Was Gary Clark our Best WR from 85-92?

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Peter King (who was the Giants beat-writer in NY before going to SI) once said that the biggest threat the Giants had to worry about when playing Washington was Gary Clark -- and that was the reason he never thought Monk was a shoe-in. Now, Adam Scheffter says Monk wasn't even the best receiver on his team, implying that it was Gary Clark.

So here's a question: Why the hell isn't Gary Clark ever mentioned as being worthy of the Hall? He was everything Art Monk wasn't -- fiery, outspoken, the 'superstar' on the field -- you know, the things everybody says is Monk's biggest obstacle.

When we needed a knock-out punch, Clark was THE guy. That man was a game-breaker. For those who were too young to remember him, think of all the explosive dominance of Santana Moss in 2005 ... now, triple it.

According to the statements of the voters, Gary Clark should have been a first-ballot guy.

Talk about hypocrisy! Every statement either of them make applies to Harry Carson who they couldn't stick thier heads up his A** far enough, who was the best LB on the those Giant team's? Taylor! Who did we consider the biggest priority to stop on either side of the ball when we played the Giant's? Taylor! Not only wasen't he the best LB you could make a case that the Giants never missed a beat defensivly when Carson retired and Pepper Johnson stepped in, and yes he played in a 3-4 set. They can talk all they want about why they want to keep Monk out, but by sheer numbers regardless of any signature catch, or who was the best WR on the team in a given year, makes Monk an absolute no brainer!

[mike340]

I can't remember a single "signature catch" for Harry Carson. ;-)

More to the point, one of the most convincing reasons that Monk should be in the HOF is that there is no fan asking for Clark to enter before Monk. Clark was extremely high in the list of career receptions and yardage when he retired (does someone know how to get this data?) and he has "sexy" (i.e. home-run) catches, yet almost all Redskins fans feel that Monk should be in the HOF before Clark.

In addition, Monk's 106 catches in 1984 was 11 more than any other receiver in the time period from 1964 to 1989 (and the record at the time). The first time an AFC player got more than 106 catches was 1999!

As an additional aside, Monk helped Clark's stats, but Clark hurt Monk's stats. Monk kept on getting the first downs, allowing more long shots to Clark. But Clark took away a lot of the big receptions that Monk otherwise would have gotten.

Maybe if we retire his number...?

Originally Posted by offiss

Talk about hypocrisy! Every statement either of them make applies to Harry Carson who they couldn't stick thier heads up his A** far enough, who was the best LB on the those Giant team's? Taylor! Who did we consider the biggest priority to stop on either side of the ball when we played the Giant's? Taylor! Not only wasen't he the best LB you could make a case that the Giants never missed a beat defensivly when Carson retired and Pepper Johnson stepped in, and yes he played in a 3-4 set. They can talk all they want about why they want to keep Monk out, but by sheer numbers regardless of any signature catch, or who was the best WR on the team in a given year, makes Monk an absolute no brainer!