Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25
i am the opposite of this. i think players should be judged solely on the ability to play whatever sport they are talented in. but going strictly by stats alone, how is monk not in?
|
Going strictly by stats alone, there is no excuse. How the person plays the game can be interpreted in several different ways. Both WRs helped their team to win 3 Super Bowl championships, so Irvins has no edge there. As far as making spectacular catches, well, that is a matter of opinion. No matter how one will try to argue against Monk, there are just as many reasons...actually twice as many reasons for Monk to be in the HoF. It comes down to the fact that Michael Irvins is keeping himself fresh in the media's mind by being a football analyst. If Monk had done the samething, he would have been in the Hall much sooner. It's really all about hall of fame voting being a big fat joke. If you give the media what they want, they will return the favor. If you fall off the face of the earth after your career, you are forgotten. It is just as simple as that. That is why I say those who vote players in should take the player as a person in as high of regards, as the guy being the football player. As much as I loved Manley's aggression on the field, I would not support him being in the HoF with the way he led is life off the field. The same could be said for the original L.T. I believe truly great players are those who were great players on the field, and great people off the field. Those are the guys I'd want my kids looking up to.