Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Dr. Z's explanation of Monk


SMOSS89

Recommended Posts

dont know if anyone posted this already but

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/02/04/hof.qa/1.html

SI.com: What about Art Monk?

Dr. Z: The negative is that when you played the Redskins, you didn't say, "How can I stop Art Monk?" He wasn't a focal figure. The positive about Monk: All he did was help the team win. He was a good, sturdy team guy. But that wasn't enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont know if anyone posted this already but

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/02/04/hof.qa/1.html

SI.com: What about Art Monk?

Dr. Z: The negative is that when you played the Redskins, you didn't say, "How can I stop Art Monk?" He wasn't a focal figure. The positive about Monk: All he did was help the team win. He was a good, sturdy team guy. But that wasn't enough.

you could say that about every offensive lineman in the hall of fame..

monk made every one around him better. i think what hurt him was A. he never cared to massage the press or go on tv as a commentator B. he never had really great post season stats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GibbSkins11
dont know if anyone posted this already but

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/02/04/hof.qa/1.html

SI.com: What about Art Monk?

Dr. Z: The negative is that when you played the Redskins, you didn't say, "How can I stop Art Monk?" He wasn't a focal figure. The positive about Monk: All he did was help the team win. He was a good, sturdy team guy. But that wasn't enough.

this more and more seems like a sports illustrated type of problem , what did art monk turn them down on a cover or something :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont know if anyone posted this already but

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/02/04/hof.qa/1.html

SI.com: What about Art Monk?

Dr. Z: The negative is that when you played the Redskins, you didn't say, "How can I stop Art Monk?" He wasn't a focal figure. The positive about Monk: All he did was help the team win. He was a good, sturdy team guy. But that wasn't enough.

What a piece of Sh??t. Like people were in the trenches saying how do we prepare for Ray Guy. How does he know what people are saying. Dr. Z owes his brain dead life to morons who will buy a brain dead magazine, that he reports too. This guy is too stupid to flip a hamburger at McDonalds; this is white upper middle class welfare pure and simple. What a moron.

I think I am being to easy on the guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the year Art caught over 100 passes (first receiver to ever break that barrier by the way and even in today's pass happy NFL, it's a pretty big milestone) no one gameplanned for him. I guess when he was catching 100 balls because every other receiver fell down with injuries people decided to cover the right guard in passing situations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stats don't lie. and Stats aren't misleading when your talking about a span of years he put up terrific numbers. It's crap. I won't even worry about it anymore, because this is no HoF without Monk in it.

you are Right! stats dont lie . How does Dr Z Sleep at night ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont know if anyone posted this already but

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/02/04/hof.qa/1.html

SI.com: What about Art Monk?

Dr. Z: The negative is that when you played the Redskins, you didn't say, "How can I stop Art Monk?"

The only reason they didn't say that was because you couldn't. Everybody knew where the ball was going on 3rd down, and they still couldn't stop him. All Monk did was move the chains! A friend of mine who is a Cowboy fan said he use to cuss Monk all the time because of his 3rd down conversion percentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the media glorifies individual domination. When Kobe Bryant was winning titles with Shaq he was seen as overrated. Now he is losing to the Bobcats and scoring 81 points vs the Raptors and he is the greatest player of all time. If Art Monk had no other recievers and put up silly stats he would be a first ballot guy. Winning does not matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, Art Monk is akin to Pete Rose (no, not regarding gambling - ignore that aspect of Rose) who is undeniably a baseball Hall of Famer. Monk, like Rose, ended his career with the most ever of what he did - receptions.

Both had long careers which helped those numbers of course (how would you get any all time mark without being able to play for very long?) but they also were guys whose careers were marked by effort and by making others on their team better - by putting their teams in position to win, championship teams.

To argue that that's somehow secondary to a guy like Riggins who clearly was the focal point of the offense displays ignorance of those Redskins teams. Riggins couldn't run the ball 60 times per game, and you can be damn sure that on third and long, Riggins was not a good option to get you a first down. Somebody had to do it. Monk did. The fact that he also was the first ever receiver over 100 catches in a season and also finished his career with the longest-ever NFL consecutive game streak with a reception only highlights those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...