Steve Czban on Art Monk

[skinsWill]

To me his signature catch was when he broke the consecutive games with a catch record. You know i think it shouldnt matter if you have a single "signature catch" in a carrer if you end that career as THE MOST PROLIFIC RECIEVER EVER... hes being screwed

[NYCSkin]

The Hall of Fame at this point is a media lobbying event. Art doesn't stand a chance when Irvin is on ESPN every day yakking his mouth. Meanwhile, Art is in DC doing quiet charitable work. Irvin gets his cronies like Aikman to lobby for him. Art declines interviews.
Next year, Cris Carter (who I like) will be up for election. Carter is on HBO every week and this public exposure no doubt creates a subtle advantage over Monk. The only way Monk gets in the Hall is if Carter himself (who was much like Monk as a receiver, sans three rings) uses his pulpit and looks in the camera telling the viewers (and voters) that Monk should get in before him--or at the very least they go in together. Do I think it will happen? No. But if I see Carter outside the HBO studios on 23rd street (and I have seen Costas and Marino before)--I'll suggest my idea to him.
As for signature catches, Art's was, as mentioned, the catch on 3rd and long. Irvin's signature? He pushed off on most of his catches...

[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.

[davy]

OK, I'll explain this one more time as I'm obviously not making my point clearly enough.

Imagine a receiver running a route to the back of the endzone, he leaps, makes the catch and comes down with the toes of both feet in bounds while the rest of his feet are still off the ground, his heels then come down out of bounds. This will be given as a TD everytime because it is deemed that as soon as his toes land in bounds he has both feet in regardless of where his heels eventually land.

My argument is that the heel of Art Monk's second foot came down in bounds while his toes were still in the air so he should have been deemed to have both feet in bounds at that moment.

[rypper11]

Maybe this is just my conspiracy theorist mentality, but I doubt Monk, Grimm, Green or anyone else who played primarily for the Skins will make the HOF while Danny owns the team. National media and most other locales are haters because we have an owner who passionately wants to win and will spend any amount of money to do so (unfortunately not intelligently enough to do so).
I petition Mr. Snyder to open a true HOF in Ashburn and take artifacts from Riggins, Baugh, Gibbs and all other Skins out of Canton.
Give em their due since nationally we are hated.
BTW, Monk is the king of the 8 yd out and never was shy about going over the middle then Riggins, Byner or Riggs would score.

[memphisskin]

I'm guilty of not having fully supported Monk in the past, but I agree the HOF is becoming a popularity contest. Was Chris Carter a better receiver than Monk? Debatable, but I remember watching Inside the NFL when Carter first got to Minnesota and he was excited cuz the Vikings were going to use the Skins offense and he was going to play the "Art Monk" role.

Monk's brilliance transcended stats, he was a money player, never got hurt, never brought attention to himself, and that consistency manifested itself in a then NFL record 940 catches. Is it his fault that the rules changed to open up the passing game? The HOF voters who use the "signature catch" argument are idiots. Has any of them written or reported on a "signature story?"

[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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by davy

OK, I'll explain this one more time as I'm obviously not making my point clearly enough.

Imagine a receiver running a route to the back of the endzone, he leaps, makes the catch and comes down with the toes of both feet in bounds while the rest of his feet are still off the ground, his heels then come down out of bounds. This will be given as a TD everytime because it is deemed that as soon as his toes land in bounds he has both feet in regardless of where his heels eventually land.

My argument is that the heel of Art Monk's second foot came down in bounds while his toes were still in the air so he should have been deemed to have both feet in bounds at that moment.

This is simply not the case. I have a tape of the game, I've seen it and his toes are not "in the air" while his heel is down. One half of his foot comes down before the white line, while the other half (including his toes) comes down in the white. That's not a catch no matter how you try to explain it.

In your example, where the toes come down on end while the receiver's momentum carries him out -- as long as possession is confirmed, that's a catch because no part of his feet are touching any part of the white paint while he has the ball. In that instant, it's a catch and a touchdown. In his complete step, Monk's heel was in the endzone while his toes were out.

It's just not a catch.

[davy]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then Beemnseven, my tape clearly shows his heel land first.

At least I got the point I was trying to make across.

[AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace]

Originally Posted by rypper11

Maybe this is just my conspiracy theorist mentality, but I doubt Monk, Grimm, Green or anyone else who played primarily for the Skins will make the HOF while Danny owns the team. National media and most other locales are haters because we have an owner who passionately wants to win and will spend any amount of money to do so (unfortunately not intelligently enough to do so).
I petition Mr. Snyder to open a true HOF in Ashburn and take artifacts from Riggins, Baugh, Gibbs and all other Skins out of Canton.
Give em their due since nationally we are hated.
BTW, Monk is the king of the 8 yd out and never was shy about going over the middle then Riggins, Byner or Riggs would score.

If Green doesn't get in, I'll probably have a stroke

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

This is simply not the case. I have a tape of the game, I've seen it and his toes are not "in the air" while his heel is down. One half of his foot comes down before the white line, while the other half (including his toes) comes down in the white. That's not a catch no matter how you try to explain it.

In your example, where the toes come down on end while the receiver's momentum carries him out -- as long as possession is confirmed, that's a catch because no part of his feet are touching any part of the white paint while he has the ball. In that instant, it's a catch and a touchdown. In his complete step, Monk's heel was in the endzone while his toes were out.

It's just not a catch.

If my memory serves me right I believe it should have been ruled a TD because Monk was pushed out but the ref failed to make the correct call.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by offiss

If my memory serves me right I believe it should have been ruled a TD because Monk was pushed out but the ref failed to make the correct call.

you can more of a case for this, then the heel thingy