONE Redskin from the 1980's teams is going to make the Hall.

You can't leave a team out there that set the then NFL scoring record and TWICE set the Super Bowl rushing record out in the cold

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/misc/rec.htm

You point out the arguement well but here is what I was looking for to put in perspective.

Since 1964 no WR had racked up the catches Monk did in 1984. Thats 20 years without a 100 catch WR. And if you look at the high over the years from 64 till 84 you see at lot of 70's and 80's then in 1990 Rice breaks 100 and then every year since then except 98, the most catches if over 100.

The game changed. The roles changed.

So Monk 1984 year was the first of it kind in 20 years and no one repeated it for 6 years after that. And that man was Jerry Rice.

Then in 1985 he was second in the league by only 1 catch to Craig who catch screens mostly.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/leaders1985.htm Craig had 92, Monk had 91. Monk played 15 games , Craig played 16.

So he was 2 catches and 1 missed game from leading the league in rec 2 years in row. If you take into affect Craig wasnt a WR then Monk did lead WR for 2 years in a row.

[hands11]

As for the TD. Monk played under Gibbs so the TD come a lot from

RBs - Riggin

TE's

Gibbs pounded the ball in more then he throw it in.

[skinsterp]

Monk is my favorite all-time Skin, and it's already past being a problem that he is not in the Hall it is a travesty...

Ditto

:logo:

[G-Prime]

This argument just goes on and on and on.. I want Monk in the HoF.. but as long as their are Redskins hating ****s on the panel that have no business choosing who the deserving players are, then Monk won't get in.

Should let coaches choose.

[sknsgirl]

Right, he should be in the HOF. So what can we do about it? I've heard about other cities organizing behind their players to get them in, and the radio guys always say we should organize. Sounds like folks are willing. But what exactly does that mean? What specifically do we do to help? Obviously hating on Peter King hasn't worked so far...