In your opinion Should Irvin get in the HOF as well as Monk?

[TheLongshot]

Also, I don't think Irvin had the receiving options that Monk had to compete with. Other than Alvin Harper, he really didn't have a guy to compete for the ball. Monk had Clark and Sanders for a good piece of the latter part of his career.

Irvin definitly was a talent, but I think I'll be sick if he makes it on the first ballot, and Monk is still not in.

Jason

[cmiles3006]

Eeryone keeps saying they hate Irvin, but he should be in. I disagree that a person's character should be discounted when voting for the HOF. Those in the Hall represent the NFL and should also represent the ideals of the NFL. There is no question that Michael Irvin is a self promoter and ego maniac. I would never vote for him because of his personal behavior.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think he should. He was a huge weapon/threat

[rvan1]

hall of fame??? "when do we get the freee crack!"

- dave chappelle

[Guest GibbSkins11]

hey big d , 2 things.....

14-13

and 35-7

p.s. irvin was only dallas wr his stats arent like monks he had clark and sanders in dc and still had great numbers, irvin and LT = crackheads MONK = LEGEND:dallasuck

[CowboyinDC]

hey big d , 2 things.....

14-13

and 35-7

p.s. irvin was only dallas wr his stats arent like monks he had clark and sanders in dc and still had great numbers, irvin and LT = crackheads MONK = LEGEND:dallasuck

Big D didn't do anything to merit a response like that. He asked for an honest opinion and repeatedly stated that he thought Monk should be included. I don't know what you thought your post could bring to the conversation.

Also, I believe Irving did have to compete just as much with other options. Harper, Novacek, and the All-time leading rusher.

[fmorris]

This comes up all the time. Here's one to end all arguments of the sort:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130916&page=2&pp=15&highlight=art+monk

:

Originally Posted by Tubfart

Monk piled on those stats because he played nearly two full decades. What would Irvin had done if he had threatening receivers like Clark and Sanders to shade away coverage? Man that would be scary.

Irvin's numbers are more remarkable in that he did not pad his stats in by deferring his retirement, and that he never had a true threat opposite to him. Hence, he built his numbers and TDs almost always against double coverage. See what happens when a lesser receiver does not have a true opposite threat to ward away coverage?...his numbers fade sharply (Moss anyone?) That never happened with Irvin. Thats why he special and I think is better than Monk.

And the best argument I've read yet in response to this non-sense. Thanks Henry!

Originally posted by Henry

Monk played 16 seasons. Just say that. Playing with the wording only makes your bias more obvious.

I love how people try to point out Monk's longevity as if that's a BAD thing. Irvin couldn't do it as long as Monk. That's a knock on Irvin, not Monk.

But just for kicks, let's look at each player's first 12 seasons (two of which were strike-shortened for Monk, by the way):

Monk: 801 rec 10984 yds 60 TDs

Irvin: 750 rec 11904 yds 65 TDs

Wow. Irvin is insanely head and shoulders above Monk, isn't he?

Of course Irvin had this HOF QB throwing to him his entire career. Maybe you've heard of him? I think his name's Troy Aikman.

Monk had Theismann, then Jay Schroeder, then Doug Williams, then Mark Rypien, then Cary Conklin, then Rich Gannon, then some guy from the Jets, then some guy from the Eagles ...

You wanna talk scary? Give Monk one of the most accurate QBs in the history of the game for twelve seasons. I guarantee you that would be more beneficial than having Gary Clark opposite him for half his career.

Let's not pretend Irvin was the only option on that team. 5 time pro-bowler Novacek, 8 time pro-bowler Smith, 2 time pro-bowler Johnston ... consistant weapons other teams had to account for, playing together for a decade. Monk was the ONLY skill position player on the Redskins to go to all four Superbowls. The only one. Think about that for a second.

Irvin was a great cog in a great machine. Monk was an outstanding individual player who excelled no matter who you put under center, no matter who lined up beside him. There is no way Irvin is a shoo-in if Monk isn't.

__________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by Henry : December-6th-2005 at 09:01 PM.

[FlyinO]

Your agument for Monk is what you are using against Irvin? Irvin put his numbers up on a running team as well. All time rushing leader back there. Ask Aikman he will say Irvin helped make him not vice versa.QUOTE]

Sorry man, but I totally disagree. The Cowboys were a pass first team that would run the clock out in the second half because they were (it pains me) a dominate team (emphasis on were ), both offensively and defensively. Aikman would score a couple of touchdowns, then Emmit would eat up the remaining time and accumulate massive stats.

Aikman (more pain) was a great quarterback and teamate whose stats didn't live up to his "potential." He never really had the oppurtunity to amass garbage stats. In Irvin's defense, the same is probably true for him given the relationship between quarterback and receiver. But, I believe that Aikman's accuracy and efficiency more than made up for his lack of pass attempts. Just imagine how easy it would of been to be a wideout on this team. Gameplanning for Irvin took a far backseat compared to gameplanning for Aikman and Smith. Aikman could of made any reciever (excluding Taylor Jacobs or David Patten) great. :dallasuck :dallasuck :dallasuck

[Monkart]

I know nobody will agree with me here, but IMo Irvin was better and the numbers show that but thats another discussion

Here's Henry's discussion/debate with a member called Tubfart, read post number 20 by Henry, then Tubfarts reply a few post later. :laugh: :laugh:

Just for the record, Irvin should make the Hall IMHO, but NOT before MONK!

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130916

[RedskinsNation]

As much as I hated Irvin the Dallas Cowboy and still hate the Dallas Cowboys...Irvin was one of the most feared WR's while he played for that stretch... Jerry Rice was the only superior in Irvin's day.

Irvin with out a doubt belongs in the HOF.

Monk....I believe he does as well.

Its not Irvin's fault that he didnt have a supporting cast of WR's to alleviate the pressure...but its not Monk's fault that he did have the supporting cast to help out.

Pound for pound they are both HOF'ers in my book.

You can say Irvin would have done more damage with less coverage (assuming he had two threats lining up with him) But then you must also say that Monk could have done more damage in being the ONLY one to get the ball (the Santana Moss phenomena).

They are = to their respective franchises...each is the best WR to ever play in his team's uniform (IMHO).

[Dick Edds]

Also, I don't think Irvin had the receiving options that Monk had to compete with. Other than Alvin Harper, he really didn't have a guy to compete for the ball. Monk had Clark and Sanders for a good piece of the latter part of his career.

Irvin definitly was a talent, but I think I'll be sick if he makes it on the first ballot, and Monk is still not in.

Jason

uhhh . . . does Jay Novacheck ring a bell? He had many a clutch catches. And you can't dismiss the fact that Irvin played with the all-time leading rusher and a first ballot HOF-er and MVP in Aikman, and an all-pro FB in Moose. Irvin reaped the benfits of a pro-bowl filled roster on both sodes of the ball. Not trying to take away any of his great athletic accomplishments. But he had more help (IMO) than Monk did.

I think the main thing really keeping Monk out of the Hall is the fact that he did not have huge games in the SB's he played in. Although in the 91 SB he had over ten catches for close to 120 yards. There were several "Lynn Swann-esque" cathces and runs after catches that Irivn made in the SB and playoff championships (they were big plays). Unfortunately that's what people remember.

Unfortunatley, the HOF is about individual achievments, and that is why Monk is not recognized as a HOF'er by many . . . b/c there were no miraculous game changing catches or runs after catches that come to mind. Monk was the ultimate team player who came up with the catch every time he was asked to. Irvin reaped the benfits of defenses always having to stack the box to stop Emmitt. They all helped each other in spreading the ball and keeping defense on their toes, but as most realize the run sets up the pass in the NFL. Sometimes the pass sets up the run, but not on the Cowboys teams, it was run first (prrof in Emmitt's number and carries per game).

That being said I signed the petition for Monk to get in, and I just can't believe that a sports writer would spend most of his effort for years trying to keep someone out, rather than judging a player based on the other HOF members and who is up for induction in an unbiased manner.

The fact that he has voted for other players not to get in the Hall means nothing. Peter King is on a crusade, and it is a power trip he is on and has been on for years. The saddest part is that he, Lenny P and Dr.Z are the only people in the media who have no idea how biased they really are.

[Monkart]

As much as I hated Irvin the Dallas Cowboy and still hate the Dallas Cowboys...Irvin was one of the most feared WR's while he played for that stretch... Jerry Rice was the only superior in Irvin's day.

Irvin with out a doubt belongs in the HOF.

Monk....I believe he does as well.

Its not Irvin's fault that he didnt have a supporting cast of WR's to alleviate the pressure...but its not Monk's fault that he did have the supporting cast to help out.

Pound for pound they are both HOF'ers in my book.

You can say Irvin would have done more damage with less coverage (assuming he had two threats lining up with him) But then you must also say that Monk could have done more damage in being the ONLY one to get the ball (the Santana Moss phenomena).

They are = to their respective franchises...each is the best WR to ever play in his team's uniform (IMHO).

Like Henry points out in another thread I posted a link to a couple post earlier. Irvin had a HOF QB throwing to him his whole career, Monk had like 8 different QB's during his career.

[BigDFan5]

What records did Irvin break? What accomplishments did Irvin achieve in his career other than being part of a great pre salary cap team?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/profiles/notes/0232.html

look at his accomplishments. They dont seem hall of fame worthy to me.

He should at least wait as long as Monk has had to wait to get in, if not longer due to the discrepancy in talent between the two.

His Numbers are almost identical to Monk, and in some areas better yet you dont think he is worthy? So in your opinion Monk isn't worthy either?

[WeownU]

I think the whole voting system for the hall needs to be overhauled. There are so many players that deserve to be in. I say Irvin won't get it though, too many off the field incidents. I know they say that doesn't affect voting, but you can't tell me it doesn't.

I can't for the life of me fathom why Monk isn't already in the HOF. It is just plain ridiculous. The dude was outstanding. They never put in Bullet Bob Hayes or Cliff Harris either. Oh and Rayfield Wright either. I'm sure there are a few other redskins that belong as well.

The fact is, as long as these idiot sportswriters control the voting it is going to be biased. Get rid of all that and make the current people in the Hall of Fame do the voting. The players who played against other players know who really deserves to be in there and who doesn't.

[BigDFan5]

hey big d , 2 things.....

14-13

and 35-7

p.s. irvin was only dallas wr his stats arent like monks he had clark and sanders in dc and still had great numbers, irvin and LT = crackheads MONK = LEGEND:dallasuck

Hey thanks for bringing such great insight to what was a very good thread I am sure all your fellow Skins fans appreciate it.

As for stats I have already shown it. Monk has 800 more yards and 3 more TDs in 65 more games, not to mention it took him over 200 more catches and 4 more years to do it.

[BigDFan5]

Big D didn't do anything to merit a response like that. He asked for an honest opinion and repeatedly stated that he thought Monk should be included. I don't know what you thought your post could bring to the conversation.

Also, I believe Irving did have to compete just as much with other options. Harper, Novacek, and the All-time leading rusher.

thanks I get used to that kind of responce, some people would rather flame than actually have a conversation its no big deal anymore.

[BigDFan5]

Sorry man, but I totally disagree. The Cowboys were a pass first team that would run the clock out in the second half because they were (it pains me) a dominate team (emphasis on were ), both offensively and defensively. Aikman would score a couple of touchdowns, then Emmit would eat up the remaining time and accumulate massive stats.

The Cowboys were not a pass first team. Usually in the first half the were a balaced attack, and as you said later with a lead run it out. Even more impressive how good irvins numbers are using the argument that he didnt see the ball much 2nd half.

Aikman (more pain) was a great quarterback and teamate whose stats didn't live up to his "potential." He never really had the oppurtunity to amass garbage stats. In Irvin's defense, the same is probably true for him given the relationship between quarterback and receiver. But, I believe that Aikman's accuracy and efficiency more than made up for his lack of pass attempts. Just imagine how easy it would of been to be a wideout on this team. Gameplanning for Irvin took a far backseat compared to gameplanning for Aikman and Smith. Aikman could of made any reciever (excluding Taylor Jacobs or David Patten) great. :dallasuck :dallasuck :dallasuck

See this is conjecture, we dont know this as fact since it never happened.

[WeownU]

hey big d , 2 things.....

14-13

and 35-7

p.s. irvin was only dallas wr his stats arent like monks he had clark and sanders in dc and still had great numbers, irvin and LT = crackheads MONK = LEGEND:dallasuck

Yeah, I laughed when I saw this idiotic response. I thought this was one of the best threads on here in a long time until this idiot chimed up.

I love people who like to pick and pull parts of history to benefit them. That would be like us typing "14 of 16" everytime we posted. Stupid. 14 of 16 is history and so is us getting swept this year. Get over it and try to add something relevent to the conversation, or don't post.

[BigDFan5]

Here's Henry's discussion/debate with a member called Tubfart, read post number 20 by Henry, then Tubfarts reply a few post later. :laugh: :laugh:

Just for the record, Irvin should make the Hall IMHO, but NOT before MONK!

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130916

Ok I read Henrys responce and he shows over the same length of time that Irvin had better numbers despite having other players to take away balls from him.

[BigDFan5]

As much as I hated Irvin the Dallas Cowboy and still hate the Dallas Cowboys...Irvin was one of the most feared WR's while he played for that stretch... Jerry Rice was the only superior in Irvin's day.

Irvin with out a doubt belongs in the HOF.

Monk....I believe he does as well.

Its not Irvin's fault that he didnt have a supporting cast of WR's to alleviate the pressure...but its not Monk's fault that he did have the supporting cast to help out.

Pound for pound they are both HOF'ers in my book.

You can say Irvin would have done more damage with less coverage (assuming he had two threats lining up with him) But then you must also say that Monk could have done more damage in being the ONLY one to get the ball (the Santana Moss phenomena).

They are = to their respective franchises...each is the best WR to ever play in his team's uniform (IMHO).

Nice post

[Neophyte]

If you look at the numbers in context Irvins are more impressive. Monk had 817 more yards and 3 more TDs but Monk also played in 65 more games. Probowls, numbers of 1k yard season, YPC, number of times leading his team in recieving all go to irvin. Monk was a great WR but IMO Irvin was better. But again I dont want this thread to turn into a war thats why I was just discussing HOF instead of comparing careers

And if that is only context you go by I guess I would agree. However, I have additional context I would add.

1. Irvin had the same QB, a HOF QB, his whole career while Monk never had a HOF QB and had upwards of 5 or 6 different guys throwing him the ball.

2. How many 1000yd receivers did Irvin share the ball with while he was there? Monk had Clark around for half of his career and Sanders for several years as well. Had Monk been the primary receiver with the lack of help that Irvin had my guess is he would have significantly greater numbers.

3. The passing rules changed greatly toward the very end of Monk's career and the beginning of Irvin's which benefited the receivers of the 90s greatly. Monk was routinely mugged, legally and illegally, for the first half dozen years of his career including in a Super Bowl against Oakland.

I will not deny that Irvin was pretty good but when you take everything into context, and I do mean everything, Irvin had all the advantages. Monk worked hard for everything he got and was the picture perfect team first guy. The question is not how Irvin's numbers stand up to Monk's but how they stand up to guys like Cris Carter, Jerry Rice and Tim Brown. Those were his real comtemporaries and those are the guys who he should be compared to. Against them, I find him lacking a bit.

[BigDFan5]

And if that is only context you go by I guess I would agree. However, I have additional context I would add.

1. Irvin had the same QB, a HOF QB, his whole career while Monk never had a HOF QB and had upwards of 5 or 6 different guys throwing him the ball.

The Hall of fame is not about who is throwing you the ball if thats the case then guys like Jerry Rice may be in trouble since he had 2 different hall of famers throwing him the ball.

2. How many 1000yd receivers did Irvin share the ball with while he was there? Monk had Clark around for half of his career and Sanders for several years as well. Had Monk been the primary receiver with the lack of help that Irvin had my guess is he would have significantly greater numbers.

See its conjecture we dont know how Monk would have done being the sole focus of the secondarys defense and we dont know how Irvin would have done not being the focal point of the secondarys defense. But Again Irvin did not get as many balls thrown to him as Monk because of Emmitt Smith had Dallas not had the all time leading rusher Irvins numbers may have been bigger as well. Agree?

3. The passing rules changed greatly toward the very end of Monk's career and the beginning of Irvin's which benefited the receivers of the 90s greatly. Monk was routinely mugged, legally and illegally, for the first half dozen years of his career including in a Super Bowl against Oakland.

I am not aware of which rules changed when, if you could link me i would appreciate it.

[LaVarGreen2856]

If you look at the numbers in context Irvins are more impressive. Monk had 817 more yards and 3 more TDs but Monk also played in 65 more games. Probowls, numbers of 1k yard season, YPC, number of times leading his team in recieving all go to irvin. Monk was a great WR but IMO Irvin was better. But again I dont want this thread to turn into a war thats why I was just discussing HOF instead of comparing careers

If you analyse carefully the numbers, Monk had a WAY better career than Irvin... the NFL has become extremely pass-friendly. Remember this, the only receiver before 1994 (or something) to pass the 100 reception mark was Art Monk in 1983!!!! Since 1994 (again) a LOT of players have broken it. Neither Jerry Rice (HOF), Steve Largent(HOF) nor anyone else broke that milestone during the 80's... only Art Monk. He also retired as the all-time leader in receptions.

With that said, I think that Irvin may deserve HOF consideration

[LaVarGreen2856]

And if that is only context you go by I guess I would agree. However, I have additional context I would add.

1. Irvin had the same QB, a HOF QB, his whole career while Monk never had a HOF QB and had upwards of 5 or 6 different guys throwing him the ball.

2. How many 1000yd receivers did Irvin share the ball with while he was there? Monk had Clark around for half of his career and Sanders for several years as well. Had Monk been the primary receiver with the lack of help that Irvin had my guess is he would have significantly greater numbers.

3. The passing rules changed greatly toward the very end of Monk's career and the beginning of Irvin's which benefited the receivers of the 90s greatly. Monk was routinely mugged, legally and illegally, for the first half dozen years of his career including in a Super Bowl against Oakland.

I will not deny that Irvin was pretty good but when you take everything into context, and I do mean everything, Irvin had all the advantages. Monk worked hard for everything he got and was the picture perfect team first guy. The question is not how Irvin's numbers stand up to Monk's but how they stand up to guys like Cris Carter, Jerry Rice and Tim Brown. Those were his real comtemporaries and those are the guys who he should be compared to. Against them, I find him lacking a bit.

Well, and that of course

[jayl1985]

I don't think Irvin should get in before Monk because he wasn't a better player than him. He pushed off to get alot of his catches which means he wasn't really open, but he was a good player.