Tim Brown vs. Art Monk

[China]

As we've seen, Art Monk got shafted not getting into the Hall of Fame (IMO). In another thread the topic of Art Monk vs. Tim Brown came up. Personally, I've gotta say I've never been overly impressed with Tim Brown, from a purely subjective point of view. In recent years I've heard some broadcasters mention his name for HOF consideration and I thought, WTF? Now, on the other hand I would vote Art Monk into the HOF in an instant (maybe that's the Redskin homer in me). When you compare their numbers statistically, Brown actually compares quite favorably and surpasses Monk in some areas (e.g., TDs).

Name G Rec Yds TDs Att RushingYds RushingTDs

Tim Brown 240 1070 14,734 99 50 190 1

Art Monk 224 940 12,721 68 63 332 0

Now, I still think that Art Monk should be in the HOF and while Brown's numbers are notable, I just don't feel the love. Part of my perception may be that Monk was on more successful teams, part of that may be that I saw Monk play more often, and again part may be due to my burgundy and gold colored glasses.

What are your thoughts?

[nace14]

the thing you have to remember about monk, and how joe gibbs put it very well around HOF consideration time, is that he played with the gary clarks and ricky sanders' who were the big yardage threats, and even though monk could have played any one of those positions and increased his numbers, he took the back seat to the team and instead did what the coach needed him to do. he made the tough catches over the middle, he picked up the first downs, and he blocked hard.

does brown do all of those things? i honestly don't know i don't see them play enough over here on the east coast, but i do like brown a lot. i think he plays hard and is a great football player, but i think his production was done in a much more favorable offense for him to put up numbers that are virtually equal with monk.

[Henry]

I think if Monk is to be criticized for never stepping up in the playoffs, Tim Brown shouldn't even sniff the Hall.

Playoff numbers:

Brown: 12 games 45 rec 581 yds 12.9 ypc 3 TD

Monk: 16 games 69 rec 1062 yds 15.3 ypc 7 TD

Brown was in one SB: 1 catch for 9 yards.

Monk was healthy in two: 8 catches for 139 yards.

[fwo40]

You are correct sir...actually this is a debate that comes up in baseball all the time. Tim Brown is one of those guys that came to play every day...to his credit, but he simply hung around long enough to get his numbers. But Brown played in an era where the passing game was more open than Monk.

Monk, you may remember broke the career reception record at the time. In my opinion he was a much bigger impact on our Superbowl teams, than Tim Brown was on his.

The reason I bring up baseball is because you have guys like Raffy Palmero that make me think about this situation. Raffy is like Tim Brown he played well...played for a long time....but also plays in a time when power hitters have inflated numbers. Raffy has held on long enough to be considered Hall of Fame material....his stats line up. But should he really be in the Hall? Did he do enough? He didn't play on any championship teams, he's never mentioned in the league's elite...I don't think Hall of Fame for him...

And for those reasons I don't think Tim Brown in the hall either. Solid professional...but I never had him in my top 5 WR's in the league going into any season. He dissappeared in the Raiders Superbowl attempt, and most of the advantages he has over Monk come from the fact that he played more games.

[Riggo-toni]

Great post Henry. If Brown makes it in before Monk, it'll reinforce just how much of a joke the HOF is.

[Troy Fakeman]

My god Monk use to light up people.....let him in.

[Chachie]

I have a feeling that Art Monk will enter the Hall of Fame the same way he used to do everything else. Quietly.

[Dan T.]

One way to enhance Monk's chances is to have Peter King named as leader of the Iraqi Coalition Council.

[GB81]

As more time passes, the statistical arguments for Monk getting in are going to get weaker and weaker. The numbers being put up by top WRs these days are making a mockery of Monk's numbers. when he caught 106 passes and set the record, it stood for a while and was a major accomplishment. Now there are several players who have eclipsed 120 receptions, and Marvin Harrison went over 140.

Tim Brown's numbers are better, across the board--there is no way around it.

[HamptonVA]

YOu have to think of the times and day/age of football , how it evolved cause Monk was a MONSTER. There is no denying that, maybe if he came in later years, he would be still playing on crutches, padding his stats like Brown.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Essentially, Brown played one more season (16 more games) and amassed 31 more TDs, 2,000 more yards, and 130 more receptions (if your numbers are correct). I think Monk belongs in the HOF, but so does Brown in my opinion.

[Baculus]

As more time passes, the statistical arguments for Monk getting in are going to get weaker and weaker. The numbers being put up by top WRs these days are making a mockery of Monk's numbers. when he caught 106 passes and set the record, it stood for a while and was a major accomplishment. Now there are several players who have eclipsed 120 receptions, and Marvin Harrison went over 140.

This is a weak argument, since there are players already in the HOF who may not have as strong numbers as some of today's players, but the NFL develops. and so do the schemes and systems. The HOF's purpose isn't to always compare a player's number from the past to the number's that today's players produce. If you always used that judgement, then future hall-of-famers may never enter, simplay because they were only great in their time and their numbers have been surpassed already at this point.

For example, John Stallworth caught 537 passes for 8,723 yards and 63 touchdowns, all Steelers team records. Heck, you have to wonder why he was in before James Lofton or Art Monk, and his numbers don't necessarily compare to Tim Brown's at all.

The question is, when the game is on the line, who would you rather have to get that first down: Art Monk or Tim Brown?

I don't care about the extra 2,000 yards - Art Monk has three rings, and that, and not just collecting yardage, is the final determination.

~B.

[Lachey79]

Another thing to consider is that one main point the voters make when not voting for monk was his "low yards per catch" and all he did was "catch 8 yard hooks" well he had a 13.5 yards per catch average that actually went up in the post-season.

Now look at Cris Carter who averaged 12.6 yards per catch for his career, and he never won a superbowl! I guess that means he won't get in to the HOF?! Or is there a double standard for Art Monk?...

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Baculus

This is a weak argument, since there are players already in the HOF who may not have as strong numbers as some of today's players, but the NFL develops. and so do the schemes and systems. The HOF's purpose isn't to always compare a player's number from the past to the number's that today's players produce. If you always used that judgement, then future hall-of-famers may never enter, simplay because they were only great in their time and their numbers have been surpassed already at this point.

For example, John Stallworth caught 537 passes for 8,723 yards and 63 touchdowns, all Steelers team records. Heck, you have to wonder why he was in before James Lofton or Art Monk, and his numbers don't necessarily compare to Tim Brown's at all.

The question is, when the game is on the line, who would you rather have to get that first down: Art Monk or Tim Brown?

I don't care about the extra 2,000 yards - Art Monk has three rings, and that, and not just collecting yardage, is the final determination.

~B.

So Marino shouldn't be in the HOF?

The ultimate measurement is of course a SB ring, but the HOF measures individual merits rather than team accomplishments. How successful one is in the playoffs should be a factor, but statistics are more important here. Your question about the first down is a good one though.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Lachey79

Another thing to consider is that one main point the voters make when not voting for monk was his "low yards per catch" and all he did was "catch 8 yard hooks" well he had a 13.5 yards per catch average that actually went up in the post-season.

Now look at Cris Carter who averaged 12.6 yards per catch for his career, and he never won a superbowl! I guess that means he won't get in to the HOF?! Or is there a double standard for Art Monk?...

Cue Primetime music and Chris Berman and Tom Jackson. "All he does is?" "Catch touchdowns".

Carter had an insane 130 TD catches in his career (more than twice the amount Monk compiled), and also had more catches and yards (albeit with a slightly lower YPC average). He obviously wasn't as successful as Monk in the playoffs, but his coaches and teams were never as good either. Carter deserves the HOF more than Monk to me and is probably a 1st ballot HOFer.

[Baculus]

So Marino shouldn't be in the HOF?

I actually never said Tim Brown shouldn't be in the HOF for a lack of rings - I just believe that fact that Monk HAS rings should be a consideration of a decision, for whatever reasons, came between them. That wasn't my point or issue. But you are right, rings shouldn't always be taken into account for HOF consideration, since some enshrined players don't have rings either. But they can be a factor in determination entrance.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Baculus

I actually never said Tim Brown shouldn't be in the HOF for a lack of rings - I just believe that fact that Monk HAS rings should be a consideration of a decision, for whatever reasons, came between them. That wasn't my point or issue. But you are right, rings shouldn't always be taken into account for HOF consideration, since some enshrined players don't have rings either. But they can be a factor in determination entrance.

Agreed. It should play some role in the decision making and I'm not sure why writers like Peter King seem to have some personal vandetta against Monk.

Here's an interesting comparison about a player not many consider for the HOF, but actually has a case. Here are Monk's numbers:

940 12,721 13.5 68

Here are player X's numbers:

851 12,785 15.0 84

Receptions aren't quite as high as Monk's but the other categories are either virtually equal or better.

Anyone care to take a gander at who this player is?

[rfdc]

Some of the phallacy for players not making in the HOF is the fans, sports notables, and writers often getting caught up in hype and a few spectacular plays, worthy of a highlight reel. The market consensus of having horn tooters that are well known, news media allow them to have a forum to influence their lobby for a player, then come the interviews. He's a crowd pleaser and shows a lot bling.

Yet the player never help lead his team over the hump in the game that means so much to any player - winning a SB or Conference Championship. At least one would be good, but some others got in without rings and no doubt they should. Brown will be one of those "bling" players that gets in , not just because of his numbers, but all the above. LA and Oakland garner a lot of attention just by being in the Cali mix, Hollywood, media, etc.

Art Monk was a blue collar, and yet also spectacular receiver in his own right. He often played in a "ball control" offense that didn't rely on "pretty" plays and played in then, the nastiest division in the NFL. He turned corners against LT, Reggie White, Randy White, and had to duck from Chuck Ceciel, Bill Bates, Carl Banks, Cornelius Bennett, and Seth Joyner, when in their space. Also, facing Lester Hayes, Mike Haynes, Deion Sanders, Ronnie Lott, D. Cherry, Arneas Williams, Smith and A****er from Denver, etc.

He accumulated all those yards and HUGE first downs in KEY games that moved the chains or set up a Riggo thrust in the bowels of opposing defenses in Playoff games and regular season games, whether at Lambeau field, Chicago, NE, Giants Stadium, the Vet, Candlestick Park, Joe Robie Stadium - in some of the most grittiest conditions. His catches were more of warrior's type, wrestling with a defender for space, using spots that simply shouln't be and literally outsmarting coaches, while all the while as quiet as a Marvin Harrison. In fact Harrison patterns his game from watching people like Monk and James Lofton, as well as Brown.

Like Harrison, Art Monk just didn't bling in the media or was crowned a media darling or had Hollywood tv magazine progams to follow him around, thus getting him more exposure to most likely folks that hardly follow football, but would likely remember his name. Art Monk, no can't say I recall him, oh,,,, Tim Brown, yeak isn't he the Oakland Raider?

Anyway the panel that does the selection must remember to consider the facts of what makes a player "greater" than his peers, and not get caught in how well Nance, Deion, Boomer, and Marino, or ESPN, FOX and MNF try to get you to remember.

Remember this - 4 SB, 3 rings, 5 NFC Championship games, Pro Bowls, All-NFL, player of the year consideration three times, Set a new standard in receptions, clocked numerous game deciding touchdowns in the playoffs, drew double coverages in the SB's and was committed to community.

Tim Brown has stats. Oh Art Monk does too, even though it was a ball control offense.

[Whiskeypeet]

Anyone care to take a gander at who this player is?

Totally blind guesses here but Henry Ellard or Irving Fryar?

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by rfdc

Like Harrison, Art Monk just didn't bling in the media or was crowned a media darling or had Hollywood tv magazine progams to follow him around, thus getting him more exposure to most likely folks that hardly follow football, but would likely remember his name. Art Monk, no can't say I recall him, oh,,,, Tim Brown, yeak isn't he the Oakland Raider?

My problem with the argument you present is that the Redskins play in DC in the NFC East. By default they will get a lot of coverage. That means (and you're right) that Monk will get a lot of coverage by default even though he wasn't a media whore. And the fact that extremely casual fans don't know who Monk is but know who Brown is should have no bearing on Monk's HOF status. I can assure you that those type of people aren't making the HOF decisions (though sometimes I think Dr. Z, PKing, etc., are just casual fans :doh: ).

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Whiskeypeet

Totally blind guesses here but Henry Ellard or Irving Fryar?

Nice job. It's Fryar who finished his career in the top 10 in a couple of categories, but like Monk, gets little press and didn't flaunt himself to the media. I don't think he deserves it instead of Monk, but I think he'll eventually get in (after Monk though). I also glanced at Moss's numbers and one can make a legitimate claim for him to be HOF worthy (statistically) even if he only plays one more season. He's an amazing player (wish he had a personality more like Monk though).

[Chrisbob74]

I think one of the things that this thread highlights without actually saying it is how, since the early/mid 90's, WR's numbers (stats) have really took a jump.

WR's now can catch 100 balls in a season and it's a great season, in the 80's, it was an amazing season. The WCO has become increasing popular in the 90's/00's due to the rule changes brought in that limited defensive contact making the short passing game much more appealing to teams.

Whilst I'm not dissing Browns numbers they should be put into context, I honestly think if Monk had had his prime years in the 90's in a WCO he would have posted even more impressive numbers than he had.

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by Chachie

I have a feeling that Art Monk will enter the Hall of Fame the same way he used to do everything else. Quietly.

Ain't that the truth!

[Ancalagon the Black]

Brown has longevity on his side. Monk was clutch. If I had to choose between them for one throw, and my season was on the line, I'd pick Monk in a heartbeat.

As an aside, I smile to see "Thelonius Monk Art" as an ad at the bottom of the page. Gotta love it.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Brown has longevity on his side. Monk was clutch. If I had to choose between them for one throw, and my season was on the line, I'd pick Monk in a heartbeat.

As an aside, I smile to see "Thelonius Monk Art" as an ad at the bottom of the page. Gotta love it.

Brown's superior numbers were posted in one extra seasons worth of games. Monk essentially has the same "longevity" that Brown does, but his numbers aren't as flashy.