Art didn't make it again

[SkinsFTW]

Originally posted by sonsofwashington

First of all, Steve Young is the man. PERIOD. I don't argue this. If you don't like his comentary on TV that is one thing, but he is a stud football player.

Second, I hate to say it buy Irvin was a better receiver if you just compare stats. # of 1,000 yard seasons, yards per catch, times a pro-bowler, times all-pro, seasons led the league in yards. These two links clinch that in my mind.

Lastly, Monk should be in. The gatekeepers to The Hall really cast a dark cloud over their guests. Kinda like getting to Wally World only to find it is closed. LOL!

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=246

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=248

http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/indiv/receiving

Steve Young wasnt that good. Every Qb who played in the 9ers system, including Bono, Grbac and Garcia did well. I'm not saying that Young wasnt good, just that if he should be in the HOF then so should a lot of other pretty good QBs who played around lesser talent on offenses that didnt guarantee above average QB numbers.

Another thing is that Irvin was never better than Monk. In Monks prime the best receivers in the league were averaging 70-80 receptions. Monk led the league with 104 one year and 91 another year with 2 different QBs throwing him the ball and an old RB. He had over 70 catches 6 times despite playing in 2 strike years. He moved the sticks for us while Dallas was all about Emmitt. Remember the year they started 0-2 because Emmitt held out and then won the SB anyway? Irvin was in his prime when other receivers were catching 120+ balls. In fact his best year in 95 he was still only the 5th best receiver with 111 catches and 3 receivers had more than 120.

Sure, Irvin had better numbers in direct comparison but Monk played his best years 10 years before Irvins and like everyone says, the game changed. It works when they are talking about Gibbs but it doesnt for Monk? The fact is, Monk looks like the best receiver ever when you compare his numbers to players of his own era and before. When he set the receptions record of 104 the next best receiver that year had 80 receptions and that guy is in the HOF despite having about 1/2 the stats of Monk. He got in because the game changed though but Monk doesnt get the same treatment despite still having better numbers than a guy like Irvin from a different time when WR numbers went up a good 25%-35% or so. Its BS.

[Bullets Fever]

Originally posted by scruffylookin

Are the votes released to the public? We need the names of all the voters who kept Art out of the HOF. King or Zimmerman themselves are not enough to keep him out. I think we should view those two boobs as lost causes and find out who the other writers are.

Does anyone think Wilbon or Shapiro will "out" those writers?

Over the past couple of years I have searched the internet for clues as to how each of the 39 HOF voters felt about Art Monk. Most of the voters in their columns say very little about their feeling about Monk, but I have found some clues as to how 11 of them might feel. I'll start with the anti-Monk faction --

1) Dr. Z -- Nothing more need to be said.

2) Peter King -- Ditto.

3) Len Pasquerelli -- He has cited the 13.5 ypc argument and told the St. Petersburg Times (9/5/2003) that "Art Monk may never get into the HOF". I also can't remember the last time he wrote anything positive about anyone connected to the Redskins (at least it seems that way to me).

4) Rick Gosselin (Dallas Morning News) -- He listed on his website who he thinks the best players are not in the HOF. Amongst WR's -- he lists Bob Hayes, Cliff Branch, Otis Taylor, Drew Pearson and Gary Clark ahead of Monk (the list was made prior to Michael Irvin's eligibility). I'm putting him down as a no vote.

The following voters have indicated support for Monk or has said positive things about his candidacy --

1) Michael Wilbon

2) Len Shapiro

3) John McClain (Houston Chronicle) -- In a 2/4/03 Q & A on their website, McClain said he had "no problem" with Monk making the HOF and thinks he eventually will be inducted. He said his wife is a big Redskin fan and gives him grief every time Monk doesn't make it.

4) Bernie Miklasz (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) -- In a 1/18/2002 article, he put a "pretty strong yes" beside Monk's name with regards to his HOF induction.

5) John Clayton -- He has said previously in 2003 that Monk would have a good chance of making the HOF in the near future and I recall him ESPN radio saying that Monk was a "pretty good choice".

6) Ed Bouchette (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) -- He doesn't come out and say he would vote for Monk, but "reading the tea leaves" while reviewing his columns led me to think he would (just a hunch).

7) Scott Garceau (replaced Mike Preston of the Baltimore Sun as a voter this year) -- On the Ravens website, he is quoted as saying that "How can Art Monk not be in the HOF" looking at his numbers (Of course, after his first year in the room with Dr. Z and Peter King, he could be brainwashed to their side).

If anyone has any indications as how the other HOF voters feel about Monk or any changes to the list above, please let me know.