Wtf? Bettis In Hof?

[GrimReefa]

Would you care to enlighten us on your reasoning that Monk doesn't deserve to be in the HOF?

His reasoning is he's a Buccaneers fan and he doesn't know a football from a foosball.

[rdsknbill]

His reasoning is he's a Buccaneers fan and he doesn't know a football from a foosball.

Ahh! Gotcha! That makes sense :laugh:

[Henry]

besides the record the 940 balls caught did he have?

Is that a question?

If you are asking if Monk held any other records the answer is yes. I'd be shocked to find a Redskin fan that didn't know that.

[MeNoRevs]

Jerome Bettis averaged under 4 yards a carry.

His numbers are based on durability and consistency.

Now, it just so happens that I believe durability and consistency are two important factors in determining Hall of Fame players and that, therefore, Jerome Bettis does deserve to be a Hall of Famer.

HOWEVER, there is no arguement you can make against Art Monk which you could not make against Jerome Bettis. The two players' careers are very similar, except for one thing.

Monk = 3 rings

Bettis = 0 rings

Therefore, Monk IS the better candidate than Bettis. And if Bettis gets in before Monk, that's a joke. Just like it's a joke if Irvin gets in before Monk. I'm not saying either of those guys doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, just that Monk deserves it more.

HOW can you base HOF credintials on superbowls?

Larry Brown, Saftey for the Cowboys won a couple of them and was SB MVP. He is a SHOE IN for the HOF

And btw, Monk only played in 2 of the 3 superbowls that the redskins won. He was injured in the one against when they beat Miami, caught 1 pass for the one they lost to the Raiders, caught 1 pass when they beat Denver, and finally showed up and caught 7 passes for 130 when they beat Buffalo. So he wasnt really that instumental in all the Superbowls.

It just shows right there, you cant always SuperBowls as a measure of greatness for a player.

[MeNoRevs]

Is that a question?

If you are asking if Monk held any other records the answer is yes. I'd be shocked to find a Redskin fan that didn't know that.

I am asking the question, what other records other then 940 did Monk have when he retired? Why couldnt someone answer this? His 106 receptions was broken when he was still playing... (Sterling Sharpe did it in 1993, Monk Retired in 1995)

[Henry]

Revs, even if you ignore Monk's 7 catch, 113 yard outing against the Bills in SB26, it is a ridiculous arguement to make when you say Monk doesn't deserve, or wasn't an integral part of the team that won those 3 rings. He was a major contributor on every Redskin team that won a superbowl. In fact, he is the ONLY skill position player on the Redskins to earn all three rings. I cannot believe the significance of that fact could escape you.

[MeNoRevs]

Revs, even if you ignore Monk's 7 catch, 113 yard outing against the Bills in SB26, it is a ridiculous arguement to make when you say Monk doesn't deserve, or wasn't an integral part of the team that won those 3 rings. He was a major contributor on every Redskin team that won a superbowl. In fact, he is the ONLY skill position player on the Redskins to earn all three rings. I cannot believe the significance of that fact could escape you.

I am not ignoring anything. I never said he was not an instrumental part of Washington going to the SB. I even put his great performance against Buffalo up there. Every player contributed to that team to get there. But what im trying to say is that how many superbowl rings someone does not quality someone for the HOF.

I would also like to argue that he was NOT the only skill posistion player on the skins to EARN all 3 rings. In 1982 he only played in 9 games with 35 receptions, 447 yards and 1 TD. That year they went on and beat Miami in the SB.

I cant believe it escapes me either....

[Henry]

I am asking the question, what other records other then 940 did Monk have when he retired? Why couldnt someone answer this? His 106 receptions was broken when he was still playing... (Sterling Sharpe did it in 1993, Monk Retired in 1995)

He also held the record for most consecutive games with a catch. That's three records that Monk broke/held during his career. Not bad for a supposedly unspectacluar player. I don't think Bettis is undeserving, but what records has he conquered over the course of his career?

[MeNoRevs]

He also held the record for most consecutive games with a catch. That's three records that Monk broke/held during his career. Not bad for a supposedly unspectacluar player. I don't think Bettis is undeserving, but what records has he conquered over the course of his career?

I didnt know when Rice broke his record, so I was not sure about that one. I still cant find it but im searching.

I have only counted 2 records.

I hope you understand that im not saying Monk doesnt deserve to go to the HOF. I am just bringing up a point before about how SB's do not qualify someone to the HOF. I dont like it when someone brings up that part of the argument.

[Mr. Nostril]

Bettis and Monk are both slam dunks to be in the hof.

Arguement for Bettis - Is there really any better power runner than Bettis ever? Great power runner's don't get as big of stats, yet he's still in the top 5. Compare Rigens to portis. Riggens was definitely the better running back, playing with the better line, on an overall better team. However, Portis holds the redskins record for yards in a season.

Arguement for Monk - He has more catches than anyone currently in the hall.

That's all you need to know. The fact that Monk didn't go in during his first year of eligibility is a joke. It doesn't really bother me that much that he isn't in though. Monk is the type of player where it's really more of the hall of fame being honored by his presense, than it is Monk being honored by his inclusion. If the hall wants to miss out on this, good for them.

[Henry]

I would also like to argue that he was NOT the only skill posistion player on the skins to EARN all 3 rings. In 1982 he only played in 9 games with 35 receptions, 447 yards and 1 TD. That year they went on and beat Miami in the SB.

I cant believe it escapes me either....

Good lord man. You did NOT just write that. I will not question any Redskin fan's passion, but I would expect his knowledge of our team's history to extend to at LEAST our Superbowl years.

1982 was a strike year. There were only 9 games played in 82. Monk led the Redskins in receptions that year.

Frankly, if I have to explain this to you, you should bow out of the discussion right now.

[MeNoRevs]

Good lord man. You did NOT just write that. I will not question any Redskin fan's passion, but I would expect his knowledge of our team's history to extend to at LEAST our Superbowl years.

1982 was a strike year. There were only 9 games played in 82. Monk led the Redskins in receptions that year.

Frankly, if I have to explain this to you, you should bow out of the discussion right now.

naa I wont bow out. I didnt look at this as a battle to the death.

Even if 1982 was a strike year, he averaged almost 4 caught balls a game, and 50 yards a game. Nothing great, maybe average. I will stand by and say he was not a big part of them going and winning the SB that year. And again did not even play in that SB game.

[Mr. Nostril]

I hope you understand that im not saying Monk doesnt deserve to go to the HOF. I am just bringing up a point before about how SB's do not qualify someone to the HOF. I dont like it when someone brings up that part of the argument.

Dude, any knowledgeable person knows that super bowl rings are bull**** when it comes to determining whether or not someone should go to the hof.

Super Bowls are team accomplishments and getting to the hof is an individual accomplishment. That's all you should have to say. That's why the hof doesn't bat an eye putting barry sanders and Dan Marino into the hall of fame and Mark Rypien doesn't even get mentioned.

However, I realize that you get tons of comments like, "look how many rings the guy has." Your best bet is to just ignore these guys. You'll never win, because the truth of the matter is, you can't argue against dogma.

P.S. - I should say that the amount of rings a player has should come into play when determining coaches who go to the hof. That's the exception.

[Henry]

naa I wont bow out. I didnt look at this as a battle to the death.

Even if 1982 was a strike year, he averaged almost 4 caught balls a game, and 50 yards a game. Nothing great, maybe average. I will stand by and say he was not a big part of them going and winning the SB that year. And again did not even play in that SB game.

Indeed. And if Chris Cooley pulls a hammy tomorrow he wasn't major contributor to this team's accomplishments, I suppose.

[Henry]

Nostril, rings are not the ONLY factor, but to say they aren't a factor at all is, shall we say, a less than knowledgeable position.

Some players, such as half the Steelers from the 70s, got in primarily due to their rings. Some players, like the aforementioned Marino and Sanders, were good enough that lack of rings didn't matter.

Monk, however, has both. He has exceptional individual accomplishments, such as breaking three league records during his career, AND he's got rings, including a 100+ yard game in SB26 at the age of 34. His rings ARE relevant when comparing him to other 'durable, steady yet unspectacular' players of similar reputation, like Bettis. If Bettis is a HOFer without rings records, Monk with his three of each most certainly is.

[Mr. Nostril]

Nostril, rings are not the ONLY factor, but to say they aren't a factor at all is, shall we say, a less than knowledgeable position.

Some players, such as half the Steelers from the 70s, got in primarily due to their rings. Some players, like the aforementioned Marino and Sanders, were good enough that lack of rings didn't matter.

Monk, however, has both. He has exceptional individual accomplishments, such as breaking three league records during his career, AND he's got rings, including a 100+ yard game in SB26 at the age of 34. His rings ARE relevant when comparing him to other 'durable, steady yet unspectacular' players of similar reputation, like Bettis. If Bettis is a HOFer without rings records, Monk with his three of each most certainly is.

You're preaching to the choir as far as saying that Monk should get in. If you would have told me circa '91 that Art Monk wouldn't be in the hall of fame in '05, I would have laughed at you. It's one of the greatest injustices in all of pro sports.

As far as SB victories go. I just mean that rings really shouldn't be a factor. No one player earns a super bowl ring. It's a team accomplishment. I am aware that the people who vote for the hof put emphasis on SB rings. I just don't think they should. There are other factors that shouldn't come into play, but do when it comes to determining who goes to hof.

For example, your attitude towards the media has a huge implication. The media votes for the hall, so it only makes sense that the media friendly players get an extra boost when enshrinement time comes. If you were the type of player who was always willing to show off and talk to the media, and give them an easy story, your chances of making it in are greatly increased. That's actually I think the main thing that's keeping Art Monk out. He was the type of player who just quietly racked up stats, great plays, great seasons, and one great quiet career. That's why Deion Sanders will get in, in spite of the fact that he doesn't deserve it.

[mcarey032]

He will get in and rightfully so. The Art Monk will get in I think eventually. It sucks that the media plays games like this to keep others out. carl banks for instance to be in, but I think that the voters just have personal grudges. I think that the same goes for Art Monk. He should be in, but there is always someone who has an axe to grind.

[chiplohmillers#1]

Bettis is a slam dunk hall of famer. The numbers dont lie, the fact that a "big"back had that type of durability and could consistintaly perform at an elevated level is great

[Henry]

As far as SB victories go. I just mean that rings really shouldn't be a factor. No one player earns a super bowl ring. It's a team accomplishment. I am aware that the people who vote for the hof put emphasis on SB rings. I just don't think they should. There are other factors that shouldn't come into play, but do when it comes to determining who goes to hof.

I see what you're saying. I don't know if rings shouldn't be a factor at ALL, but I do think that the voters put too much emphasis on them. As long as they do, however, Monk's rings deserve mention. It amazes me how certain criteria matters to voters ... but not when Monk meets it. Then it's something else that's important.

For example, your attitude towards the media has a huge implication. The media votes for the hall, so it only makes sense that the media friendly players get an extra boost when enshrinement time comes. If you were the type of player who was always willing to show off and talk to the media, and give them an easy story, your chances of making it in are greatly increased. That's actually I think the main thing that's keeping Art Monk out. He was the type of player who just quietly racked up stats, great plays, great seasons, and one great quiet career. That's why Deion Sanders will get in, in spite of the fact that he doesn't deserve it.

On this I totally agree. I've said it before: I think the entire voting process is a joke.

[MaddogCT]

Even if 1982 was a strike year, he averaged almost 4 caught balls a game, and 50 yards a game. Nothing great, maybe average. I will stand by and say he was not a big part of them going and winning the SB that year. And again did not even play in that SB game.

1982 was a strike year:

Google it!

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.

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

He didn't play in the SB because he broke his foot in the final game of the season. And that was one reason a lot of people did not give us a chance to win a game in the playoffs that year.

:logo: