JPM285181 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 91 he was one of 3 recievers on 1 team to have over 100 yards. The hall of Fame isn't necessarily about dominating. Was Steve Largent dominating? Greatness comes out of consitency. Irvin had 1 great year if you want to get into it. Pro bowls mean squat. It's a popularity contest. John Riggins went to pro bowl. Here are big catches for you. Chicago 1986 divisional playoffs, DALLAS 84 at your place. St louis 84 to clinch the division (down the sidelines), 113 yds in a superbowl. He played in 2 strike years with almost 10 different qbs. San Francisco 49ers caught 10 passes for 200 yards. hmm thats not 12.9 to me. YOU IDIOT, HIS ROLE WAS TO BE A POSSESSION RECIEVER. He could stretch the field if needed. I saw it with my own eyes. Against Atlanta 91 56 yard reception nearly 200 yards. His consecutive games with a reception streak extended to 183 games. The night theismann broke his leg. Boom first play down the sideline a 45 yard catch to set up the game winning TD. I can keep going. He was the best blocking reciever of his era too. Not that I value your opinion, its biased. These guys opinion I do value. One is your head coach! Ronnie Lott, HOF inductee "Art Monk was an example for Jerry Rice. That's what Jerry always told me." "There's nothing negative to say. He has the numbers, the catches, the championships." "You have a Hall of Fame for all it represents. I know he represents all that it's about. Integrity, love and passion for the game, community, what he gave back. Look how he conducted himself. Nobody I know deserves it more." Bill Parcells, 1995 "Monk is headed to Canton downhill on roller skates" Bill Polian, President Indianapolis Colts "I believe he's a Hall of Famer. I was a pro scout when he was playing, so it was my job to know who those guys were. I would put Art in that category, but apparently there are a lot of Hall of Fame voters who don't feel Art Monk was in that category. It's hard for me to believe they ever saw him play." I have never said Irvin should not be in. Quite the contrary. But don't discount greatness. You would wake up in the morning and say I don't remember to catches. 5 of which were for first downs late in a game. I don't remember him dropping a ball. Greatness isn't measured by the noise you make doing it. Greatness is making noise while the volume is on Mute. Great, go honor Irvin, but do not disrespect some who allowed Michael Irvin to make a racket! Man you brought tears to my eyes!!! Thank you brother!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbrittain Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Hey Ken I dont want to argue with you because I believe Irvin should get into the HOF. I equally believe that Monk should be it is not a either or situation. I think instead of comparing the 2 that everyone needs to look at some of the receivers that are already in and compare their stats to BOTH Irvin and Monk. I think you will find both Monk and Irvin are better than many who are already in. Also please remember Monk had 2 seasons shortened by the strikes(14 total games). Monk and Irvin both were surrounded by great teams so lets lose that angle. If you ask coaches,GM's, and players from each players era I guarantee they will all concede that BOTH receivers had to be accounted for and our deserving of HOF election. Dude, where did you get your common sense? I am being serious not sarcastic, because you are dead on. People like to say Irvin had this or Monk had that. Bottom line is if you put Monk in Dallas and Irvin and Washington they both put up great numbers and end up deserving the HOF. I am tired of people trying to degrade one of those WRs in order to lift up the other. If that is necessary, then evidently the WR you are trying to build up was not all that great to begin with, since you are having to tear down another WR just to make yours look good. They were both great. They both had HOF careers. One day they will both be in the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 One game I can point to for Irvin that trumps anything Monk did was in the 94 championship game against Deion Sanders, in his prime, he caught 12 for 192 and two tds. Would have had a 3rd for the win, but Deion pass interfered with him and got a no call. Interesting how at one point you say "One season does not a better player make" and then you decide to highlight one game to point to how good Irvin was. I mean, yes, Deion was amazing in his prime, but dude. Come on man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPM285181 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Interesting how at one point you say "One season does not a better player make" and then you decide to highlight one game to point to how good Irvin was.I mean, yes, Deion was amazing in his prime, but dude. Come on man. Personally I think Deon was overrated. He was very dangerous because of his quickness but he also made a lot of breaks on the ball trying to make int's and got burned because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 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 Emmit 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. . Whose record did Smith break for TD's.... hmmmmm oh yeah John Riggins Not to mention after Riggins, The Skins used Riggs, and Ernest Byner in that role. 5 pro bowls to 3. Irvin.. popularity contest, at best. 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. You miss the point, the Skins didn't use the TE like the cowboys did, Monk was the man going over the middle getting the First downs, keeping drives alive, and when the defense tried to take away the deep threat of Clark, or Brown.... Monk would burn them deep. Plus he NEVER had to push off to get separation. Also Irvin had a HOF QB throwing him the ball during his entire career, and was Aikmans favorite target. Monk played with 6 different good starting QBs during those years. Talk number all you want, but Monk played 224 games to Irvin's 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 Monk Seasons among the league's top 10 Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t Receiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10 Receiving TDs: 1991-9t Among the league's all-time top 50 Receptions: 5 Receiving yards: 9 Receiving TDs: 29t Yards from scrimmage: 27 Irvin's Seasons among the league's top 10 Receptions: 1991-2, 1992-7, 1993-3, 1995-5 Receiving yards: 1991-1, 1992-2, 1993-2, 1994-8, 1995-4, 1997-8t Receiving TDs: 1991-9t, 1992-8t, 1993-9t, 1995-10t, 1997-6t Yards from scrimmage: 1991-4, 1992-10, 1993-8, 1995-9 Among the league's all-time top 50 Receptions: 18t Receiving yards: 14 Receiving TDs: 35t Yards from scrimmage: 38 looks a little different when you show all the facts don't it 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 Irvin played in more playoff games, and Monk was injured twice during the playoffs. 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. The Buffoon is you, when you show the top ten stuff in detail, Monks numbers are more impressive, and smashes Irvin in the top 50 category, for career Saying Monk wasn't a dominant WR during his career is like saying Emmit Smith wasn't a dominate RB during his career... The both define workman like blue collar players, that did the dirty work, without the flash. Monk retired the all time leader in almost every important receiving category, Still considered by many as the best blocking WR ever, and Never had to push off to get separation. Plus he is only 1 of 5 Redskins that played in all of Joe Gibbs 4 Super bowls. Showing clearly his was one of the few irreplaceable keys to the Teams success. You could have put a dozen of the better receivers of the day in the Cowboys offense during those years and duplicated Irvin's impact, but for Monks all around talents, and selflessness to win for the team, no one could have replaced his or the Redskins success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 did monk need crack cocaine to hype him up on sundays? no he didnt.and mike had that spinal condition all along,he's just lucky he didnt get paralyzed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyf316 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 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. If you have to take character out of the equation, you're admitting that Monk is more appropriate for the hall. That's the equivlent of handicapping the bet to make it more even in Irvin's favor. If you can take out character, I'll add in durability, in Monk's favor, and unlevel the playing field again. That's not the way to make a point, though. Irvin was a very good receiver in his era, but he wasn't the best. It is likely that Jerry Rice holds that distinction. Monk was a very good receiver in his era, but he wasn't the best. It is debatable who holds that slot, as most will say that Monk wasn't the best receiver on the Skins at the time. Neither of their status is reason to disregard them for Canton. Everybody who compares Monk to Irvin fails to take into account the different period of time that each did the brunt of their playing in. If you were to compare those types of stats, Monk went out with the most receptions ever at the time. Irvin didn't. Case closed. But that's not fair to either of them. If you're going by numbers alone, nobody from before 1970 would even have a shot at the hall. It was a different game back then, just like it was different in the 80s, and different even in the 90s than it is today. The point of the hall is supposed to be recognizing people for their accomplishments at the time of accomplishment, not comparing them to current day stats. That is the major complaint that people have about the Kings and Zzzzzzs of the journalism world: they put their personal bias on voting, which is wrong all the way around. The entire point is that during his career on the field, Monk performed in a manner consistent with those who entered Canton. During Irvin's career on the field, he performed in a manner consistent with those who entered Canton. The petty nature of a few ignorant men has caused honors for both these men to be delayed more than the general public believes they should have been. Instead of fighting over who is better, why not fight to change the voting procedures to make them more fair to those who deserve to be honored for their performances? I look at this year's list and wonder if Reggie White would be getting in if would not have died this year and been so fresh in everyone's mind. I wonder why Derrick Thomas from the Chiefs, a 9 time pro bowl selection in 10 years, who was killed in a car accident in the prime of his career, was not selected. I wonder why coaches like Madden take up one of the six slots for the hall, instead of having a separate ballot for coaches and allowing 6 players to be voted on. And I wonder why we can't focus on getting a bunch of out of touch, self-important writers out of position to make decisions for the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 "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......... - 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."" Sounds like the shoe fits Art Monk too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Sounds like the shoe fits Art Monk too. Amen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Whose record did Smith break for TD's.... hmmmmm oh yeah John Riggins Not to mention after Riggins, The Skins used Riggs, and Ernest Byner in that role. popularity contest, at best. You miss the point, the Skins didn't use the TE like the cowboys did, Monk was the man going over the middle getting the First downs, keeping drives alive, and when the defense tried to take away the deep threat of Clark, or Brown.... Monk would burn them deep. Plus he NEVER had to push off to get separation. Also Irvin had a HOF QB throwing him the ball during his entire career, and was Aikmans favorite target. Monk played with 6 different good starting QBs during those years. Monk Seasons among the league's top 10 Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t Receiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10 Receiving TDs: 1991-9t Among the league's all-time top 50 Receptions: 5 Receiving yards: 9 Receiving TDs: 29t Yards from scrimmage: 27 Irvin's Seasons among the league's top 10 Receptions: 1991-2, 1992-7, 1993-3, 1995-5 Receiving yards: 1991-1, 1992-2, 1993-2, 1994-8, 1995-4, 1997-8t Receiving TDs: 1991-9t, 1992-8t, 1993-9t, 1995-10t, 1997-6t Yards from scrimmage: 1991-4, 1992-10, 1993-8, 1995-9 Among the league's all-time top 50 Receptions: 18t Receiving yards: 14 Receiving TDs: 35t Yards from scrimmage: 38 looks a little different when you show all the facts don't it Irvin played in more playoff games, and Monk was injured twice during the playoffs. The Buffoon is you, when you show the top ten stuff in detail, Monks numbers are more impressive, and smashes Irvin in the top 50 category, for career Saying Monk wasn't a dominant WR during his career is like saying Emmit Smith wasn't a dominate RB during his career... The both define workman like blue collar players, that did the dirty work, without the flash. Monk retired the all time leader in almost every important receiving category, Still considered by many as the best blocking WR ever, and Never had to push off to get separation. Plus he is only 1 of 5 Redskins that played in all of Joe Gibbs 4 Super bowls. Showing clearly his was one of the few irreplaceable keys to the Teams success. You could have put a dozen of the better receivers of the day in the Cowboys offense during those years and duplicated Irvin's impact, but for Monks all around talents, and selflessness to win for the team, no one could have replaced his or the Redskins success. His numbers are barely better, with 60 more games than Irvin. His receptions are better, but Less than 1,000 yards receiving seperate the two and only 3 tds. I have to believe if Irvin even finished his last season, TDs would have been passed as well. Obviously his top 50 numbers are better. I was trying to compare when they played to the players they played with. How did they rank? That is what I was getting at. Emmitt Smith is the all time leading rusher and has a lot of other impressive stats that are better than Jim Browns. I don't know too many people who think Emmitt is better than Jim Brown as a result. To me, it is the same thing with Monk and Irvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 His numbers are barely better, with 60 more games than Irvin. His receptions are better, but Less than 1,000 yards receiving seperate the two and only 3 tds. I have to believe if Irvin even finished his last season, TDs would have been passed as well. Obviously his top 50 numbers are better. I was trying to compare when they played to the players they played with. How did they rank? That is what I was getting at. Emmitt Smith is the all time leading rusher and has a lot of other impressive stats that are better than Jim Browns. I don't know too many people who think Emmitt is better than Jim Brown as a result. To me, it is the same thing with Monk and Irvin. jim brown retired in his prime,he was 29 when he retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconBlue Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 To me, it is the same thing with Monk and Irvin. YOU ARE ALONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefPowhatan17 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 If the League knows what's good for it, Irving will never get in the Hall. He really isn't the type of person that should be rewarded. I think there should be integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 His numbers are barely better,........ If (one of your favorite words in the comparisions) two teams played a game, and one team won 3-2....after they had missed a field goal.....and got a defensive penalty....and got to kick again and made it....after time expired....they were better......barely. The head to head numbers are there to prove it. Want to play "IF?" What if Joe Gibbs had stuck around? How much more productive would Monk have been then? What if Michael Irvin had had his career-ending injury four season before he actually did? What if Art Monk had played in the dink and dunk West Coast offense that Jerry Rice did? You can play "What If?" all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redmustangpony Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I cant even believe that this is taking place.Both Grimm and Monk belong in the HOF.whoever says irivin deserves it more than these two are full of crap.Once again the voters have showed that they dont know s**t about football or what the HOF means and for that i give them a big F.U Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.