Monk vs. Irvin: Just the facts

[NOVA2Tampa]

Super Bowl XXVII

Monk Receptions 7

Yards 113

Long 31

TD's 0

The Redskins did not play in Super Bowl XXVII.

[WeownU]

The funniest thing is Irvin has Troy Aikman in the backfield. While Mork had Theisman, Williams, Rypien, Humphires and Schreoder as QB. That's not even including the qb's in New York and Philly.

Its funny, when you talk about Gibbs, you keep touting all his superbowl appearances with different quarterbacks, like it is the greatest achievement ever, but when looking at Monks stats, it is a horrible thing.

Pick one and stick with it.

[Henry]

Its funny, when you talk about Gibbs, you keep touting all his superbowl appearances with different quarterbacks, like it is the greatest achievement ever, but when looking at Monks stats, it is a horrible thing.

Pick one and stick with it.

Actually, in both cases it simply reinforces the fact that each was so brilliant at his job he didn't require what most others do to excell at his job. Namely, a top-flght QB.

[slik]

it was said earlier but i want to reiterate that when a team only has one reciever of course his numbers will be bigger than a guy who had to share his touches with several other talented recievers and running backs

[hu-bison-skinsfan]

It seems to me that the machine worked best with the triplets -- Smith, Aikman, and Irvin -- all making each other better. Irvin does not get enough credit for this.

The real point, though, is that both Monk (no-brainer!) and Irvin deserve to be in and I don't see why they must be pit against each other.

[End2round2sanders]

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.

Then can u explain why James Lofton is in the HOF? Hes a monk clone.

[End2round2sanders]

Monk=first WR with 100 catches in a season.

[frommd]

The Redskins did not play in Super Bowl XXVII.

Sorry, mistype. XXVI.

Monk, 7 catches, 113 yards.

[grego]

Its funny, when you talk about Gibbs, you keep touting all his superbowl appearances with different quarterbacks, like it is the greatest achievement ever, but when looking at Monks stats, it is a horrible thing.

Pick one and stick with it.

you get confused easily, dont you?

[Donita35]

You also forgot to mention that MI is a druggie. :doh: Let me give you some advice, go back to your own forum and ask MI who's pipe was that in his car.

Bull crap he was holding it for someone.

[wxscpo]

Wrong. Monk got a ring for the 82 team as well. He was hurt in the last game of the year but he earned his ring just the same.

You're right, he does have 3 rings despite missing the 82 game. I'd say you kinda have to play in the game and help your team win to earn something though. I guess Quincy Morgan and Duce Staley earned these rings in the Steelers win over Seattle.

[wxscpo]

i'll compare monk vs irvin.

irvin didnt have 1,000 yards til year 4.

You failed to mention that Irvin also didn't play a full 16 game season until his 4th year. Also those first 3 years Irvin played for Dallas were 3 of the worst teams in Cowboys history winning a combined 11 games. Not many WRs who fail to play a full season on teams as bad as those were achieve a 1000 yard season. Irvin also had poor QB play his first 2 seasons, Aikman started coming around that 3rd season, but he was still only in his 2nd year. Monk was on a better Skins team with much better QB play and did play 2 full 16 game seasons in his first 4 years. The 1982 season was cut short because of the strike so that only doesn't count against Monk.

in 15 career postseason games monk averaged almost 5 catches a game for over 70 yards a game and 7 TD's. irvins numbers are similar- in 16 post season games, almost 6 catches per game for 82 yards and 8 total TD's.

Again though in the games that mattered the most (superbowls), Monk dissappeared. He had 0 TD receptions and while catching 7 passes in the 1991 SB, he only had 1 reception in each of his earlier superbowls. Irvin had 2 TD receptions and caught a min of 5 passes in each of his 3 superbowls. Monk had four 100 yard playoff games, 3 of those came in losses, the skins were forced to pass which padded his stats. Irvin had six 100 yardplayoff games, only 1 of those came in a loss. Irvin was at his best when it matter most and he was a big part of Dallas's playoff success.

if we're looking at monks numbers being inflated due to longevity, it's fair to look at the 9th, 10th and 11th years for both players, as these were irvins last 3 complete years. monk caught 226 passes- 75 per year and 18 TD's. in 5 fewer games, irvin caught 213- 71 per year for 12 total TD's. (thanks to the poster who pointed this out earlier)

Sure, but then it's also fair to look at the stats that Monk compiled in his additional seasons that Irvin didn't play. Monk caught an additional 139 passes for 1737 yards and 8 TDs. So take those away from Monk and he finishes with more receptions, but for less yards and TDs.

again, very similar numbers with monk having an edge in TD's even by compensating for irvins 5 fewer games.

Actually Irvin played 14 less games, almost a full seasons worth. So given those 14 additional games and the fact that Irvin was coming off consecutive 1000 yard seasons, he would have easily surpassed Monk's numbers during the same time frame.

swann and stallworth's number arent even close to monks. lofton has a nice ypc, but i can't discount monks 940 receptions. loftons average of 47 catches per season is almost exactly what monk was in his last full year- 46. lofton had over 70 catches twice (71 both times). monk had more than that 6 times.

I do not dispute that all 3 of those guys are also questionable HOF players, but they aren't up for debate any more, they're in. I think eventually Monk gets in as well, I was merely stating why I think he is having such a hard time.

henry said it better than i. monk hung around for a few extra years, but had the vast majority of his production in his first 12 years where he broke several records- very few WR's can match what he did in his first 12 years. and he did all this without a HOF QB. take away his last 4 seasons and he still deserves to be in.

Other than receptions, Irvin's 12 seasons were better than Monk's first 12 seasons. Like I said, I think Monk eventually will get in, his stats, championships and previous records he held will get him there, but I think it'll take a couple more years.

We are never going to be able to convince each other that the one was better than the other. I think it was Irvin, you think it was Monk and it's simply a matter of opinion. Monk was a great WR for the skins, Irvin was a great WR for the Cowboys.

[SkinsFTW]

What major records does Monk hold now? Guys like rod Smith, Keenan McCardel, Jimmy smith, will surpass Monk in all 3 receiving categories (TDs, Receptions, Yards) If they reach his games played mark of 224. Those guys are not HOFers in my opinion

Just like Monk surpassed Taylor, Joiner and Largent. All 3 are HOFers. Monk held the record and passed them shortly after they retired, not 10-15 years later like some of these current receivers.

Monk put up 90 and 100 catch seasons when the next best guy had 70-80. Irvin eventually caught more balls in a season, but he caught 110 when other guys were grabbing 123-124.

In 1984 when Monk caught 106 balls, John Stallworth was #2 with 80 catches. And Stallworth is a HOFer, and that was by far his best season in his career. Monk has more catches than Stallworth and Swann combined. There is no reason he isnt in the HOF already.

[SkinsFTW]

Irvin also had poor QB play his first 2 seasons, Aikman started coming around that 3rd season, but he was still only in his 2nd year.

I'm not even going to read the rest of your book. Monk played most of his career with average and bad QB's throwing him the ball. Irvin sucked until Aikman and Smith came along. Monk never sucked and played well with anyone throwing him the ball.

Irvin had the luxury of being the primary receiver his entire career. The one year Monk had that luxury he set the record for catches in a season with 106 with the #2 guy having 80 catches in 1984.

[SkinsFTW]

You're right, he does have 3 rings despite missing the 82 game. I'd say you kinda have to play in the game and help your team win to earn something though. I guess Quincy Morgan and Duce Staley earned these rings in the Steelers win over Seattle.

How many rings do Largent and Joiner and even Taylor have?

They were the 3 to hold the receptions record before Monk broke it and all 3 are in the HOF.

Again, Irvin never held or came close to any record.

[herrmag]

Progression.....Number one, the Cowgirls are not back. On top of that, Art Monk did his serious business before Irvin. AS the years go, yards go up. This entire post is foolish. Does JERRY RICE not belong in th Hall once his records are broken? Art Monk broke records...MANY records. Foolish Cowboys fans, don't compare past to the present. If I raised a million dollars in 1886, should I be deemed less succesful than Dan Snyder? I'm sorry, is there white stuff on my nose?

[wxscpo]

I'm not even going to read the rest of your book. Monk played most of his career with average and bad QB's throwing him the ball. Irvin sucked until Aikman and Smith came along. Monk never sucked and played well with anyone throwing him the ball.

Ok this has got to be the dumbest arguement for Monk and against Irvin I have read. Irvin sucked until Aikman and Smith came along. Do you know anything about Irvin's career or are you simply hating on the man and just putting what ever stupid thought came into your head?

Irvin's rookie season was 1 year before Aikman and 2 year's before Smith. He played his rookie season with a QB named Pelleur, his 2nd season with rookies named Aikman and Walsh and he only played in 6 games that year. Also Irvin was the #3 option his rookie season unlike Monk who immediately became the skins primary WR from day 1 until bigger play WRs came along. So while you insinuate that Irvin's first season without Aikman and his second season without Smith as sucking facts are facts, he played on probably the worst teams Dallas had fielded since their initial season in 1960.

[Henry]

You're right, he does have 3 rings despite missing the 82 game. I'd say you kinda have to play in the game and help your team win to earn something though. I guess Quincy Morgan and Duce Staley earned these rings in the Steelers win over Seattle.

Monk led the team in receptions in 1982. he was a heavy contributor to that team that year. For you to compare him to Duce Staley this year is intellectually dishonest.

It would be more appropriate to ask if Shannon Sharpe deserved the ring he won in 1998 even though he was knocked out of the SB before he could make a contribution in that game.

[flave1969]

I posted this in another thread but it bears repeating in this thread.

It provides stats in context and shows why comparing any two players from two different eras is stupid and false and here is why.

Monk is the only receiver since 1984 to have had a 1000 yard season in a Passing offense ranked 20th or less. In 1985 he did it again with the 24th ranked Passing Offense. This was in a 28 team league. It has never been done since. People say that he could not carry the team but in 84 and 85 as the sole experienced target he not only led the team but the league, breaking the NFL single season record.

From 1960 until 1990 only Four Wide Receivers caught more than 100 passes in a season, Monk was one. He broke a record that had stood for 20 years and it stood for a further 8. Since 1990 a span of 15 years 43 Wide Receivers have managed that feat, that is ten times the amount in half the time. This is the first example of showing how different the passing game is in the NFL.

There have been 49 4000 yard seasons by a Quarterback in history, 12 came before 1990(8 were by Dan Marino and Dan Fouts, two HOF members). There have been 37 4000 yard seasons since. That is three times the amount. Again it shows that the NFL has changed greatly since 1990.

From 1974-1986 only two wideouts led the league in receptions, Monk was one in 1984, Dwight Clark the other. That is a trend that carried well into the 1980's. Since then only one non wideout, Tony Gonzalez has led the league in Receptions. Do you see the correalation here, the NFL of the 1980's was a completely different league.

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 throughout the decade. Every team suffered a decline that saw them hover around .500 for prolonged periods. The Dallas in 1993 was very different from the Dallas that ended the decade.

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 majority of his career. The Passing game in the NFL changed wildly after 1990, the evidence is there 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 amassed a huge amount of his yards in effectively eight great seasons.

Comparing Irvin to Monk is false as was comparing Keenan McCardell to Monk as well. Compare McCardell to Irvin and you have a fascinating argument because they were long time contemporaries. Once again I reiterate that comparing Monk to the above is false. I actually believe Monk and Irvin deserve to get in but as representatives of different eras.

[Henry]

You failed to mention that Irvin also didn't play a full 16 game season until his 4th year. Also those first 3 years Irvin played for Dallas were 3 of the worst teams in Cowboys history winning a combined 11 games. Not many WRs who fail to play a full season on teams as bad as those were achieve a 1000 yard season. Irvin also had poor QB play his first 2 seasons, Aikman started coming around that 3rd season, but he was still only in his 2nd year. Monk was on a better Skins team with much better QB play and did play 2 full 16 game seasons in his first 4 years. The 1982 season was cut short because of the strike so that only doesn't count against Monk.

Wow. Just wow.

There's no consideration for the fact that Monk had a half dozen different non-HOF QBs throwing him the ball over the course of his career, but Irvin gets a gold star because his QBs weren't amazing for the first two years of his career?

Monk gets called another Vinnie Testeverde for playing his 15th season on a 6-10 Jets team, and only started three games his 16th season with the Eagles, yet when plays Irvin on lousy teams and doesn't start it's some kind of accomplishment?

Nice.

Again though in the games that mattered the most (superbowls), Monk dissappeared. He had 0 TD receptions and while catching 7 passes in the 1991 SB, he only had 1 reception in each of his earlier superbowls. Irvin had 2 TD receptions and caught a min of 5 passes in each of his 3 superbowls. Monk had four 100 yard playoff games, 3 of those came in losses, the skins were forced to pass which padded his stats. Irvin had six 100 yardplayoff games, only 1 of those came in a loss. Irvin was at his best when it matter most and he was a big part of Dallas's playoff success.

Irvin has 0 TDs and fewer than 70 yards in two of his three superbowls. And unlike Monk he was healthy for all of them. And I find it interesting that after talking about TDs in superbowls you switch to yardage in other playoff games. Both Irvin and Monk scored TDs in five playoffs games (though Monk played in one fewer) and both won four of those games. When Irvin DIDN'T score a TD in a playoff game, the Cowboys went 8-3. When Monk didn't score, the Redskins were 6-4. Apparently the Cowboys didn't need Irvin to score in the playoffs as badly as the Redskins needed Monk.

Actually Irvin played 14 less games, almost a full seasons worth. So given those 14 additional games and the fact that Irvin was coming off consecutive 1000 yard seasons, he would have easily surpassed Monk's numbers during the same time frame.

Nah. Let's say Irvin only played in 10 fewer games. He was healthy and physically able to play during those 4 games in which he was suspended for behavioral issues. It's not Monk's fault he never got himself suspended from the league, and it shouldn't be held against him that he didn't.

We are never going to be able to convince each other that the one was better than the other. I think it was Irvin, you think it was Monk and it's simply a matter of opinion. Monk was a great WR for the skins, Irvin was a great WR for the Cowboys.

Well there I think we can agree.

[sacase]

You guys are putting way to much emphasis on receptions. YPC and TD's and total yards are much more important. That is why he is having problems.

[frommd]

You guys are putting way to much emphasis on receptions. YPC and TD's and total yards are much more important. That is why he is having problems.

He's top ten in catches, and yards. You may argue about YPC and TD's. He ran the patterns the coaches called. Which weren't deep routes most times. He main job was to keep the chains moving, and he was awesome at it.

Also, while his TD totals aren't eye-opening, they're still good (tied for 29th all-time). Also, the team was winning. Maybe you'd have more respect for him if he jumped up and down on the sideline and wrote a book titled, "Gimme the damn ball."

[Mr. Nostril]

Here's my question.

What would Michael Irvin's stats have been if the refs called offensive pass interference on him whenever he committed it? I'd venture to say about half of what they are now. I don't think HOF voters should take that into account. His stats are what they are, but us fans can sure debate it.

[CowboyinDC]

Here's my question.

What would Michael Irvin's stats have been if the refs called offensive pass interference on him whenever he committed it? I'd venture to say about half of what they are now. I don't think HOF voters should take that into account. His stats are what they are, but us fans can sure debate it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say he didn't push off 375 times.

[hiswadeness]

I think if we are going to compare different eras, and keep players out because their stats may not be as good as someone from a different era, then we need to start kicking players out of the hall. Not that it matters, the HOF is a joke anyway