Bigkatt Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 I haven't seen anyone dispute that Monk deserves to be in the HOF but if you want to be taken seriously you have to stop with the Greatest WR of all time argument, because it's just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorfro Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Here's the deal...........timing is everything. Monk held the all-time marks and no one seems to remember because they were broken just a few years after that. He was not flashy. He simply got the job done and he played for the skins. No one seems to remember. what a shame. Crime really! One class act. NFL braintrust=losers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigkatt Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 In my opinion there's only 2 WR better than monk...Jerry rice and Don Hutson! That's it! Monk is the 3rd best WR to ever play the game! Yes...even better than Bobby mitchell and Charley Taylor... QUOTE] Yep Jerry rice and Don Hutson are 1 and 2 all time but I can't see how you can justify Monk at 3? I saw Charley Taylor play and he was an amazing WR who did everything well and Bobby Mitchell while not as consistant as Taylor regularly made sensational plays. Both were clearly better IMO as was Lance Alworth, Steve Largent, Raymond Berry among others. Now this doesn't mean Monk isn't deserving the Hall just that hes not in the top tier of all time WR's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talk show host Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Pro bowls shouldn't mean squat when induction time comes....Didn't Jeremiah trotter get in the pro bowl after playiong what 7 games..? That's just a load of ****! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what if Monk made the prowl bowl 3 times! He broke Steve largents record to become the all-time reciever in receptions.. He's the first reciever ever to have 100 catches in a season(in a run first formula I might add...) And what would his numbers look like if he was all there was at WR during those era's? It's a popularity contest just like the HOF seems to be directing towards..! In my opinion there's only 2 WR better than monk... Jerry rice and Don Hutson! That's it! Monk is the 3rd best WR to ever play the game! Yes...even better than Bobby mitchell and Charley Taylor... And it's rediculous that he is not in the HOF!Simple... probowls in of themselves shouldnt mean squat, but when you take into account monk was in like, what? 3 probowls out of 14 years? that means in 11 years, he wasnt considered to be one of the top 4 receivers in the NFL? that means, in 11 years, 44 receivers were considered being better than him? hes not HOF material. He didnt put up stellar numbers. and the bar has risen since he was playing. if he were in his prime playing now, he wouldnt be a better recevier than santana moss, steve smith, terrell owens, randy moss, marvin harrison, reggie wayne, etc. get over it. hes not getting in and he doesnt deserve to. id rather see all of the "hogs" make it in before him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talk show host Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Pro bowls shouldn't mean squat when induction time comes....Didn't Jeremiah trotter get in the pro bowl after playiong what 7 games..? That's just a load of ****! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what if Monk made the prowl bowl 3 times! He broke Steve largents record to become the all-time reciever in receptions.. He's the first reciever ever to have 100 catches in a season(in a run first formula I might add...) And what would his numbers look like if he was all there was at WR during those era's? It's a popularity contest just like the HOF seems to be directing towards..! In my opinion there's only 2 WR better than monk... Jerry rice and Don Hutson! That's it! Monk is the 3rd best WR to ever play the game! Yes...even better than Bobby mitchell and Charley Taylor... And it's rediculous that he is not in the HOF!Simple... probowls in of themselves shouldnt mean squat, but when you take into account monk was in like, what? 3 probowls out of 14 years? that means in 11 years, he wasnt considered to be one of the top 4 receivers in the NFL? that means, in 11 years, 44 receivers were considered being better than him? hes not HOF material. He didnt put up stellar numbers. and the bar has risen since he was playing. if he were in his prime playing now, he wouldnt be a better recevier than santana moss, steve smith, terrell owens, randy moss, marvin harrison, reggie wayne, etc. get over it. hes not getting in and he doesnt deserve to. id rather see all of the "hogs" make it in before him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talk show host Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Pro bowls shouldn't mean squat when induction time comes....Didn't Jeremiah trotter get in the pro bowl after playiong what 7 games..? That's just a load of ****! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what if Monk made the prowl bowl 3 times! He broke Steve largents record to become the all-time reciever in receptions.. He's the first reciever ever to have 100 catches in a season(in a run first formula I might add...) And what would his numbers look like if he was all there was at WR during those era's? It's a popularity contest just like the HOF seems to be directing towards..! In my opinion there's only 2 WR better than monk... Jerry rice and Don Hutson! That's it! Monk is the 3rd best WR to ever play the game! Yes...even better than Bobby mitchell and Charley Taylor... And it's rediculous that he is not in the HOF!Simple... probowls in of themselves shouldnt mean squat, but when you take into account monk was in like, what? 3 probowls out of 14 years? that means in 11 years, he wasnt considered to be one of the top 4 receivers in the NFL? that means, in 11 years, 44 receivers were considered being better than him? hes not HOF material. He didnt put up stellar numbers. and the bar has risen since he was playing. if he were in his prime playing now, he wouldnt be a better recevier than santana moss, steve smith, terrell owens, randy moss, marvin harrison, reggie wayne, etc. get over it. hes not getting in and he doesnt deserve to. id rather see all of the "hogs" make it in before him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roulette Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 I love Art. Seriously. But GOAT is a special term. By definition, greatest means the lone individual who was better than everyone else. Art was good. Big numbers, solid performances year after year. But Jerry was better across the board. You can make all kinds of arguments about QB quality and offensive style, but in the end, I don’t think you can honestly stand up and say that Monk was better than Rice. His numbers were insane. His longevity was legendary. His records may be unattainable for mere mortals. I love Monk. But he’s not the Greatest WR of All Time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 There are some odd names in this list. Some who are listed were not better than Monk... Chris Carter, Reggie Wayne, Steve Largent. Chris Carter was a flop and traded for a ham sandwich to the Vikings. He eventually put up good numbers, but he was a system player on a really good offense. Steve Largent was a lesser Monk. Why? Because he never was able to propel his team through the playoffs. The Seahawks had a solid qb, good rb, and Largent and they were a tease... a team that always folded when the pressure was on. Monk would never let his team be stopped. When the pressure rose... he got that necessary first down or broke a tackle or found a way to get the freeing block. Reggie Wayne isn't even worth discussion yet. If Monk played today in his prime, he would still be a top flight receiver. He had good, not great speed, excellent strength, excellent route running, excellent hands, and did whatever needed to be done. There's always an apples/oranges argument when comparing eras and even players... was Monk the big highlight player... he could be at times, but that wasn't what he was asked to be... he was asked to make the important catches. The stretch the field players, the Charlie Browns, Gary Clarks, Ricky Sanders, even the Calvin Mouhamads were asked to collect the forty yard bombs. For what Monk did and what he was asked to do he was very close to the best. He helped to redefine the receiver, before Monk the small quick model was in vogue... for more than ten years after Monk's body type was considered ideal. The Monk, Irvin, Rice type of receiver was the one everyone wanted. He wasn't the best of all time, but he is in elite, elite company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 probowls in of themselves shouldnt mean squat, but when you take into account monk was in like, what? 3 probowls out of 14 years? that means in 11 years, he wasnt considered to be one of the top 4 receivers in the NFL? that means, in 11 years, 44 receivers were considered being better than him? hes not HOF material. He didnt put up stellar numbers. and the bar has risen since he was playing. if he were in his prime playing now, he wouldnt be a better recevier than santana moss, steve smith, terrell owens, randy moss, marvin harrison, reggie wayne, etc. get over it. hes not getting in and he doesnt deserve to. id rather see all of the "hogs" make it in before him. You done talking Peter King? Monk IS one of the greatest of all-time, and damn well deserves to be in the HOF. He put up great numbers on a team that was a dominant rushing team and never had a stellar QB. Add to that the presence of 2 other great WR's and it makes that his numbers seem even better. Add to that the intangibles like blocking and team leadership and I think that constitutes him as one of the best. Your arguement is a joke, and you need to go somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 I love Art. Seriously. But GOAT is a special term. By definition, greatest means the lone individual who was better than everyone else. Art was good. Big numbers, solid performances year after year. But Jerry was better across the board. You can make all kinds of arguments about QB quality and offensive style, but in the end, I don’t think you can honestly stand up and say that Monk was better than Rice. His numbers were insane. His longevity was legendary. His records may be unattainable for mere mortals. I love Monk. But he’s not the Greatest WR of All Time Jerry Rice is NOT the GOAT either. Had he played 15-20 years earlier, half his catches would not be made else he'd now be in a wheelchair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoyaSkins28 Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 though i love monk, in no way was he better than Rice. Jerry Rice has ever receving record there is. hes the best of all time, no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoyaSkins28 Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 probowls in of themselves shouldnt mean squat, but when you take into account monk was in like, what? 3 probowls out of 14 years? that means in 11 years, he wasnt considered to be one of the top 4 receivers in the NFL? that means, in 11 years, 44 receivers were considered being better than him? hes not HOF material. He didnt put up stellar numbers. and the bar has risen since he was playing. if he were in his prime playing now, he wouldnt be a better recevier than santana moss, steve smith, terrell owens, randy moss, marvin harrison, reggie wayne, etc. get over it. hes not getting in and he doesnt deserve to. id rather see all of the "hogs" make it in before him. This is bulls***. Ur right, pro bowls dont mean squat. Michael Vick made the pro bowl this year with less than 2400 yards. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN when every healthy QB in the NFC East got at least 3000? And for the stellar numbers thing... when he left the game he was the all time yards leader... to me thats stellar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan81 Posted June 3, 2006 Author Share Posted June 3, 2006 Well it looks like I accomplished my goal of getting everyone to talk about & weigh in with their opionion of Art Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brasi Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Put down the crack pipe. Monk was great, and deserves a spot in the Hall, but let's not get carried away. Top 20, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanos Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I love Art Monk too death,but he was not the greatest receiver in NFL history.He was not the greatest Redskin receiver ever. CT was IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I know there are already posts like this, and it is only my 81st, but I could think of no more fitting way to post then to have the 81st dedicated to Art Monk. To me he was Jerry Rice before there was a Jerry Rice & is still better then him in my opinion as he always had others to share the ball with & never had anybody the likes of Steve Young or Joe Montana throwing his way. Let's get Art in the Hall of Fame. :helmet: Yeah I love Art and all... a true possesion reciever to the nth degree. But he was one dimensional. The best possesion reciever ever in my book, but still Jerry rice, randy moss, terrel owens even were better. Art is Art and the best Art ever. Better than Irvin thats for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 There's a fine line between being a homer and clinicly insane. Trust me, Jerry Rice is the best WR of all-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackdaddydean Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 NOT the greatest of all time...homers...geez...Go Redskins by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36HAMMER Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I shake my head in disgust and shake my fist's in anger at those who say he wan't clutch or the main man. yes. Clark did catch alot of the long balls but the was partly because the Man was drawing the attention of the secondary away. i've been watching some games and now wonder how someone can come to that conclustion. he was a professional.with a lunch pail, he had a workman like attitude, not a rhinestone strut and rap.i tell you guys, he will wind up in the hall, it just won't be soon enough.whatever we want to do help get him in sign me up.you shouldn't have to use a bull horn while you play to get into the hall. as i watch these games it is stated quite frequently about Monk going into the hal of fame. and thers no tongue in cheeck , no snickering just matter of fact aand an expectation that this will be the obvious out come of an awesome career. :point2sky here's to the voters opening their collective eyes and parting the way to let this deserving man take his place in the hall of fame. :adoration :wavetowel :wave: :allhail: :dj: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Not the greatest of all time, but clearly should be in the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Interesting that to a lot of those who don't know what they are talking about Monk was just a possession receiver who wasn't anything special. Marvin Harrison has a lower yards per reception than Monk and he hasn't played his 11th-14th seasons yet either. He also blew away the receptions in a year record similar to what Monk did in 1984. He also has had Peyton Manning throwing him the ball for 8 of his 10 seasons and hasn't even won an AFC Championship game yet. His teams offense has also been pass happy with him the only very good receiver almost every season. Reggie Wayne isn't even as good as our #3 in the 80's but puts up decent numbers because of Harrison. But some automatically think that Harrison is better than Monk was. I wonder if they even watched football games when Monk played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.