Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Monk vs. Irvin: Just the facts


TheKeyBlue

The Ultimate Redskins Tag-Team  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. The Ultimate Redskins Tag-Team

    • Portis-Moss -- [i]masters of Lucha Libre[/i]
      4
    • The Bible Thumpers: Brunell and Gibbs
      0
    • The Rock (Jansen) and The Buges -- [i]brawn and charisma meet Ric Flair craftiness[/i]
      2
    • Sean "The Hitman" Taylor and The Jedi (Gregg) -- [i]pure thuggery meets absolute mind control[/i]
      11
    • The Franchise (LaVar) and Mr. Washington
      13
    • Salivator (Salave'a) and The Griff -- [i]proving size matters[/i]
      8
    • Big Worm (P. Daniels) and the Red Snapper (Albright) -- [i]hey, nicknames matter[/i]
      1
    • Other -- [i]please elaborate[/i]
      2


Recommended Posts

Thought you guys might enjoy this:

I am sick and tired of the comparison between the HOF status of Art Monk and Michael Irvin. I decided to ding into the numbers a little, so I am going to post what I found here. If any idiots you guys know bring up this topic you can show them this to shut them up.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny. Cowboys fans downplay longevity and durability when comparing Monk and Irvin yet act like it is the most important factor when comparing Smith and Brown/Sanders/Sayers.

actually no, Smith would have been desrving of HOF even if he didn't play all those years. He was a superbowl MVP, as well as others and was a key member of the team. Defenses game planned around Emmitt and geared to stop him. He was the #1 back on his team and top #5 back in the league for many years (I will leave the Sanders vs. Smith comparisons to another thread). Monk was clearly the #2 WR on his own team. #2 WRs don't deserve HOF.

Smith Doesn't deserve HOF because of his 18,000+ yards. He desrves it for being the main clog of the 3 superbowl wins for the cowboys and his many seasons of proving he was the real deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually no, Smith would have been desrving of HOF even if he didn't play all those years. He was a superbowl MVP, as well as others and was a key member of the team. Defenses game planned around Emmitt and geared to stop him. He was the #1 back on his team and top #5 back in the league for many years (I will leave the Sanders vs. Smith comparisons to another thread). Monk was clearly the #2 WR on his own team. #2 WRs don't deserve HOF.

Smith Doesn't deserve HOF because of his 18,000+ yards. He desrves it for being the main clog of the 3 superbowl wins for the cowboys and his many seasons of proving he was the real deal.

He deserves the HOF but not the GOAT title the Cowboy fans try to give him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually no, Smith would have been desrving of HOF even if he didn't play all those years. He was a superbowl MVP, as well as others and was a key member of the team. Defenses game planned around Emmitt and geared to stop him. He was the #1 back on his team and top #5 back in the league for many years (I will leave the Sanders vs. Smith comparisons to another thread). Monk was clearly the #2 WR on his own team. #2 WRs don't deserve HOF.

Smith Doesn't deserve HOF because of his 18,000+ yards. He desrves it for being the main clog of the 3 superbowl wins for the cowboys and his many seasons of proving he was the real deal.

This is where Cowboy fans get lost, and it's understandable, it's kind of a tough concept to follow...

Art Monk was a possession receiver. He caught short passes for first downs very consistently. He did catch some deep balls, however his prime objective was the first down reception, and no one did it better... Including your beloved Michael Irvin.

Irvin WAS the Cowboys ONLY receiving threat. It's alot easier to put up numbers when you're only sharing the ball with one guy (Smith) Compared to Monk sharing it with two other receivers and a couple of runningbacks. He STILL put up 1,000 yard seasons despite having two other pretty damned good receivers on the team.

But I forgot, Irvin would have too, only at the expense of his teammates when he whined and cried about not getting the football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Key Blue is right. Irvin Was Better then Monk... Im not going to be bitter about the crack head having a better carreer than Monk who was just a possesion reciever.

JUST a possession receiver? Isn't that what we're lacking now? A possession receiver?

Isn't that what stopped us a few times this year? The fact we only had one?

So since when are possession receivers not important?

That's like saying that only the guard that protects the quarterback's back is important and worthy of the Hall, but the other one is only out there for ****s and giggles. Come on. There's different positions on a football team.

Art Monk was a tremendous receiver, possession or not and deserves the Hall.

That said, so does Irvin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tired of this BS argument:

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.

You know what, why don't we just throw out the last 4 years of Monk's career...

In Art Monk's first 12 seasons (1980-1991), he played in 173 games, caught 801 passes for 10,984 yards and 60 TD's.

In Michael Irvin's first 12 seasons (1988-1999), he played in 159 games, caught 750 passes for 11,904 yards and 65 TD's.

In Art Monk's 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th seasons, here are his stats:

1988: 16 games 72rec 946yds 5tds

1989: 16 games 86rec 1186yds 8tds

1990: 16 games 68rec 770yds 5tds

1991: 16 games 71rec 1049yds 8tds

In Michael Irvin's 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th seasons, here are his stats:

1996: 11 games 64rec 962yds 2tds

1997: 16 games 75rec 1180yds 9tds

1998: 16 games 74rec 1057yds 1td

1999: 4 games 10rec 167yds 3tds

Ten years is when a lot of receivers start to slow down. Are you sure Irvin would have caught Monk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tired of this BS argument:

You know what, why don't we just throw out the last 5 years of Monk's career...

In Art Monk's first 157 games (1980-1990), he caught 730 passes for 9,935 yards and 52 TD's.

In his next 16 games, Monk would catch 71 passes for 1049 yards and 8 TD's.

In Art Monk's 9th, 10th, and 11th seasons, here are his stats:

1989: 16 games 86rec 1186yds 8tds

1990: 16 games 68rec 770yds 5tds

1991: 16 games 71rec 1049yds 8tds

In Michael Irvin's 9th, 10th, and 11th seasons (his last two full seasons), here are his stats:

1996: 11 games 64rec 962yds 2tds

1997: 16 games 75rec 1180yds 9tds

1998: 16 games 74rec 1057yds 1td

Ten years is when a lot of receivers start to slow down. Are you sure Irvin would have caught Monk?

excellent point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hall of fame is about greatness, not "very goodness" for a long long time

Irvin in his prime dominated. Between 91 and 98 he was a GREAT football player, perennially 1,000 yards every year, a pro bowl fixture, he set an NFL record with ELEVEN 100 yard games in 1995 while winning a Superbowl, caught 111 passes for over 1600 yards. His stats are even hurt playing in an offense where they ran the ball more effectively then any team ever has and shortened games

Monk played 16 years, he had FIVE 1,000 yard seasons. Heck, Amani Toomer has Five 1,000 yard seasons, he even did it consecutively. Art Monk made 3 pro bowls. Joe Horn has made 4

Michael Irvin was a DOMINATOR, thats what the HOF is about, he was a better player then Monk

Edit: This is not a knock on Monk, but if we let him in with what he did we would be letting a lot of other guys from this era in. He was a terrific player, but I don't think hes a HOFer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irving is everything that is wrong with the NFL today. Busted for doing recreational drugs while still playing in the NFL, busted after on probation. He is not a good human. Good humans should be in the NFL, not just any crackhead that wouldnt block for his running back.

Art Monk set standards on and off the field on how to be a great human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irving is everything that is wrong with the NFL today. Busted for doing recreational drugs while still playing in the NFL, busted after on probation. He is not a good human. Good humans should be in the NFL, not just any crackhead that wouldnt block for his running back.

Art Monk set standards on and off the field on how to be a great human.

How big a fan are you of Sean Taylor?

And by the way, his name is Irvin. Can't take you seriously when you don't even know the guys name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: This is not a knock on Monk, but if we let him in with what he did we would be letting a lot of other guys from this era in. He was a terrific player, but I don't think hes a HOFer.

Name one WR from his era that would get in if we let Monk in.

...you're not going to find one because nobody can touch his numbers in the 80's.

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...