Steve Czban on Art Monk
 

today at work i was listening to his show on fox sports radio and he had adam sheifter from the nfl network who used to a hall of fame voter. he was the one that said on nfl network that art monk has never had a signature catch thats one reason he hasnt been voted in the hall. also stated that he only was voted to 3 pro bowls and only led the skins in catches in 4 of his 16 seasons. this got czban all fired up and led to him asking adam what was irvins signature catch all he could say was he caught TD in the super bowl v.s. the bills. czban responded with well monk caught a TD in the super bowl. i am so sick of the BS revovling about monk not getting in the Hall of fame. when it comes down to it we all know he is a hall of famer and made catches for first downs to keep drives alive to win ball games. sometimes i find it hard to listen to czban especially on the comcast post game show but doesnt sugar coat things and tells u what he thinks.

Re: steve czban
 

[quote=redskins5044;278126]today at work i was listening to his show on fox sports radio and he had adam sheifter from the nfl network who used to a hall of fame voter. he was the one that said on nfl network that art monk has never had a signature catch thats one reason he hasnt been voted in the hall. also stated that he only was voted to 3 pro bowls and only led the skins in catches in 4 of his 16 seasons. this got czban all fired up and led to him asking adam what was irvins signature catch all he could say was he caught TD in the super bowl v.s. the bills. czban responded with well monk caught a TD in the super bowl. i am so sick of the BS revovling about monk not getting in the Hall of fame. when it comes down to it we all know he is a hall of famer and made catches for first downs to keep drives alive to win ball games. sometimes i find it hard to listen to czban especially on the comcast post game show but doesnt sugar coat things and tells u what he thinks.[/quote]


Amen! Monk and Tagliabue got boned by the HOF voters. I try not to think about it too much. Any group of people who vote "White Lines" in before Art Friggin Monk have GOT to be outside their minds.

Re: steve czban
 

I'm a big Czaban fan, because he's not afraid to take a stance. I too heard the Schefter interview, and loved it when Czabe challenged him on Irvin's "signature catch". Citing a "signature catch" has to be among the most ridiculous criteria ever brought up in HOF debates. Applying that to a player from today, what is Marvin Harrison's signature catch?

Czabe did make one mistake in his argument - Monk's only Super Bowl TD (opening drive against Buffalo) was correctly reversed by instant replay (Monk's 2nd foot barely touched the back line. That said, Monk caught 4 passes for about 75 yards on that opening drive - I'd call that a pretty good series of signature plays on the game's biggest stage. We need Wilbon to get off his ass on Monk's behalf, because Lenny Shapiro clearly hasn't argued passionately/convincingly enough during the HOF selection process.

Re: steve czban
 

What is Art Monk's signature catch?

Which of Art Monk's receptions sticks out most in your mind?

Re: steve czban
 

I want alive for it but I remember watching it 1000 times. NFC Championship game, might not have championship game, against Dallas 72' I think....

"Joe Theisman straight drop, he's got ARt monk open, at the 5! TD washington redskins."

Damn, why couldnt I have been born earlier....

Re: steve czban
 

Monk wasn't drafted until 1980.

Re: steve czban
 

[quote=Beemnseven;278159]Monk wasn't drafted until 1980.[/quote]
LOL, I think he meant 82', or atleast i hope

Re: steve czban
 

Adam Schefter is a masive [B]TOOL[/B]!!!

Re: steve czban
 

Shefter is way too young to have proper perspective anyways. He has bought into the all the BS arguments. Every argument I hear against Monk is literally ridiculous. Seriously there isn't one argument that seems even remotely reasoanble to me.

He has the stats, the rings, and the respect. What else is necessary?

As for the 'signature catch' theory. I callenge everyone to think of signature catches from any HoFer or future HoFer. Besides the catches from Swann and Stallworth I can't think of a 'signature catch' FOR ANYBODY. And the only reason I remember them is because they got played over and over agian when Swann got in. You know like when everyone thought the only reason they got were those catches and a significant amount of people thought it was a joke.

Re: steve czban
 

I agree that the whole "signature catch" thing is a bunch of B.S. I would like to hear what that TOOL would say if he were asked to define a players "signature catch", what the F#$k!!! This is the NFL not the WWF(wwe) where they have "signature moves". I would like him to state what is Barry Sanders "signature run", John Elways "signature throw", Thurman Thomas "signature run"?

This whole signature thing is just an excuse, because they cant come up with a better one. And you know what they say about excuse's and a$$holes...

Besides doesnt Art Monk get anything for being an innovator in the NFL???

Re: steve czban
 

What all these anti Monk guy's fail to bring up is how many HOF QB's did Monk have throwing him the ball? I do believe the answer is zero, so in closing I would love to see how well some of these WR's would have faired without a great QB like Aikmen, Bradshaw, Manning, Montana, and the list goes on and on, Monk also had more QB changes without the luxury of a real bond with a QB for 8 to 10 years that a lot of the greats had!

Re: steve czban
 

[quote=offiss;278218]What all these anti Monk guy's fail to bring up is how many HOF QB's did Monk have throwing him the ball? I do believe the answer is zero, so in closing I would love to see how well some of these WR's would have faired without a great QB like Aikmen, Bradshaw, Manning, Montana, and the list goes on and on, Monk also had more QB changes without the luxury of a real bond with a QB for 8 to 10 years that a lot of the greats had![/quote]

This is exactley why he is a better candidate than Irvin will ever be.

As to his "Signature catch", from now I think everyone should say "Third and 10". The guy was money on that conversion.... for a decade.

Re: steve czban
 

[quote=JGisLordOfTheRings;278157]I want alive for it but I remember watching it 1000 times. NFC Championship game, might not have championship game, against Dallas 72' I think....

"Joe Theisman straight drop, he's got ARt monk open, at the 5! TD washington redskins."

Damn, why couldnt I have been born earlier....[/quote]

Not to muddy the waters when it comes to Monk but I am pretty sure that he was hurt in the NFC Championship game vs. Dallas (and during all of the playoffs that year).

I find this signature catch criteria amusing. First of all, for all of the "old timers" (many of whom have stats no where near Monk's) what is their signature catch? Most don't have one, you know why, because barely anyone saw them play.

I have said it before but in my eyes the proof that the Hall process is complete BS is the fact that Stallworth and Swann are in and Monk isn't. Their stats are mediocre at best compared to Monk's. Of course to get them in the voters said things like, "they were on the most dominant team of their era" and "they won four championships". Well, Monk won 3 and was on the second most dominant team of his era. You can't tell me that only winning 3 instead of 4 is a good reason to exclude a player from the hall.

Re: steve czban
 

[QUOTE=Grim21Reaper;278220]I find this signature catch criteria amusing. First of all, for all of the "old timers" (many of whom have stats no where near Monk's) what is their signature catch? Most don't have one, you know why, [B]because barely anyone saw them play. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's a good point. How old is Adam Scheffter?

I'll bet he was wearing Huggies when Monk was tearin' it up.

Re: steve czban
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;278187]LOL, I think he meant 82', or atleast i hope[/quote]
He's probably thinking of Charley Taylor's AWESOME diving catch in Championship game vs Dallas in 72'. They said they only saw it on video clips and was not born yet. That must have been Taylor's "signature" catch to get him in the Hall. :rolleyes:

Re: steve czban
 

To me his signature catch was when he broke the consecutive games with a catch record. You know i think it shouldnt matter if you have a single "signature catch" in a carrer if you end that career as [I]THE MOST PROLIFIC RECIEVER [B][U]EVER... [/U][/B][/I]hes being screwed

Re: steve czban
 

The Hall of Fame at this point is a media lobbying event. Art doesn't stand a chance when Irvin is on ESPN every day yakking his mouth. Meanwhile, Art is in DC doing quiet charitable work. Irvin gets his cronies like Aikman to lobby for him. Art declines interviews.
Next year, Cris Carter (who I like) will be up for election. Carter is on HBO every week and this public exposure no doubt creates a subtle advantage over Monk. The only way Monk gets in the Hall is if Carter himself (who was much like Monk as a receiver, sans three rings) uses his pulpit and looks in the camera telling the viewers (and voters) that Monk should get in before him--or at the very least they go in together. Do I think it will happen? No. But if I see Carter outside the HBO studios on 23rd street (and I have seen Costas and Marino before)--I'll suggest my idea to him.
As for signature catches, Art's was, as mentioned, the catch on 3rd and long. Irvin's signature? He pushed off on most of his catches...

Re: steve czban
 

[QUOTE=SouperMeister;278131]Czabe did make one mistake in his argument - Monk's only Super Bowl TD (opening drive against Buffalo) was correctly reversed by instant replay (Monk's 2nd foot barely touched the back line.[/QUOTE]

I've got to pull you up about this. Art Monk's TD against the Bills should not have been reversed. Watch the game again and you will see that after his first foot comes down in bounds the heel of his second foot also comes down in bounds and at that point it is a TD regardless of where his toes came down moments later. How many times have you seen receivers come down with their toes in bounds before their heels come down out of bounds? Nobody questions those TDs.

Bit of a crusade for me this, I've been trying to convince people of this ever since the game.

Re: steve czban
 

[QUOTE=davy;278410]I've got to pull you up about this. Art Monk's TD against the Bills should not have been reversed. Watch the game again and you will see that after his first foot comes down in bounds the heel of his second foot also comes down in bounds and at that point it is a TD regardless of where his toes came down moments later. How many times have you seen receivers come down with their toes in bounds before their heels come down out of bounds? Nobody questions those TDs.

Bit of a crusade for me this, I've been trying to convince people of this ever since the game.[/QUOTE]


Doesn't matter. The reversal was correct. Both feet have to be in bounds.

Re: steve czban
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;278416]Doesn't matter. The reversal was correct. Both feet have to be in bounds.[/QUOTE]

Did you actually read my post?

Re: steve czban
 

[quote=davy;278417]Did you actually read my post?[/quote]

I went back and watched the replay (I have a DVD of the game). He was out, but the whole drive belonged to him. I'm sure that if he had Montana, Aikman, or Brady throwing to him he would have had plenty of TD catches... but that was not his job. His job was to move the chains.

He wore down defenses by moving the chains, the same way running backs do. Having Art Monk meant that the offense could keep the ball. Keeping the ball meant that they always had the advantage at the end of the game. This advantage led to more wins.

I'm sick of the guys looking for the showboats who make a couple of sexy catches.

Football isn't supposed to be sexy.

Re: Steve Czban on Art Monk
 

OK, I'll explain this one more time as I'm obviously not making my point clearly enough.

Imagine a receiver running a route to the back of the endzone, he leaps, makes the catch and comes down with the toes of both feet in bounds while the rest of his feet are still off the ground, his heels then come down out of bounds. This will be given as a TD everytime because it is deemed that as soon as his toes land in bounds he has both feet in regardless of where his heels eventually land.

My argument is that the heel of Art Monk's second foot came down in bounds while his toes were still in the air so he should have been deemed to have both feet in bounds at that moment.

Re: Steve Czban on Art Monk
 

Maybe this is just my conspiracy theorist mentality, but I doubt Monk, Grimm, Green or anyone else who played primarily for the Skins will make the HOF while Danny owns the team. National media and most other locales are haters because we have an owner who passionately wants to win and will spend any amount of money to do so (unfortunately not intelligently enough to do so).
I petition Mr. Snyder to open a true HOF in Ashburn and take artifacts from Riggins, Baugh, Gibbs and all other Skins out of Canton.
Give em their due since nationally we are hated.
BTW, Monk is the king of the 8 yd out and never was shy about going over the middle then Riggins, Byner or Riggs would score.

Re: Steve Czban on Art Monk
 

I'm guilty of not having fully supported Monk in the past, but I agree the HOF is becoming a popularity contest. Was Chris Carter a better receiver than Monk? Debatable, but I remember watching Inside the NFL when Carter first got to Minnesota and he was excited cuz the Vikings were going to use the Skins offense and he was going to play the "Art Monk" role.

Monk's brilliance transcended stats, he was a money player, never got hurt, never brought attention to himself, and that consistency manifested itself in a then NFL record 940 catches. Is it his fault that the rules changed to open up the passing game? The HOF voters who use the "signature catch" argument are idiots. Has any of them written or reported on a "signature story?"

Re: steve czban
 

[QUOTE=davy;278417]Did you actually read my post?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I did and you're wrong. It was a correct call. Both FEET have to be in bounds. Last time I checked, the toes are attached to the feet. Therefore, the heel and the toes along with everything in between must be in bounds for a completion.

Re: Steve Czban on Art Monk
 

[QUOTE=davy;278430]OK, I'll explain this one more time as I'm obviously not making my point clearly enough.

Imagine a receiver running a route to the back of the endzone, he leaps, makes the catch and comes down with the toes of both feet in bounds while the rest of his feet are still off the ground, his heels then come down out of bounds. This will be given as a TD everytime because it is deemed that as soon as his toes land in bounds he has both feet in regardless of where his heels eventually land.

My argument is that [B]the heel of Art Monk's second foot came down in bounds while his toes were still in the air [/B]so he should have been deemed to have both feet in bounds at that moment.[/QUOTE]

This is simply not the case. I have a tape of the game, I've seen it and his toes are not "in the air" while his heel is down. One half of his foot comes down before the white line, while the other half (including his toes) comes down in the white. That's not a catch no matter how you try to explain it.

In your example, where the toes come down on end while the receiver's momentum carries him out -- as long as possession is confirmed, that's a catch because no part of his feet are touching any part of the white paint while he has the ball. In that instant, it's a catch and a touchdown. In his complete step, Monk's heel was in the endzone while his toes were out.

It's just not a catch.

Re: Steve Czban on Art Monk
 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then Beemnseven, my tape clearly shows his heel land first.

At least I got the point I was trying to make across. :)

Re: Steve Czban on Art Monk
 

[quote=rypper11;278437]Maybe this is just my conspiracy theorist mentality, but I doubt Monk, Grimm, Green or anyone else who played primarily for the Skins will make the HOF while Danny owns the team. National media and most other locales are haters because we have an owner who passionately wants to win and will spend any amount of money to do so (unfortunately not intelligently enough to do so).
I petition Mr. Snyder to open a true HOF in Ashburn and take artifacts from Riggins, Baugh, Gibbs and all other Skins out of Canton.
Give em their due since nationally we are hated.
BTW, Monk is the king of the 8 yd out and never was shy about going over the middle then Riggins, Byner or Riggs would score.[/quote]


If Green doesn't get in, I'll probably have a stroke

Re: Steve Czban on Art Monk
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;278481]This is simply not the case. I have a tape of the game, I've seen it and his toes are not "in the air" while his heel is down. One half of his foot comes down before the white line, while the other half (including his toes) comes down in the white. That's not a catch no matter how you try to explain it.

In your example, where the toes come down on end while the receiver's momentum carries him out -- as long as possession is confirmed, that's a catch because no part of his feet are touching any part of the white paint while he has the ball. In that instant, it's a catch and a touchdown. In his complete step, Monk's heel was in the endzone while his toes were out.

It's just not a catch.[/QUOTE]

If my memory serves me right I believe it should have been ruled a TD because Monk was pushed out but the ref failed to make the correct call.

Re: Steve Czban on Art Monk
 

[quote=offiss;278622]If my memory serves me right I believe it should have been ruled a TD because Monk was pushed out but the ref failed to make the correct call.[/quote]
you can more of a case for this, then the heel thingy