Peter King Strikes Again

[Cincycowboy]

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).

People need to look at Monk per game averages and compare them to Irvin's. For example, Irvin missed most of the first 2 years with injury and his last year with the neck injury. To put these guys on a level playing field, someone needs to look at their per game receptions, yardage, and TDs. If Irvin had played as many seasons as Monk he would have really been ahead of monk. The other thing you guys aren't thinking about is other teams did not plan on stopping monk, in that he was not the feared player on your offense. Clark was. Irvin on the other hand was feared in the passing game and needed game planned for.

[scruffylookin]

People need to look at Monk per game averages and compare them to Irvin's.

No, people need to stop trying to compare receivers from different eras, who played in different offenses and had different talent around them and start to follow their first instinct.

Art Monk was considered a "no brainer" Hall of Famer when he retired by his peers and even most in the media. This revisionism and tainting of Monk's accomplishments has happened only in the last 5 or 6 years.

I know this has become a Monk vs. Irvin thread, but that's not really the issue. The issue is Peter King list 10 people he thinks belong in the HOF and most (including his #1 selection) are not in Monk's class.

[SkinsFTW]

Some people just don't know what they are talking about.

Monk played for the Redskins from 1980-1993. Clark wasn't even there for the first 1/2 of that time. You know, years where Monk set the record for most receptions ever for a WR. He had 106 in 1984. The WR who was 2nd had 80 Stallworth, and he's in the HOF, that was his best year. Monk led receivers again in 1985 with 91, the#2 WR was Largent with 79 and he's in the HOF too. And that was Largent's best year for Catches and Yards. Monk was better both years, set the record, but the guys with significantly fewer catches in their best season are in the HOF while Monk who has more catches than both of them is not.

Also Monk is the only receiver who led in all time receptions who isn't in the HOF. That is the exact reason Joiner and Largent are in despite never winning anything, not even a Conference Championship. Monk has 3 Rings and 4 appearances in the Super Bowl. All that should be enough to get anybody in. And Largent and Joiner never led the league in receptions. If Monk was a compiler then what were these guys? They had 15-16 or so pretty good seasons while playing on average to horrible teams

Also, as mentioned earlier by others, Monk played most of his career when the Top 10 receivers averaged 60-70 receptions a season while Irvin played most of his career where it was over 90 for receivers and running backs and tight ends were used far less as receivers. Of course Irvin should have a higher average catch per game, he was the #1 receiver on a team with a great QB and RB, line and TE in a much more pass happy time. Monk played on teams with other very good receivers a good OL, average QB's for almost his entire career. And the 2 seasons Monk was unquestionably the #1 receiver on the team he led the league both years in receptions on a primarily run first offense. Irvin never did that his entire 12 year career while in the same situation the whole time, with a HOF QB throwing him the ball the whole time.

What does that say?

He has the rings, but like someone else said. You could replace Irvin with just about any other pretty good receiver from the 90's and get the same results. Those Cowboy teams were going to win a few titles whether Irvin was there or not. They could have gotten by with Jake Reed, Carl Pickens, Rob Moore, etc.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't get in, but he is hardly worthy before Monk, whom a lot here have opinions of despite not being old enough to have ever seen him play in his prime.

[Henry]

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.

Monk has more career receptions, yards and TDs than Irvin. He broke three records during his career. Irvin broke zero. Those are all facts.

Here is an example of cherry picking stats as you have done:

Aikman definately does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

He never led the league once in passing yards, passing TDs, pass completions, pass attempts, yards per attempt.

He averaged a paltry 13.75 TDs and 2745 yards per season, and he is 22nd lifetime in passing yards and 48th in passing TDs.

He went to one pro bowl having passed for 11 TDs and 10 INTs, another with 13 TDs and 12 INTs and another with 12 TDs and 13 INTs.

He wasn't the focal point of his offense, Emmitt Smith was. He has one good SB performance, and that was against a perennial SB loser.

Mark Brunell, who despite lacking the benefit of the supporting cast Aikman enjoyed, averaged more passing yards, more passing TDs, fewer INTs, more rushing yards and more rushing TDs per game than Aikman. Obviously Brunell is a clear cut above him, and should definately get into the Hall first.

[crazycanuck]

Here is an example of cherry picking stats:

Aikman definately does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

He never led the league once in passing yards, passing TDs, pass completions, pass attempts, yards per attempt.

He averaged a paltry 13.75 TDs and 2745 yards per season, and he is 22nd lifetime in passing yards and 48th in passing TDs.

He went to one pro bowl having passed for 11 TDs and 10 INTs, another with 13 TDs and 12 INTs and another with 12 TDs and 13 INTs.

He wasn't the focal point of his offense, Emmitt Smith was. He has one good SB performance, and that was against the Bills who had the worst defense in SB history.

Mark Brunell, who despite lacking the benefit of the supporting cast Aikman enjoyed, averaged more passing yards, more passing TDs, fewer INTs, more rushing yards and more rushing TDs per game than Aikman. Obviously Brunell is a clear cut above him, and should definately get into the Hall first.

You have made an excellent point - I had to go back and read it twice before I caught on what you are doing. I'm a Cowboys fan who respects the heck out of the Redskins - I don't like the 'Skins, but I respect the team and its history. Michael Irvin deserves the Hall, but so does Monk, and I would have no problem with Monk getting in first, or at the same time as Irvin - the most important is that both guys get in. It bothers me to see people on forums criticizing Irvin to make Monk look better, and vice versa. They were both great receivers who delivered the goods. Regarding Peter King, he has railed against Monk for far too long for him to change his mind - it just won't happen because it is now apart of his schtick. Its just too bad that he has a vote.

[Henry]

You have made an excellent point - I had to go back and read it twice before I caught on what you are doing. I'm a Cowboys fan who respects the heck out of the Redskins - I don't like the 'Skins, but I respect the team and its history. Michael Irvin deserves the Hall, but so does Monk, and I would have no problem with Monk getting in first, or at the same time as Irvin - the most important is that both guys get in. It bothers me to see people on forums criticizing Irvin to make Monk look better, and vice versa. They were both great receivers who delivered the goods. Regarding Peter King, he has railed against Monk for far too long for him to change his mind - it just won't happen because it is now apart of his schtick. Its just too bad that he has a vote.

Yes, just in case I wasn't clear, I DO think Aikman deserves to be in the Hall. That's the reason I used him in my example.

[crazycanuck]

Yes, just in case I wasn't clear, I DO think Aikman deserves to be in the Hall. That's the reason I used him in my example.

effective post - well done.

[dcsmooth]

Here's to Peter King...

[ECU-ALUM]

Should Irvin be in the H-O-F? Hey they weren't the Triplets for nothing...yeah put him in....but not before Monk...before there was Rice, Irvin, Carter and all the others...there was #81 for the 'Skins!

As far as King goes if there is any justice in this world the day after Monk is inducted then Mr. King will have a prostate exam on the same day as a tax-audit.

Now if Monk played for the Giants or Dallas...oh he would've been voted in by this clown the day after he retired.

It's hard for me to respect someone that doesn't respond when being called out...(Theismann has called King out on "The Dan Patrick Show" many times to debte him about Art Monk.)

[Smoot Point Really]

I'll just sum up what I said earlier:

Michael Irvin played during an era where offenses were encouraged to throw the ball more (West Coast offense) and according to great players of his era, his stats are rather usual. He compares well with Hermann Moore. He deserves to get into the HOF more because he was a member of a great team than based on individual performances. Most of his career, he had the same HOF QB throwing to him and the same HOF RB piling up yards and keeping defenses honest.

The one year that Michael Irvin caught more than 100 balls, he was 5th in the league and there were 9 players who caught more than 100 balls that year. That very same year, Emmitt Smith ran for over 1700 yards and 25 TDs... It isn't the stats that help Michael Irvin, it's the winning the Cowboys did in the 90s... This doesn't mean he isn't HOF.

Art Monk began his career 8 years before Michael Irvin was a rookie... He went to the Super Bowl with 3 different QBs and 3 different RBs... The year he had over 100 receptions, he caught 106 (17 more than the next). His stats compare favorably to other players of his era who are already in the HOF... Especially Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. Art Monk also had 2 strike shortened seasons.

Quick Stats to compare two players against top players each year:

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

Year Statistic Monk Irvin NFL (top 10 average)

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

1980 REC 58 DNP 74.6

YDS 797 1121.9

TD 3 9.3

1981 REC 56 DNP 77.3

YDS 894 1207.3

TD 6 9.6

1982 REC 35 DNP 48.5

YDS 447 716.4

TD 1 6.1

1983 REC 47 DNP 81.1

YDS 746 1237.9

TD 5 10.3

1984 REC 106 DNP 81.8

YDS 1372 1299.1

TD 7 10.8

1985 REC 91 DNP 80.8

YDS 1226 1168.0

TD 2 9.9

1986 REC 73 DNP 81.8

YDS 1068 1243.1

TD 4 9.9

1987 REC 38 DNP 63.5

YDS 483 991.7

TD 6 9.3

1988 REC 72 32 80.7

YDS 946 654 1188.3

TD 5 5 9.5

1989 REC 86 26 82.0

YDS 1186 378 1313.6

TD 8 2 10.5

1990 REC 68 20 77.8

YDS 770 431 1141.4

TD 5 5 9.0

1991 REC 71 93 82.5

YDS 1049 1523 1180.4

TD 8 8 10.3

1992 REC 46 78 83.7

YDS 644 1396 1119.5

TD 3 7 9.2

1993 REC 41 88 88.0

YDS 398 1330 1180.5

TD 2 7 9.9

1994 REC 46 79 96.8

YDS 581 1241 1296.6

TD 3 6 10.6

1995 REC 6 111 111.1

YDS 114 1603 1522.4

TD 0 10 13.2

1996 REC DNP 64 95.6

YDS 962 1236.2

TD 2 10.9

1997 REC DNP 75 88.7

YDS 1180 1309.0

TD 9 10.4

1998 REC DNP 74 84.5

YDS 1057 1225.9

TD 1 11.7

1999 REC DNP 10 93.6

YDS 167 1366.2

TD 3 11.1

[Smoot Point Really]

Tables don't come out very well, do they?