Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[URL="http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/ballot?event_id=2738&incoming=1"]ESPN.com: SPORTSNATION - SportsNation Trivia[/URL]

A nice little ballot for fans



I can't believe one of the main points people against monk use is that only skin fans think he should be in. He has the most votes of the 17

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

Honestly.....


If Monk dosent get in this year, I dont know if he ever gets in. This is a very weak class.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer;269535][URL="http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/ballot?event_id=2738&incoming=1"]ESPN.com: SPORTSNATION - SportsNation Trivia[/URL]

A nice little ballot for fans



I can't believe one of the main points people against monk use is that only skin fans think he should be in. He has the most votes of the 17[/QUOTE]

Well, we're part of a big fan base.
J/K

That arguement is complete BS, because if you look back at the telecasts from old games you constantly hear the announcers saying things like "future hall of famer Art Monk," and whatnot.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[quote=Gmanc711;269541]Honestly.....


If Monk dosent get in this year, I dont know if he ever gets in. This is a very weak class.[/quote]
Sadly, I believe that people will point to the "weak class of '07" as the only reason Monk ever got in in the first place, and I think thats disgusting.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[quote=irish;269383]He retired in 1995 so he was eligible in 2000 and apparently his numbers were not deemed good enough then or anytime since, now its 2007 and they just dont seem HOF worthy anymore. I think thats part of the rationale for the 5 year wait, to see if a players numbers hold up and for whatever reason it appears that Monk's didnt.[/quote]

Numbers have nothing to do with the five year wait. They are viewed relative to the era the player competed in. Go check Lynn Swann's numbers if you don't believe me. Utterly pedestrian by todays standards.

When Monk set the single season reception mark with 106 in 1984, 100 catches in a season wasn't good, it was outrageous.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

There are four offensive lineman on this list of finalists who were simply outstanding for their career.

[U]Russ Grimm [/U]played just about every position on the line when they needed him to do it. And he was way better than adequate wherever he had to play. At OG he was outstanding.

[U]Bob Kuechenberg [/U]was on the 1972 Dolphins undefeated team and was probably the best OL in the team's history.

[U]Bruce Matthews [/U]played tackle, guard and center at various times in his 18 year career with Houston/Tennessee. I think he still holds the record for most consecutive games played by an O-lineman.

[U]Gary Zimmerman [/U]made the NFL All-Decade Team for the 1980s AND he made the NFL All-Decade Team for the 1990s. That sort of tells you something about his abilities.

Frankly, all four deserve to be in the HoF but it's not likely more than one will get in here.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=The Huddle;269554]Numbers have nothing to do with the five year wait. They are viewed relative to the era the player competed in. Go check Lynn Swann's numbers if you don't believe me. Utterly pedestrian by todays standards.

When Monk set the single season reception mark with 106 in 1984, 100 catches in a season wasn't good, it was outrageous.[/QUOTE]

So true. Again. Name one receiver playing today that is better than Monk. ONE. Not only that, how many receivers have broken the 100 catch mark????? More than once?

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

Sorry....
Dallas Sucks.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=dblanch66;269582]So true. Again. Name one receiver playing today that is better than Monk. ONE. Not only that, how many receivers have broken the 100 catch mark????? More than once?[/QUOTE]

Well I mean I love Monk. But there are some great receivers in the league today. And a few who've had more than two seasons of 100+ catches:

Marvin Harrison-115 in 1999, 102 in 2000, 109 in 2001, 143 in 2002

Rod Smith-100 in 2000, 113 in 2001

Randy Moss-106 in 2002, 111 in 2003

Incidentally-Randy Moss (2002) 106 receptions, 12.7 ypc, 7 TDs
Art Monk (1984) 106 receptions, 12.9 ypc, 7 TDs

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;269584]Well I mean I love Monk. But there are some great receivers in the league today. And a few who've had more than two seasons of 100+ catches:

Marvin Harrison-115 in 1999, 102 in 2000, 109 in 2001, 143 in 2002

Rod Smith-100 in 2000, 113 in 2001

Randy Moss-106 in 2002, 111 in 2003

Incidentally-Randy Moss (2002) 106 receptions, 12.7 ypc, 7 TDs
Art Monk (1984) 106 receptions, 12.9 ypc, 7 TDs[/QUOTE]

I love Monk too, but I have to say that Marvin is better. I think he's my favorite player in the NFL -- and he's not even a Redskin! He'll be a first ballot HOFer, even if they don't win a Superbowl.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[quote=TAFKAS;269584]Well I mean I love Monk. But there are some great receivers in the league today. And a few who've had more than two seasons of 100+ catches:

Marvin Harrison-115 in 1999, 102 in 2000, 109 in 2001, 143 in 2002

Rod Smith-100 in 2000, 113 in 2001

Randy Moss-106 in 2002, 111 in 2003

Incidentally-Randy Moss (2002) 106 receptions, 12.7 ypc, 7 TDs
Art Monk (1984) 106 receptions, 12.9 ypc, 7 TDs[/quote]

Yes, these numbers are all impressive, and all posted 15-20 years after Monk had his biggest year...which goes back to my point that numbers have to be considered relative to the era.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=The Huddle;269554]Numbers have nothing to do with the five year wait. They are viewed relative to the era the player competed in. Go check Lynn Swann's numbers if you don't believe me. Utterly pedestrian by todays standards.

When Monk set the single season reception mark with 106 in 1984, 100 catches in a season wasn't good, it was outrageous.[/QUOTE]


You dont need to compare Swann's numbers to today's numbers because he got in in 2001 so one has to look at how they held up relative to 2001. Unfortunately for Monk this is 2007 and 6 years have gone by since 2001 for his numbers to fade even further. I'm not saying its right or fair but that's the way it is.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

Swann's numbers don't hold up very well when compared to most eras.

336 catches? C'mon, modern day WRs do that in 3-4 years.

Monk's numbers still compare very favorably with today's standards.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[quote=Mattyk72;269615]Swann's numbers don't hold up very well when compared to most eras.

336 catches? C'mon, modern day WRs do that in 3-4 years.

Monk's numbers still compare very favorably with today's standards.[/quote]


I still think Swanny got in, by and large, on style points if you will. Don't get me wrong, he was amazing to watch. But usually when they show highlights of Swann, it's the same two or three memorable catches. The one against Dallas in the Super going down the sidelines, one against the Rams in another Super Bowl, and yet another against Dallas.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;269615]Swann's numbers don't hold up very well when compared to most eras.

336 catches? C'mon, modern day WRs do that in 3-4 years.

Monk's numbers still compare very favorably with today's standards.[/QUOTE]

I guess my question is if Monk's numbers are so amazing and outstanding in any era then why is he not in? And dont give me any of the redskin bias junk or Monk didnt suck up to the press because lots of players in the HOF didnt suck up to the press and got in. IMO the reason Monk is not in is because he was a good posession WR but not a game changer.

I dont have a problem with him getting in but I really think Monk is not a HOF caliber WR. There are lots of players in the HOF that IMO dont belong but they gotta have a ceremony every year so guys go in.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;269619]I still think Swanny got in, by and large, on style points if you will. Don't get me wrong, he was amazing to watch. But usually when they show highlights of Swann, it's the same two or three memorable catches. The one against Dallas in the Super going down the sidelines, one against the Rams in another Super Bowl, and yet another against Dallas.[/QUOTE]

I agree, Swann was a WR that could change the outcome of a game with 1 catch. He was the Super Bowl MVP because those highlight catches you keep seeing changed the tide of the game in the Steelers favor.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[quote=irish;269622]I guess my question is if Monk's numbers are so amazing and outstanding in any era then why is he not in? And dont give me any of the redskin bias junk or Monk didnt suck up to the press because lots of players in the HOF didnt suck up to the press and got in. IMO the reason Monk is not in is because he was a good posession WR but not a game changer.

I dont have a problem with him getting in but I really think Monk is not a HOF caliber WR. There are lots of players in the HOF that IMO dont belong but they gotta have a ceremony every year so guys go in.[/quote]

Sorry you don't want to hear it but the main reason he's not in I believe is the fact he was a very quiet, unassuming guy who wasn't very open with the media.

If he was flashier, bragged on himself more, and was in the public eye more I really believe he would be in by now. What other reasonable explanation is there other than some sort of bias?? During his career you constantly heard the words 'Monk' and 'Hall of Fame' mentioned together.

So what changed?

Nothing really, the guy put up the numbers but not the hype, and unfortunately in today's society hype will get you further most of the time.

By virtue of the fact he was a great 3rd down possession guy, he indeed was a game changer. Maybe not a game changer in the mold of a more explosive type of WR such as Rice, but he extended countless drives by coming up with clutch catches. And this notion that he was just a possession guy is so overblown it's not even funny. The guy could get deep and he made plenty of big plays down the field in his career.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;269628]Sorry you don't want to hear it but the main reason he's not in I believe is the fact he was a very quiet, unassuming guy who wasn't very open with the media.

If he was flashier, bragged on himself more, and was in the public eye more I really believe he would be in by now. What other reasonable explanation is there other than some sort of bias?? During his career you constantly heard the words 'Monk' and 'Hall of Fame' mentioned together.

So what changed?

Nothing really, the guy put up the numbers but not the hype, and unfortunately in today's society hype will get you further most of the time.

By virtue of the fact he was a great 3rd down possession guy, he indeed was a game changer. Maybe not a game changer in the mold of a more explosive type of WR such as Rice, but he extended countless drives by coming up with clutch catches. And this notion that he was just a possession guy is so overblown it's not even funny. The guy could get deep and he made plenty of big plays down the field in his career.[/QUOTE]

I hear what your saying but I just dont buy the bias arguement. Lots of quiet guys are in the HOF and lots more will get in. I just think if Monks numbers and career was as overwhelming as people here say he'd have been in in 2000 in but the reality is he had a solid career that is borderline HOF.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

Then why...when he was playing....did practically EVERYONE refer to him as "future hall of famer"???? What changed? Matty has a point. He was quiet and in this day and age, if you are quiet and professional, you don't often get much recognition.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;269584]Well I mean I love Monk. But there are some great receivers in the league today. And a few who've had more than two seasons of 100+ catches:

Marvin Harrison-115 in 1999, 102 in 2000, 109 in 2001, 143 in 2002

Rod Smith-100 in 2000, 113 in 2001

Randy Moss-106 in 2002, 111 in 2003

Incidentally-Randy Moss (2002) 106 receptions, 12.7 ypc, 7 TDs
Art Monk (1984) 106 receptions, 12.9 ypc, 7 TDs[/QUOTE]

Cool. Thanks for the numbers. I would take Monk over Smith and Moss any day. And...that's a pretty short list. Get him in the friggin' HALL already!

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=dblanch66;269637]Then why...when he was playing....did practically EVERYONE refer to him as "future hall of famer"???? What changed? Matty has a point. He was quiet and in this day and age, if you are quiet and professional, you don't often get much recognition.[/QUOTE]


But Monk didnt play in this day and age. He retired in 1995 and was eligible in 2000, that's 7 years ago and the loudmouth player had not developed to the extent it has today. IN fact I think most players were on the quiet side. IMO it just keeps getting worse for Monk because now 12 years after he played his numbers dont compare and he wont promote himself when he needs it most.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=irish;269640]But Monk didnt play in this day and age. He retired in 1995 and was eligible in 2000, that's 7 years ago and the loudmouth player had not developed to the extent it has today. IN fact I think most players were on the quiet side. IMO it just keeps getting worse for Monk because now 12 years after he played his numbers dont compare and he wont promote himself when he needs it most.[/QUOTE]

That is true. He certainly won't promote himself.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

I just don't see how you can retire with the all-time record for receptions, own another impressive mark with 183 consecutive games with at least one reception, be the first WR to eclipse the 100 catch mark in a season when that was simply unheard of, and be called a borderline Hall of Famer.

He's [B][U]still[/U][/B] ranked #6 overall for receptions and #11th in yardage.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[quote=TAFKAS;269584]Well I mean I love Monk. But there are some great receivers in the league today. And a few who've had more than two seasons of 100+ catches:

Marvin Harrison-115 in 1999, 102 in 2000, 109 in 2001, 143 in 2002

Rod Smith-100 in 2000, 113 in 2001

Randy Moss-106 in 2002, 111 in 2003

Incidentally-Randy Moss (2002) 106 receptions, 12.7 ypc, 7 TDs
Art Monk (1984) 106 receptions, 12.9 ypc, 7 TDs[/quote]

Harrison deserves the HOF. Smith hasn't been a star, just a reliable guy who played a long time.

Moss never kept it up. He is a cancer to his teams and wasted his incredible talent. 2 or 3 good years does not get you in the HOF...if it did, Bo Jackson would be in.

You can't compare Moss to Monk. Other than being in different eras where records and offenses were different...Monk was a top WR for his entire career and is EXACTLY what a HOFer is defined as.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[quote=irish;269640]But Monk didnt play in this day and age. He retired in 1995 and was eligible in 2000, that's 7 years ago and the loudmouth player had not developed to the extent it has today. IN fact I think most players were on the quiet side. IMO it just keeps getting worse for Monk because now 12 years after he played his numbers dont compare and he wont promote himself when he needs it most.[/quote]



Monk's numbers still stack up very nicely against the league's current top recievers. As noted above, there are only five recievers in the entire history of the league with more catches and only 10 with more yardage. How do these numbers not compare?

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

If anyone is interested I posted a link below that lists all the HOF voters and if you click on them you can see their stance on Monk. I know there are a lot of unknowns, but at least we can see who is in favor and who is against Monk for some of the voters......

[url=http://artmonk.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame-voters/]Hall of Fame Voters « The Art Monk Hall of Fame Campaign[/url][URL="http://artmonk.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame-voters/sam-kouvaris/"][/URL]

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[QUOTE=Bill B;269714]If anyone is interested I posted a link below that lists all the HOF voters and if you click on them you can see their stance on Monk. I know there are a lot of unknowns, but at least we can see who is in favor and who is against Monk for some of the voters......

[url=http://artmonk.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame-voters/]Hall of Fame Voters « The Art Monk Hall of Fame Campaign[/url][URL="http://artmonk.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame-voters/sam-kouvaris/"][/URL][/QUOTE]

I officially hate Dr. Z and Pastabelly. They're the only ones that have a zero vote. F-ing terrible.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

1. Paul Tagliabue
2. Art Monk
3. Russ Grimm
4. Ray Guy
5. Richard Dent

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[quote=Redskins_P;269719]I officially hate Dr. Z and Pastabelly. They're the only ones that have a zero vote. F-ing terrible.[/quote]

I can't stand them as well. Also you had to know that the writer from Dallas Rick Gosselin is going to vote against Monk.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[quote=Bill B;269714]If anyone is interested I posted a link below that lists all the HOF voters and if you click on them you can see their stance on Monk. I know there are a lot of unknowns, but at least we can see who is in favor and who is against Monk for some of the voters......

[URL="http://artmonk.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame-voters/"]Hall of Fame Voters « The Art Monk Hall of Fame Campaign[/URL][/quote]Its a big suprise that PK is a definitly yes!!!!


Also, you can click on the names of the voters and they give a reason why they voted a certain way.

Cliff Christl says one of the reasons is Monk's # of probowls(3). The probowl is and forever will be a joke. Its a popularity contest, not a prize for the best at his position. He also says Monk was never a big playmaker. Well DUHHHH!! He was neevr asked to be a big playmaker. he was asked to do the little things that make a TEAM great, and at this, he WAS the best!!!

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

Minds are being changed as the indefensible absurdity of the anti-Monk position becomes apparent. I've slammed PK more times than I care to recall but it takes a certain type of man to admit when he's wrong:

Peter King:

Even though Monk retired with the all-time receptions record, I’ve historically been anti-Monk for several reasons. He played 16 seasons and led his own team in receiving six times; only once was he voted first-team All-Pro. I questioned his impact on a team where the running game and Gary Clark, for many years, were the prime targets to stop by opposing defensive coordinators. I know. I watched the Giants do it nine times over four years against Washington. But last year, after a man I’d advocated got in (Harry Carson), veteran NFL writer Len Shapiro from the Washington Post e-mailed me and reminded me that everything Carson meant to the Giants, Monk meant to Washington. The leadership, the selflessness, the durable productivity … all the same. I decided I should re-think my position.
As I made my rounds of training camps this year, I asked veteran coaches about Monk and the one word that kept coming up was “unselfish.” His downfield blocking prowess kept coming up. His long-term numbers were almost Yastrzemski-like (one or two great years, lots of productive ones, very reliable). But when I talked to Joe Gibbs on Friday, the one thing that stood out was the body of work we don’t see — the downfield blocking, the quiet leadership, and this: Unlike his louder receiving mates Clark and Ricky Sanders, Monk, according to Gibbs, never once said he wanted the ball more. “We used him almost as a tight end a lot,” said Gibbs, “and not only did he do it willingly, he was a great blocker for us. If he’d been a squeaky wheel, who knows how many catches Art would have had. But he cared about one thing — the team.”
So many of the things Carson did can’t be quantified. Similarly with Monk. Not only did he lead the NFL in all-time receptions when he retired, but he blocked superbly and was the most important locker-room influence on a three-time Super Bowl champion. I’m voting for him.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

I believe you have to have little understanding of team, leadership, passion, talent and the game of football to not think Monk belongs in the Hall. That's it. I'm done with this. It's such a no brainer, arguing about it is a waste of any more energy.
Dallas Sucks.

Re: 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists
 

[B] Class of 2007 to be selected from list of finalists
(from the hall of fame sight)
January 10, 2007
Bruce Matthews
Paul Tagliabue, Thurman Thomas, Michael Irvin, and Bruce Matthews are among the 17 finalists that will be considered for election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame when the Hall's Board of Selectors meets in Miami, Florida on Saturday, February 3, 2007.
Joining these four finalists, are 11 other modern-era players and two players nominated earlier by the Hall of Fame's Senior Committee. The Senior Committee nominees, announced in August 2006, are former Cleveland Browns guard Gene Hickerson and Detroit Lions tight end Charlie Sanders. The other modern-era player finalists include defensive ends Fred Dean and Richard Dent; guards Russ Grimm and Bob Kuechenberg; punter Ray Guy; wide receivers Art Monk and Andre Reed; linebackers Derrick Thomas and Andre Tippett; cornerback Roger Wehrli; and tackle Gary Zimmerman.
[/B]
here' the list from the HOF site.tags does'nt have to wailt 5 years because he was the commissioner,rozelle did'nt have to wait 5 years either,and tags does deserve it now,imho.eight ball irvin does'nt to deserve to get in because of the many stupid and dumb things he did off the field when he was still playing!
he deserves to get in of course,but not until he is eligible for the last time.
he'll always be 8 ball irvin too me!