Steve Czban on Art Monk

[SouperMeister]

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.

[davy]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

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.

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by davy

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.

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

[davy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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

Did you actually read my post?

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by davy

Did you actually read my post?

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by davy

Did you actually read my post?

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.