thew Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 I cannot pretend to be unbiased in this debate. Having grown up watching the games and respecting the man I have to say... Hell yes he belongs. I find it fascinating that certain NY based sports columnists can deny him his due and that our own Mike Wilbon has been unable to formulate a creditable argument to overcome the static and get our man Art into the big tent. My hope is that together we can help Wilbon formulate his winning argument or next year. First the case against Art which we must overcome... #1 He wasn't even the best reciever on his own team.. As a Giant's fan this sports columnist says the Giants were more afraid of Clark than they ever were of Monk. #2 He never had a stand out game in a big game where you an say he dominated. He was steady. Steady doesn't get you into the hall. #3 He wasn't the primary weapon on his team. The Redskins teams of yester year ran first and passed second only after Riggo had softened up the oposition. #4 Sure sure he was once the all time leading reciever, but that's more of a testiment to his longevity rather than his talent. He basically hung around and got the record... Counter Argument for #1..... #1 He was one of the best recievers on a team with two great recievers. He wasn't the fastest and he made an artform of not being the flashiest but he went over the middle and got the hard yards. The Redskins had so much talent in that era they set season scoring records. They could beat you with the run or with the pass. Clearly Monk's career statistics were sacrificed by the fact that they didn't have enough balls to go around to all their talent. If Monk had played for the sorry seatle Seahawks with no second reciever and no running game like Largent then his career numbers would have been higher. He was the leader of what was perhaps the best recieving corps of the 80's. Why penalize him because he played along great players. please address any or all of the above case against Art... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 :hammer:OF COURSE ART MONK BELONGS IN THE HALL OF FAME:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thito_da_skins_fan Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Originally posted by thew please address any or all of the above case against Art... http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=38034&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Nice analysis of the pro- and con' arguments. In answer to the question in the thread title: YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowghost Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 #1. He had the most catches on the skins team for a # of years, I would consider him the best receiver on his team. #2. He was steadily the go to guy across the middle, and consistently blocked for his team. According to Gibbs, Monk was a complete football player and a leader. In this case, steady gets you HoF. #3. in 1984, Monk led the NFL in receptions. Up to that point in time it was the most receptions EVER in the history of the NFL (in one season). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skin_finatic Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 NO QUESTION HE BELONGS IN THE HALL OF FAME...... SHEESH!!! :doh: :doh1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted March 26, 2004 Author Share Posted March 26, 2004 #1. He had the most catches on the skins team for a # of years, I would consider him the best receiver on his team. he lead the team in recieving three times in the seven years he was on the roster with Gary Clark with Gary having a higher yard per catch average. I think most Redskins fans considered him a lock for the Hall. You have to really think to make the case which we all took for granted. He played on such a good balanced team it's really hurt his chances.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyeG Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Stupid question...:paranoid: move along....nothing to see here.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 John Stallworth is in the Hall following that reasoning he11 yes Monk belongs in the hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Master Jay Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Art Monk belonged in the HOF 3 years ago. He is the only receiver to ever have the all time catches record and not be in the HOF. He was the first possession receiver in the 80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsonny Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 then why ISNT he? what is keeping him out of the hall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Master Jay Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Peter King and other writers like him that believe Art wasn't special. King saids that Clark was our best reciever and more dangerous then Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DaysLatr Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES/YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.