My Letter to Dr. Z

[skins4eva]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/06/08/mailbag/index.html

Hey everyone---check out Dr. Z's mailbag...he discusses Art Monk and has this to say: "You DON'T get into the Hall of Fame catching 800 eight-yard hooks."

I sent an email to him, which of course he will never read, but I thought I'd share it:

"Dr. Z, interesting story about Dan Daniels. Question for you, you state that Monk should not get in because he caught 800 8-yard hooks. However, his average gain per catch was 13.5 yards (which is higher than Marvin Harrison, by the way). How can someone like Lynn Swann who never had 1 1000 yard season in his career, never had one season with more than 61 receptions, and had less than 6000 career receiving yards be in the HOF, and yet a guy like Monk is not? Your associate, Peter King, has stated that he will reconsider Monk and has admitted that perhaps he is wrong about him. Don't you think it's time that you do the same? Perhaps, if you watched a little tape of the guy, you'd see with your own eyes what a fabulous receiver he was, and how deserving he is to be in the Hall."

[skins4eva]

Lynn Swann's career stats btw:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/SwanLy00.htm

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1974 pit | 11 | 1 14 14.0 0 | 11 208 18.9 2 |

| 1975 pit | 14 | 3 13 4.3 0 | 49 781 15.9 11 |

| 1976 pit | 12 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 28 516 18.4 3 |

| 1977 pit | 14 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 50 789 15.8 7 |

| 1978 pit | 16 | 1 7 7.0 0 | 61 880 14.4 11 |

| 1979 pit | 13 | 1 9 9.0 1 | 41 808 19.7 5 |

| 1980 pit | 13 | 1 -4 -4.0 0 | 44 710 16.1 7 |

| 1981 pit | 13 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 34 505 14.9 5 |

| 1982 pit | 9 | 1 25 25.0 0 | 18 265 14.7 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 115 | 11 72 6.5 1 | 336 5462 16.3 51 |

[ntotoro]

Unfortunately, these guys reserve "greatness" for players who have memorable pictures taken for magazines or one or two good highlight reels.

[skindogger47]

Unfortunately, these guys reserve "greatness" for players who have memorable pictures taken for magazines or one or two good highlight reels.

Yup, how many times your picture appeared on the cover of SI is now the prerequisite for the HOF.

[Loyal2Washington]

Ricky Sanders

1. Two 1,000 yard seasons. Lynn Swann 0

2. 5 seasons with over 55 catches. Lynn Swann 1

3. More total Rec. and total yards then Swann.

Sanders

481 catches for 6453

Swann

336 catches for 5462

I don't believe Swann was the caliber WR of Art Monk, so that's why I compared him with some more his speed, and he still wasn't better.

:dallasuck :gaintsuck :eaglesuck

[skins4eva]

Ricky Sanders

1. Two 1,000 yard seasons. Lynn Swann 0

2. 5 seasons with over 55 catches. Lynn Swann 1

3. More total Rec. and total yards then Swann.

Sanders

481 catches for 6453

Swann

336 catches for 5462

I don't believe Swann was the caliber WR of Art Monk, so that's why I compared him with some more his speed, and he still wasn't better.

:dallasuck :gaintsuck :eaglesuck

That's really incredible--in many ways, having Swann and to some extent Stallworth (although he was much more deserving) delegitimizes the entire hall for me. I mean, these voters put Swann in and then they put up a fuse against a guy like Monk, simply because he didn't make an acrobatic catch in the SB? What nonesense.

[bubba9497]

"You DON'T get into the Hall of Fame catching 800 eight-yard hooks."

that's just asinine :mad:

[skinshog]

Ricky Sanders

1. Two 1,000 yard seasons. Lynn Swann 0

2. 5 seasons with over 55 catches. Lynn Swann 1

3. More total Rec. and total yards then Swann.

Sanders

481 catches for 6453

Swann

336 catches for 5462

I don't believe Swann was the caliber WR of Art Monk, so that's why I compared him with some more his speed, and he still wasn't better.

:dallasuck :gaintsuck :eaglesuck

Wow, just, wow. Very interesting.

[SkinsGuy]

Swann primarily got in b/c of that unbelievable catch he made in the Super Bowl.

It was an awesome catch, but hardly HoF worthy.

[ntotoro]

Swann primarily got in b/c of that unbelievable catch he made in the Super Bowl.

It was an awesome catch, but hardly HoF worthy.

That's kinda' what I was alluding to. Swann is basically in the HoF because of that one catch.

[Increase Mather]

There was an excellent article in the Washington Post Magazine back in the early 1990s about Monk, entitled "The King of 3rd and Nine." Increase cannot recall exactly when it was published, our who the author was, but he remembers it being a superb article about the many and diverse ways Monk helped the Skins win. Does anyone recall that article? There are doubtless numerous anecdotes in the piece that could be helpful in building a case for Monk's election to the HOF-

[skins4eva]

There was an excellent article in the Washington Post Magazine back in the early 1990s about Monk, entitled "The King of 3rd and Nine." Increase cannot recall exactly when it was published, our who the author was, but he remembers it being a superb article about the many and diverse ways Monk helped the Skins win. Does anyone recall that article? There are doubtless numerous anecdotes in the piece that could be helpful in building a case for Monk's election to the HOF-

Hey increase, are you related to Cotton??

[talk show host]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/06/08/mailbag/index.html

Hey everyone---check out Dr. Z's mailbag...he discusses Art Monk and has this to say: "You DON'T get into the Hall of Fame catching 800 eight-yard hooks."

I sent an email to him, which of course he will never read, but I thought I'd share it:

"Dr. Z, interesting story about Dan Daniels. Question for you, you state that Monk should not get in because he caught 800 8-yard hooks. However, his average gain per catch was 13.5 yards (which is higher than Marvin Harrison, by the way). How can someone like Lynn Swann who never had 1 1000 yard season in his career, never had one season with more than 61 receptions, and had less than 6000 career receiving yards be in the HOF, and yet a guy like Monk is not? Your associate, Peter King, has stated that he will reconsider Monk and has admitted that perhaps he is wrong about him. Don't you think it's time that you do the same? Perhaps, if you watched a little tape of the guy, you'd see with your own eyes what a fabulous receiver he was, and how deserving he is to be in the Hall."

there are a dozen receivers currently playing in the NFL who are better than art monk. I love monk, but Dr. Z. is right. About Swan, I dont see anywhere where where Dr. Z agrees he should be in the HOF.

Just because someone made it in the past with certain stats and got in, doesnt mean that everyone with higher stats should automatically get in. The bar needs to be raised, especially for receivers. If we rely on who's in it already as a benchmark, then WAY TOO MANY RECEIVERS will get in who arent deserving. the bar needs to be raised.

[Increase Mather]

Hey increase, are you related to Cotton??

Indeed. Cotton is my rebellious child. I would give Cotton a thorough thrashing with the cowskin if I were able-bodied . . .

[skins4eva]

there are a dozen receivers currently playing in the NFL who are better than art monk. I love monk, but Dr. Z. is right. About Swan, I dont see anywhere where where Dr. Z agrees he should be in the HOF.

Just because someone made it in the past with certain stats and got in, doesnt mean that everyone with higher stats should automatically get in. The bar needs to be raised, especially for receivers. If we rely on who's in it already as a benchmark, then WAY TOO MANY RECEIVERS will get in who arent deserving. the bar needs to be raised.

First of all, I'm not arguing with the fact that someone should ever get in on stats alone, but they are a contributing factor because they are the benchmark by which other players can be measured. As for your statement that Dr. Z is right, well actually, he is completely wrong, and you don't remember Monk well if you agree with him. Dr. Z never said he didn't agree with Swan being in, and he is on the committee so until I hear that he didn't vote for him, I will assume he did.

[Byebye]

especially stats that include players from the 90's passing era...most of Monk's numbers were generated before that...

[Langford78]

"You DON'T get into the Hall of Fame catching 800 eight-yard hooks."

What the **** does Dr. Z think Art Monk should have done instead of catching eight yard hooks? I have 3 primary problems with this crap:

Number 1: Monk caught more than his fair share of deep passes and made plenty of acrobatic catches. It is simply ludicrous to say that all Monk did was catch little short passes.

Number 2: Anyone who follows football knows that no team would ever be successful if the only passes they threw were deep, "sexy" bombs. Somebody has to catch "eight-yard hooks."

Number 3: Monk was and is WAY to high quality of a person and player to do a T.O. and complain to the media about how he wanted more balls thrown to him, should have more TD catches, etc. Art Monk was a TEAM player...he did what was asked of him and had a HOF quality career doing it. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Art Monk have a couple of SB rings? How many does Owens have? ) Yet people like Dr. Z and Peter Queen drool all over how T.O. is supposedly going to carry the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.

Mark my word, when T.O. retires, Dr. Z and Peter King will be leading the pack of people who thinks Owens deserves to be in the HOF.

[shawn]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/06/08/mailbag/index.html

Hey everyone---check out Dr. Z's mailbag...he discusses Art Monk and has this to say: "You DON'T get into the Hall of Fame catching 800 eight-yard hooks."

I sent an email to him, which of course he will never read, but I thought I'd share it:

"Dr. Z, interesting story about Dan Daniels. Question for you, you state that Monk should not get in because he caught 800 8-yard hooks. However, his average gain per catch was 13.5 yards (which is higher than Marvin Harrison, by the way). How can someone like Lynn Swann who never had 1 1000 yard season in his career, never had one season with more than 61 receptions, and had less than 6000 career receiving yards be in the HOF, and yet a guy like Monk is not? Your associate, Peter King, has stated that he will reconsider Monk and has admitted that perhaps he is wrong about him. Don't you think it's time that you do the same? Perhaps, if you watched a little tape of the guy, you'd see with your own eyes what a fabulous receiver he was, and how deserving he is to be in the Hall."

its more than just about stats. its how you ranked against players of your time and your team. Art Monk's stats maybe better than swan, and some of the other recivers played before Swan. but Swann was one of the top 5 Wrs of his time. Art Monk wasn't. He was a 2nd or 3rd WR on his team. regardless of how those other WRs played or if they had long careers. I think one of the things that people look at is how the player ranks against his peers of his time not just across time.

I am not saying Art Monk was not a good WR or if I have a problem with him getting into HOF, but your argument is one sided and only views one aspect of the process. Otherwise then players like Vinny Testeverde also deserves to be considered since he had a long career and has stats that compare to some of the QBs already in the HOF.

[bubba9497]

there are a dozen receivers currently playing in the NFL who are better than art monk. I love monk, but Dr. Z. is right. About Swan, I dont see anywhere where where Dr. Z agrees he should be in the HOF.

Just because someone made it in the past with certain stats and got in, doesnt mean that everyone with higher stats should automatically get in. The bar needs to be raised, especially for receivers. If we rely on who's in it already as a benchmark, then WAY TOO MANY RECEIVERS will get in who arent deserving. the bar needs to be raised.

First off by your age, I doubt you remember much if any of Monks playing days, and the part you may remember was the tail end of his career.

Few WR ever did as much for his team, or was more professional. Monk could do it all, deep threat, short routes and break off big runs after the catch, He was so smooth he made difficult catches look routine, He was the first of the BIG WR in the NFL and owned the middle of the field. What's even more impressive, is the fact he put up incredible numbers in his era, despite playing on a run first oriented team, and shared the ball with some other great WR, Clark, Sanders, Brown, and TE Didier... there is only one football. Plus he never had just one or two great QB's passing him the ball like most other HOF WR did. He actually made the QB's he played with, better. Also few if any WR blocked better than Monk. He could and did take on DE's, & LB's as well as DB's. Three WR are in the hall played in Monks era almost the exact same time frame. Joyner, Largent, and Lofton. and none of the three had the same numbers, records, or championships Monk had.

[Birdlives]

its more than just about stats. its how you ranked against players of your time and your team. Art Monk's stats maybe better than swan, and some of the other recivers played before Swan. but Swann was one of the top 5 Wrs of his time. Art Monk wasn't. He was a 2nd or 3rd WR on his team. regardless of how those other WRs played or if they had long careers. I think one of the things that people look at is how the player ranks against his peers of his time not just across time.

I am not saying Art Monk was not a good WR or if I have a problem with him getting into HOF, but your argument is one sided and only views one aspect of the process. Otherwise then players like Vinny Testeverde also deserves to be considered since he had a long career and has stats that compare to some of the QBs already in the HOF.

Okay, and who exactly would you rank above Monk from the same era? Jerry Rice is a given, but who else?

[Birdlives]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/NamaJo00.htm

For those of you don't think the HOF is a popularity contest, check out Namath's stats. 173 TD's and 220 Int's

[TD_washingtonredskins]

its more than just about stats. its how you ranked against players of your time and your team. Art Monk's stats maybe better than swan, and some of the other recivers played before Swan. but Swann was one of the top 5 Wrs of his time. Art Monk wasn't. He was a 2nd or 3rd WR on his team. regardless of how those other WRs played or if they had long careers. I think one of the things that people look at is how the player ranks against his peers of his time not just across time.

I am not saying Art Monk was not a good WR or if I have a problem with him getting into HOF, but your argument is one sided and only views one aspect of the process. Otherwise then players like Vinny Testeverde also deserves to be considered since he had a long career and has stats that compare to some of the QBs already in the HOF.

OK, I don't usually chime in on the Art Monk HOF debate.

I liked him a lot and would love to see him make it. In my opinion, he deserves it but I can also understand the counterpoints that are generally made.

However, Art Monk was NEVER the #3 WR on any Redskin team he was on.

In addition, he was rarely the #2 WR. That point is misused due to the fact that he ran the shorter routes and Charlie Brown, Ricky Sanders, or Gary Clark ran the longer patterns. Monk was our mainstay for Gibbs' entire tenure here. He caught all sorts of passes and was our #1 threat in the passing game. He may not have always made the gamebreaking plays because we were lucky enough to have talented players around him, but he was our #1 WR from the day he joined the team until Gibbs left DC.

Who's to say that Clark and Sanders (and Brown before them) would have had the success they did without Monk clearing out the defense underneath. If you notice, those deep catches they made rarely came against anything but single coverage...I wonder where the safeties were?

[SkinsGuy]

That's kinda' what I was alluding to. Swann is basically in the HoF because of that one catch.

Yeah, I thought so.

What's interesing is that while I say that Swann is only in the HoF b/c of that catch, there is one person I know that contends that Riggins is only in the HoF b/c of that 4th-and-1 run he had in SB XVII. :doh:

Which I call B.S. to b/c Riggins was the heart of the Redskins offense (something Swann never was in Pittsburgh).

When nothing was working for the Redskins, you could still always count on "the Diesel" to get the yards and the TDs, and that's why he is in the HoF.

[bubba9497]

its more than just about stats. its how you ranked against players of your time and your team. Art Monk's stats maybe better than swan, and some of the other recivers played before Swan. but Swann was one of the top 5 Wrs of his time. Art Monk wasn't. He was a 2nd or 3rd WR on his team. regardless of how those other WRs played or if they had long careers. I think one of the things that people look at is how the player ranks against his peers of his time not just across time.

I am not saying Art Monk was not a good WR or if I have a problem with him getting into HOF, but your argument is one sided and only views one aspect of the process. Otherwise then players like Vinny Testeverde also deserves to be considered since he had a long career and has stats that compare to some of the QBs already in the HOF.

:doh: Swann was a very acrobatic and highlight film type WR, he played on the dominant team of the 70's... be he was far from being one of the greatest WR of his eras. Swann wasn't the #1 WR on his own team either. If fact Joyner & Lofton wasn't the number 1 wr every year for their teams, it is not about just one year or two but the entire career. Part of Clark, Browns, and Sanders sucess was drirectly related to Monks greatestness.. drawing double coverage, blocking, his selflessness. Very few WR in the hall had competion for the ball like Monk. Most were the only viable option when passing the ball.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yeah, I thought so.

What's interesing is that while I say that Swann is only in the HoF b/c of that catch, there is one person I know that contends that Riggins is only in the HoF b/c of that 4th-and-1 run he had in SB XVII. :doh:

Which I call B.S. to b/c Riggins was the heart of the Redskins offense (something Swann never was in Pittsburgh).

When nothing was working for the Redskins, you could still always count on "the Diesel" to get the yards and the TDs, and that's why he is in the HoF.

I do think we have to keep in mind that we're all looking at this as Redskin fans. Yes, to us Riggo was the heart and soul of that offense. The outsider might assume Gibbs always knew what buttons to push in order to jumpstart our offense.

Same goes with those Steeler teams. Swann definitely had more great moments than that one SB catch. He was known for all of his acrobatic catches. But how do we know that Steeler fans don't consider him the way we consider Riggins?

They might say "Anytime we were struggling, Terry could just chuck one deep and he'd go make a play for us."

It's all perspective.