monk should go BUT

[Brianbien83]

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.

So speed is equal to talent? Bettis ain't called the bus 'cause he's swift. The whole game changing WR thing...nothing changes a game more than a guy who ALWAYS catches the ball...normally for a first down.

Let's take a look at the two contemporaries of Monk who are in the hall of fame: Largent and Lofton

Lofton played in 9 more games than Monk did and had about 1300 more yards than Monk, while Largent played in 24 fewer games and had about 300 more yards than Monk. If you do the math, and divide total yards by games played, Largent averaged about 9 yards more per game than Monk and Lofton averaged about 4 yards more per game than Monk. Not really all that better. About one catch every other game or so, judging by yards per catch.

Now you'll use the argument that Monk only averaged 13.5 yards per catch while Largent averaged 16 and Lofton averaged 18 and change. Well, okay, but why, then, don't either of those guys have a TON more yards than Monk? Oh, right, because Monk caught 120 passes more than Largent and 180 more than Lofton. And they played for roughly the same amount of time.

Monk does have significantly fewer touchdowns than Largent, but as you have so eloquently pointed out on several occasions, Monk was primarily a possession receiver. Thus, while teams had to worry about Monk continually moving the chains, Clark could slip behind the safety cheating up to play Monk and score long touches. And honestly, Largent has about 3 more touches than Monk per season and Lofton has less than 1.

Your argument that Monk just doesn't measure up to his contemporaries is just plain wrong. As for the Pro-Bowls, I checked out the Pro-Bowl Rosters from a few of the years I thought Monk may also have made it. I chose 81, 89 and 91. He had comparable numbers to most of those who made it to the Pro-Bowl, just didn't go.

Just out of curiousity, I checked on Jerry Rice's career statistics...obviously, they are just plain sick. However, I did notice that he played for 20 years and only had 14.8 yards per catch...well lower than many of his contemporaries. Should we keep him out of the Hall too, 'cause he played so many years???

[NOVA2Tampa]

This is crazy. Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame now. How can anyone say he doesn't belong?

Exactly...his stats are equal to or better than all 5 WRs in the hall right now...

[BleedB&G4life]

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.

I couldn't agree more. I good receiver back then would be a great receiver now because of the rule changes. However, some could make the argument that guys like Lester Hayes et al would not be as good in today's game. Personally, I think you can only judge a player from the era that they played.

[shawn]

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...

again. longevity is not a reason to get into HOF. he had two good years and the rest were average compared to his own era. so he played longer? so what?

[frommd]

again. longevity is not a reason to get into HOF. he had two good years and the rest were average compared to his own era. so he played longer? so what?

So your argument is we should penalize him for his longevity? If playing as long and as well as Monk was easy, how come he was the first to EVER do what he did?