My Letter to Dr. Z

[MoeRedskins]

My question for both Dr. Z and King is how does a one-time most prolific reciever in NFL history not make it into the hall. If somebody were to break any other all time career record, whether it be sacks, TDs, or rushing yards, how do you say that they aren't hall of fame worthy?

[EersSkins05]

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?????

:rubeyes:

[grego]

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.

if vinny had set a record for most pass completions in a season, set the record for most pass completions all time, and set a record for most games with a certain number of passes completed, and been a key part of 3 SB champion teams, then your comparison would be valid.

[ouvan59]

if vinny had set a record for most pass completions in a season, set the record for most pass completions all time, and set a record for most games with a certain number of passes completed, and been a key part of 3 SB champion teams, then your comparison would be valid.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

That's what everyone keeps leaving out. They try to say his only attribute for the Hall is his numbers. Art has everything you would want for the HOF and more.

1. A multiple record breaking career.

2. An integral part of 4 SB teams

3. A great locker room presence

4. A great contribution to the community outside of football

5. No off the field issues (more of a baseball thing than football)

What he doesn't have is a signature touchdown dance or outlandish quotes.

[shawn]

if vinny had set a record for most pass completions in a season, set the record for most pass completions all time, and set a record for most games with a certain number of passes completed, and been a key part of 3 SB champion teams, then your comparison would be valid.

its stacking his stats against other QBs in the HOF.

Moose Johnston has 3 rings, was a major part of the offensive success of the cowboys and was the best lead blocker of his time. he doesn't deserve the HOF. John Taylor played in multiple superbowls for SF was a major part of the equation and had a couple of very good years he doesn't desrve to be in the HOF.

again, I think that's why this debate goes on a lot. Art Monk is real borderline for HOF. each side can make arguments for their case and each side would be right.

perhaps someday he will be. like I said, I have no problems with that. and I don't have a problem with him not getting in.

[Redskinsfan1967]

Coach Gibbs won three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks, three different running backs and three different kickers. Who was there for all three? Art Monk, Joe Jacoby and Russ Grimm. I think the snub extends beyond just Art and into the Redskins organization.

[Birdlives]

but Swann was one of the top 5 Wrs of his time. Art Monk wasn't.

Just answer the question or don't make statements like this. If he wasn't one of the top 5 WR's of his time, who was? I'll give up Jerry Rice, but really...

[dfbovey]

its stacking his stats against other QBs in the HOF.

Moose Johnston has 3 rings, was a major part of the offensive success of the cowboys and was the best lead blocker of his time. he doesn't deserve the HOF. John Taylor played in multiple superbowls for SF was a major part of the equation and had a couple of very good years he doesn't desrve to be in the HOF.

again, I think that's why this debate goes on a lot. Art Monk is real borderline for HOF. each side can make arguments for their case and each side would be right.

perhaps someday he will be. like I said, I have no problems with that. and I don't have a problem with him not getting in.

What 3 NFL records did Moose Johnston retire with? How about John Taylor?

Just another whacked out comparison to a player that doesn't have all the credentials that Monk does. Monk not only was a part of championship teams, he retired with 3 major records at his position.

Rings, Records, Character... it's a sham that he wasn't first ballot.

[ouvan59]

its stacking his stats against other QBs in the HOF.

Moose Johnston has 3 rings, was a major part of the offensive success of the cowboys and was the best lead blocker of his time. he doesn't deserve the HOF. John Taylor played in multiple superbowls for SF was a major part of the equation and had a couple of very good years he doesn't desrve to be in the HOF.

again, I think that's why this debate goes on a lot. Art Monk is real borderline for HOF. each side can make arguments for their case and each side would be right.

perhaps someday he will be. like I said, I have no problems with that. and I don't have a problem with him not getting in.

John Taylor has three rings but doesn't even close to having the numbers.

The only problem I have with Daryl Johnston making the HOF is because of injury he essentially had a 7 year career. The other factor is that he plays a position that just doesn't get inducted much like punters and kickers. Don't necessarily agree with it.

Vinny has little to no playoff success. He has nearly as many interceptions as touchdowns in an era where good QBs just don't do that and his career winning percentage is just abysmal.

You keep leaving out the whole argument for Monk though. He not only has the numbers he has the rings and the intangibles. It isn't just that when he was done playing with the Redskins that he held three major NFL records. It isn't just that he was an integral part of 4 Super Bowl teams. It isn't just that he was a great locker room presence. It is everything combined that makes Art Monk a Hall of Famer.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Some Mok Stats

Seasons among the league's top 10

Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t

Receiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10

Receiving TDs: 1991-9t

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 5

Receiving yards: 9

Receiving TDs: 29t

Yards from scrimmage: 27

Post season stats

69 catches 1062 yards and 7 TD's.

That accounts for a 15.39 yard per catch average.

[Henry]

its stacking his stats against other QBs in the HOF.

Art Monk has 940 receptions. That's more than any WR in the Hall of fame right now. And some of them played during the same time period he did.

Vinnie has not currently amassed any stat superior to every single QB currently in the HOF. Nor will he ever.

Moose Johnston has 3 rings, was a major part of the offensive success of the cowboys and was the best lead blocker of his time. he doesn't deserve the HOF. John Taylor played in multiple superbowls for SF was a major part of the equation and had a couple of very good years he doesn't desrve to be in the HOF.

again, I think that's why this debate goes on a lot. Art Monk is real borderline for HOF. each side can make arguments for their case and each side would be right.

perhaps someday he will be. like I said, I have no problems with that. and I don't have a problem with him not getting in.

First Vinnie and now John Taylor. John TAYLOR? C'mon shawn, if you want to give us examples you've got to come up with better than this. John Taylor who was never top ten in receptions or yardage, ever? John Taylor, who broke 50 catches three times and 1000 yards twice in his entire career? John Taylor, who isn't top 50 lifetime in any category at all? THIS is the player you are comparing to Art MONK?

Yer killing me here, shawn. Monk and Taylor are players of extremely different calibres. Taylor's entire career spans 1987-1995. Those years were the final nine of Monk's career, when he was supposed no longer a superstar. Monk only played in 3 games in 1995, for example.

Let's compare their number for just those nine years:

Taylor: 347 rec 5589 yds 43 TDs

Monk: 474 rec 6171 yds 40 TDs

Even the old, slow, non-spectacular Monk put up better numbers than Taylor in his prime.

Was Taylor better in the playoffs? Let's look at playoff numbers:

Taylor: 17 games 46 rec 714 yds 6 TDs

Monk: 15 games 69 rec 1062 yds 7 TDs

Yes, Taylor was a decent return man for a couple years. You wanna put up the five years Taylor returned punts against Monk's receiving number from 1980-1986?

Taylor has no business entering this discussion at all. So how about you stop insulting our intelligence by pulling names out of a hat and telling us they compare to a top flight player like Art Monk. You're only killing your credibility around here. Quickly.

[glikster04]

Dr. Z sucks. good letter man

[Riggo#44]

Taylor has no business entering this discussion at all. So how about you stop insulting our intelligence by pulling names out of a hat and telling us they compare to a top flight player like Art Monk. You're only killing your credibility around here. Quickly.

He can't destroy was he never had...

:dallasuck

[grego]

What 3 NFL records did Moose Johnston retire with? How about John Taylor?

Just another whacked out comparison to a player that doesn't have all the credentials that Monk does. Monk not only was a part of championship teams, he retired with 3 major records at his position.

Rings, Records, Character... it's a sham that he wasn't first ballot.

exactly. shawn, you missed the point of my post. the players you cited dont have the records monk possesses. he didnt just have good numbers, he did things no other WR in the game had never done.

[scotlandtech]

I can't understand how James Lofton, who mostly played on losing teams, gets inducted before Art Monk. It makes no sense at all, most of Art Monks catches that I remember he was always behind the secondary.

[SkinsDukes]

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.

Here's a useful test, as much as I personally hate the Cowboys, if Monk were a member of that franchise instead of the Skins I'd still be unable to mount a reasonable argument why he shouldn't be in the Hall. This is not just a matter of being Skins fans and backing Art. No one can adequately justify his exclusion, those who try simply don't know football.

[whatmeworry]

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 |

When you look at it that way you have to wonder how he ever got into the HOF. These are very very ordinary stats. If this was the mnimum qualification there'd be 200 receivers inducted.

[whatmeworry]

I can't understand how James Lofton, who mostly played on losing teams, gets inducted before Art Monk. It makes no sense at all, most of Art Monks catches that I remember he was always behind the secondary.

yeah lofton getting in was downright insulting.

[cskinsrock]

Art Monk simply defined being a Redskin the way Darrell Green did, he should have been in on the first ballot in my opinion. I don't know the stats but the Redskins wouldn't have been anywhere near the team they were with him!

[jtyler42]

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

If that's the case why is Steve Largent in?

[whatmeworry]

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.

I got the fever! Amen and amen! Can I have another amen!!

[manicd]

One of my good freinds once said "he's int the Art Monk years." He was a Rams fan, referring to Isaac Bruce. I asked, "what do you mean?" He basically said, he was in his waning years, but still got it done. This was when I first met him, and didn't know I was a Skins fan. He recongized Art as a great player. Despite the stat difffence, he recongnized the different teams each played with, the era, and drew a parralel. I thought that was cool. He thought Art was HOF caliber. Anyway, that is from a fan from a different team. I can kind of see the parralel myself. Is Isacc Bruce HOF caliber? If so, then so is Monk. Thoughts.

[Seabee1973]

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 |

what were stats for other recievers of that era?

if a running back was elected to the hall of fame for having the rushing title of 10,000 yards in the 1950 era does he not deserve to be in today because every rusher that plays a decade gets 12,000 yards now adays?

[sparkosaurus]

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.

I have to say that bubba has some of the most intelligent and well thought out/researched posts in ES in my opinion..and this post directly answers the prior post made by Shawn...the HOF and receiving is not just stats and IT'S NOT JUST CATCHING BALLS....it's being a leader, it's being a team player, and for wide outs there are also things like BLOCKING..and for football players let's look at CHARACTER...

Art Monk is being set aside because he was quiet, reserved, and simply did his job and went home....no T.O., no Deion, no Chad Johnson yelling and screaming... he came to work and did a job easily worth a spot in the Hall...

[sparkosaurus]

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!

and we all know a good mohawk goes an awful long way....

after all, look at Mr. T!!

"I pity da foo dat don't vote fo MONK!!"

:laugh: