Peter King Strikes Again

[1028046]

How about you break down the number of catches and receiving yards that each era had and let me know the results.

From 1920 to 1989 there was exactly one receiver who had 100+ receptions in a season (Art Monk 106 in 1984). Here are the numbers of receivers that have hit the 100 reception plateau since 1990 when they started enforcing the 5 yard no chuck rule:

1990-1

1991-1

1992-1

1993-1

1994-3

1995-9

1996-3

1997-2

1998-0

1999-2

2000-4

2001-6

2002-5

2003-4

2004-1

2005-4

Total-46

In Monk's record breaking year of 1984 he had 106 receptions. The next closest receiver had 89. In Irvin's best season the 9th best receiver that year had over 100 receptions. Add this to the fact that Monk held three major receiving records when his career with the Skins was over and the fact that Michael Irvin has never even sniffed an NFL record should tell you how different their eras were.

But keep on comparing apples to oranges. It's something you Cowboy fans are good at.

I am not a cowboys fan

and by the way should we overvalue every RB today compared to yesterday because they ran more back then?

[1028046]

I usually hate to pile on, but I just can't believe that this guy is a HOF voter. I know in my heart that Art Monk belongs on or near the top of anyone's list of players who should be in the HOF. Yet it's clear that this ignoramus will never vote for him. And no Russ Grimm on his list, either? This clown is UFB!

If Art Monk was on the top or near the top of the list with everybody maybe he would be in?

I like Monk I thought he was good and deserved to get in but not over Irvin. I think both should get in.

[TheLongshot]

Irvin was the most vocal player on the team, and if you know anything about those teams, it was Irvin that kicked people into gear.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: having a big mouth does not automatically make you a leader. All it means is that you have a big mouth.

And just because Monk never said much, doesn't mean that he couldn't have been a leader in the locker room. All some people have to do is lead by example.

Course, we've seen what kind of example Irvin set in Dallas. Not exactly a positive one.

Jason

[1028046]

Congrats you can cherry pick stats. You can rationalize any arguement. Doesn't make you right. Not by a long shot. Homer or not I'd take Monk 7 days a week and twice on sunday if I could get away with it. You can take Irvin turn him sideways and shove him somewhere creative for all I care. You don't even really know what monk was. The man was money moving the chains. Defenses knew where he was going and how he was gonna get there and STILL he'd get the 1st and he'd do it over and over. What he did for us was more valuable than a 1000 goofy circus catches. Your just too dense to get it. Take your weak stats and get to steppin...

It took me a while to respond to this because you present no facts at all. If I am cherry picking stats find me one stat that says Monk was better.

Irvin was more explosive then Monk by a long shot and was instrumental in the cowboy's super bowl victories. Monk on the other hand had one good game against the Bills who had the worst def in superbowl history. I would also only give monk 2 superbowls because if I remember correctly he did not play in the playoffs in 82' or the superbowl.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I have no problem with putting Irvin in the Hall of Fame, but Monk should go in first.

[Smoot Point Really]

I'll put a little more thought into this one:

Game changed significantly after Monk left (or was not in his prime). You'd have to compare Monk's numbers to his contemporaries and Irvin's numbers with his contemporaries (I'll include Andre Reed and Jerry Rice twice since they are contemporaries of both players even though Monk had been in the league 5 years before they suited up):

Name Games Catches Yards Average TDs Catches/GM

Steve Largent 200 819 13,089 16.0 100 4.095

James Lofton 233 764 14,004 18.3 75 3.279

Charlie Joiner 239 750 12,146 16.2 65 3.138

John Stallworth 165 537 8,723 16.2 63 3.255

Lynn Swann 116 336 5,462 16.3 51 2.897

Mark Duper 146 511 8,869 17.4 59 3.500

Art Monk 224 940 12,721 13.5 68 4.196

Andre Reed 227 951 13,198 13.9 87 4.189

Jerry Rice 303 1549 22,895 14.8 197 5.112

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Irvin 159 750 11,904 15.9 65 4.717

Hermann Moore 146 670 9,174 13.7 62 4.589

Isaac Bruce 167 813 12,278 15.1 77 4.868

Cris Carter 234 1101 13,899 12.6 130 4.705

Andre Reed 227 951 13,198 13.9 87 4.189

Jerry Rice 303 1549 22,895 14.8 197 5.112

Basically, it's difficult to compare the two eras... Monk's numbers are consistent with Largeant, Joiner, and Lofton. I threw in Swann and Stallworth because their careers also spanned Monks, but not Irvins. He also had more success with the Redskins than Largeant, Joiner and Lofton who are in because of career numbers alone. I wouldn't say Irvin's numbers alone would get him into the Hall, but Monk's numbers should. However, Irvin and Monk both deserve to be in the Hall... Irvin for the same reasons Swann and Stallworth are in the Hall. Monk should get in based on numbers and four Super Bowl teams with three Super Bowl championships with three different QBs and three different RBs (a fact often overlooked since Dallas and Pittsburgh had same QBs and RBs during their runs). *yawns* I put more time into this than I should've, but I had to make up for it after the Septien remark.

[powerANDgut]

You'd be surprised, I think you could make a case for any of them as a leader. Many people believe it was Irvin because he was a get in your face type guy on the sideline. You never saw Troy say too much, Emmitt rarely said anything. But Irvin? He refused to lose. And if you didn't give 110% on every play, he would call you out.

Its not a stretch at all to say Irvin was the leader. Ask any cowboys fan.

Just because he was the loudmouth on the sideline does not make him the leader.

Emmitt ran witha separated shoulder, and ran well. Some leaders don't have to talk

[jnhay]

For a player that refused to lose he sure lost a lot. Art Monk had 5 fewer losses in two extra seasons with the Skins...and oh yeah....30 more wins.

Michael Irvin refused to lose when Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith allowed him to refuse to lose.

Edit: I should note that I think Michael Irvin is a HOF player but no way in hell does he go in above Art Monk. I'm sorry he made it difficult for you to do your job when you covered the Giants, Queenie, but seriously dude, get over it.

Doesn't he have 3 super bowl rings?

[DeaconBlue]

It took me a while to respond to this because you present no facts at all. If I am cherry picking stats find me one stat that says Monk was better.

Irvin was more explosive then Monk by a long shot and was instrumental in the cowboy's super bowl victories. Monk on the other hand had one good game against the Bills who had the worst def in superbowl history. I would also only give monk 2 superbowls because if I remember correctly he did not play in the playoffs in 82' or the superbowl.

You've completely missed the point. I didn't include stats for a reason. The statistical areas where Monk outshined Irvin have already been enumerated by my fellows here but nevermind that. The problem is the statistical evidence as it is used here is flawed. The supposition is that as stats they are empirical evidence and therefore objective. Not the way they're being used though. I'll use you as a prime example. First off you search out the stats in which Irvin has an edge and then attempt to convince us that those stats outweigh the rest. Then you devalue the stats where Monk had the edge.I.E. Monk has more catches and yardage, your answer would be bah he played longer right? Im not going to argue about which stats are more important because in doing so I like you would be turning them from objective facts into subjective points just to fit my criteria.Instead I tried to impart to you the sense that instead a wr who had great superbowls Monk was a WR without which we wouldn't have ever been in those superbowls in the first place. He didn't do it alone but we couldn't have done it without him. I doin't think they keep a stat showing how many times a player kept a drive going so someone else could score or how many scoring drives over a career would have been 3 and outs had he not been there.Monk wasn't about Monk.Monk was about the team. I didn't sense the same thing about Irvin. I think that if you removed him and inserted any pretty good reciever from the time I don't believe that that team would have suffered all that much. Just my :2cents:

[36HAMMER]

he likes the attention, i have talked to dallas and giant fans alike and with out hesitation they all say theat monk should be in the hall.even irvin says monk should be there.

he's shown himself to be a hypocrite. if you use the reasons he uses that some of his beloved giants of the eighties should be in the hall .you could use those same arguements for monk. he's not worth the time to get lathered up about. he's just selling mags .him and pastabelly must be related. maybe first or second cousin or something. i do see a resemblance.

[sacase]

Look I am sorry to say this but the only stat Monk was any good in was receptions. To be perfectly honest, just becasue you have a lot of receptions doesn't mean you are a HoF type player. People are saying Monk should be in out of Nastalgia, nothing more unless you are a Redskin fan. His YPC was average, his TD's were average, his total yards were average. He was a solid performer and a guy you could count on. He didn't change the game and he was not someone who you had to double to keep in check. Yes he was good and yes he helped out the skins alot (I remember my best freind was Art Monk when we played street ball) but being a good guy and catching a lot of short passes just does not get you into the HoF

[jnhay]

Look I am sorry to say this but the only stat Monk was any good in was receptions. To be perfectly honest, just becasue you have a lot of receptions doesn't mean you are a HoF type player. People are saying Monk should be in out of Nastalgia, nothing more unless you are a Redskin fan. His YPC was average, his TD's were average, his total yards were average. He was a solid performer and a guy you could count on. He didn't change the game and he was not someone who you had to double to keep in check. Yes he was good and yes he helped out the skins alot (I remember my best freind was Art Monk when we played street ball) but being a good guy and catching a lot of short passes just does not get you into the HoF

I was too young to actually remember/appreciate Art Monk as a player. His stats aren't that great. He does have the rings though.

[Birdlives]

Look I am sorry to say this but the only stat Monk was any good in was receptions. To be perfectly honest, just becasue you have a lot of receptions doesn't mean you are a HoF type player. People are saying Monk should be in out of Nastalgia, nothing more unless you are a Redskin fan. His YPC was average, his TD's were average, his total yards were average. He was a solid performer and a guy you could count on. He didn't change the game and he was not someone who you had to double to keep in check. Yes he was good and yes he helped out the skins alot (I remember my best freind was Art Monk when we played street ball) but being a good guy and catching a lot of short passes just does not get you into the HoF

Huh? So in your opinion a receiver shouldn't be judged by the fact that he caught alot of balls? That's what receivers are supposed to do. The more balls you caught is evidence that you were very good at catching balls, i.e. being a good receiver.

Another point you make, Monk "didn't change the game"? Um, hello, Monk was the first ever real posession receiver. He paved the way for guys like Irvin and showed you didn't have to be a burner to be a great receiver. Coupled with the fact that Monk played on a team with many different QB's, RB's, and for a coach who preferred to keep the ball on the ground I think a strong case can be made for Monk being in the HOF. As for double teaming that is a pretty weak argument. How do you know what defensive coaches were worried about? Perhaps they didn't double Monk much because they had to worry about guys like Clark and Sanders. Perhaps it was more important to bring another guy up to protect against the run.

Pking makes a similar argument that when he covered the giants they never spoke of Monk as being the guy they had to stop to stop the Redskins, but this argument is weak as well. The Redskins of the 80's and throughout Monk's career were a run first team. Of course they didn't worry about the wideouts more.

The fact that Monk was the first guy to ever catch 100 balls in a season should cement his legacy as one of the best WR's ever. No one had ever done such a thing before, including every other WR in the HOF. In an era that was not nearly the high-flying, throw first era of today, that should say something. The 49er's are widely credited with utilizing the West Coast Offense during that same era, and that revolutionized the game and got people believing that throwing the ball was an effective way of getting down field. During Monk's time, had he played on a team that ran the WCO, he would already be in the HOF and his stats would be even more impressive.

[GSF]

Here's an interesting comparison of all time stats between Monk and Thurman Thomas:

Thurman Thomas:

Rushes: 11

Rushing yards: 12

Rushing TDs: 28t

Yards from scrimmage: 8

Rush/Receive TDs: 27t

Art Monk:

Receptions: 5

Receiving yards: 9

Receiving TDs: 29t

Yards from scrimmage: 27

I think part of the problem with Monk not getting his due respect is that he was not a huge numbers guy like a Jerry Rice. What people that didn't watch him and the Skins play regularly don't understand is how clutch he was. Mork had so many crucial, drive saving first down catches when the game was on the line it was just rediculous. Whenever the Skins were about to be done, Art would make a clutch catch for a first down or TD. That doesn't show up in the stats, but Skins fans remember how important he was to those winning seasons.

[manicd]

If Art Monk was on the top or near the top of the list with everybody maybe he would be in?

I like Monk I thought he was good and deserved to get in but not over Irvin. I think both should get in.

Monk was out of the league 4 years before Irvin. He was eligable 4 years earlier, therfore should HAVE been in before Irvin.

[BleedBNG]

Practically identical:

HOF Charlie Joiner (and he had Dan Fouts)

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=107 (click statistics)

Art Monk

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=248 (click statistics)

Art Monk and Jerry Rice were the WR's of the '80's. Michael Irvin was the WR of the '90's. There are zero WR's in the HOF who have started their careers from 1980 until now. These are the top 3 of the past 26 years, and of their era.

For another example of his clueless analysis... let's look at Bullet Bob Hayes stats. His average blows alot of the other HOF WR's away with 20.0. And yet here's another player Dairy Queen is proud to keep out of the HOF.

http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=HAYESBOB01

[manicd]

Practically identical:

HOF Charlie Joiner (and he had Dan Fouts)

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=107 (click statistics)

Art Monk

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=248 (click statistics)

Art Monk and Jerry Rice were the WR's of the '80's. Michael Irvin was the WR of the '90's. There are zero WR's in the HOF who have started their careers from 1980 until now. These are the top 3 of the past 26 years, and of their era.

For another example of his clueless analysis... let's look at Bullet Bob Hayes stats. His average blows alot of the other HOF WR's away with 20.0. And yet here's another player Dairy Queen is proud to keep out of the HOF.

http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=HAYESBOB01

Damn. Is that the guy that many considered the fastest ever? His stats are sick. Must have been fast. Dallas guy or not, that average per catch is nuts. Se should probably be in too. I think the whole HOF commitee are idiots. Let the ex players and coaches choose. People that know more about the gridiron, than an iron skillet.

[BleedBNG]

Damn. Is that the guy that many considered the fastest ever? His stats are sick. Must have been fast. Dallas guy or not, that average per catch is nuts. Se should probably be in too. I think the whole HOF commitee are idiots. Let the ex players and coaches choose. People that know more about the gridiron, than an iron skillet.

:thumbsup:

----------

[Drockvb]

I hate how the whole HOF voting is done. Why are non-athletes voting?

He doesn't know a dern thing.

[Seabee1973]

Really ought to shower at the neighbors house...

Unless she is a super model then she can shower in hers

[Seabee1973]

And you know this how?

Irvin was the most vocal player on the team, and if you know anything about those teams, it was Irvin that kicked people into gear.

Art Monk should probably be in the HOF, but over Irving, get outta here! His numbers speak for themself. I say we all get on the same page and get Lynn Swann out, and I guess just this once, collaberate and replace him with Irvin and Monk.

So you want to take a guy that played in a different era out? Compare recievers to Swanns time and recievers now to now

[IONTOP]

Unless she is a super model then she can shower in hers

unless I am the neighbor... she'd be showering here..

[JuiceMan_74]

Micheal Irvin Should Be In The Hall Of Fame

[scruffylookin]

Look I am sorry to say this but the only stat Monk was any good in was receptions. To be perfectly honest, just becasue you have a lot of receptions doesn't mean you are a HoF type player. People are saying Monk should be in out of Nastalgia, nothing more unless you are a Redskin fan. His YPC was average, his TD's were average, his total yards were average. He was a solid performer and a guy you could count on. He didn't change the game and he was not someone who you had to double to keep in check. Yes he was good and yes he helped out the skins alot (I remember my best freind was Art Monk when we played street ball) but being a good guy and catching a lot of short passes just does not get you into the HoF

1st off, I've watch most of Monk's games (transferring a ton of games from VHS to DVD) in the last couple of years, nostalgia has nothing to do with it, he's a Hall of Fame receiver.

2nd, during many of these broadcasts near the end of his career (90-93) the commentators mentioned Art almost every week as "future Hall of Famer" Art Monk. Comments like "lock for the Hall of Fame" were not uncommon. Art was viewed as a sure fire Hall of Fame receiver while he was playing. What has hurt him is the explosion in the 90's and 00's in receivers numbers. So by the time he became eligible for enshrinement (2001), his numbers didn't look as impressive as they did when he was playing.

Art Monk became the protype receiver in the early 80's. He paved the way for Al Toon, Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, Tim Brown, and Sterling Sharpe.

Also, I'm sick of the myth that all Art did is catch short passes. He caught his fair share of deep balls and intermediate passes. He also caught short hitch patterns (usually resulting in first downs) that dropped his average.

The number that I wish was out there but I don't know if it exists from that era is his catch pct. Art Monk's hands were better than anyones (including Jerry Rice) and if Elias could do the research and give us Art's catch pct, I bet the number would be eye popping and trump ANY receiver of his era and most likely this era.

How the Peter King's of this world have successfully tarred Art Monk's career achievements is one of the most sickening things I've seen in the world of sports.

Also, I'm calling it now, be prepared for the same crap with Darrell Green. Besides the number of years he played, his career "numbers" are fairly average if you look at them compared to others. I will not be surprised in the least if Darrell struggles to get in when his time comes for enshrinement (2008).

[ZkinsFan]

no poitics in this forum

al gore being prez, is as sickening as michael irvin getting into the HOF before our beloved Art.