Jim Kelly gives props to Art Monk on ESPN Radio today

[SkinsFTW]

:applause: My point exactly. And I brought up the Steve Largent issue, only because Cowherd's argument against Monk is that he was a compiler, yet he's from the seattle region and Steve Largent is the epitome of a compiler, yet he's a HOF'er, and he never talks about him.

Actually Charlie Joiner was more of a compiler than Largent. Largent had some very good years, like Monk. He was also usually the best receiver on his team.

Joiner was never the best receiver on his team and he played most of his career on bad teams.

Joiner only had 3 seasons where he caught 70 balls and never broke 1200 yards while he had 12 seasons that he caught under 40 balls. Think about that for a second. He also played on the best passing offense of the 70's and 80's. In his best seasons from 1979-1981 he was never the leading receiver with that being either Jefferson or Winslow.

Before those seasons he had never been a top receiver since he averaged 25 catches and 3TD's a year over his first 11 years in the league. He's in the HOF while Monk is not worthy.

[Skinsfan_70]

Actually Charlie Joiner was more of a compiler than Largent. Largent had some very good years, like Monk. He was also usually the best receiver on his team.

Joiner was never the best receiver on his team and he played most of his career on bad teams.

Joiner only had 3 seasons where he caught 70 balls and never broke 1200 yards while he had 12 seasons that he caught under 40 balls. Think about that for a second. He also played on the best passing offense of the 70's and 80's. In his best seasons from 1979-1981 he was never the leading receiver with that being either Jefferson or Winslow.

Before those seasons he had never been a top receiver since he averaged 25 catches and 3TD's a year over his first 11 years in the league. He's in the HOF while Monk is not worthy.

Holy cow. I never knew Joiner stats were so weak (relatively speaking). I always figured with Air Coryell and Fouts that his numbers would be through the roof... (btw, John Jefferson, Charlie Joiner, Kellen Winslow, Wes Chandler... what a corp of receivers - or was it the system and the QB that made them great?)

At any rate, I cannot believe how Monk is getting denied this whole time while guys like Joiner are in... unbelievable.

[MaddogCT]

FCI:

Largent: 819 rec in 200 games.

Monk: 820 rec in 177 games.

FCI= For Cowherd's Information.

:logo:

[SkinsFTW]

At any rate, I cannot believe how Monk is getting denied this whole time while guys like Joiner are in... unbelievable.

Joiner is in for one reason, and its the same reason Largent is in. Joiner broke Taylors total receptions record. Then Largent broke his.

It got them both in the HOF despite never winning anything. (Joiner was like Alvin Harper if he had played in the league for 19 years alongside players like Irvin and Novachek with Aikman and Smith)

Only when Monk breaks it, then Rice breaks his soon after is the rule changed but Monk did more than just play a long time with 40-50 catches a year like Joiner did.

He set the record for catches in a season with 106 when the #2 receiver the same year had 80 catches, another HOFer Stallworth, and that 80 catch year was by far Stallworth's best year. Then Monk had 91 the following year which led the league as well. Joiner and Largent never led the league in receptions. Largent led the league in yards twice though.

My point is that if Joiner gets in and a guy like Swann (336 receptions)gets in then Monk should have been inducted his first shot.

Lynn Swann is another story. He's an NFL analyst first of all. Maybe that counts in HOF voting since Irvin is in too. Besides that he was not an elite receiver he just made 2 big plays in Super Bowls and I guess thats HOF worthy all by itself. On a team with that defense, Bradshaw, Harris, Stallworth they were able to take a risk every once in a while and Swann caught a couple balls. Whoopdeedoo is what I say, but the voters say he is a HOFer.

I mean, if Timmy Smith had just 2 of those games he could probably look for his bust as well, lol. Too bad he only had 1 though.

[scruffylookin]

Art Monk was considered a "1st ballot" Hall of Famer at the time of his retirement by everyone, including the media.

I don't know why or how it has happened, but the media's souring on Monk has only occured while he waited to become eligible. It's funny how all the excuses to keep Monk out that they trot out now, were not mentioned at the time when he actually was playing.

By the way, as others have pointed out:

Cowherd or Jim Kelly?

I wonder who's opinion on who is worthy of HOF induction should I consider?:idea:

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Anybody listen when Cowturd was badmouthing Monk, and Stink and somebody else came in the studio, owned him and shut him up? Before they came in, he said he didn't care how good of an argument they make, it would never change his mind on Monk, and he'd just entertain them. What a prick.

Well, now that Snyder is on the HOF committee things will change. Bank on it.

[grego]

The worst thing about Cowturd is the fact that he just recently started watching football, within the last couple of years. He admits this. He never ever watched Monk play. Guys like this should just shut their mouths. If I ever see him, I will shut it for him!!!

are you kidding? hes a sports talk show host and he just started watching football?

honestly, and i dont mean this to just hate on the guy, but when he talks, sometimes he really doesnt sound like he knows what hes talking about. either that, or he wants to just to have a bold, controversial opinion so he'll get ratings. guess its a combination of both.

as far as monk being a compiler, just look at monks first 12 years in the league and forget the last 4. monk had 801 catches after 12 years. thats still more than all but 16 WR's. all but one of them- largent- played after monk. and all played more than 12 seasons. so, are they compilers? point is, monk did more in 12 seasons than all but a handful of WR's to ever play the game. compiler, my ass.

[cyfar]

How lame is Mike and Mike in the Morning? :doh:

:dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck :point2sky

Well when I flipped passed it the other day, after a night of the NBA playoffs and Post day 2 NFL draft fallout these guys were speaking on the subject of someones sandwich that was taken out of the refridgerator. :doh:

As for Art, tons of former and current players have weighed in and said that he should have been in the Hall. I hope that Commisioner Godell or whoever takes the neccessary actions to allow former players in on the voting process. Not only would Art get in but Gary would get in as well.

[Skinsfan_70]

Does anyone know what the definitive HoF voting process is? i.e. who is on the committee, how the shortlist comes about, how the voting process works, etc? I know there are writers, and former players, but how is the committee actually set up? I've read somewhere that each city gets one writer as a voter and that voter is like a Supreme Court Justice in that its a PERMENANT SLOT -- until he gives it up or dies... that seems a little extreme. and its way too much power for one person to hold onto IMO.

I'm sorry to come off sounding like a "newbie" but, in my defense, I know my sports and I've been following football for as long as I can remember and I think I'm safe in saying that I am not the only football fanatic who has no clue how the HoF voting process works definitively -- i mean I know there are rules as to when one is eligible, but that's about it. It seems like the process is shrouded in mystery and the Hall likes it that way.

To me, the Hall is as much for the fans as it is for any one else and I, for one, would love to see some more transparency with regards to this process. And I'll take it a step further, the fans should have some input as well IMO -- not an overwhelming influence mind you, but the fans should be able to weigh in and have at least a marginal impact. If they did, Monk would be in the Hall as we speak. When you have bonafide Hall of Famers all saying that Monk should be in, fans continously pointing out the omission of Monk from the hall a travesty, then something is wrong with the system. It's broken and needs to be fixed.

[redman]

It's fascinating to me how there's unanimity among former NFL players that Monk should get in, and even more fascinating to me how commentators who didn't play the game nevertheless insist that he's not qualified.

[pjfootballer]

Art Monk was considered a "1st ballot" Hall of Famer at the time of his retirement by everyone, including the media.

I don't know why or how it has happened, but the media's souring on Monk has only occured while he waited to become eligible.

In the late 90's after Monk retired, Herman Moore, Cris Carter and all the receivers in that era started catching 120, 130, 140 passes in a season. The benchmark went way up.

Holy cow. I never knew Joiner stats were so weak (relatively speaking). I always figured with Air Coryell and Fouts that his numbers would be through the roof... (btw, John Jefferson, Charlie Joiner, Kellen Winslow, Wes Chandler... what a corp of receivers - or was it the system and the QB that made them great?)

At any rate, I cannot believe how Monk is getting denied this whole time while guys like Joiner are in... unbelievable.

Joiner started his career with the Bengals, and he was always the underneath guy in the Coryell offense. Chandler was the deep threat, Winslow was the horse and Jefferson was the bigger receiver and caught alot of passes over the middle. Plus Joiner was in his 30's when he joined SD and age started to catch up with him.

[Skinsfan_70]

Snyder Joins NFL's Hall of Fame Committee

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=25944

this is news to me... but good news!

[bulldog]

the trouble with the hall voters is they are inconsistent.

they vote in receivers like Charlie Joiner and James Lofton, players with numbers relative to their peers but not among their generations' all time best, and then push back guys like Monk despite the fact in THEIR generation they put up what?..........NUMBERS relative to their peer group! :mad:

[SkinsFTW]

the trouble with the hall voters is they are inconsistent.

they vote in receivers like Charlie Joiner and James Lofton, players with numbers relative to their peers but not among their generations' all time best, and then push back guys like Monk despite the fact in THEIR generation they put up what?..........NUMBERS relative to their peer group! :mad:

Then they vote in Swann because he had 2 great SB catches.

[bulldog]

ah, but he played for the Rooneys in black and gold and the Steelers were ALL 8 feet tall with the strength of 10 men :laugh:

[Siven]

You have to look at it from the standpoint of the era the player played in. It's like going back to the 40's and 50's and saying "well that QB didn't put up half the numbers that Peyton puts up in a given game." Times change...styles change.

Art Monk played on teams that had a lot of talent, yet he was the go-to-guy for over a decade. He had some of the best hands in the NFL, he could get the needed-catch, and he retired with #1 records at his position. You have to judge him based on how he played, when he played. Honestly, I'd say he's very similar in style to Marvin Harrion these days. I bet you can't find a media guy who will say Marvin doesn't belong in the hall...but basically he's made a living off of being the go-to-guy on a team that has a lot of weapons. He runs great routes, has great hands, and knows how to make a play when he's needed. His personality is even a lot like Monks...yet the media loves him and wants to label Monk as being "distant."

It's a crock.

:2cents:

It's really funny, Rod Woodson was vouching for Art, and the other guy said he didn't think Art belonged in the hall because he had a low yards per catch

Rod asked him if he thought Marvin Harrison was a first ballot hall of famer

The guy said, Definately

Rod stated that Marvin Harrions YPC is 13.4, while Monks is 13.9.

Art Monk did it on a run first offense, Marvin Harrison did it on a pass first offense, with one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game.

[scruffylookin]

In the late 90's after Monk retired, Herman Moore, Cris Carter and all the receivers in that era started catching 120, 130, 140 passes in a season. The benchmark went way up.

Why should the benchmark go up for Art Monk?

He didn't play in the late 90's.

In fact, Art Monk wasn't really in his prime at all during the 90's.

Art was an 80's receiver and as such his catch numbers were the best of his era.

He's still ranked in the top 10 of all time.

I don't see how receiving numbers after his retirement should influence one's opinion of whether or not he is Hall of Fame worthy.

Each receiver should be judged on the era he played. What Cris Carter, Sterling Sharpe or Herman Moore did while playing in a receiver friendly era has little impact on what Art did.

The only critique of Monk that I think is fair is his relatively low TD numbers. But even conceeding that point, if Monk just scored one more TD per season he'd have 80+ TDs in his career which would be a pretty good number. Now if you allow for the fact that the teams he played on were pretty good at punching it in on the ground from inside the 10, you can easily explain why Art didn't get as many TDs as a say a Cris Carter who played on an offense that could not punch the ball in and had to throw to score from inside the 10 probably as often as they ran it.