monk should go BUT

[Larry Gude]

The are NO "buts" for discussing Monk's HOF qualifications. As has been discussed before, no other player retired with the trifecta of 1) most catches in a single season 2) most career receptions 3) most consecutive games catching a pass.

Today's receivers have it easier. Take a look at the highlights of Super Bowl XVIII and watch how Monk was mugged on almost EVERY play. By today's rules, Mike Haynes and Lester Hayes would have been called for over 20 holding or illegal contact penalties.

When you add a "but" when discussing Monk's HOF worthiness, you are only showing yours.

This is simple! Art Monk is everything you think of in a HOF type player; Consistent excellence, longevity, professionalism.

There is no argument against his place in the history of the game that makes ANY sense.

No 'signature' plays? Then explain Eric Dickerson.

Gotta have played in BIG games? Art did. Earl Campbell didn't.

Lofton, Charlie Taylor, Warfield, Stallworth, Belitnikoff...Monk.

Simple.

[frommd]

Monk just isn't one of those flashy guys, nor does he have crazy stats.

Agree he wasn't flashy.

The other part of this is just ridiculous. He retired as the all-time leader in receptions in NFL history. Yes, Rice and a couple others have passed him since then. He also, at one point, had the NFL record for consecutive weeks with at least one catch. Also, at one point the NFL record for most catches in one season. Those are crazy stats. PUT MONK IN!!!!!

[shawn]

just a simple comparison because Irvin didn't get into HOF.

CAREER TOTALS

Art Monk, played in 224 games. He caught 940 passes for 12,721 yards and 68 touchdowns.

Irvin played in 159 games, and had 750 receptions for 11,904 yards and 65 touchdowns.

This means that Art Monk played in 65 more games than Michael Irvin, yet he only had 817 more yards, and 3 more td’s. 65 games is the equivalent to about 4 NFL seasons. It would be safe to assume that if Irvin played four more seasons he would easily be able to make up this ground.

1000 YARD SEASONS

Art Monk played 16 seasons in the NFL, while Michael Irvin only played 12 seasons. Art Monk reached the 1000 yards in 5 of those seasons: 1984(1372 yards), 1985(1226 yards), 1986 (1068 yards), 1989(1186 yards), and 1991(1049 yards).

Meanwhile, Michael Irvin played in 12 seasons in the NFL and broke the 1000 yard mark 7 times: 1991(1523 yards), 1992(1396 yards), 1993(1330 yards), 1994(1241 yards), 1995(1603 yards), 1997(1180 yards), and 1998(1057 yards). As you can see this includes a stretch of 5 straight seasons(1991-1995) where Irvin not only had 1000 yards, but had over 1200 yards in each season. Monk only had two seasons(1984 and 1985) where he had more than 1200 yards.

PRO-BOWLS

In 16 NFL seasons, Art Monk was elected to the Pro-Bowl only three times (1984, 1985, and 1986). Meanwhile, In 12 seasons, Michael Irvin was elected to the Pro-Bowl 5 times (1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995).

POSTSEASON STATS

Art Monk played in 15 post season games and recorded 69 catches for 1062 yards and 7 td’s. Meanwhile, Michael Irvin played in 16 postseason games and had 87 catches for 1314 yards and 8 td’s.

MONK vs. IRVIN: SUPER BOWL YEARS

An argument is frequently raised about Art Monk is that he has been in just as many Super Bowls as Michael Irvin. Art Monk did play in three Super Bowls. Monk was on the 1983 Redskins team that lost to the Raiders, the 1987 Redskins team that beat the Broncos, and the 1991 team that beat the Bills. In all three of those years, Art Monk was not the leading receiver on his own team. In 1983, Monk 746 yards and 5 td’s, while the leading receiver on the Redskins was Charlie Brown who had 1225 yards and 8 td’s. In 1987, Monk had 423 yards and 6td’s for the season, while the leading receiver for the Redskins was Gary Clark who had 1066 yards and 7 td’s. In 1991, Monk had the best of his Super Bowl years. He had 1049 yards and 8td’s, however the leading receiver on the Redskins was Gary Clark again who had 1340 yards and 10’tds.

Let’s compare these numbers to Michael Irvin in his Super Bowl years with the Dallas Cowboys. Michael Irvin was in three Super bowls, 1992 and 1993 against the Buffalo Bills, and 1995 against the Pittsburgh Steelers. In 1992 Irvin posted 1396 yards and 7td’s. Alvin Harper was second on the team that year with 562 yards and 4 td’s. In 1993, Irvin posted 1330 yards and 7td’s. Again, Alvin Harper was second on the team with 777 yards and 5td’s. In 1995, Irvin has the best season of his career putting up 1603 yards and 10td’s. Also, in the 1995 season Irvin had 111 total receptions, a number that Monk never came close to in one season. Furthermore, in 1995 Irvin and went over the 100 yard mark in 11 games. That year, the second leading receiver for the Dallas Cowboys was Kevin Williams who had 618 yard receiving and 2 td’s.

In conclusion, when comparing the statistics of the Super Bowl years of both Monk and Irvin it is clear that that Monk was the #2 receiver on his team while Michael Irvin was the undisputed #1 receiver on his team. Also, Michael Irvin had more of an impact to his team’s success in each of these three years the most notable of which in 1995 where he had his best year in the NFL. The numbers speak for themselves, Monk was not even the best receiver on his team during those years while Michael Irvin was an elite player who was essential to the success of his team.

its not just about the total numbers you accumulate over the years, but the impact you have on the game during the time you played. Monk a great great character. a consumate team player. he was a good but not great. He was clearly the #2 WR on his team. I don't think any opposing defenses ever game planned around monk, but they certainly did game plan for Clark and others.

[Larry Gude]

It would be safe to assume that if Irvin played four more seasons he would easily be able to make up this ground.

Yeah, safe to assume BUT he did NOT play four more years. Are you also going to just grant Monk four more years and assume his stats as well?

Irvin has a body of work to be judged by and so does Monk.

Both of them, to me, are Hall of Fame material, Monk more so because of the time period he played in. He stood out that much more in his hey day.

[ouvan59]

Monk just isn't one of those flashy guys, nor does he have crazy stats. What he did was bring an INCREDIBLY polished, methodical, and consistent game week in and week out. He was a 3rd down sniper to boot. What he did for the this organization was tremendous. When you step back and take a league perspective, however, it does dimish somewhat.

I think he deserves to go and will be in the Hall one of these years. But I'm not scratching my head wondering why he isn't in already.

Monk did have crazy stats for his day. When he played his last game for the Redskins he held the NFL record for most career receptions, the NFL record for most consecutive games with a catch and the NFL record for most receptions in a season. He wasn't a home run hitter but so the F what. He was a great possession receiver that enabled the Skins to win 3 Super Bowls and get to another during his playing days. The problem is that the game changed in the early 90s and 100 catch seasons became commonplace and everybody has forgotten that his reception numbers were great in the 80s.

What Monk didn't have a was a crazy media persona that made people remember him after his playing days were over. The media always writes that they think that players should just go out and let their play do the talking but in the end they punish them for not making the media's job easier.

If anything Aikman is the Monk of QBs. He was a smart, workman-like QB that wasn't flashy but got the job done. The difference is that he was smooth in front of the cameras and has kept up his persona after his playing days ended.

Art Monk should be the poster child for the Hall of Fame. He was a great player who exuded class in everything he did.

[Brianbien83]

Monk's career was winding down when Irvin had his big years. Which happen to coincide with the time period where receivers began to be treated like quarterbacks. Just because it was legal for Monk to get mauled on his way down the field for most of his career doesn't mean he should be penalized for it.

[shawn]

Yeah, safe to assume BUT he did NOT play four more years. Are you also going to just grant Monk four more years and assume his stats as well?

Irvin has a body of work to be judged by and so does Monk.

Both of them, to me, are Hall of Fame material, Monk more so because of the time period he played in. He stood out that much more in his hey day.

exactly. judged by the body of work. can't disagree with that. but if a player plays so many years and accumulates stats, doesn't mean he is deserving of the HOF unless longevity is a consideration. Then should Doug Flutie be considered as well?

Its the impact you have on the game during the time you play. Art Monk was clearly a #2 WR on his teams. That is his body of work. Again, he is a great person, great character, played with the redskins for many years and was a consumate team player. I can name a 1000 other players with the same accolades. If he couldn't be the #1 WR on his team, and not even be close to a #1 WR on his own teams, based on the stats alone then he doesn't deserve the HOF.

[Chachie]

Art Monk was a Hall of Fame-caliber player. He deserves to be there as much as any WR in history. When a player holds the record for most career receptions, even if only for a season, he belongs in the HOF.

Also- what makes a "game changer?" If you catch a go-ahead TD in the 3rd quarter, doesn't that "change" the game? If you make a first down catch late in the 4th that allows your team to score on that drive, doesn't that "change" the game? I'm sure Art Monk did these things and many more, "changing" alot of games along the way thru his career.

[flave1969]

just a simple comparison because Irvin didn't get into HOF.

CAREER TOTALS

Art Monk, played in 224 games. He caught 940 passes for 12,721 yards and 68 touchdowns.

Irvin played in 159 games, and had 750 receptions for 11,904 yards and 65 touchdowns.

This means that Art Monk played in 65 more games than Michael Irvin, yet he only had 817 more yards, and 3 more td’s. 65 games is the equivalent to about 4 NFL seasons. It would be safe to assume that if Irvin played four more seasons he would easily be able to make up this ground.

1000 YARD SEASONS

Art Monk played 16 seasons in the NFL, while Michael Irvin only played 12 seasons. Art Monk reached the 1000 yards in 5 of those seasons: 1984(1372 yards), 1985(1226 yards), 1986 (1068 yards), 1989(1186 yards), and 1991(1049 yards).

Meanwhile, Michael Irvin played in 12 seasons in the NFL and broke the 1000 yard mark 7 times: 1991(1523 yards), 1992(1396 yards), 1993(1330 yards), 1994(1241 yards), 1995(1603 yards), 1997(1180 yards), and 1998(1057 yards). As you can see this includes a stretch of 5 straight seasons(1991-1995) where Irvin not only had 1000 yards, but had over 1200 yards in each season. Monk only had two seasons(1984 and 1985) where he had more than 1200 yards.

PRO-BOWLS

In 16 NFL seasons, Art Monk was elected to the Pro-Bowl only three times (1984, 1985, and 1986). Meanwhile, In 12 seasons, Michael Irvin was elected to the Pro-Bowl 5 times (1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995).

POSTSEASON STATS

Art Monk played in 15 post season games and recorded 69 catches for 1062 yards and 7 td’s. Meanwhile, Michael Irvin played in 16 postseason games and had 87 catches for 1314 yards and 8 td’s.

MONK vs. IRVIN: SUPER BOWL YEARS

An argument is frequently raised about Art Monk is that he has been in just as many Super Bowls as Michael Irvin. Art Monk did play in three Super Bowls. Monk was on the 1983 Redskins team that lost to the Raiders, the 1987 Redskins team that beat the Broncos, and the 1991 team that beat the Bills. In all three of those years, Art Monk was not the leading receiver on his own team. In 1983, Monk 746 yards and 5 td’s, while the leading receiver on the Redskins was Charlie Brown who had 1225 yards and 8 td’s. In 1987, Monk had 423 yards and 6td’s for the season, while the leading receiver for the Redskins was Gary Clark who had 1066 yards and 7 td’s. In 1991, Monk had the best of his Super Bowl years. He had 1049 yards and 8td’s, however the leading receiver on the Redskins was Gary Clark again who had 1340 yards and 10’tds.

Let’s compare these numbers to Michael Irvin in his Super Bowl years with the Dallas Cowboys. Michael Irvin was in three Super bowls, 1992 and 1993 against the Buffalo Bills, and 1995 against the Pittsburgh Steelers. In 1992 Irvin posted 1396 yards and 7td’s. Alvin Harper was second on the team that year with 562 yards and 4 td’s. In 1993, Irvin posted 1330 yards and 7td’s. Again, Alvin Harper was second on the team with 777 yards and 5td’s. In 1995, Irvin has the best season of his career putting up 1603 yards and 10td’s. Also, in the 1995 season Irvin had 111 total receptions, a number that Monk never came close to in one season. Furthermore, in 1995 Irvin and went over the 100 yard mark in 11 games. That year, the second leading receiver for the Dallas Cowboys was Kevin Williams who had 618 yard receiving and 2 td’s.

In conclusion, when comparing the statistics of the Super Bowl years of both Monk and Irvin it is clear that that Monk was the #2 receiver on his team while Michael Irvin was the undisputed #1 receiver on his team. Also, Michael Irvin had more of an impact to his team’s success in each of these three years the most notable of which in 1995 where he had his best year in the NFL. The numbers speak for themselves, Monk was not even the best receiver on his team during those years while Michael Irvin was an elite player who was essential to the success of his team.

its not just about the total numbers you accumulate over the years, but the impact you have on the game during the time you played. Monk a great great character. a consumate team player. he was a good but not great. He was clearly the #2 WR on his team. I don't think any opposing defenses ever game planned around monk, but they certainly did game plan for Clark and others.

Did you know Monk is the only receiver since 1984 to have a 1000 yard season in a Passing offense ranked 20th or less. In 1985 he did it again with the 24th ranked Passing Offense. It has never been done since. People say that he could not carry the team.

From 1960 until 1990 Four Wide Receivers caught more than 100 passes in a season, Monk was one. Since 1990 a span of 15 years 43 have managed that feat, that is ten times the amount.

There have been 49 4000 yard seasons by a Quarterback, 12 came before 1990(8 were by Dan Marino and Dan Fouts). There have been 37 since.

From 1974-1986 only two wideouts led the league in receptions, Monk was one.

Do you see the correalation here, the NFL of the 1980's was a different league. May I also point out that the NFC East was the toughest division in football in the 1980s, Monk played eight games a season in this division. Washington, Dallas, New York and Philly all have cumulative winning records for the 1980's.The 1990's saw the NFC East decline as a group with only Dallas being able to post an overall winning record. It was a very different division that Irvin played in.The NFL background these guys played the majority of their careers in is vastly different to one another.

In 1990 Michael Irvin had played three seasons and had amassed less than 100 receptions. Then his career numbers took off. In 1990 Monk had played 11 of his 16 seasons. The Passing game in the NFL changed wildly after 1990, the evidence is their to see and Monk's career fell away as he got older.

What Irvin did was extraordinary because four of his seasons yielded under 100 of his receptions, so he does belong in the Hall IMO. However Monk played the majority of his career in a very different NFL and comparison to Irvin is pointless and what he achieved was amazing and is worthy of his place in the Hall.

[flave1969]

Art Monk was clearly a #2 WR on his teams.

In 8 seasons Monk and Clark played together, Clark had 549 receptions in 122 games, Monk 542 in 120 games. Clark averaged 10 yards per game more and 1.5 TD's per season more in this period. In context the difference is minimal.

In all of history please show me a team that has posted two receivers consistently as close in stats. You will not find one. The assertion that Monk was a Number Two receiver is completely false. If Clark was 100 catches ahead, 3000 yards ahead, 30 TD's ahead then I wold say Monk was a number two, but he wasn't. Factor in Ricky Sanders also and please tell me how you would use them any differently than Joe Gibbs did. The only time Joe Gibbs had to rely solely on Monk he produced league leading seasons in 84 and 85. It was never necessary after that so Gibbs played a balanced offense that spread the ball equally. Monk was never a Number 2 receiver, the fact is without him all the burners Washington ever had, would have seen constant double coverage. With Art Monk there teams could not do it because he killed teams underneath.

[Seabee1973]

From a "football point of view" the Art Monk to the HOF comes done to how important longevity is when weighing up a players career (Does Vinny Testaverde #6 in completions & passing yds belong in the HOF ?). Art Monk was a very good WR for the length of his career but was only really a "dominant" player for 3 or 4 of those seasons.

I'm listing below the stats of WRs who played the majority of their careers at the same time as Art Monk (so the different era arguement can be ignored). These are the WRs I remember from this period. The per season line is the average per game * 16. There are only 2 Hall of Famers in this list (Lofton & Largent) and none of the other players on this list are even HOF semi-finallists but all are eligible. Art Monk's average is near the top of the list for receptions but near the bottom for yds, TDs & yds per catch. Monk's average is about 2yds per catch below most of the people on this list. This lack of yds & TDs is the only "footballing" reason for Monk's absence from the HOF.

Art Monk 80-95

Games 224 Receptions 940 yds 12721 Ave Per catch 13.5 TDs 68

per season 67 909 4.8

Gary Clark 85-95

167 699 10856 15.5 65

per season 67 1040 6.2

James Lofton 78-93

233 764 14004 18.3 75

per season 53 962 5.2

Steve Largent 76-89

200 819 13089 16 100

per season 66 1047 8

Mark Clayton 83-93

158 582 8974 15.4 84

per season 59 909 8.5

Mark Duper 82-92

146 511 8869 17.4 59

per season 56 972 6.5

Sterling Sharpe 88-94

112 595 8134 13.7 65

per season 85 1162 9.3

Anthony Carter 85-95

140 486 7733 15.9 55

per season 56 883 6.3

Cris Collinsworth 81-88

107 417 6698 16.1 36

per season 62 1002 5.4

(All stats are taken from www.pro-football-reference.com )

For reference here are Michael Irvin & Jerry Rice's numbers. I haven't included them in the above portion as they didn't met my era criteria as both played a large part of their careers after Monk's retirement.

Michael Irvin 88-99

159 750 11904 15.9 65

per season 76 1197 6.5

Jerry Rice 85-04

303 1549 22895 14.8 197

per season 82 1209 10.4

My view is that Monk's body of work is worthy of a HOF place but I don't think that arguement is as overwhelming as most people on this site would make out.

I though collinsworth was a qb all this time. Boy i sure feel dumb

[Seabee1973]

From a "football point of view" the Art Monk to the HOF comes done to how important longevity is when weighing up a players career (Does Vinny Testaverde #6 in completions & passing yds belong in the HOF ?). Art Monk was a very good WR for the length of his career but was only really a "dominant" player for 3 or 4 of those seasons.

I'm listing below the stats of WRs who played the majority of their careers at the same time as Art Monk (so the different era arguement can be ignored). These are the WRs I remember from this period. The per season line is the average per game * 16. There are only 2 Hall of Famers in this list (Lofton & Largent) and none of the other players on this list are even HOF semi-finallists but all are eligible. Art Monk's average is near the top of the list for receptions but near the bottom for yds, TDs & yds per catch. Monk's average is about 2yds per catch below most of the people on this list. This lack of yds & TDs is the only "footballing" reason for Monk's absence from the HOF.

Art Monk 80-95

Games 224 Receptions 940 yds 12721 Ave Per catch 13.5 TDs 68

per season 67 909 4.8

Gary Clark 85-95

167 699 10856 15.5 65

per season 67 1040 6.2

James Lofton 78-93

233 764 14004 18.3 75

per season 53 962 5.2

Steve Largent 76-89

200 819 13089 16 100

per season 66 1047 8

Mark Clayton 83-93

158 582 8974 15.4 84

per season 59 909 8.5

Mark Duper 82-92

146 511 8869 17.4 59

per season 56 972 6.5

Sterling Sharpe 88-94

112 595 8134 13.7 65

per season 85 1162 9.3

Anthony Carter 85-95

140 486 7733 15.9 55

per season 56 883 6.3

Cris Collinsworth 81-88

107 417 6698 16.1 36

per season 62 1002 5.4

(All stats are taken from www.pro-football-reference.com )

For reference here are Michael Irvin & Jerry Rice's numbers. I haven't included them in the above portion as they didn't met my era criteria as both played a large part of their careers after Monk's retirement.

Michael Irvin 88-99

159 750 11904 15.9 65

per season 76 1197 6.5

Jerry Rice 85-04

303 1549 22895 14.8 197

per season 82 1209 10.4

My view is that Monk's body of work is worthy of a HOF place but I don't think that arguement is as overwhelming as most people on this site would make out.

I think it is worthy enough The only other guys on there that were team mates for any length of time was the mark brothers and Marino was a passing Qb that shows the ability of monk and also clark.

If you post the numbers of the second and third recievers that those teams had the numbers would drop off significantly.

[Guest GibbSkins11]

i agree with a lot of the voters

when one thinks of a true hof player they are game changing players--they are players a defense or offense cord must game plan for always on every play

monk doesnt fit the category--he was a good player--a great team player but not dominant game changing player

the teams were more fearful of clark and the running game then monk

i think monk will get in but it will be like a swann type--10-11 tries

:banhim: this just dosent make any sense :banhim:

[jimster]

Lynn Swann 383 receptions, 6369 receiving yards, TD's 60, played with one QB. - In the HOF

John Stallworth 537 receptions, 8723 receiving yards, 63 TD's, played with one QB. - In the HOF

Art Monk 940 receptions (more than Swann and Stallworth combined), 12,721 receiving yards, TD's 68, 5 times exceeded 1000 yards, 183 consecutive games with a reception (broke NFL record, currently #2), played with 4 different QB's. - not in the HOF?

To further prove my post above, I did a little more research.

There is 17 players currently in the HOF that are considered "modern day" WR's. Of those 17 WR's ALREADY IN the HOF, Art Monk has :

- more career receptions than ANY of them.

- more career yards receiving than 15 of them - Steve Largent and James Loften the only two having more.

- more career TD's than 8 of them.

As far as the argument that Monk's numbers are inflated because of the number of years he played (16), Charlie Joiner played 18 seasons and Monk has better numbers in all 3 categories, Loften 16 seasons and Largent 14 seasons. So that is not a good argument either.

Monk was part of a team that played in 21 post season games in his career and that includes 4 Superbowl runs.

I have no problem with this years nominated players, but it is absolutely ridiculous that he isn't in already. :logo:

[WallyG3]

Yeah, but the real question is...

When was the ban lifted on bsmss?

[Jumbo]

Did you know Monk is the only receiver since 1984 to have a 1000 yard season in a Passing offense ranked 20th or less. In 1985 he did it again with the 24th ranked Passing Offense. It has never been done since. People say that he could not carry the team.

From 1960 until 1990 Four Wide Receivers caught more than 100 passes in a season, Monk was one. Since 1990 a span of 15 years 43 have managed that feat, that is ten times the amount.

There have been 49 4000 yard seasons by a Quarterback, 12 came before 1990(8 were by Dan Marino and Dan Fouts). There have been 37 since.

From 1974-1986 only two wideouts led the league in receptions, Monk was one.

Do you see the correalation here, the NFL of the 1980's was a different league. May I also point out that the NFC East was the toughest division in football in the 1980s, Monk played eight games a season in this division. Washington, Dallas, New York and Philly all have cumulative winning records for the 1980's.The 1990's saw the NFC East decline as a group with only Dallas being able to post an overall winning record. It was a very different division that Irvin played in.The NFL background these guys played the majority of their careers in is vastly different to one another.

In 1990 Michael Irvin had played three seasons and had amassed less than 100 receptions. Then his career numbers took off. In 1990 Monk had played 11 of his 16 seasons. The Passing game in the NFL changed wildly after 1990, the evidence is their to see and Monk's career fell away as he got older.

What Irvin did was extraordinary because four of his seasons yielded under 100 of his receptions, so he does belong in the Hall IMO. However Monk played the majority of his career in a very different NFL and comparison to Irvin is pointless and what he achieved was amazing and is worthy of his place in the Hall.

You just demonstrated using real research to put simple statistics into a meaningful context, something rarely done. Very, very, well done :applause:

[iceman330]

Lynn Swann 383 receptions, 6369 receiving yards, TD's 60, played with one QB. - In the HOF

John Stallworth 537 receptions, 8723 receiving yards, 63 TD's, played with one QB. - In the HOF

Art Monk 940 receptions (more than Swann and Stallworth combined), 12,721 receiving yards, TD's 68, 5 times exceeded 1000 yards, 183 consecutive games with a reception (broke NFL record, currently #2), played with 4 different QB's. - not in the HOF?

CORRECT!!! Break NFL record = no Hall of Fame? Plus, other recievers got open b/c Monk was THE intermediate threat who was a CHAIN MOVER. We owe him sooo much credit for our first downs. I heard Theisman talk about Monk this last week, and he made it clear that no Monk = no Skins success.

[shawn]

Art Monk was a Hall of Fame-caliber player. He deserves to be there as much as any WR in history. When a player holds the record for most career receptions, even if only for a season, he belongs in the HOF.

Also- what makes a "game changer?" If you catch a go-ahead TD in the 3rd quarter, doesn't that "change" the game? If you make a first down catch late in the 4th that allows your team to score on that drive, doesn't that "change" the game? I'm sure Art Monk did these things and many more, "changing" alot of games along the way thru his career.

in your opinion then Vinny Testeverde deserves to be in the HOF. he is the #6 total passing yards and I am sure if I start to dig it up he holds many other records that would be in the top 20 and better than some HOF players. so in your opinion Longevity counts towards getting in the HOF?

[Henry]

in your opinion then Vinny Testeverde deserves to be in the HOF. he is the #6 total passing yards and I am sure if I start to dig it up he holds many other records that would be in the top 20 and better than some HOF players. so in your opinion Longevity counts towards getting in the HOF?

Vinny, for all his longevity, has NEVER been #1 in career passing anything and has never broken the single season record for passing anything, so your point is irrelevant. If you want to make a case that, say, Jerome Bettis doesn't deserve the hall because for all his longevity he never topped #5 all-time in rushing yards, then that makes sense. But since people are already dubbing HIM a future Hall of Famer it's even MORE of a travesty Monk has been denied his spot for so long.

[frommd]

Art Monk has more receptions than ANY receiver currently in the Hall of Fame.

[shawn]

Vinny, for all his longevity, has NEVER been #1 in career passing anything and has never broken the single season record for passing anything, so your point is irrelevant. If you want to make a case that, say, Jerome Bettis doesn't deserve the hall because for all his longevity he never topped #5 all-time in rushing yards, then that makes sense. But since people are already dubbing HIM a future Hall of Famer it's even MORE of a travesty Monk has been denied his spot for so long.

one season does not a HOF career make. so referencing the one season he lead the league is irrelevant. its consistancy and its how you compare to your peers at the time based on the rules at the time. Monk's stats don't compare to the best WRs at the time. Again if you are consistantly second on your own team how can you be compared to the best in the league.

Bettis was among the best (top 5 RBs) in the league for a period. Monk may have lead the league in receptions one year, but again, its the consistancy in which you do it. one season does not a HOF career make.

[shawn]

Art Monk has more receptions than ANY receiver currently in the Hall of Fame.

Vinny Testeverde is #6 in total passing yards in NFL history. there are many other QBs with lesser yards in the HOF, so does he deserve to be in?

[Henry]

one season does not a HOF career make. so referencing the one season he lead the league is irrelevant. its consistancy and its how you compare to your peers at the time based on the rules at the time. Monk's stats don't compare to the best WRs at the time. Again if you are consistantly second on your own team how can you be compared to the best in the league.

Bettis was among the best (top 5 RBs) in the league for a period. Monk may have lead the league in receptions one year, but again, its the consistancy in which you do it. one season does not a HOF career make.

Monk led the league, the entire league, and all leagues of years past in career receptions shawn. He led the league in receptions for all years. He retired with more receptions than the best WRs of that time. And you're comparing him to Vinnie Testeverde? That's showing some pretty extreme bias. The single-season mark Monk broke is simply another feat, another brilliant addition to his resume that a guy like Vinnie or Bettis doesn't have.

Bettis, by the way, only broke the top five in rushing yards three times, the same amout of times Monk was top five in receptions, so I guess Bettis must have something other than consistancy going for him.

[shawn]

Monk led the league, the entire league, and all leagues of years past in career receptions shawn. He led the league in receptions for all years. He retired with more receptions than the best WRs of that time. And you're comparing him to Vinnie Testeverde? That's showing some pretty extreme bias. The single-season mark Monk broke is simply another feat, another brilliant addition to his resume that a guy like Vinnie or Bettis doesn't have.

Bettis, by the way, only broke the top five in rushing yards three times, the same amout of times Monk was top five in receptions, so I guess Bettis must have something other than consistancy going for him.

again it goes back to being compared to the players of your time. Monk wasn't among the top 5 WRs in the league at the time he played. Bettis was among the top 5 RBs. its about consistantly being one of the top players in the league not just one year. its consistantly doing it for enough years to prove you are worthy. 16 years is about longevity. longevity is not a reason for getting into HOF. Monk doesn't rank highly among his peers of the time. he was clearly the 2nd WR on his team. He did have a couple of very good years and maybe one grea year but he wasn't the main WR on the team that opposing defenses feared.

If he was a possession WR then he was a possession WR. perhaps because he was slower and didn't have the speed to go deep. so he didn't have the talent of some of the other better WRs. doesn't mean he was bad because he is not in HOF. he was very good as a matter of fact. he was reliable. but he wasn't game changing WR. he didn't have special talent that Clark or Brown had.

[frommd]

Monk wasn't among the top 5 WRs in the league at the time he played.

Let me help you here.

Monk wasn't "considered" among the top 5 WRs in the league at the time he played.

And yet, when he retired people look back and he was the all-time leading receiver in NFL history. Not Clark, or Brown. Monk did as he was told, kept his mouth shut and quietly killed people on the field. He blocked, he got key catches to keep drives going. Whether or not other teams feared him, or he showed up on national highlight reels, the guy was a major reason the Redskins were one of the dominant teams of his era.

As for your argument about Clark and Brown, I would say if it weren't for Monk, neither would have been as good as they were. Neither were dominant players except when they played opposite Monk.

If only the Redskins of today could find a young Art Monk...