Kurd Cudins Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 wasn't a knock on him, but if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that WR isn't a premium position in the NFL. Successful teams don't build around a WR. The Vikings tried to build around Moss, and it had bad results, teams like the 49ers that had Rice built around the QB.I'm sure you don't understand why this is dumb, so I'll explain. Rice had the best all-time QB EVER. EVER!!! Art Monk had nothing, a carousel of serviceable starters who never amounted to anything except when they played with Monk. See: Mark Rypien. So, if a player can be the all-time leading receiver WITHOUT consistent production from the QB, doesn't that make him better/more effective than one who does get that consistency. If anything, your arguement is FOR Monk and diminishes the accomplishments of Rice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Dude - you are 22. I would have to venture that you have barely seen Art Monk in action. Sorry to say, but you don't know what you are talking about. And Art Monk was an excellent athlete. Off the top of my head: Johnny Unitas, Bart Starr, Joe Montana, John Elway, Dan Marino, Troy Aikman, Roger Staubach, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, Terry Bradshaw, Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Jim Brown, Thurman Thomas, Tony Dorsett, Earl Campbell, Marcus Allen, Jerry Rice, Cris Carter, Tim Brown, Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White, Bruce Smith, Carl Eller, Decon Jones, Dick Butkus, Deion Sanders, Darrell Green, Rod Woodson, and Ronnie Lott. I didn't include any active players like Brady, or any retired WRs with less catches than Monk. Tell me which of these 32 players isn't better than Monk, and I'll name a few OL, DTs and some less galamour positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Tell me which of these 32 players isn't better than Monk, and I'll name a few OL, DTs and some less galamour positions. Troy Aikman. Thurman Thomas. Tim Brown. Chris Carter. Tony Dorsett. Marcus Allen. Gale Sayers played at a high level for 5 seasons. I'll take the guy who played at a top level fo 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I'm sure you don't understand why this is dumb' date=' so I'll explain. Rice had the best all-time QB EVER. EVER!!! Art Monk had nothing, a carousel of serviceable starters who never amounted to anything except when they played with Monk. See: Mark Rypien. So, if a player can be the all-time leading receiver WITHOUT consistent production from the QB, doesn't that make him better/more effective than one who does get that consistency. If anything, your arguement is FOR Monk and diminishes the accomplishments of Rice.[/quote']I'm sure you don't understand why it's dumb to compare Monk to Rice. Yes he had more consistant QB play, but to say he's better just because he's had more consistantcy is dumb. Compare their catches, yards, TDs, and ypc and Rice is miles ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Troy Aikman.Gale Sayers played at a high level for 5 seasons. I'll take the guy who played at a top level fo 12. Won't get into an Aikman vs Monk debate (despite what you guys think my intention wasn't to cause trouble, and have said in several threads that Monk deserves to be in the Hall), but I'll give you Gale Sayers. How about I swap in Jack Lambert (how I missed him, I don't know), and Eric Dickerson (missed him as well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Won't get into an Aikman vs Monk debate (despite what you guys think my intention wasn't to cause trouble, and have said in several threads that Monk deserves to be in the Hall), but I'll give you Gale Sayers. How about I swap in Jack Lambert (how I missed him, I don't know), and Eric Dickerson (missed him as well) I'm still going through your list, and none of the players I'm listing are not HOFers. They just aren't guys I'd look at and say they were clearly better than Monk. Aikman was a great player. Saying he wasn't clearly better than Monk isn't a knock on Aikman. Monk should be on that list, right in the mix with those guys. That's what the guy interviewing Monk was saying. And he's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Troy Aikman. Thurman Thomas. Tim Brown. Chris Carter. Tony Dorsett. Marcus Allen. okay, I read your last post and see your not saying Monk was better, just they're not clearly better, but I still don't think there's much of an argument for him being top 32, which to be honest isn't a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 This list is starting to get ridiculous. Why don't you add Emmitt Smith since it seems like every cowboys getting scratched off the list :laugh: . I don't think anybody but maybe a few skins fans would argue Monk over Some of these guys. I'm not arguing Monk over any of them. You are arguing them over Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I'm not arguing Monk over any of them. You are arguing them over Monk. I edited my post after reading your last one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section 141 Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Dude - you are 22. I would have to venture that you have barely seen Art Monk in action. Sorry to say, but you don't know what you are talking about. And Art Monk was an excellent athlete. Hear hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I'm sure you don't understand why it's dumb to compare Monk to Rice. Yes he had more consistant QB play, but to say he's better just because he's had more consistantcy is dumb. Compare their catches, yards, TDs, and ypc and Rice is miles ahead. i dont understand why you want to compare Monk, a WR to QBs and RBs. and call them "better". could troy aikmen go across the middle? could unitas catch one on the sidelines for a clutch first down? NO, stupid comparison to support your rediculous knock on Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I'm sure you don't understand why it's dumb to compare Monk to Rice. Yes he had more consistant QB play, but to say he's better just because he's had more consistantcy is dumb. Compare their catches, yards, TDs, and ypc and Rice is miles ahead.See. I wasn't comparing them. Jerry Rice is the best WR and i would never argue otherwise. But you must realize that he's miles ahead of everyone, not just monk. My only point was that your arguement was dumb. One question though, are you aware of the revolutionary nature of Bill Walsh's pass-first west coast offense? as well, are you aware of its effect on statistical production, especially it's boosting of passing stats? I think it's very easy to say that Rice benefited statistically from his system, whereas Monk was negatively affected by the run-first style of Gibbs' offense. While Rice was option #1 on every play, Monk usually only got his chances on 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 See. I wasn't comparing them. Jerry Rice is the best WR and i would never argue otherwise. But you must realize that he's miles ahead of everyone' date=' not just monk.[/quote']Really, cause this says otherwise So' date=' if a player can be the all-time leading receiver WITHOUT consistent production from the QB, doesn't that make him better/more effective than one who does get that consistency.[/quote']One question though' date=' are you aware of the revolutionary nature of Bill Walsh's pass-first west coast offense? as well, are you aware of its effect on statistical production, especially it's boosting of passing stats? I think it's very easy to say that Rice benefited statistically from his system, whereas Monk was negatively affected by the run-first style of Gibbs' offense. While Rice was option #1 on every play, Monk usually only got his chances on 3rd.[/quote']I do think that Rice benifitted from his situation, and I also think Monk was hurt by his, but once again it seems you're trying to argue Monk is better than Rice, or at the very least, Monk would've put up Rice #s in SF, both of which are dumb points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 i dont understand why you want to compare Monk, a WR to QBs and RBs. and call them "better". could troy aikmen go across the middle? could unitas catch one on the sidelines for a clutch first down? NO, stupid comparison to support your rediculous knock on Monk. I won't go back and make the same points, that are already in this thread, read all the post and it'll become clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 he was interviewed on Sirius radio this morning talking about the same things. he said true redskins fans stick with this team through thick and thin, that's why we are still one of the most popular franchises in the country, and that we have the most loyal fan base of any NFL team.he touched on Campbell and said he thought that the team was heading in the right direction this year, that he honestly felt that all the players were working hard and were fighting for the the same goals. To be the best team they can be. Nothing out of the ordinary, but it was good to hear his voice and I think it was a former Dallas coach that hosts a show on Sirius with Randy Cross that was interviewing him. They both talked about the fact that he was the all-time leader in receptions when he retired, they noted his yards and TD's and the fact that he won 3 Super bowls with three different QB's (which was more difficult than Montana to Rice or Aikman to Irvin who had years of building chemistry) and that he went to 3 straight pro-bowls and could have easily gone to 5 ... basically repeating every argument as to why he should already be in. Said he was willing to do the dirty work, to block for his other receivers and RB's and QB's ... most importantly they said if they had to draft a fantasy team with players from the HOF, that even though he isn't in there yet, he would be a first round draft pick. One of the announcers called him one of the most clutch receivers to ever play the game. Good to hear he's getting some recognition. Sucks that all he has to do is start be viewable to the public for people to remember what he did in the game who aren't skins fans. you know what sucks is, out here in CA we will NEVER see an Art Monk interview unless it is on Sports Center. But we can see ol Cracky every time we blink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I won't go back and make the same points, that are already in this thread, read all the post and it'll become clear. whats clear is that you dont understand that players of different positions cant be compared to as better or worse. more valuable to specific teams with specific needs sure but not "better". maybe you should go away until you have a better understanding of the game in general. then come back when you have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 i saw and talked to Monk at Hects in tysons about 10 years ago.I cant wait til he gets into the Hall of Fame he deserves it I saw Monk at Kings Dominion about 20 years ago (I was about 10). I asked him for an autograph and he told me to leave him alone, he's with his family. No hard feelings Art, it hurt but I've moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 whats clear is that you dont understand that players of different positions cant be compared to as better or worse. more valuable to specific teams with specific needs sure but not "better". maybe you should go away until you have a better understanding of the game in general. then come back when you have a clue. Yeah, I definately can't say Peyton Manning is better than Julius Jones. I can only assumne you didn't read all the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Yeah, I definately can't say Peyton Manning is better than Julius Jones. I can only assumne you didn't read all the post. not at running the ball. you just dont get it do you? you sound like a guy thats well versed in fantasy but doesnt understand the real game. a typical problem with the youth of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 not at running the ball. you just dont get it do you? you sound like a guy thats well versed in fantasy but doesnt understand the real game. a typical problem with the youth of today. lol :laugh: , Peyton Manning is better at what he does than Julius Jones, just like Joe Montana was better at what he does than Art Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 He was on the Doc Walker show yesterday too. Gotta wonder if he's making the media rounds to kinda help his Hall of Fame chances next year. Either way it's nice to hear from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 lol :laugh: , Peyton Manning is better at what he does than Julius Jones, just like Joe Montana was better at what he does than Art Monk. nevermind kid, you just dont get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Actually I believe you know what I'm saying, but since it's not pro Monk, you'd rather argue semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 wasn't a knock on him, but if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that WR isn't a premium position in the NFL. Successful teams don't build around a WR. The Vikings tried to build around Moss, and it had bad results, teams like the 49ers that had Rice built around the QB. The Vikings tried to build around Randy Moss and it had bad results? He lead that team in receptions from '98 - '00. Their record over that time span was 36-12 and they won 3 playoff games. Isn't it amazing that the thing all dallass fans have in common is their lack of knowledge on the subject of NFL football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 nevermind kid, you just dont get it. brother, you are arguing with a "special needs" kid. i am sorry to say this, but if you keep going with this i am going to have to be dissapointed in ya. So F that guy and lets talk some Skins ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.