Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

James Lofton over Monk, what the....


OURYEAR#56

Recommended Posts

I need some of you to clearify this for me. James Lofton is or will be inducted into the Hall of Fame. My friends argued he had a better career than Monk. Didn't Monk win three rings, was one of the most productive recievers in NFL history, and was the first man to catch a 100 balls. Whats is the problem with the Hall, why are they not inducting him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Monk is he was never the league leader (except one year I think). Went to only a couple of pro bowls. Was never considered the best WR in the NFL at one time. Had he gone to more probowls this wouldn't even be a topic right now. Monk also had a low average yard per catch 13.5 to Lofton's 18.3 and fewer total yards. Lofton also had more td's and more 800 yard + seasons

Monk:

1980 was | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 58 797 13.7 3 |

| 1981 was | 16 | 1 -5 -5.0 0 | 56 894 16.0 6 |

| 1982 was | 9 | 7 21 3.0 0 | 35 447 12.8 1 |

| 1983 was | 12 | 3 -19 -6.3 0 | 47 746 15.9 5 |

| 1984 was | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 106 1372 12.9 7 |

| 1985 was | 15 | 7 51 7.3 0 | 91 1226 13.5 2 |

| 1986 was | 16 | 4 27 6.8 0 | 73 1068 14.6 4 |

| 1987 was | 9 | 6 63 10.5 0 | 38 483 12.7 6 |

| 1988 was | 16 | 7 46 6.6 0 | 72 946 13.1 5 |

| 1989 was | 16 | 3 8 2.7 0 | 86 1186 13.8 8 |

| 1990 was | 16 | 7 59 8.4 0 | 68 770 11.3 5 |

| 1991 was | 16 | 9 19 2.1 0 | 71 1049 14.8 8 |

| 1992 was | 16 | 6 45 7.5 0 | 46 644 14.0 3 |

| 1993 was | 16 | 1 -1 -1.0 0 | 41 398 9.7 2 |

| 1994 nyj | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 46 581 12.6 3 |

| 1995 phi | 3 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 6 114 19.0 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 224 | 63 332 5.3 0 | 940 12721 13.5 68 |

Lofton:

1978 gnb | 16 | 3 13 4.3 0 | 46 818 17.8 6 |

| 1979 gnb | 16 | 1 -1 -1.0 0 | 54 968 17.9 4 |

| 1980 gnb | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 71 1226 17.3 4 |

| 1981 gnb | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 71 1294 18.2 8 |

| 1982 gnb | 9 | 4 101 25.2 1 | 35 696 19.9 4 |

| 1983 gnb | 16 | 9 36 4.0 0 | 58 1300 22.4 8 |

| 1984 gnb | 16 | 10 82 8.2 0 | 62 1361 22.0 7 |

| 1985 gnb | 16 | 4 14 3.5 0 | 69 1153 16.7 4 |

| 1986 gnb | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 64 840 13.1 4 |

| 1987 rai | 12 | 1 1 1.0 0 | 41 880 21.5 5 |

| 1988 rai | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 28 549 19.6 0 |

| 1989 buf | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 8 166 20.8 3 |

| 1990 buf | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 35 712 20.3 4 |

| 1991 buf | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 57 1072 18.8 8 |

| 1992 buf | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 51 786 15.4 6 |

| 1993 phi | 9 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 13 167 12.8 0 |

| 1993 ram | 1 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 1 16 16.0 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 233 | 32 246 7.7 1 | 764 14004 18.3 75

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monk has more receptions, Lofton has better yards per catch and more TDs. But Mike is right, if Lofton is in, Monk is too. Now, if you compare Swann and Stallworth's numbers to Monk's, he blows them out of the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by GGB81

Monk has more receptions, Lofton has better yards per catch and more TDs. But Mike is right, if Lofton is in, Monk is too. Now, if you compare Swann and Stallworth's numbers to Monk's, he blows them out of the water.

Actually, as Sportscenter noted when they did their HOF snubs last year (I think Monk was either number 1 or number 3), Monk blows Stallworth and Swann out of the waters...combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are different kinds of receivers, just like there are different kinds of linebackers and tight ends.

you have to look at productivity, yes, but you also have to look to how that player was used by his team and how to interpret those stats :)

Lofton was often the only major receiving threat on the teams he played on (until he was 35 years old in Buffalo). In fact his years in Green Bay were spent with a team that was for the most part a loser.

So, Lofton was thus on a team without other wide receivers and was often in a situation where his team was behind and was throwing long, hoping to make the big play.

Contrast that to the Redskins. The Redskins were a winning team with other pro bowl caliber wide receivers such as Clark and Sanders.

Art didn't have to do everything for the team. AND the team didn't have to throw deep as much and gamble because they were rarely out of any games or behind by lopsided scores.

In the fourth quarter of games, what the Redskins needed was for Monk to catch short and intermediate passes consistently, taking the hits going across the middle and salting games away while converting first downs.

And in my mind he did that better than any other player in his generation. Sure, Rice and Irvin were bigger scorers and playmakers in their roles, but who was a better third down option on 3rd and 8 than Art?

So, for a receiver in that role what you look for is consistent hands, durability over time, and an accumulation of career stats in terms of catches that is near the top of the heap.

And that's what you have :)

Monk was consistent, he played 14 years in the NFL, caught at least 50 balls a number of seasons, lead his team in receiving, set the mark for consecutive games with a catch (since broken), and for catches in a season (106 in 1984, also since broken).

Lofton's claim to fame vis a vis Monk comes down to one thing, he was used differently.

Lofton ran off the corner and used his smaller frame and greater speed to get downfield, hence his 18 yard average.

But the differential in average per catch, 18 vs. 13.5, is slightly misleading due to the relatively close comparison of touchdowns scored: 68 vs. 75.

As a deep threat, James didn't find the end zone many more times than Art did over his career, despite the fact the Skins ran the ball so much in those early years with Riggins down close and in plays to Clint Didier and Co.

How many of those touchdowns from 5 yards and in might have been short pass plays to a 6'3 receiver in the end zone if not for the 240 pound fullback who scored 24 td's in 1983? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulldog's right on the money. Monk is being criticized because he was a possession receiver. Who cares if he was the best possession guy of his day? He didn't blaze down the field and score a lot of TDs. Apparently that's all that matters nowadays. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already went on a tirade about this in another thread, so I'll just say that I think Lofton's induction will open the door for Monk within the next 5 years. I'm keeping really calm on this subject but it still pisses me off that the man isn't is yet!!!:cuss:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At one point Monk was #1 all-time in catches and #4 in yards, he held records for catches in a season(106) and consecutive games with a catch(183). He won 3 superbowls, and in superbowl 26 had 7 catches for 113yds! He was a class guy on and off the field and never was arrested for DUI( lofton was in like 1984 or 1985.)

Hes still #5 in catches and #9 in yards. He has 940 catches and swann and stallworth have under 900 combined!!

He has more catches than anyone in the HOF. And is the only guy ever to be #1 in all-time catches and not be inducted.

The reason hes not in is a mix of skin bias( see peter king and Dr.Z ) and the fact that monk wasnt flashy and didnt act like a superstar( see terrell owens )

If theres one thing that gets me mad and heated up is this subject, Monk was my favorite and its a disgrace that hes not in. :cuss:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...