My Letter to Dr. Z

[dgreen]

Again' date=' it's the Hall of Fame, not Hall of Numbers.

You could make the argument that Joe Namath is the most important single player in the history of the NFL. He could have retired in 1970 and should still be in the Hall of Fame.[/quote']

Dressing flashy, banging chicks, and claiming your team will win makes you the single most important player in the history of the NFL?

QBs get in the HOF because they either have great numbers or they were winners (or both). Namath had neither.

[scruffylookin]

Monk had one great year with 106 receptions and top 10 in recieving yards. but comparing year to year to year....he wasn't top 5 in the league for WRs. they were others that were better than him

I agree with you. Year to year, Art was indeed rarely considered in the top 5 receivers except for maybe two seasons (84 & 85).

Also, Art was never a 2nd option to Sanders. To Clark, on occassion yes, but then again, I feel very strongly that Gary Clark belongs in the HOF and it's a crime that he's not in either. So if Art played 2nd fiddle to Gary Clark, to me that still doesn't mean he's not a Hall of Famer.

Longevity, consistant production and being money in the clutch has to count for something. It's too bad King has successfully turned Art's strengths (being consistantly good and dependable year in and year out) into something not HOF worthy ("He's a compiler").

[chronicdesi]

I'm too young to really remember much about Monk, but I know from some of the highlights I've seen he was a great reciever. Whats more than that is he seems like a very humble person, who would be an excellent role model for our youth. I can't see why with his stats, and him being such a great person why we can't let him into the HOF...