gutlead74 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Kings big argument about ART's HOF snubbing is that ART was an accumilater, anyone playing for sixteen years can get his numbers, well lets look at our current 16 year WR Ricky Proehl 242 games played 666 recpts, 8848 yrds with a 13.3 YPA avg, and 54 tds Art's 16 year career includes 940 rec, 12721 yds, 13.5 YPA avg, and 68 tds....anyone else see the difference? if a similar thread has been posted i am sorry, well not really there volumes of posts on here and i aint sifting through them. :notworthy http://pro-football-reference.com/ i got the numbers here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I feel the pain too. I'm just sick to death of hearing about it now. I mean, it's SO OBVIOUS to most NFL "experts" that he belongs there. He will get in. My greatest fear is that it won't happen until his deathbed. It wouldn't surprise me if the NFL tried to make a spectacle of it. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gutlead74 Posted June 1, 2006 Author Share Posted June 1, 2006 true enough i hear ya, however its just been on my mind lately. i also havent been on the board for a long time. i guess i was trying to prove there was no addiction, i guess we will c the next few days;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 ---------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gutlead74 Posted June 1, 2006 Author Share Posted June 1, 2006 i am kinda surprised in this day and age of Internet and espn that SI is still making profits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Kings big argument about ART's HOF snubbing is that ART was an accumilater, anyone playing for sixteen years can get his numbers, well lets look at our current 16 year WR Ricky Proehl242 games played 666 recpts, 8848 yrds with a 13.3 YPA avg, and 54 tds Art's 16 year career includes 940 rec, 12721 yds, 13.5 YPA avg, and 68 tds....anyone else see the difference? if a similar thread has been posted i am sorry, well not really there volumes of posts on here and i aint sifting through them. :notworthy http://pro-football-reference.com/ i got the numbers here It has been posted before, but an argument I have used recently to bust the "accumulator" or "compiler" myth: It took Steve Largent 200 games to reach 819 receptions. Art Monk took 177 games to reach 820. Read my sig to refuff his "Pro Bowl" argument. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swaroopm Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Good point gutlead74. Another flaw in the "accumulator" argument is that Monk didn't add much to his stats in his last few seasons (after he left the Redskins). He was already a HOF player when he left the Redskins, so one doesn't even need to consider the statistics over the full 16 seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub52 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 even if he is an "accumulater", the fact that he was in the league for 16 years still makes him great. besides, he didnt accumulate nearly as much in his last 2 seasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 HOF members are all accumulaters. HOF is not based on one or two seasons. It's based on the body of work that was their career! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan81 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Let us also not forget that Monk (and all Redskins receivers) never had a great QB throwing to them which makes the accomplishments even more spectacular. Same thing with Largent in Seattle neve had a really great QB throwing to him - that's why Monk & Largent are better in my book then Rice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegionOfDoom Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Good point gutlead74. Another flaw in the "accumulator" argument is that Monk didn't add much to his stats in his last few seasons (after he left the Redskins). He was already a HOF player when he left the Redskins, so one doesn't even need to consider the statistics over the full 16 seasons. Art also played in 2 strike years..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzmuda Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Most of the media accuse Monk of doing nothing except catching 8 yard curls. I wonder if they say the same thing about Marvin Harrison since he has a lower career YPC than Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Read my sig to refuff his "Pro Bowl" argument. :logo: I think it's a mistake to try and shoehorn Art into pro bowls for those seasons. I think the greatness of Art Monk is the totality of his work. It's too bad Peter King refuses to recognize it. However, looking over the seasons you've listed, I'm not so sure Art did deserve to go to any of those Pro Bowls. 1980 Art had 58 receptions. The Pro Bowlers James Lofton 71 Ahmad Rashad 69 Pat Tilley 68 Alfred Jenkins 58 (but had much more yards) Harold Carmichael 48 (had over 800 yards and 9 TD) You could make a case for Art against Jenkins and Carmichael, but it's not a given that he should have gone. 1981 Art had 56 catches 894 yards 6 TD The Pro Bowlers Dwight Clark 85 1105 4 Alfred Jenkins 70 1358 13 James Lofton 71 1294 8 Ahmad Rashad 58 884 7 TD You could say Art should have gotten in instead of Rashad, but then again taking a look at 1981, if you pull out Rashad..Kevin House of Tampa should go in his place. He had 56 catches 1176 yards 9 touchdowns and Tampa made the playoffs in 81. 1982 Art had 35 rec 447 yds 1 TD The Pro Bowlers Charlie Brown 32 690 8 Dwight Clark 60 913 5 John Jefferson 27 452 0 James Lofton 35 696 4 Again, you could say Art should have gotten in ahead of Jefferson. Then again here are 3 receivers from 82 who would have as much claim to that spot as Art Roy Green 32 453 3 Tony Hill 35 526 1 Ron Smith 34 475 1 1983 No way Art even deserves mention for the Pro Bowl of 1983. He missed the first 4 games. His stats 47 746 5 The Pro Bowlers Charlie Brown 78 1225 8 Roy Green 78 1227 14 Billy Johnson 64 709 4 Mike Quick 69 1409 13 Next in line if you pull one of them would be Earnest Gray 78 1139 5. 1988 Art had 72 946 5 Who would you replace? Anthony Carter 72 1225 6 Henry Ellard 86 1414 10 Eric Martin 85 1083 7 Jerry Rice 64 1306 9 JT Smith 83 986 5 If you say take out JT Smith, I say Ricky Sanders should be next in line 73 1148 12. 1989 This is the season where the Posse hurt each other. None of them made it and all of them could have but they took votes from eachother. Art Monk 86 1186 8 Gary Clark 79 1229 9 Ricky Sanders 80 1138 4 The Pro Bowlers Mark Carrier 86 1422 9 Henry Ellard 70 1382 8 Jerry Rice 82 1483 17 Sterling Sharpe 90 1423 12 John Taylor 60 1077 10 I'm not sure if Taylor is in as a receiver or a returner, but even if you pull Taylor out, I could say that Gary Clark should have gone in his place. 1991 Art 71 1049 8 The Pro Bowlers Gary Clark 70 1340 10 Michael Irvin 93 1523 8 Jerry Rice 80 1206 14 Andre Rison 81 976 12 If you want to pull out Rison, you could make a case for Michael Haynes 50 1122 11. Overall, I agree that Art should have gone in 1991, but that's about it. Art Monk had a Hall of Fame career, but other than 1991, I don't think in any of the seasons you've listed, he was a Pro Bowl receiver. But that fact shouldn't matter to King. John Riggins made only one pro bowl and King still voted for him. King's pro bowl argument is weak and hypocritical. King's position that a "compiler" is not deserving of the HOF is stupid. Art was a consistant reliable receiver for an extended period of time. That's why he was a Hall of Famer. Screw Peter King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmcardle1982 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 HOF members are all accumulaters. HOF is not based on one or two seasons. It's based on the body of work that was their career! Thank you!!! Being an accumulater is what gets you into the hall of fame. Since when did accumulating great stats year in and year out make you not worthy of the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I'm in the HOF for Acumilating parking tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glikster04 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Dont care. Hall of fame is BS as this clearly shows...again :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoBob Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Ole Petey seems to be a pretty big accumulator himself.....unless he was born that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Ole Petey seems to be a pretty big accumulator himself.....unless he was born that way? :laugh: Pwned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I think it's a mistake to try and shoehorn Art into pro bowls for those seasons. I think the greatness of Art Monk is the totality of his work. It's too bad Peter King refuses to recognize it.However, looking over the seasons you've listed, I'm not so sure Art did deserve to go to any of those Pro Bowls..... ....Overall, I agree that Art should have gone in 1991, but that's about it. Art Monk had a Hall of Fame career, but other than 1991, I don't think in any of the seasons you've listed, he was a Pro Bowl receiver. But that fact shouldn't matter to King. John Riggins made only one pro bowl and King still voted for him. King's pro bowl argument is weak and hypocritical. King's position that a "compiler" is not deserving of the HOF is stupid. Art was a consistant reliable receiver for an extended period of time. That's why he was a Hall of Famer. Screw Peter King. Here is link with a Excell file I made listing all of Monk's and Pro Bowler's stats. http://www.savefile.com/files.php?fid=8373910 When King argues against Monk, and brings up the Pro Bowl, he makes it seem like he only had three good years and all the others were everage. All I'm trying to do is illustrate Monk had more seasons where he was Pro Bowl calliber reciever than King would lead you to believe. 1982: Monk had the same number of receptions as Brown and scored a TD. Jefferson didn't even score once! 1983: Monk had more TD's (5 vs 4) and yards (746 vs 709) and Y/recp (15.9 vs 11.1)than Johnson. Monk had a higher y/rec than Charlie Brown. Monk played in 4 fewer games than everyone except Brown. Brown only played in 15 games that year. 1987: Monk has the same number of receptions as Carter (38) and only one fewer TD's than Carter and Clark (6 vs 7) in three fewer games than everyone else. 1988: Monk had more receptions than Rice(72 vs 64) Monk had higher y/rec than Martin (13.1 vs 12.7) Monk had same TD's (5) as Smith and higher y/rec (13.1 vs 11.9). Monk had more receptions (72 vs 14), yards(946 vs 325) and TD's (5 vs 2) than Taylor. 1989: More recptions than Ellard (70), Taylor(60) and equal to Carrier(86). More yards than Taylor (1186 vs 1077) Same amout of TD's and Ellard (8) 1990: Its a stretch, but Monk did have more receptions than Sharpe. (68 v67) and only one fewer TD. 1991: Monk had More receptions than Clark (71 vs 70) more yards than Rison (1049 vs 976) Higher y/rec than Rison (14.8 vs 12) Same TD's as Irvin (8) And the best catch in the back of the end zone against the Steelers. And yea......screw Peter King! :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.