Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 I think yall have it laid out pretty well. I can't stand the Cowboys, and Art Monk is my all-time favorite player. He's in there now, albeit MUCH too late, but he's in regardless. I could give two ****s about what Nate Newton thinks about Art Monk, and I highly doubt it's a "league wide" sentiment Ditto on all that :applause:... And the only "league wide" sentiment I ever heard about Art Monk during his playing days was that he was a sure-fire HOF entry (especially at the end of his career). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Who cares what anybody else thinks? Art Monk is going into the hall of fame. These debates ended when he was voted in. Is he hall of fame worthy? Yes. Clearly. He's being inducted today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcnativenerd Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Most Cowboys fans I know believe Monk should be in the hall of fame. As another poster mentioned, even Michael Irving can't believe he went in before Monk. Anyone who doesn't believe he doesn't belong in the hall A.) Hasn't looked at his numbers B.) Didn't see what he did for the team as a whole. And this is coming from someone who never saw the man play live. Even I know Art Monk belongs in the Hall of Fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royallypwned Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 1) yes, Monk deserves to be in the Hall, and yes, he should have made it way before he did. 2) I think people keep forgetting (or they don't know) that you have to be registered to read threads on CZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Okay I know cowboys fans can be accused of not wanting to discuss anything to do with this years team but they are still arguing that Monk should not be in the hall, based on comments of that well know upstanding piller of society Nate Newton So you don't have to sully yourselves by going to the Cowboyszone I will briefly give an outline of the argument ... they say Monk was never a game changer he was surpassed as all time reception leader by Rice in his final year ( when he had 6 receptions to rice 122 in 1995) ...in the 80s Loften had more yards... etc etc usual stuff compare Monk to HoFers then say Monk is not comparable .... I am sure since a lot of CZ posters post on here I don't need to go through everything because they will back up their arguments as to why Monk should be kept out .......or at least until every Cowboys player is elected So I want to ask Fans of all colors . With Monk finally about to be enshrined ... is he really deserving ? I was in that thread debating the 100 receptions merits. That doesnt mean I dont think he should be in because as I have said before I think he should be in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 You have to consider this about MonkMonk was the first player ever to get over 100 catches Monk was the all time leader in catches when he retired Although most of what you said was true, I have to chime in on these Monk (according to profootballreference) was the third WR to get 100 catches or more and Monk retired as the #2 all time leader having been passed by Rice in his final season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Terence Newman 41Well, Newton was a 6x Pro Bowler, also a 5x All-pro seletion. So he isn't exactly a scrub player. and soooooooo smart, he got busted for smuggling huge amounts of pot while on bail from being arrested previously for smuggling huge amounts of pot. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Although most of what you said was true, I have to chime in on theseMonk (according to profootballreference) was the third WR to get 100 catches or more and Monk retired as the #2 all time leader having been passed by Rice in his final season Sorry but Art Monk was the first receiver to have 100 receptions in the NFL. The two guys who did it before him did it in the early years of the AFL and had a total of 8 NFL games between them in their career. They had ZERO catches in the NFL. And whether Art Monk retired as the NFL leader is receptions is irrelevant. At one point Art Monk simultaneously held the NFL record for career receptions, most receptions in a single season and most consecutive games with a reception. Art Monk has 3 Super Bowl rings. Art Monk is and was a solid citizen. Art Monk was a great blocker. He ran great routes. He fearlessly went across the middle. He had great hands. He was the consummate team player. Anybody who thinks that Art Monk shouldn't have been a slam dunk into the HOF is either too young to remember him in his prime, knows absolutely nothing about football, is a complete biased idiot or a combination of all three. But, hey, maybe we should listen to a man who was caught smuggling 200+ lbs of marijuana and then about a month later got caught again doing the exact same thing. Yeah, he's not an idiot. Sorry, there is no legitimate argument against Art Monk not being a slam dunk. NONE! ZIP! NADA! ZILCH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Sorry but Art Monk was the first receiver to have 100 receptions in the NFL. The two guys who did it before him did it in the early years of the AFL and had a total of 8 NFL games between them in their career. They had ZERO catches in the NFL. Yes they were in the AFL before the merger, but their records still count right? And whether Art Monk retired as the NFL leader is receptions is irrelevant. At one point Art Monk simultaneously held the NFL record for career receptions, most receptions in a single season and most consecutive games with a reception. Art Monk has 3 Super Bowl rings. Art Monk is and was a solid citizen. Art Monk was a great blocker. He ran great routes. He fearlessly went across the middle. He had great hands. He was the consummate team player. No need to make a case to me man, I was just pointing out that he did not retire with the record. As I have said many times he should be in the hall Anybody who thinks that Art Monk shouldn't have been a slam dunk into the HOF is either too young to remember him in his prime, knows absolutely nothing about football, is a complete biased idiot or a combination of all three. But, hey, maybe we should listen to a man who was caught smuggling 200+ lbs of marijuana and then about a month later got caught again doing the exact same thing. Yeah, he's not an idiot. Sorry, there is no legitimate argument against Art Monk not being a slam dunk. NONE! ZIP! NADA! ZILCH! Nobody here is arguing that, relax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Yes they were in the AFL before the merger, but their records still count right? No need to make a case to me man, I was just pointing out that he did not retire with the record. As I have said many times he should be in the hall Nobody here is arguing that, relax Thank God we have semantics-boy here to keep us straight! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Thank God we have semantics-boy here to keep us straight! :doh: Maybe you should learn the definition of the word semantics. Since nothing in my posts could be construed as arguing semantics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Monk was more worthy of getting into the Hall than Irvin ever was. It further tarnishes the reputation of the HoF that Irvin was inducted before Monk was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Yes they were in the AFL before the merger, but their records still count right? Technically, they do but only as a bargaining position that the AFL worked into the merger deal. Other than that they have as much significance as the USFL records. But Art Monk was the first receiver ever to have 100 receptions in an NFL season and that is not debatable. That is fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fourth King Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Screw the Cowboys. They suck hard. And Michael Irvin is a coke head overrated douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Cowboys fans root for the Cowboys, they obviously have no common sense. You can always find somebody, somewhere to support your position(or disagree with it), no matter how ridiculous. Its just the way things are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 The beauty of Monk being a member of the HOF is now we don't have to worry about these opinions. Personally, I never cared what people thought of our teams back then because we typically beat the crap out of people. The only reason I cared about peoples' opinions of Monk or other players since then is because it directly affected their odds of getting into the HOF. Now that he's in...we can go back to letting other fans/players say what they want and just be happy that our guys are in the HOF/sporting 3 SB rings/etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Monk or Irvin who would you want on your team? You can't buy class but you can sure buy coke;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 The beauty of Monk being a member of the HOF is now we don't have to worry about these opinions. Personally, I never cared what people thought of our teams back then because we typically beat the crap out of people. The only reason I cared about peoples' opinions of Monk or other players since then is because it directly affected their odds of getting into the HOF. Now that he's in...we can go back to letting other fans/players say what they want and just be happy that our guys are in the HOF/sporting 3 SB rings/etc... I'd like to agree with you and feel the way you do but I don't right now. I've grown disgusted with some of the crap I've read elsewhere and even saw on the NFL Network's "Top 10 guys who belong in the Hall". Art Monk's induction is not being viewed by some (I fear many) as a deserving and long overdue recognition of the man's feats. But rather as a "Susan Lucci" induction. An induction based on "shutting up the Monk people" and to quote Paul Zimmerman "get Monk out of the way" rather than recognizing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21 coming to Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Let me tell you something about Nate Newton. I think he's delusional. In fact, I'm pretty sure he is. I know this from a clip of him "bench pressing" "700 pounds." I have to use lots of quotation marks to show irony. Now, this might seem a little off topic, but stick with me. During games a few years ago, John Madden was singing the praises of Nate - that figures, John loved Nate very much, mostly because they share the same gargantuan hindquarters. John said big strong Nate could bench 700 pounds. He heard it was true! Golly! Being a powerlifter myself, I wondered if all this might be false. "Maybe it's even a big steaming load of BS," I pondered. But then, during a Monday night game, John produced a video of Nate, all 350 pounds of him, benching 700. Not bad, you might think - if you're a Cowboys fan. But not if you're a Redskins fan who knows his way around a weight room. Guys who handle twice their body weight can be found in most serious gyms, certainly in any powerlifting contest. So 700 at 350 is good, but not unusual, not any more. What really impressed me as being totally lame was that Nate's spotter, another burly fellow, was hauling on the bar hard enough that it looked like he was doing a bent row. Let me check my rule book - nope, that's not a lift. In fact, if anybody touches the bar, it's not a lift. It is a lift, though, in high school gyms across the country, where whole teams push and pull a bar until it crashes back on the rack, or the guy's chest. Either way, they call it a lift and another legend is born. So why do I relate this ridiculous tale of lameness, crappy lifting and claims Miss Newton can't back up? It's just my little way of saying Nate doesn't know what he's talking about. The Cowboys suck, Nate sucks, and Art Monk should have been in the HOF a long time ago. Hail.:dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Wasn't the 700 lb bench press clip Eric Allen, not Nate Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VCDefectors Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 So I want to ask Fans of all colors . With Monk finally about to be enshrined ... is he really deserving ? This is one of those topics I am more than happy to go to bat for concerning the Redskins. Art Monk is more than deserving to be in the HOF. I don't agree with Nate Newton or anybody else who would argue otherwise. I remember what a role model he was for the Redskins and other players around the league. He always seemed to be just a hard-working player who let his work speak for itself. Congrats to Art Monk and Darrell Green, two players that Canton should be proud to induct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royallypwned Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Wasn't the 700 lb bench press clip Eric Allen, not Nate Newton that would be Larry Allen, future first ballot Hall of Famer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennCowboy Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 57 yards per game. He played for a long time. Little else needs be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 57 yards per game. He played for a long time. Little else needs be said. So I take it you're one of the buffoons who don't believe Monk should be in the Hall. Well he is, so :finger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 He was just going to smoke it whats the big dealOh wait thats what Bam Morris said after being caught with a pound. A pound isnt enough even to be friends with Nate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.