Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

Like it or not, PK may actually hold the key for AM to get in. perhaps he will do a little good will and spin doctoring to help his cause? Who knows

disingenuous...............nice

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

PK isn't soley responsible, but to think that his opinions don't carry alot of weight with HOF voters is pretty silly.

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;275200]Isn't it a little coincidental that right when he decides Monk is worthy of HOF consideration a new crop of receivers with better stats will be eligible? I think he doesn't want to receive any more heat for being regarded as a major opponent of his selection for the past number of years. He's a chicken-sh*t coward that's trying to cover his gluteous maximus using superficial public relations tactics.[/QUOTE]

Those were my thoughts exactly.

Also, just because he says that he "changed his mind", and has "advocated" for Monk doesn't mean that he actually voted for him. The writers can only vote for a limited number of players each year.

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

Schlereth kickin' Colin's ass NOW over the MONK scenario on Triple-x

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

I'm not sure why comparing Monk to guys like Carter or Brown is really fair anyway. These guys played in a different era than Monk. When Carter and Brown were both racking up the catches it came in a time when the NFL was definitely much more pass oriented.

Just another excuse to prepare us for when Monk gets screwed again next year.

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

[quote=Hog1;275217]Schlereth kickin' Colin's ass NOW over the MONK scenario on Triple-x[/quote]

Stink has been very outspoken in his support for Monk.

Give us a summary of what was said if you can.

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

it's good to hear!
You are correct, the player has to be compared with records and play that occurred in his time. Monk retired as the all time leading reciever in number of catches. It makes no difference what that mark is today. He is still in the top 6 or 8 top recievers of all time. Makes NO sense. I can understand trying to F... a creep like TO. Monk's a great guy. I don't understand

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

This is Bullshit!!! Art I love you man. Maybe next year Darrell Green and Art Monk will go in together. If that is the case REDSKINS NATION better be there in Canton. I know I wil be!!

Hail TT REDSKINS!!

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;275227]Stink has been very outspoken in his support for Monk.

Give us a summary of what was said if you can.[/QUOTE]

I heard it. Cowherd says he doesn't belong because Monk was just a "compiler". He mentioned that out of 7 big games, Super Bowls and NFC Championships, Monk only caught one touchdown. He said that being "dependable" on countless 6-yard curl patterns aren't enough to get you the label of playmaker, and it's not worthy of the Hall of Fame. He says it's not the Hall of Nice Guys, Hall of "dependable", or Hall of Longetivity. He maintains that Monk was really good, just not great. He did say he'll probably get in someday.

Wingo and Schlereth said that Monk should be recognized because he compiled the records on a run first team. Also that it shouldn't be overstated that Monk didn't have Hall of Fame QBs throwing the ball to him. They said that his modest TD numbers should be discounted because the NFL was different then compared with the Marvin Harrisons and Chris Carter days of pass happy offenses. Schlereth really drove home the point that when he retired, he was the leading receiver in NFL HISTORY.

I like Cowherd, but he strikes me as the type of talk show host who will say anything to get his audience fired up -- but he probably doesn't believe half of what he says.

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;275237]Schlereth really drove home the point that when [Monk] retired, he was the leading receiver in NFL HISTORY.[/QUOTE]

... and that's really all that matters. I mean, it's kinda like Marino being denied entry to the Hall. :doh:

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

It's funny how at every position where that player retired first in stats at said position, he's in the Hall of Fame. But Monk somehow just ran 6 yrd curl patterns.

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

Calling Monk a compiler is as silly as calling Emmit Smith a compiler! Emmit is the all time leading rusher, but I personally consider Jim Brown the greatest back to ever play the game.

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

What a bunch of sackless choads! I quess Monk didn't shake his as@#$%^ enough, or get caught with a HALL OF SHAME Amount of drugs and prostitutes.


Why doesn't character matter in the Hall of Shame(which i will refer to as for the rest of my life)?

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

My brother composed this:

Single-Season Reception Leaders in the 1980's:

1980: Winslow, 89, TE
1981: Winslow, 88, TE
1982: D. Clark, 60, TE
1983: Christensen, 92, TE
1984: Monk, 106, WR
1985: Craig, 92, RB
1986: Christensen, 95, TE
1987: Smith, 91, WR
1988: Toon, 93, WR
1989: Sharpe, 90, WR

Largent (HOF) doesn't appear on this list.

Lofton (HOF) doesn't appear on this list.

Rice (HOF) doesn't appear on this list.

Since 1990, only one non-WR (Gonzalez in 2004) has led the NFL in receptions. That's ONE compared to SIX from 1980-1989—SIX in a span of TEN years.

Folks, if that doesn't indicate a shift from a run-oriented league to a pass-oriented league, then I don't know what else to say.

Also, if you look at the receptions leaderboard, you will notice a definite trend after 1990 of rising catches. In fact, only once since 1990 has the number dipped below 100. Um, only ONCE in the 80’s did the number exceed 100.

Is this a coincidence, or a sign that the league has evolved into a more pass happy league?:

More to chew on...

# of 1,000 seasons

1) Lofton: 5

2) Largent: 4

2) Monk: 4

2) Rice: 4

# of receptions (first number starting with 1980, OR player's first year in the 80's;last number ending with 1989 OR player's last year in the 80's):


1) Rice: 86, 65, 64, 82 / average=74.25

2) Monk: 56, 35, 47, 106, 91, 73, 38, 72, 86 / average=67

3) Largent: 66, 75, 34, 72, 74, 79, 70, 58, 39, 28 / average=59.50

4) Lofton: 71, 71, 35, 58, 62, 69, 64, 41, 28 / average=55.44

# of TD's (first number starting with 1980, OR player's first year in the 80's;last number ending with 1989 OR player's last year in the 80's):

1) Rice: 3, 5, 22, 19, 17, 13 / average=13.16 (note: insane TD production by Rice, who--IMO--along with Jim Brown, is the greatest football player EVER. Just absurd)

2) Largent: 6, 9, 3, 11, 12, 6, 9, 8, 2, 3 / average=6.9

3) Lofton: 4, 8, 4, 8, 7, 4, 4, 5, 0, 3 / average=4.7

3) Monk: 3, 6, 1, 5, 7, 2, 4, 6, 5, 8 / average: 4.7

Average YPC's in 80's:

1) Lofton: 19.15

2) Rice: 17.88

3) Largent: 15.57

4) Monk: 13.9

There is no doubt that Monk was a possession WR, just like there is no doubt from looking at these stats that James Lofton was a deep threat, that Largent was the most “all-around,” and that Rice was the best of the bunch and the best ever.

More importantly, what all of these stats indicate, aside from Rice's insane TD production, is how different the WR position is today than it was in the 1980's.

Stats are relative and should not be analyzed in a vacuum. To quote Brad Oremland, “Monk's 106 catches were in 1984 what Harrison's 143 were last season [2002]” ([url=http://www.buzzle.com/editorials...39189.asp]Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web[/url])

Therefore, it is absolute insanity to compare Monk's stats “directly” to players like Chris Carter and Tim Brown.

All stats taken from Pro Football Reference:

[url=http://www.pro-football-reference.com/]pro-football-reference.com - football stats and history[/url]

Re: Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;275209]PK isn't soley responsible, but to think that his opinions don't carry alot of weight with HOF voters is pretty silly.[/QUOTE]

There's no question Peter King carries a lot of weight ... ha ha.

But seriously, if he's [I]that[/I] influential, then Monk should have gotten in this year because King now supports his entry.