SkinsFTW Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 WTF? Irvin has been eligible once, and made the final 6 and Emmitt is crying about it. He's not in the HOF yet either so he should STFU in my opinion. If Monk isn't in then what guarantees Emmitt getting in either? LOL. It's not like Irvin ever held a record anyway (other than most times caught toking hard on a crack pipe). http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5305028 "DETROIT (AP) - Emmitt Smith believes Hall of Fame voters are holding Michael Irvin's personal problems against him. And he's incensed by it. Smith, the NFL's career rushing leader and eligible for the Hall in four more years, campaigned vigorously Friday for his former Dallas Cowboys teammate. Irvin is on the ballot for the second time, and election results will be announced Saturday. Smith senses the wide receiver didn't get in last year because of Irvin's off-field trouble. "But you're going to try to bring this personal side of it?" Smith said. "This is what he's done off the field - what has that got to do with what he's done on the football field?" Pounding his finger on a table and emphasizing every single word, Smith made his point. "This is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Life Hall of Fame. His stats are what they are. They are not going to change." "There should be a set criteria in terms of understanding ... what it takes to get to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. If you're an athlete and you've got credentials like Michael Irvin - Pro Bowls, records, Super Bowls, all those things - if you stack up against that, whoever the panel is, somebody needs to sign off on it."" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Michael Irvn, Art Monk and Russ Grimm should all be guys that make the Hall of Fame. They were among the cream of the crop during their respective eras in the NFL. All the political BS from these media nominators is just ridiculous. This should be taken out of the hands of non-football people. They should constitute a committee of veteran ex-NFLers, coaches, GMs and scouts and allow them to vote on the candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 Sure, but Irvin should still get in AFTER Monk. He was good but not as good in a later time when passing was more emphasized and he had the opportunity to do what Monk did in 1984 every year being the only wide out threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 my reason for considering a change in the makeup of the selection committee is in part based on the bias of the media electors towards nominating a glut of quarterbacks, receivers, runners and defensive ends with sacks while totally ignoring the fullbacks, offensive linemen, linebackers, safeties and corners that also help win championships :mad: How else are guys like Russ Grimm ignored for years while you get a James Lofton voted in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Michael Irvn, Art Monk and Russ Grimm should all be guys that make the Hall of Fame. They were among the cream of the crop during their respective eras in the NFL. All the political BS from these media nominators is just ridiculous. This should be taken out of the hands of non-football people. They should constitute a committee of veteran ex-NFLers, coaches, GMs and scouts and allow them to vote on the candidates. I agree with you, but I remember Rozelle talking about the idea with Canton is to reach out to, and connect with, the fan-in-the-streets and not just the pros' opinions. So they think the best way to do that is to let "respected" popular sports writers who have the pulse of the public play the big role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 what is ironic is that the non-football people acting as current voters base their votes largely on things like the number of pro bowls a player makes which are determined by a vote of the players peers at the time :laugh: so much for removing the long arm of the football establishment. what Rozelle lost sight of is that while a guy like Peter King who covered the Giants could mount a campaign against Art Monk, if you had Phil Simms or Harry Carson on the nominating committee I bet Monk would already have been voted in players may be competitive but they respect talent and production even in their rivals. meanwhile we have newspaper and electronic media hacks playing games with these guys' reputations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washskins81 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I agree with you, but I remember Rozelle talking about the idea with Canton is to reach out to, and connect with, the fan-in-the-streets and not just the pros' opinions.So they think the best way to do that is to let "respected" popular sports writers who have the pulse of the public play the big role. I feel your sarcasm on that one, Jumbo. I wish there was a way to incorporate an election style to it, where the HOF voters would sort of be like the electoral college and the fans could vote and make a difference. But, wishing is one thing, actually thinking that that might work is something totally different, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeZee Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Emmitt Smith looks like the butler "Jeffory" from the Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Rumor has it a kicker will be going in this year. I really feel this is THE most underrated position in football. Irvin deserves to be in, that's for sure. It's tough being a coke head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Yo Emmit............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Sure, but Irvin should still get in AFTER Monk. He was good but not as good in a later time when passing was more emphasized and he had the opportunity to do what Monk did in 1984 every year being the only wide out threat. Your crazy. Irvin was WAAAAAY more dominant than Monk. Monk was a very good wr, in a complex offense. Irivin was dominant in an offense where everyone knew where the ball was going but couldn't stop it. If Irvins career wasn't cut short by Spinal stenosis, his numbers would have dwarfed Monk's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpoch Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Your crazy. Irivin was dominant in an offense where everyone knew where the ball was going but couldn't stop it. Kinda like every 3rd and 7 Monk converted for 1st down. Everybody knew where it was going, yet, they couldn't stop Monk either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Your crazy.Irvin was WAAAAAY more dominant than Monk. Monk was a very good wr, in a complex offense. Irivin was dominant in an offense where everyone knew where the ball was going but couldn't stop it. If Irvins career wasn't cut short by Spinal stenosis, his numbers would have dwarfed Monk's. art monk was better than mike"it wasnt my crackpipe"irvin,has irvin ever been on a team where the other 2 WR's both had 1,000 yars receiving? no he hasnt that is what makes monk special,plus,art monk didnt need cocaine to hype him up in sundays.:dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 art monk was better than mike"it wasnt my crackpipe"irvin,has irvin ever been on a team where the other 2 WR's both had 1,000 yars receiving? no he hasnt that is what makes monk special,plus,art monk didnt need cocaine to hype him up in sundays.:dallasuck Great, so your admitting Monk never faced triple coverage. At least we agree who was the more dominant player. BTW, did Monk ever play with the NFL rushing leader? That eats up more stats because it also shortens the game. I don't know a GM in the league (if i knew one), taking character out of the equation, who would take Monk over Irvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Great, so your admitting Monk never faced triple coverage.At least we agree who was the more dominant player. BTW, did Monk ever play with the NFL rushing leader? That eats up more stats because it also shortens the game. I don't know a GM in the league (if i knew one), taking character out of the equation, who would take Monk over Irvin. ken,u misquoted me,1 yr monk,clark,and sanders all had 1,000 yards receiving,you seem to 4get that had jimmy johnson not did that 15 draft picks trade for walker to vikings,irivin would be average at best.i want mike in.................NOT B/C HE DESERVES IT,BUT B/C IT WILL BE A TRIBUTE TO TOM LANDRY WHO DRAFTED HIM.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinzFan007 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Emmitt, I really care what you have to say and I'm glad that you are bringing this up. Your opinions really matter...wait a sec...I changed my mind. Instead, why dont you: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 send Irvin to the HOF after he dies, which might not be long considering he's a "rock star" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Your crazy.Irvin was WAAAAAY more dominant than Monk. Monk was a very good wr, in a complex offense. Irivin was dominant in an offense where everyone knew where the ball was going but couldn't stop it. If Irvins career wasn't cut short by Spinal stenosis, his numbers would have dwarfed Monk's. Waaaaay more dominant than Monk? Man what are you smoking ?:whippin: :bsflag: You're entitled to your opinion but you talk like Monk was some average joe. I'll say it again, Monk finished #1 all time when he left the game period. That within itself is enough. I don't use Championships when judging individuals but the powers that be do. Monk has 3 rings also. Whats the problem? And Monk was just was good as Irvin. He just didn't get up and shake his tail when he produced on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor ToughLove Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Waaaaay more dominant than Monk? Man what are you smoking ?:whippin: :bsflag: You're entitled to your opinion but you talk like Monk was some average joe. I'll say it again, Monk finished #1 all time when he left the game period. That within itself is enough. I don't use Championships when judging individuals but the powers that be do. Monk has 3 rings also. Whats the problem? And Monk was just was good as Irvin. He just didn't get up and shake his tail when he produced on the field. :applause: I'll second that. Monk played in an era where the rules only allowed a NFL recieving record just over a 100. Irvin was the the benifactor of the new pass friendly NFL rules that allowed that record to be broken a fistful of times by inferior WRs. And still Monk eclipses Irvin in every stat. It's no contest, Monk was superior to Irvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 :applause: I'll second that. Monk played in an era where the rules only allowed a NFL recieving record just over a 100. Irvin was the the benifactor of the new pass friendly NFL rules that allowed that record to be broken a fistful of times by inferior WRs. And still Monk eclipses Irvin in every stat. It's no contest, Monk was superior to Irvin. Man that is a fact that I bring up to these new school cats all the time. You can't get physical with these WR's now. :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboySlayer Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Your crazy.Irvin was WAAAAAY more dominant than Monk. Monk was a very good wr, in a complex offense. Irivin was dominant in an offense where everyone knew where the ball was going but couldn't stop it. If Irvins career wasn't cut short by Spinal stenosis, his numbers would have dwarfed Monk's. it's official, you've completely lost your mind. you're forgetting one thing - monk also played in a system that was all about running the ball and chewing up the clock. he also played against far better defenses than irvin ever did. and a major thing is he played with other great wideouts, he was not the only one as so many people think. let me ask you, what distinction does michael irvin have, other than being a total jerkoff? oh, that's right, he likes to rape underage prostitutes and smoke crack. good man, really deserves to be in. and call me crazy, but other than his sb rings, give me one valid reason he deserves to go in. and this coulda woulda shoulda crap is irrelevant. monk was a better receiver PERIOD. theoretically, if monk had played for 40 years, he wouldve had 2,000+ catches. but get real, the hof is based on what you did, not what you coulda done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFan63 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Man that is a fact that I bring up to these new school cats all the time. You't get physical with these WR's now. :dallasuck Exactly. Monk wins hands down. Period. Hail!:point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 it's official, you've completely lost your mind. you're forgetting one thing - monk also played in a system that was all about running the ball and chewing up the clock. he also played against far better defenses than irvin ever did. and a major thing is he played with other great wideouts, he was not the only one as so many people think. let me ask you, what distinction does michael irvin have, other than being a total jerkoff? oh, that's right, he likes to rape underage prostitutes and smoke crack. good man, really deserves to be in. and call me crazy, but other than his sb rings, give me one valid reason he deserves to go in. and this coulda woulda shoulda crap is irrelevant. monk was a better receiver PERIOD. theoretically, if monk had played for 40 years, he wouldve had 2,000+ catches. but get real, the hof is based on what you did, not what you coulda done. Ok, You guys are seriously delusional. Like Irvin didn't have a pro-bowl TE who ate up catches??? Like Moose didn't catch 50 and Emmitt 50, like in 93? Irvin gave up many a red zone score to the man who is second only to the G.O.A.T. 5 pro bowls to 3. Irvin. Monk- Pedestrian 13.5 ypc to Irvin's 15.9 Monk never came close to a 1600 yard season. Monk only had 5 1000 yard seasons in 14. Irvin had 7 in not even eleven. Talk number all you want, but Monk played 224 games to Irvins 159 and still only had 3 more td's in his career. and not even a 1000 more yards receiving. Number of Times top 10 in league during career..... Monk Receptions- 4 Yards- 3 TD- 1 Yards from Scrim- 0 Irvin- Receptions- 4 Yards- 6 Td- 5 Yards from Scrim- 4 Don't even mention the fact that Irvin's post season numbers for 16 total games are better than any season Monk had..... Total 87 1315 15.1 8 Say all you want about time period played, those number of times top 10 are irrefutable. Monk wasn't even dominant during his time playing in comparison to his peers. I repeat.... Only a complete bafoon would say that Monk was more dominant that Irvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboySlayer Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Ok,You guys are seriously delusional. Like Irvin didn't have a pro-bowl TE who ate up catches??? Like Moose didn't catch 50 and Emmitt 50, like in 93? Irvin gave up many a red zone score to the man who is second only to the G.O.A.T. 5 pro bowls to 3. Irvin. Monk- Pedestrian 13.5 ypc to Irvin's 15.9 Monk never came close to a 1600 yard season. Monk only had 5 1000 yard seasons in 14. Irvin had 7 in not even eleven. Talk number all you want, but Monk played 224 games to Irvins 159 and still only had 3 more td's in his career. and not even a 1000 more yards receiving. Number of Times top 10 in league during career..... Monk Receptions- 4 Yards- 3 TD- 1 Yards from Scrim- 0 Irvin- Receptions- 4 Yards- 6 Td- 5 Yards from Scrim- 4 Say all you want about time period played, those number of times top 10 are irrefutable. Monk wasn't even dominant during his time playing in comparison to his peers. I repeat.... Only a complete bafoon would say that Monk was more dominant that Irvin. and only a complete baffoon would even argue irvins place in the same class as monk. irvin is good at one thing - bangin hookers and lightin rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 This argument is likely pointless given the bias residing in opposing sides. Discussing the defenses they played against in diffrent eras isn't going to convince anyone of anything. Monk and Irvin were very different WRs. Different roles on different teams. It's difficult to compare them because it's hardly an apples to apples comparison. I will say this: - If I had to pick (based on skills alone, no off-field stuff) between the two of them for ONE game ... I probably take Irvin. - If I had to have a guy for a season, that's a tough choice. You could make a valid case for either. If I was picking between the two to have one for a career ... I take Monk in a hearbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.