My Letter to Dr. Z

[bigyim]

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.

Ah, no, they aren't any "better" than Monk...They may have more catches than Monk, but that's specifically because they are currently playing in the NFL, with the modified PI rules since 1996. That's like saying Mark McGuire was better than Babe Ruth...The recievers of the '90s/today & Monk aren't contemporaries any more than Monk and Lance Alworth were.

There are only a few recievers that can compare with Monk's hands, route-running & blocking abilities, and NONE that can compare with his quiet leadership and mild demeanor that didn't say "hey, look at how great I am, dog" to show off to the ESPN crowd.

He never had a Hall-of Fame QB throw to him during his career, and had over a dozen QBs throwing to him during his tenure.

He played on a run-first team in the early '80s, and didn't benefit from the West Coast offense proliferation of the late '80s or the modified PI rules after 1996...hence the low TD #s.

All of this from a CONVERTED RB in college.

"A Dozen recievers"!??? Whatever you're smoking, keep it away from the cops...and don't let Dr. Z take a toke.

[Langford78]

If you notice, those deep catches they made rarely came against anything but single coverage...I wonder where the safeties were?

They where were most safeties are...covering our #1 RECEIVER!

[ouvan59]

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.

You are actually making an argument FOR Monk not against him since his numbers in the 80s are much better than his peers. You fall into the category of people who try to compare him to players that had the bulk of their careers in the 90s and the extremely inflated catch numbers and yardage that came after 1990. I challenge you to find 5 receivers who played the bulk of their careers in the 80s who were better than Monk.

Art Monk didn't play one single down as a Redskin as a #3 receiver. To claim so it just idiocy.

If Art Monk had played for the Cowboys you guys would be howling at the moon for everyone to hear about how much he deserves to be in.

[SkinsGuy]

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.

Yes, but I don't remember Swann as being seen that way. That if the offense was down, you could just chuck it to Swann and turn the game around.

I'm not saying Swann didn't have a great carrer, I'm sayng he didn't have a HoF carrer.

And if he did, then Monk DEFINITELY had one.

[Henry]

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.

Swann was not one of the top five WRs of his time, by the way. He went to the same amount of pro-bowls as Monk. He was the top WR on his own team the same amount of times as Monk.

He was top ten in receptions twice in his career (never in the top 5).

He was top ten in receiving yards three times in his career (never higher than 4th)

He was top ten in receiving TDs three times in his career.

The one thing Swann did that was above and beyond what Monk did was he had two spectacular SB performances. That's it. Absolutely it.

Monk has some things on Swann, too. Monk broke 3 records to Swann's 0. Monk did it with an unspectacular supporting cast, while Swann had HOFers all over his team.

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.

You need to stop countering one-sded arguments with one-sided arguements, Shawn.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yes, but I don't remember Swann as being seen that way. That if the offense was down, you could just chuck it to Swann and turn the game around.

I'm not saying Swann didn't have a great carrer, I'm sayng he didn't have a HoF carrer.

And if he did, then Monk DEFINITELY had one.

You're probably right. By the time I watched football, he had retired. My only point is, how do we know fans from all over the country viewed Riggins that way? We did as Redskin fans, but they might not have.

Anyway, I agree with you...just trying to keep an open mind.

[Skins n' Bones]

It baffles me that the big arguement against Monk is basically that he wasn't flashy and didn't have as many highlight reel catches. Isn't there something to be said for doing your job within the system? Which he exceled at, BTW.

Linemen aren't usually flashy, yet they seem to get into the HOF, so why shouldn't a WR that didn't mug for the camera 90% of the time like today's top WR's.

Monk was one of the best, most dependable, WR's of his time, not to mention a true leader by example, and it is appalling that he is not in the HoF....yet.

[skins4eva]

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.

Yeah, this is nonesense...swanny was not a top 5 receiver of his time--never, not once. Those steelers teams were so loaded that he constantly found himself in single coverage. And, yes he had two great games, both happened to be in the SB--but, if you look over his career, i find it nothing more than average.

[Henry]

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.

There are 23 modern-era QBs in the HOF.

There are 24 modern-era RBs in the HOF.

There are 17 modern-era WRs in the HOF.

Considering that there are twice as many starting WRs as RBs or QBs on any given team, do you realize how ridiculously underrepresented the WR position in the Hall? This 'too many WRs' arguement is a total fallacy. There AREN'T ENOUGH recievers in the Hall. Which makes the exclusion of Monk, a guy who has more catches than any of the 17 in there already, an even bigger travesty.

And this 'Swann, Stallworth, Joiner and anyone else who Monk compares favorably too shouldn't be in the Hall' arguement is equally laughable. Either there shouldn't be any WRs in the HOF from the 70s and 80s or Monk should be in. It's as simple as that.

[SkinsGuy]

You're probably right. By the time I watched football, he had retired. My only point is, how do we know fans from all over the country viewed Riggins that way? We did as Redskin fans, but they might not have.

Anyway, I agree with you...just trying to keep an open mind.

I hear ya.

What's funny is that you mention the view of Riggins, I have never met a football fan (Redskinfan or not) that disliked Riggins.

Even the most obnoxious Cowboy fans I have known (I mean the real loud-mouthed ones), whenever I brought up Riggins, they would drop the ****y attitude and admit they always liked Riggins.

Whether it was the way he played or his beer drinkin, redneck rebel attitude, I never really knew anyone that hated the Diesel.

[Hitnskins]

And for Goodness sakes, there's a reason why Redskins fans stick up for Monk....it's not like everybody is saying that Clark should be in, and Sanders should be in, etc......it's one ARGUEMENT, that is everlasting to any Redskins fan who ever got to see Art Monk play......i can remember when ever the ball was thrown his way, you knew it was going to be a catch...and i can remember when i was growing up, and we needed a big play, i always would tell my dad, they need to go Monk, they need to go Monk....he was that good, that clutch, and i don't think people understand how much of a gentleman he was on the field. He was my favorite Redskin growing up, and he was someone i really looked up to and respected! These writers can think what they want, but it's really a shame that they seem to have this bias against Art Monk. If i think about the Hall of Fame, and the type of players that should be in, and what it should represent, then there's no way a player of Art Monk's stature, ability, and professionalism should be kept out of it......The Hall of Fame would be a better place with Monk in it, and would be lucky to have him in it! To me, it's a disgrace to have the type of writers they have voting these guys in, who seem to have some chip on their shoulders, or vendetta against all things relating to the Redskins. I really can't figure out for the life of me, how any one could possible think that Art Monk doesn't belong in the Hall Fame.....that Jerk Dr. Z ought to be booted off the panel for even making a stupid ass comment like the one he said about "you don't get in to the Hall running 800 8 Yard hooks"....i mean, that is just a stupid comment to make, jokingly or not. It obviously shows a bias! Because that's no where near the truth! The whole Hall of Fame looses credability to me with the panel they have formed selecting the players....the whole thing is just one big joke.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I hear ya.

What's funny is that you mention the view of Riggins, I have never met a football fan (Redskinfan or not) that disliked Riggins.

Even the most obnoxious Cowboy fans I have known (I mean the real loud-mouthed ones), whenever I brought up Riggins, they would drop the ****y attitude and admit they always liked Riggins.

Whether it was the way he played or his beer drinkin, redneck rebel attitude, I never really knew anyone that hated the Diesel.

Agreed...how could you hate him?? He's a fan-favorite just by his personality alone. Add to that the fact that he was awesome, and he's very hard to cheer against!

[skins4eva]

And for Goodness sakes, there's a reason why Redskins fans stick up for Monk....it's not like everybody is saying that Clark should be in, and Sanders should be in, etc......it's one ARGUEMENT, that is everlasting to any Redskins fan who ever got to see Art Monk play......i can remember when ever the ball was thrown his way, you knew it was going to be a catch...and i can remember when i was growing up, and we needed a big play, i always would tell my dad, they need to go Monk, they need to go Monk....he was that good, that clutch, and i don't think people understand how much of a gentleman he was on the field. He was my favorite Redskin growing up, and he was someone i really looked up to and respected! These writers can think what they want, but it's really a shame that they seem to have this bias against Art Monk. If i think about the Hall of Fame, and the type of players that should be in, and what it should represent, then there's no way a player of Art Monk's stature, ability, and professionalism should be kept out of it......The Hall of Fame would be a better place with Monk in it, and would be lucky to have him in it! To me, it's a disgrace to have the type of writers they have voting these guys in, who seem to have some chip on their shoulders, or vendetta against all things relating to the Redskins. I really can't figure out for the life of me, how any one could possible think that Art Monk doesn't belong in the Hall Fame.....that Jerk Dr. Z ought to be booted off the panel for even making a stupid ass comment like the one he said about "you don't get in to the Hall running 800 8 Yard hooks"....i mean, that is just a stupid comment to make, jokingly or not. It obviously shows a bias! Because that's no where near the truth! The whole Hall of Fame looses credability to me with the panel they have formed selecting the players....the whole thing is just one big joke.

Amen, brother, amen!!!

[BleedBNG]

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 are deserving. the bar needs to be raised.

Give us a bar raising example. Or do you mean clear the Hall and start over with the ones we have now.

Oh that would be silly, right?.... because they were of a different era (decade wise)

EXACTLY!!!

Sidenote: I argued for Swann before even thinking of Monk. And even though I used them as examples in prior posts... always felt Stallworth and Joiner were DESERVED members also.

[Riggo#44]

I'd be interested to see what our old crotchety wine-obsessed doctor's view on Irvin would be.

When I read his response, there are a couple of things he is missing:

- At one time Monk was the all-time leading receiver.

- Monk did many things that no one saw - precise routes, blocked well, had the surest hands - comprable to Cris Carter

Just my thoughts - and 71% of his readership disagrees with him.

[hokie4redskins]

Screw Dr. Z and screw SI. It'll make it all the better when Gibbs makes eat crow. I was reading an SI blurb about our World Cup team and given SI's track record, I was pleased that they predicted the US would NOT advance to the second round.

[shakazullo]

Art Monk career average is 13.5 yards. Marvin Harrison's 13.3. Chris Carter 12.6. Rod Smith 13.6. Tim Brown 13.7. Keenan McCardell 12.9. Andre Rison 13.7. Keyshawn Johnson 13.1.

Nuff said

[ouvan59]

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.

You are absolutely correct that the bar needs to be moved. It needs to be adjusted for each era. What the NFL needs is their version of Bill James and Sabermetrics so you can compare era to era. Your claim that there are 12 receivers playing today that are better than Monk is just silly. There may be 12 who have better stats but not in comparison to the era they played in.

I saw a stat a couple of weeks ago that showed that teams averaged 250 more passing yards a year in 1994 than they did in 1984. They also throw the ball a considerably higher number of times and for a considerably higher completion percentage. Why? Because receivers today don't have a Lester Hayes, completely covered in stickum draped all over them all the way down the field.

Moving the bar is a good idea but it would only benefit Monk.

[G-Prime]

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-

Your an idiot if you refer to yourself in the 3rd person.. Just thought you should know

[BleedBNG]

There are 23 modern-era QBs in the HOF.

There are 24 modern-era RBs in the HOF.

There are 17 modern-era WRs in the HOF.

Considering that there are twice as many starting WRs as RBs or QBs on any given team, do you realize how ridiculously underrepresented the WR position in the Hall? This 'too many WRs' arguement is a total fallacy. There AREN'T ENOUGH recievers in the Hall. Which makes the exclusion of Monk, a guy who has more catches than any of the 17 in there already, an even bigger travesty.

Good one Henry!

Another Queen shotdown. And Dr. Z should be charged for HOF opinion malpractice.

[Birdlives]

i can remember when ever the ball was thrown his way, you knew it was going to be a catch...and i can remember when i was growing up, and we needed a big play, i always would tell my dad, they need to go Monk, they need to go Monk....he was that good, that clutch, and i don't think people understand how much of a gentleman he was on the field. He was my favorite Redskin growing up, and he was someone i really looked up to and respected!

:notworthy

Age is not the only thing we have in common.

[dgreen]

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

Personally, Largent is just ahead of Monk. I can see the arguments for Lofton, but I'd take Monk 10 times out of 10 there.

[DjTj]

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.

The major flaw in your argument is that Lynn Swann made it into the Hall in 2001. Who else was on that ballot? Art Monk.

So if a bar should be raised for Art, it should have been raised for Swann as well. We're not talking about some wide receiver from the 50's here - we're talking about someone who was judged alongside Art Monk.

And as far as Dr. Z, he wrote in 2001:

Art Monk: His name has come up for years, and I've never voted for him and have always caught heat for it. My argument is always paired with my reasons for pushing hard for Lynn Swann. Quantity vs. quality. Monk caught a million passes, most of them eight-to-10-yard hooks. Swann made spectacular catches at the championship level. I can't gauge Monk's chances this time.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/dr_z/news/2001/01/24/drz_insider/

He was one of Swann's biggest supporters, and he has been dogging Monk since 1984:

-=-=-=-=-=-

Sports Illustrated

December 24, 1984

The Doc's Dangerous Double Dozen

Paul Zimmerman

Monk was indispensable to the Skins' offense, but his single-season reception record (106) was built on a lot of eight-yard hitches, while (Roy) Green was more of a threat downfield.

Nobody should waste their time trying to convince Dr. Z. While Peter King constantly changes his arguments, and Len Pasquarelli generally avoids writing on the issue, Dr. Z has had a vendetta against Art Monk since the day Art stepped into the league. I don't see him changing his tune anytime in the near future.

http://artmonk.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame-voters/paul-zimmerman/

[shawn]

: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.

no one doubts his selflessness and his contribution to his team. otherwise he wouldn't be considered in this debate. but those alone are not enough reasons to be in HOF. there are a lot of selfless players who sacrifice for their team mates or are good blockers. Moose Johnston is an example, but he is not deserving of HOF. I am not so sure about Monk drawing a lot of double coverage. He may have for a period but not as a main threat.

again, he was good but not exceptional. he was very good for a couple (or three) of years during his career. but as I said, I wouldn't get upset if he gets in. He is one of those guys on the fence that could go either way. I can understand the redskins fans being emotional about this.

[TheDirtbags]

we have a guy in jail rite now who ran for over two hundred yards in the SB...do he deserve to be in the HOF?????