Art Monk vs Michael Irvin

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

They both deserve to be in the HOF Monk stat wise accomplishments during his career now I've said this manny times yes the stats for Irvin 750 vs 940 vs monk theres a huge difference but the thing is Irvin did that in 11 seasons (I'm not counting his last season when he got injured in the 4th game never to return) and specially he raked the mayority of his stats in 8 years (662) he was a 5 time pro bowler and all this was done in a run oriented team in a power team that often lead the oposition before halftime and they just gave it to emmith tu run the hole second half that why the stats of Aikman aren't so high It just was a verry talented team as a hole.

During those 11 years Irving had an average of 67 catches per year (during his top 8 83 avrg).

Monk played 15 complete good season (taking away his last season also) was a 3 time pro bowler during those 15 season he average 62.4 catches per year) if we take his 8 best years that started in 1984 and lasted to 1991 he had during that time 605 catches an avrg of 76 catches per year.

He (monk) had 68 TDs in 15 seasons Irvin had 62 in 11 (65 total) monk never had more than 8 tds in a season Irvin 1 season of 9 and reached double digits once. Again all thsi in a run oriented team, we are not talking of the Rams, Colts, Vikings wich all put huge numbers on offense specially on the air.

Irvin passed the 1000 yard mark 7 times, monk only did it 5 times in my book that's why people are saying Irving theserves to get in first..... don't get me wrong I believe Monk is a HOF also and should had be in there long ago.

But when you analyse both carriers you see the diference (taking away off the field issues).

For the love of God, please use punctuation marks!!! If I have to read another run-on sentence like that I might shoot myself.

Regarding your point though, the Redskins and Cowboys were both run oriented teams during the times when Monk and Irvin were playing. It's not like the Redskins were running the run and shoot.

And Irvin did post his numbers over fewer seasons, which is impressive (expecially on a TD per Season basis). But you can't totally discount Monk's longevity as a non-factor. Monk has to get credit for playing 36% longer than Irvin did (15 seasons compared to 11).

A strong case can be made for both for the hall. I think they're both top 15 type WRs of all-time. I'd put both in the hall of fame. And if I were ranking them, I'd probably put Monk 12th and Irvin 13th or so. They're very close in my mind - ignoring all biases associated with the Skins/Boys rivalry.