Did anyone see the Art Monk interview this morning on a WUSA 9?

[dblE]

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

Amen Brother!!! :dallasuck

[onedrop]

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

that was the whole point of my last post to him.

regarding Monk, him and DG were the nicest Skins i ever met. on multiple occassions they both talked with me and or my little league team for 20+ minutes. very cool guys.

[dallasfan]

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.

Yes, ignore the fact that they had Cris Carter playing at a Pro-bowl level, and Robert Smith and Jake Reed who was still decent. Early on the team wasn't built around Moss, it wasn't until Mike Tice was the coach that the Randy ratio was implemented.

Isn't it amazing that the thing all dallass fans have in common is their lack of knowledge on the subject of NFL football?

Amazing isn't it, a complete lack of football knowledge, let me ask you how did the Vikes fare from 01-04 since I lack so much football knowledge.

[Henry]

Amazing isn't it, a complete lack of football knowledge, let me ask you how did the Vikes fare from 01-04 since I lack so much football knowledge.

If you are suggesting that if a team centers it's game solely on a WR it's doomed to failure, well, that's true. It's also pretty much irrelevant.

How many rings does Dan Marino have? How many did Elway have before they finally got a running game in Denver? How many rings did Barry Sanders get? Why did it take a career year from his QB for Sweetness to win anything?

One great player on offense is not enough. Does this mean a QB or RB cannot be an effective centerpiece of an offense? Football is a team game. We all know this.

Monk, for all his steady play and supposedly unspectacular numbers, was the only skill position player on all three Redskin Superbowl winners (unless you count Don Warren, who was primarily a blocker.) You think that was a coincidence? Maybe he wasn't THE centerpiece of the Redskin superbowl era, but he was one of them. One of a very few.

[dallasfan]

If you are suggesting that if a team centers it's game solely on a WR it's doomed to failure, well, that's true. It's also pretty much irrelevant.

You're right, no one can do it alone, but Farve managed to win a ring with no supertars on offense (Robert Brooks may have been a pro-bowler), Tom Brady has won several with hardly anoyone at WR (and before everyone says Bellicheck has more to do with it, how many rings has he won without Brady, and how many team defenses over the course of time were better than the pats, that never won superbowls)

Basically my whole point is if you're doing an all-time draft, why spend a 1rst on a guy who, at best touches the ball 8-10 times a game.

[Henry]

Basically my whole point is if you're doing an all-time draft, why spend a 1rst on a guy who, at best touches the ball 8-10 times a game.

Basically, using that logic no WR would ever be drafted in the first round.

Good lord, why are you still on this? Some radio guy basically said "you're a hall of famer to me" and you've decided to go on a crusade against it because technically, literal interpretation of his wording could be possibly innaccurate. Maybe Monk would be picked 33rd, or 40th or 49th. Who freaking cares? It was a compliment. We don't need you to nitpick it to death. Sheesh.

[kingfish50]

Not a knock on Monk, but he's not one of the top 32 players in NFL history. The only WR who is, is Jerry Rice, teams would choose QBs, LTs, and pass rushers, than phenominal athletes like Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, and Deion Sanders, before almost every WR.

Coming from a stinking dallASS fan. Can't even spell phenomenal correctly, you idiot.

:dallasuck

[dallasfan]

Basically, using that logic no WR would ever be drafted in the first round.

An NFL draft doesn't have "sure things" a HOF draft does. Because of the uncertainty of the players, you have to guess who makes the biggest impact.

Good lord, why are you still on this? Some radio guy basically said "you're a hall of famer to me" and you've decided to go on a crusade against it because technically, literal interpretation of his wording could be possibly innaccurate. Maybe Monk would be picked 33rd, or 40th or 49th. Who freaking cares? It was a compliment. We don't need you to nitpick it to death. Sheesh.

So why waste all this time arguing when I even said Monk deserves to be in the hall? If no one "freaking cares", why do you keep it up?

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

Not a knock on Monk, but he's not one of the top 32 players in NFL history. The only WR who is, is Jerry Rice, teams would choose QBs, LTs, and pass rushers, than phenominal athletes like Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, and Deion Sanders, before almost every WR.

I think you missed the point of the broadcaster's quote.....

[Dumbsheet]

Folks here are comparing apples to lugnuts. The point the guy was making was very simple...Art Monk is not one of the top 32 NFL players of all time.

He did not say Monk is not a hall of famer.

He did not say his stats aren't good.

He wasn't aruging when the reporters said "he's a Hall of famer to me".

He's arguing that if you had to build a team from scratch, and had the entire crop of HOFers (and arugable HOFers like Monk) in their prime to choose from...you would most likely NOT make a WR your first pick...unless it was Rice who is in his own category.

Where you start? You start with QB, or RB, or a skill position like DB or LT that is essential to building a team from the groudn up because they touch balls enough or have enough impact on the game that they are worthy of first round pick. WRs, TEs, safeties, long snappers don't have as many touches, aren't involved as much, and aren't figured into the gameplan as much as the long, long list of QBs, RBs, etc to choose from.

Now before Henry or some other guy says "so you saying no one would ever choose a WR in the first round of a draft ever...unless his name was Rice?" No, taht's not what I'm saying. Of the teams that drafted a WR in the first round last year or any year, they've already got a team and are clearly building around something else. I said, and the dallasfan said, if you were to start from scratch (ie, current roster = 0), you start with you major stud impact players.

And in the anals of football HOF history, there are tons of these major stud muffins, more than 32, and thus dallasfan has a point that the reporters statemetn that Monk would be picked in the first round of such a hypotehtical draft is in error. He would be picked up in a round when teams would likely have filled up their other key spots first.

[dallasfan]

Folks here are comparing apples to lugnuts. The point the guy was making was very simple...Art Monk is not one of the top 32 NFL players of all time.

He did not say Monk is not a hall of famer.

He did not say his stats aren't good.

He wasn't aruging when the reporters said "he's a Hall of famer to me".

He's arguing that if you had to build a team from scratch, and had the entire crop of HOFers (and arugable HOFers like Monk) in their prime to choose from...you would most likely NOT make a WR your first pick...unless it was Rice who is in his own category.

Where you start? You start with QB, or RB, or a skill position like DB or LT that is essential to building a team from the groudn up because they touch balls enough or have enough impact on the game that they are worthy of first round pick. WRs, TEs, safeties, long snappers don't have as many touches, aren't involved as much, and aren't figured into the gameplan as much as the long, long list of QBs, RBs, etc to choose from.

Now before Henry or some other guy says "so you saying no one would ever choose a WR in the first round of a draft ever...unless his name was Rice?" No, taht's not what I'm saying. Of the teams that drafted a WR in the first round last year or any year, they've already got a team and are clearly building around something else. I said, and the dallasfan said, if you were to start from scratch (ie, current roster = 0), you start with you major stud impact players.

And in the anals of football HOF history, there are tons of these major studs, more than 32, and thus dallasfan has a point that the reporters statemetn that Monk would be picked in the first round of such a hypotehtical draft is in error. He would be picked up in a round when teams would likely have filled up their other key spots first.

thank you :applause:

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

I remember the days on the ESPN board where Dumbsheet was mercilessly picked on as being, well, a Dumbsheet.

[Henry]

So why waste all this time arguing when I even said Monk deserves to be in the hall? If no one "freaking cares", why do you keep it up?

Because it annoys me that you decided to suddenly become a little miss hospital corners when someone compliments one of our players. Besides, I've never argued against your premise, only some of the reasoning behind it.

I've heard numerous claims that Aikman was the most accurate QB in NFL history. That may or may not be true, but if some radio guy said "let's welcome the most accurate QB in history to our show" and I leaned over and said "Well, Aikman's completion percentage was 2 percent lower than Montana's and 3 percent lower than Young's" I have no doubt a Dallas fan would tell me to stop being such a wanker. And he'd be perfectly justified in saying it.

[dallasfan]

I've heard numerous claims that Aikman was the most accurate QB in NFL history. That may or may not be true, but if some radio guy said "let's welcome the most accurate QB in history to our show" and I leaned over and said "Well, Aikman's completion percentage was 2 percent lower than Montana's and 3 percent lower than Young's" I have no doubt a Dallas fan would tell me to stop being such a wanker. And he'd be perfectly justified in saying it.

Well I guess that's where we're different, cause I could care less if you guys believed Emmitt was an averege back behind a great line, Aikman was an averege QB with great weapons or ifIrvin actually belongs in the hall. If someone says other wise, I'll argue, but it doesn't annoy me (BTW I don't think Aikman was the most accurate QB of all time)

[Henry]

Well I guess that's where we're different, cause I could care less if you guys believed Emmitt was an averege back behind a great line, Aikman was an averege QB with great weapons or ifIrvin actually belongs in the hall. If someone says other wise, I'll argue, but it doesn't annoy me (BTW I don't think Aikman was the most accurate QB of all time)

I don't care what you think, Dallas fan. If I did I'd be posting on a Dallas board right now.

I will address what you say, however.

[Baculus]

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 have been watching football longer then you have been alive, Dallasfan.

And no one said anything about just building around just Monk, especially since Gibbs built his offenses around various positions, schemes, and had a number of players during the 80's/90's to which he built his teams. You should actually read some of the knowledgeable posts on this thread and actually learn a little bit.

It is ironic you said "if you knew what you were talking about," considering the amount of ignorance you have displayed. And you demonstrate really how little you know about past Gibbs 'Skins teams.

[Baculus]

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.

OF COURSE Rice benefited from his situation: Having a consistent QB and team for years will mostly certainly help a player. To think otherwise is, as you seem to favor the word, "dumb."

[tomwvr]

Can we all just ignore Dallasfan? He is a young kid who has to grow up and learn that you dont walk into your neighbors house and then complain about the color of the paint on the walls.

Tom W

[dallasfan]

And no one said anything about just building around just Monk, especially since Gibbs built his offenses around various positions, schemes, and had a number of players during the 80's/90's to which he built his teams.

Well if you're drafting a HOF team, and you take Art Monk with your first pick, how are you not building around him?

You should actually read some of the knowledgeable posts on this thread and actually learn a little bit..

It is ironic you said "if you knew what you were talking about," considering the amount of ignorance you have displayed. And you demonstrate really how little you know about past Gibbs 'Skins teams.

And you should just try reading all the post, because your above statement shows you didn't (or if you're too lazy read Dumbsheet's post). Once again, I never said the skins were built around Monk, in fact I know it's quit the opposite.

[dallasfan]

OF COURSE Rice benefited from his situation: Having a consistent QB and team for years will mostly certainly help a player. To think otherwise is, as you seem to favor the word, "dumb."

Well I was asked a question, kinda rude to not answer

[onedrop]

Well if you're drafting a HOF team, and you take Art Monk with your first pick, how are you not building around him?

And you should just try reading all the post, because your above statement shows you didn't (or if you're too lazy read Dumbsheet's post). Once again, I never said the skins were built around Monk, in fact I know it's quit the opposite.

a bit self serving to reference the only person that defends you or shares your views. remember WE are talking about real football you seem to be playing fantasy ball. theres a difference.

[Walking Deadman]

The thing I remember most about Monk was that if the ball was thrown to him he caught it. I never remember him dropping any pass.......crazy, looking at modern day WRs and all their drops, but that's my memory of Art Monk.