To be inducted into the hall of fame, one's character should matter

[Fred Jones]

To add to the debate. Irvin had a HOF QB throwing to him and giving him all those cool stats. Monk had lots of non-HOF QB's throwing to him and he earned all those cool stats.

[Bliz]

Irvin snorted cocaine, which should be enough to ensure that he never gets into the hall of fame, period. A hall of famer should be a role model--someone kids can look up to. Michael Irvin is none of that. Are we going to allow Michael Vick to be inducted into the hall of fame, if for some reason, he was allowed to play in the NFL again, and he becomes a top tier quarterback? The reason Irvin got selected in the hall of fame, in my opinion, is because 1)he plays for the Dallas Cowboys( Cowboys must be the most hated football team in the NFL, not just hated by Redskins, but by fans from all over. The media folks seem to really love Cowboys, don't know why) and 2) Irvin is media savvy, and I guess he has lots of media buddies. He may have won 3 superbowls, but the hall of fame shouldn't be about your records only. One's character should matter too, in my humble opinion.

I was watching Michael Irvin's hall of fame speech yesterday, and I realized something: this man blows. He is obnoxious as hell. He rambled on and on and on for 30 minutes, about how great he is, and how hard he works, and what have you. It was embarrassing to watch him. So I switched to Fox News for 15 minutes, and switched back to NFL network, and Irvin was still talking. What a retard.

I know we're all agitated about Monk, but I think you'll be embarassed by this post if you come back and read it sometime in the future (maybe after Monk is enshrined).

Athletes and others make bad decisions sometimes. It happens. I dare say you'd have to purge a helluva lot of people from the Hall (including Riggo) if you knocked out anyone who ever snorted coke, or was an alcoholic or bad role model for some other reason. Character can be a consideration, but it can't be a determinative factor, especially since Irvin was never disciplined by the league (I think?) for his "indiscrections".

I hate Irvin with a passion, but I don't think there's any doubt he's a hall of famer. I haven't gone back and looked, but I'd be shocked if he wasn't on the all-90's team. He was damn near unstoppable sometimes, and torched us more than I care to remember. Although he is media savvy, and did lobby for his induction more then some others choose to, it's ridiculous to say that's "the reason" he got in.

Oh yeah...and one other thing:

:dallasuck

[Bliz]

I have never and will never support an admited coke addict. There is a good reason the drug is illegal for all ages.

Ever been to a movie? Voted? (and not just for our current President). Bought an album?

Chances are you have and will continue to support admitted coke addicts.

[IrishOrange15]

Monk 940 12721 13.5 68

Irvin 750 11904 15.9 65

What else is there to know?

Take a look at the amount of years that Monk finished in the top 10 in either yards or TD's. Then take a look at Irvin's.

When looking at HOF candidates, I prefer to see how they stacked up against their peers that played in the same timeframe. The NFL game changes quite a bit over time.

Monk was a good player for a long time. I'm not sure if that really qualifies for the Hall of Fame. But I also believe that it doesn't make him a shoe-in by any stretch either.

The bigger travesty in my mind is that Gary Clark cannot even get a mention come voting time.

YAKUZA

[Mooney]

The bigger travesty in my mind is that Gary Clark cannot even get a mention come voting time.

Agree 100%.

[DCsportsfan53]

:bsflag:

I'm calling BS on this thread. Quit whining because Irvin's in the hall. As a player, he deserved it, no question, and that says absolutely nothing about what I think of Redskins players who should be there.

I'm so tired of this role model bs. If you want your kid to have a role model, then be one, that's YOUR job, not the NFLs. There are plenty of unsavory characters in the NFL and in the Hall of Fame, just like any other walk of life.

[Chachie]

I think we'd be hard-pressed to find a bust in the HOF who's private life was completely pure. Alcohol is legal but it's no less dangerous than pot or less addictive than cocaine. I don't claim to know where the HOF should draw it's line on personal conduct, but I can tell you they'd have to boot some NFL greats if they want complete saints enshrined. This is not the vatican. It's a football league.

[Goaldeje]

Irvin belongs in the Hall, period. He was one of the top-ten WRs for 7-8 years, and won 3 SBs. He was (and is, apparently) a jerk off the field, which is unfortunate, but should not work against him during selection time.

Ken, stop embarrassing yourself. To say that Irvin was far and ahead better than Monk is laughable, and you know it. Don't be a homer. Both belong in the Hall. Period.

What is funny to me is that King and others will scream day and night that Irvin's off the field exploits shouldn't keep him from the Hall, but then they keep Monk out apparently because he didn't give them enough interviews.

Huh?

[pjfootballer]

I'll hijack this thread without even mentioning the short-comings of a certain #88, by saying that Art Monk belongs in the HOF for one reason and one reason only. When he retired, he set receiving records. Plain and simple. Doesn't matter how many seasons, how many games or how many total. It's the simple fact that the man held receiving records when he retired. He owned or still owns many more records than about 12 HOFers inducted at WR.

[C26 Run]

I don't think it's fair to go there on any player, even if it is Irvin. Don't get me wrong, I do believe Monk should be in the HOF first. But putting Irvins' drug abuse out there like that is not fair. He made mistakes, no question about it. We all have inner demons to deal with, some can handle and others can't. Monk should get in statistically, not about character. Character is a bonus. :helmet:

[rmahler]

Hey guys, every team has people they believe belongs in the HOF. But it doesn't happpen for some reason.

My Cowboys have several also - Drew Pearson, Harvey Martin, Cliff Harris and Bob Hayes.

Drew Pearson - Lynn Swann is in but Pearson has more catches. Swann wasn't even the best receiver on his team. Pearson was on the All 7O's team. Who here will ever forget the Hail Mary catch, the Atlanta playoff game, the Clint Longley game (OUCH, that hurt), and the Ram playoff game. No body was better in the crunch. Nearly all those Roger Staubach comebacks - just who do you think he was throwing to - Golden Richards?

Harvey Martin - Super Bowl MVP, All - NFL, many pro bowls. Heck he had 23 sacks in one season. How many did your whole team have last year?

Cliff Harris - The best free safety of the 70's. Nuff said.

Bob Hayes - Changed the way the game was played. 71 TD's in an era when no one threw the ball very much. Single handedly caused the creation of the zone defense. No one could cover him.

From an outsider who has rooted against your teams for more than 40 years, Art Monk was very good but he never scared us when we played you. We had to stop Riggo and Gary Clark. Thinking back, Ricky Sanders may have been a bigger worry. They gave us headaches. Monk was kind of a thorn in the side, at most. Kinda like slow death by 5 yard patterns. I don't honestly think you can say the same about Irvin for all of his off field problems.

Anyway if you wonder why the national media don't bow down before Monk, maybe that's why.

[BigDFan5]

Irvin was dominant? He NEVER LED THE LEAGUE IN ANYTHING!

He actually led the league in receiving and finished second a couple times, top 10 six times, as well as top 10 five times in TDs

He also holds the NFL record for most 100 yard games in a season by a WR

He was also named a member of the 1990's all decade team

[Siven]

It's my belief

If you are on an "all decade team" you should be in the hall of fame. That's greatness for an extended time, which to me is the main requirement for enshrinement. Every man who made an All decade team, should be enshrined, with obvious exceptions for positions in times where there were many outstanding players.

[SkinsFTW]

He actually led the league in receiving and finished second a couple times, top 10 six times, as well as top 10 five times in TDs

He also holds the NFL record for most 100 yard games in a season by a WR

He was also named a member of the 1990's all decade team

Just make it up if there is nothing, I guess.

Irvin never led the league in receptions. He was 2nd once. Monk was the top WR twice. Irvin led once in yards. That is it.

[SkinsFTW]

When looking at HOF candidates, I prefer to see how they stacked up against their peers that played in the same timeframe. The NFL game changes quite a bit over time.

Monk stacks up better against his peers from 1980-1990 than Irvin does with his from 1990-2000. I did a write up on this before and it was very clear. A lot of the top receivers in the 80's weren't WR's. When you compare Monks numbers against the other WR's he was Top 1-2-3 for several years during the 80's, even with bad QB's throwing the ball. Irvin wasn't even close but played in a more pass happy league.

Monk would have had 1100-1200 catches in the same years. Irvin would have had 500 catches if he played from 1980-1990. Then consider Irvin got to play with a lot of the same star players for 10 years.

Monk had a different QB every other year, different RB's etc and still put up superior numbers. Not leading the league in TD's and yards doesn't matter since he was never the deep threat and like Dallas we ran the ball alot near the goalline, but had more receiving options so Monk didn't get a ton of TD's. Irvin wasn't exactly Mr. TD either. He has fewer than Monk.

Heres a couple stats to compare Monk against his peers:

1984 Monk had 106 catches. #2 that year was Stallworth who had only 80 catches.

Thats like somebody running for 2500 yards this year and blowing the rushing record away. Monk broke a record that was previously 92 catches by catching 106. Actually a WR hadn't ever caught more than 85 balls and no other receiver got even 100 catches before 1990. That record wasn't broken for almost a decade. That was also Theismann on his last legs in his last full year starting.

(Also, until 1990, only 3 WR's caught over 90 balls and Monk had done it 2 times. Sharpe broke his receptions record by catching 108 in 1992.)

In 1985 Monk led all receivers again with 91 catches with Theismann/Shroeder at QB. #2 was Largent with 79.

Those were the 2 years before Clark and Sanders effected his stats. So it would be easy to conclude that Monk would have been top 1-3 in the league in receptions for 5-6 more years if he wasn't sharing the ball so much. He was still top 10 a few more times but never that dominant after and he never complained about it.

He retired as the #1 receiver in history. He's the only one not in the HOF. I don't see why he should have to take a back seat to a WR who benefitted from playing with the Top RB of the 90's and one of the most accurate QB's ever, behind a dominant OL. Then with Irvins inferior stats it's not hard to see that Monk got screwed.

[dogunwo]

No, I didn't watch the speech, but bringing character into the equation is interesting. Character involves being a good human being and setting an example. I doubt the HOF voters considered Irvin's character when electing him.

Additionally, that the man pored his heart out has nothing to do with what he has done in life. If I kill you and poor my heart out at the trial should I then get off because I demonstrated that I was not selfish. (A side note, no Irvin didn't kill anybody, I was just using an example). Drug use, however, is bad and Irvin was a drug user.

What skins fans point out is simple:

1. Monk was a better player - IMHO

2. Monk had character and set an example in life.

Monk should get in on his own merits. Whether or not Irvin deserved to go in, is irrelevant to Monks chances.

[thespaniard]

I'm so tired of this role model bs. If you want your kid to have a role model, then be one, that's YOUR job, not the NFLs. There are plenty of unsavory characters in the NFL and in the Hall of Fame, just like any other walk of life.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If your kids are looking up to sports stars or music stars as role models, then you are not doing your job as a parent.

What is funny to me is that King and others will scream day and night that Irvin's off the field exploits shouldn't keep him from the Hall, but then they keep Monk out apparently because he didn't give them enough interviews.

Just thought I would mention this: I am pretty sure that the NFL HOF voters are NOT allowed to take a player's character into consideration when voting for or against them, only on the field play. In baseball you are. I'll see if I can find a link later.

[BigDFan5]

Just make it up if there is nothing, I guess.

Irvin never led the league in receptions. He was 2nd once. Monk was the top WR twice. Irvin led once in yards. That is it.

When I say receiving I mean yards as does 99% of people outside of Redskins fans.

Nothing I stated was not true, nice job avoiding the team of the 90s, All pro, NFL record etc....

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This is neat. Let's get rid of a a lot of Hall of Famers:

Jim Brown - woman beater

Paul Hornung - gambler

Lawrence Taylor - Coke head

John Riggins - Problem drinker

Joe Namath - Alcoholic

Mike Webster - Steroid abuser

Steve Largent - Republican

[StonetheCrow_77]

Athletes should be role models for what they do off the field - community work, charity work, making a difference for others - and not what they do on the field.

A role model should be someone who takes time to make trips to food kitchens or has fund raisers for charities, not a guy who simple catches 80 balls or a year or racks up 100 tackles a season.

Says who?? What if a player doesn't want to be a role model? What if he just wants to be a damn good football player? Should we hold that against him?

That's like saying every body at your work must donate portions of their check toward charity or volunteer to community service... what if they don't to? Does that make them a bad employee? HELL NO...

[redsand521]

This is neat. Let's get rid of a a lot of Hall of Famers:

Steve Largent - Republican

:laugh:

That was classic!

[pjfootballer]

This is neat. Let's get rid of a a lot of Hall of Famers:

Jim Brown - woman beater

Paul Hornung - gambler

Lawrence Taylor - Coke head

John Riggins - Problem drinker

Joe Namath - Alcoholic

Mike Webster - Steroid abuser

Steve Largent - Republican

He's the first to go. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[InTikiITrust]

Says who?? What if a player doesn't want to be a role model? What if he just wants to be a damn good football player? Should we hold that against him?

That's like saying every body at your work must donate portions of their check toward charity or volunteer to community service... what if they don't to? Does that make them a bad employee? HELL NO...

Okay, let me rephrase that...Athletes, who want to be role models for kids, should be role models foor what they do....

Doesn't make you a bad employee by any means. But you shouldn't blindly make an athlete a role model just because he puts up nice stats.