Was Gary Clark our Best WR from 85-92?

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

No what? Art Monk was what?

Grimmy, you and I will go to our graves on this one. I don't mean to take anything away from Art Monk, the man deserves to be in.

But please, stop the "without Art Monk" crap. He DID have Art Monk on the opposite side of the field. He DIDN'T have mediocre stats.

You could go on and on with the "without this guy or that guy" nonsense. What if Clark didn't have Jay Schroeder or Mark Rypien throwing him the ball? I mean, you could just as easily make the argument that without Art Monk, Clark's numbers would be off the charts. Please, enough already.

My main point was to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Hall of Fame voters. If the reason they're keeping Art Monk out was that he didn't catch enough touchdowns or didn't have the signature catches, or that he didn't take the spotlight -- then Gary Clark should have been voted in long ago. I also happen to think Clark should be in too.

Put Monk in first, but the next guy we should be raising hell about is #84.

Go to my grave? Anyway, Clark and Monk had the same opportunities and Monk ended up with better stats. Given the people that have made the hall, Monk is a no-brainer. Clark is a legitamate contender.

Bottom line, my viewpoint is that the Hall has a bias against Redskins.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Go to my grave? Anyway, Clark and Monk had the same opportunities and Monk ended up with better stats.

Well of course, Monk played longer than Clark did. But, Clark was our home run guy and easily our #1 receiver toward the late 80's. All three receivers..Monk, Clark, and Sanders were such threats that on any given day, any of the three could take over a game. Maybe the best way for Monk to get into the Hall of Fame is in a package deal of inducting the Posse as a whole.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Well of course, Monk played longer than Clark did. But, Clark was our home run guy and easily our #1 receiver toward the late 80's. All three receivers..Monk, Clark, and Sanders were such threats that on any given day, any of the three could take over a game. Maybe the best way for Monk to get into the Hall of Fame is in a package deal of inducting the Posse as a whole.

They played complementary roles - Monk did much more of the dirty work across the middle, while Clark was our primary home run threat. Monk had much better hands, that much is not even debatable. Watch highlights of Clark and he was much more of a "body catcher", often cradling the ball into his body, which ultimately led to more drops. Monk had among the best hands in the league, and was much more effective making a tough third down catch in traffic. Clark probably made more big plays when they played together, but Monk was far more reliable in my opinion.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Well of course, Monk played longer than Clark did. But, Clark was our home run guy and easily our #1 receiver toward the late 80's. All three receivers..Monk, Clark, and Sanders were such threats that on any given day, any of the three could take over a game. Maybe the best way for Monk to get into the Hall of Fame is in a package deal of inducting the Posse as a whole.

That's true. Ricky Sanders had 3 "signature catches" in the super bowl against Denver. PUT HIM IN THE HALL!!!