grego Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Heard Czaban or somebody talking about their #'s yesterday. Interesting. Clark- 699 Rec, 10,856 yds, 15.5 per rec, 65 TD's, 4 pro bowls, 2 rings Irvin- 750 Rec, 11,904 yds, 15.9 per rec, 65 TD's, 5 pro bowls, 3 rings Irvins #'s are better, but not by much. Shouldnt hurt Clark that he was more durable- I think he always played in at least 14 games a year over his 11 year career. Of course, Monk should be in ahead of both of them. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 How many y ears where both in the NFL for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by MeNoRevs How many y ears where both in the NFL for? 11 for Clark, 10 for Irvin. edit- Irvin only played in 4 his last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by grego 11 for Clark, 10 for Irvin. oh okay, so credit Irvin doing more in less years, or 16 games to say, but how many games has each played, maybe I should of asked that first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Problem is...I think with the explosion of receivers over the last few years it's going to make it difficult for our older guys to get in. I remember being amazed that Monk caught 106 passes in one year. Now...that's nothing. Even RB's are catching 100 passes a year. And WR's are reaching beyond the 1500 yd mark. I would love to see Monk and Clark in....just don't think Clark will make it. I know one thing...when Art does make it I'm going to Canton. Been looking for an excuse to take the family out there for vacation That would do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by MeNoRevs oh okay, so credit Irvin doing more in less years, or 16 games to say, but how many games has each played, maybe I should of asked that first. Clark, 167 Irvin, 159 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skns4life Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 well yes Irvin did more in less time...but those are good numbers for Clark...do you think he'll ever be considered for the HOF...im sure there are some recievers with less stats then clark in the HOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by grego Heard Czaban or somebody talking about their #'s yesterday. Interesting. Clark- 699 Rec, 10,856 yds, 15.5 per rec, 65 TD's, 4 pro bowls, 2 rings Irvin- 750 Rec, 11,904 yds, 15.9 per rec, 65 TD's, 5 pro bowls, 3 rings Irvins #'s are better, but not by much. Shouldnt hurt Clark that he was more durable- I think he always played in at least 14 games a year over his 11 year career. Of course, Monk should be in ahead of both of them. :cool: Playoff games: Irvin (16 games) 87 rec, 1314 yds, 15.1 ypc, 8 TDs Clark (13 games) 58 rec, 826 yds, 14.2 ypc, 6 TDs Monk (15 games) 69 rec, 1062 yds, 15.4 ypc, 7 TDs I'd like to point out right here that neither of them had as high a ypc as Monk in the playoffs. Monk, the guy who never stepped up in big games ... ahem. Superbowl numbers: Irvin (3 games) 16 rec, 255 yds, 15.9 ypc, 2 TDs Clark (2 games) 10 rec, 171 yds, 17.1 ypc, 2 TDs Monk (3 games) 9 rec, 179 yds, 17.9 ypc, 0 TDs Of course, Monk was hurt in one of those SBs and only played a few snaps. I think it's interesting that it seems to be a knock on Clark and Monk that they played together and had to share stats for much of their careers, whereas in the case Swann and Stallworth it's looked on as an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by skns4life well yes Irvin did more in less time...but those are good numbers for Clark...do you think he'll ever be considered for the HOF...im sure there are some recievers with less stats then clark in the HOF I doubt Clark will ever get in- especially since Monk isn't in yet. He's got decent #'s, but probably not HOF #'s. Of course, neither Monk nor Clark had the benefit of pushing off that Irvin got- dude was the master of that. Not hating- calling it like I saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Thing is, Monk was the #1 receiver and Clark was #2. Irvin didn't have any other awesome receivers around him. If he did, his numbers wouldn't be as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by grego I doubt Clark will ever get in- especially since Monk isn't in yet. He's got decent #'s, but probably not HOF #'s./B] Why aren't Clark's numbers HOF material? Did you look at Irvin's numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I'd personally love to see Clark inducted in the Hall of Fame. However, reality taught me a long time ago that this occurrence perhaps isn't a likely one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGGS_DADDY Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by Drex I'd personally love to see Clark inducted in the Hall of Fame. However, reality taught me a long time ago that this occurrence perhaps isn't a likely one. So true, so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Let's not forget that Clark lost a year or two to the Jacksonville franchise of the USFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Clark caught a lot of passes for playing with Monk and Sanders as well. He obviously wan;t the only target, where as Irvin really was besides Michael Harper. Gary Clark also played in the USFL. Those numbers shoudl be taken into consideration as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Thing is, Monk was the #1 receiver and Clark was #2. In the 8 years that Art Monk and Gary Clark played together in Washington, Art Monk totalted 545 receptions for 7,372 yards and 41 TDs. He led the team in receptions 3 times, in receiving yards once, and never in TD receptions. Clark totalled 549 receptions for 8,742 yards and 58 TDs. He led the team in receptions 4 times, in receiving yardgage 5 times, and in TD receptions 7 times. You tell me who the #1 receiver was in that time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Wow. Great find guys. That's what I love about this site. you guys back it up with the facts. based on those numbers than yes Clark SHOULD be in, if Irvin gets in. MONK SHOULD ALREADY BE IN. The problem with Art is, he's a model citizen. He needs to get arrested, so he can qualify for the hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradoskin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I see Gary Clark falling into the John Stallworth syndrome. Stallworth was a stud WR and was over shadowed by Swann. It took a lot of people pulling for Stallworth to get him in. Clark will take longer than Stallworth "if ever". Monk has to get in... and I hope it's this year. My gosh, weren't those the good days with Monk, Sander, Clark, Didier and Warren !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by Drex I'd personally love to see Clark inducted in the Hall of Fame. However, reality taught me a long time ago that this occurrence perhaps isn't a likely one. This is all the more reason for a Redskins Hall of Fame. its way past time for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 With all due respect to Art Monk and his greatness, Gary Clark was actually my favorite among the "Posse" of receivers. I admired the edge that he played with and his ability to make the tough catches across the middle despite his diminuitive stature. He is still one of my favorites of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krisjan76 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 without a huge outcry gary clark may never make it in. but he was my hero back in the day (still is) and the current redskins WR's could learn a thing or two from him by watching some old tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 OK here the numbers so we have them straight. Irvin 1988-1999 12 seasons (lost most of 12th with injury) Clark 1985-1995 11 seasons (a 12th in the USFL:) Clarks totals including USFL: 765 receptions... 11,677 yards...67 TDs All three numbers are right on line with Irvin's. Clarks USFL stats should be included since this is the Pro Football HOF not the NFL HOF. Sadly, the only way Clark will get to the HOF is if he goes as a vacationer and not a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophet Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Clark was the best wr we've had IMO... He was a game breaker, and super clutch don't get me wrong Monk was very good... but clark was better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUBAKAH Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by Drex With all due respect to Art Monk and his greatness, Gary Clark was actually my favorite among the "Posse" of receivers. I admired the edge that he played with and his ability to make the tough catches across the middle despite his diminuitive stature. He is still one of my favorites of all time. While reading this thread, I was thinking exactly what you just stated. I feel exactly the same way. Clark was always my boy, and to me Art got a lot of the attention was because of his catch streak. I remember paying way too much for a couple of Art Monk Rookie cards, only to see them drop a ton after Jerry Rice broke his record. I always like all three of those guys, but Gary was the smaller player, who always had a huge target area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by VivaBush Clark was the best wr we've had IMO... He was a game breaker, and super clutch don't get me wrong Monk was very good... but clark was better Gary Clark was the best WR we've had? I guess you've never heard of Charley Taylor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.