Different eras BUT it's the biggest joke in the World that lynn Swann is in the Hall. He should only be getting in w/ a ticket like the rest of us but that's another discussion.
I happen to agree with you about Clark, clearly he was much better than Monk. By the way I'm not shilling for Irvin who if he was left off the HOF I would have no problem but I still think he was far better than Monk. The problem with Monk is he had a boat load of average years, nothing special and a handfull of good years and 2 great years. You can make an argument for Henry Ellard, Irving Fryar, the problem is there were alot of really good WR and Monk was just not quite as good. Very good not HOF good. For my money Stanley Morgan was much better than Monk, he doesn't belong in the HOF either.
I am sorry, but I completely disagree and I am not going to debate further because I am not going to change my mind. If Monk was such a bum, then so many players and coaches wouldn't state that Monk needs to go into the Hall. That Jim Kelly wouldn't have to state as much, or other articles written immediately afterwards. Monk is not a Henry Ellard or nor does he just have a few highlight reels that Wayne Cherbet could better (which, when you stated that, did not strengthen your argument and, in fact, sounds a bit petty). You are arguing with a fan that watched Monk a ton more then you did - I live in the D.C. area. I watched him for 10 years: did you? I trust my own eyes and the opinions of individuals in the NFL who played the game and agree with me. I have good company in my particular viewpoint in this subject. You have the company of Dr. Z and a minority of fans. If you believe your football judgement is more sound then coaches and players in the NFL, hey, what can I say? Maybe you should then be in the NFL coaching or some such, right? Here are some recent comments regarding Monk: "Monk and Irvin are very similar in their styles. What made Monk so great on the football field was how he used his big frame just like Irvin. What I think is ultimately hurting Monk is that he played with wide receivers Ricky Sanders and Gary Clark. While having those two receivers on his team helped him win Super Bowls, it’s hurting him as he attempts to make the HOF because he had to share receptions. Monk was a chain mover and you knew if it was third-and-short that he was getting the ball. He deserves to be in the Hall." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2753181 "Art Monk, Michael Irvin. Monk and Irvin could cancel each other out, though both deserve to make it. There’s going to be some sentiment in the room along the lines of “Geez, could we please get Monk in and end this annual melodrama with him?” Troy Aikman and Jimmy Johnson are really trying to help Irvin’s candidacy with some gentle reminders to voters about how hugely important Irvin was to the Cowboys’ success." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/02/01/playoffs/ "Having Art Monk and Michael Irvin on the list of finalists will probably hurt Andre’s chances a little bit. I understand Art Monk is getting a lot of consideration. He’s been on the ballot a few times now. One thing that I guess has held Monk back is he was known as a possession receiver. But the guy had 900 catches himself. That’s a lot of possession." The majority of articles covering Monk are positive, and Monk consistently tops polls, such as ESPN's, when the question is posed, "Who was snubbed in HOF voting?" I'll trust my own instincts, and the instincts of Bill Parcells, Joe Gibbs, and the many coaches and players who agree with me, thank you, who all believe Monk should be in Hall of Fame. Monk WILL make the Hall someday, and I will be overjoyed when he does: football history will be better for it. In years future, someone can point to his bust and say "THAT was a football player." And that is the reason why they have the Hall of Fame.
The comment bolded is beyond stupid. There are plenty of very good to near greats, even many greats who are not in the HOF. Nobody said Monk was a bum, just not HOF. There is a reason coaches and players don't vote on the HOF, they wouldn't be able to build a place big enough to house it. By the way I saw a couple of years of Bobby Mitchell and a whole lot of Charley Taylor, so the answer is yes I saw Monk, not 16 games every year but I saw him play at least 20 to 30 games including just about every playoff game he was in. Throwing out numbers for a minute, here's a guy you saw at least a few times if you lived in DC, Drew Pearson. No way does he deserve to be in the HOF, for my money he was better than Monk.
I was looking at the http://nfluk.com/aboutthegame-classicplayers.php site, which is an official NFL European website, and I was looking in the "Classic" players section, which has some of the players greats. And who do you think is in this section? Yep. Art Monk. Just an aside to start the post...I guess they gotta show the Euros some "nearly" great players. ;-) "Beyond stupid" is your below quoted section. See? Beyond stupid! Oh, so only sportwriters have the judgement and the, ahem, impartiality to be HOF voters, eh? What a silly thought. On the contrary, who knows great players better then those who coach and play against them. Do you really think that these NFL folks couldn't come to an honest consensus, or that they'd vote in every Tom, Dick, and Harry? Oh, by the way, my so-called "stupid comment" was in response to your own assertion that Monk's pro-bowl voting shows "shows exactly how highly esteemed he is by those who played the game," which was a silly statement from the start, seeing how most of his football-playing colleagues (and not armchair coaches) hold him in very high esteem. Then at least you do have some visual experience of watching him play. Your responses aren't as dubious. Sorry, I have already talked about one Cowboy in Michael Irvin - I don't need to talk about another one! Plus, thought I watched games during the 70's, I couldn't remember enough on Pearson to make a good judgement.
This is a ridiculous thread. The guy had a great 3 year run. He had 2 other above average seasons. I don't care if his hands were like glue, he simply wasn't a big enough piece of the puzzle over the course of his career to qualify as a Hall of Famer. "Hearsay" doesn't make it so. Just wondering, what, exactly, are your standards, other than blind insistence? -X-
I didn't mean to get personal but the idea that any one is saying Monk sucked is just not the case. The answer to the above is since Coaches and players don't vote on the HOF their comments are very often self serving regarding other players. People tend to be overly gratuitous when describing contemporaries who are no longer in the action, its being polite and graceful, there is no downside to it and there is downside to knocking a contemporary.. You're right of course he's pro bowl voting probably had little to do with he's esteem and everything to do with how he was viewed as a player. The reality of the pro bowl voting is usual you don't get in the first great year you had you get in a little later and continue getting in on reputation for a few extra years on the back end. The fact that in a 16 year career he only got voted in 3 times says something. It may not be relevant and maybe he was just being snubbed by both the pro bowl and HOF committee? I gather that you were a Redskins fan and hate Dallas that came through on your comment on Pearson? I can understand that impacting your feelings about Ivin if it did? I'm not a particularly a fan of Dallas but I don't dislike either of them. I rooted for the Redskins because I liked both Biggs and Riggins former Jets who were key players on the Redskins SB teams, so I did follow them pretty closely during the Gibbs era. In those days in NYC we pretty much got every Giant game plus a ton of the Washington/Dallas games along with all the playoffs, Monday night etc. It's not the same as every day but you get the point, I didn't see every Redskins game but I saw quite a few for someone out of the area and I watched the games pretty closely. Truth is I think the biggest snub in the pro bowls voting was Ray Guy. Winston Hill who played for the Jets and was an 8 time pro bowl player and dominated the defensive line of the Colts in the SB never gets a look, Joe Klecko a 4 time pro bowler hasn't come close. WR, QB and running back unlike other positions in pro football have a lot of raw data. On a cumulative basis of raw stats Monk probably gets in. If you look at he's years as single seasons and the entire body of work a different view may emerge. My view is based on both plus my visual of him and my view of he's contemporaries. You thought he was HOF great, I think he is very good, solid, below HOF Great. One other thing that I admit affects my bias. I grew up with Namath and Gale Sayers as my two favorite players. I tend to look at guys who had total dominance on a football field over being very good for a long time. To me guys like Terrell Davis belong in the HOF ahead of a guy like Curtis Martin. Although in Martin's case he probably does belong because even though he did accumulate stats, on a year to year basis for almost every year he played he's stats were right near the top. I look at the HOF as a place for the truly dominating player. I think too many go in not to few. I hope there are no hard feelings on this debate, I kind of enjoyed your passion on it and I'm guessing the HOF committee debates are probably not much different than ours?
Michael Irvin was NOTORIOUS for offensive pass interference. It was never called on him either. And don't tell me that "America's Team" didn't get the benefit from the zebras during thier run in the 90's. the NFL wanted the Cowboys to win. Irvin is a thug, you ever listen to him on the radio or TV shows he does? He's an ignorant gangster that talks so much crap about stupid stuff. I usually turn off any program when he comes on because I will literally feel DUMBER after having listened to him. Not to mention Irvin had a hall of fame QB and Hall of fame RB on the same team. I would expect BETTER numbers than what he put up. I would expect numbers closer to what Marvin Harrison has put up with Edgerrin James and Peyton Manning in the backfield most of his career. Lets compare those stats shall we. Marvin Harrison has posted: 1022 catches 13697 yards 122 TD 8 straight 1100 yard seasons (No that's not a typo...he has not gone for less than 1100 yards since 1998. THAT is domination. Not what Michael Irvin did. What's even worse is that how often do we hear that Marvin Harrison is the best WR in the game..It's always TO..or Randy freaking Moss. Now having dispelled the myth of how Irvin was dominant, how then can we say Art Monk with even better career numbers isn't worthy of inclusion to the hall? Michael Irvin in the Hall Of Fame is a damn shame...
I watched last year's game...my team was in it. I also watched with great interest as each "conspiracy theory" post was proven through factual evidence that the call on the field was the right call. This thread is about Michael Irvin and Art Monk...it has nothing to do with the Steelers Super Bowl last year.
I just thought it was pretty funny that a Steeler fan would bring up the officials in a HOF thread. I recall the "imaculate" reception and I did watch last years game. I checked with management and it's okay to respond to posts by other posters. It was a relevant response to your conspiracy theory regarding Irvin. Now I know that you don't really believe in conspiracy theory's favoring one team over another, they simply don't hold water, do they?
Lynn Swann in the HOF is a dman shame, Irvin is alot more deserving than Swann and I hate the cowboys too but how exactly did the zebras help them win 3 Championships in the 90s?
As stated above...Irvin was never called for pass interference. Very rarely was that line called for holding even though they held on every freaking play. And as for a Steelers fan mentioning the Zebras. Do you know how many Official Apology letters the Steelers have gotten over the past ten years from the NFL ADMITTING they blew calls? You want to talk about a conspiracy. The refs TRIED to give the game to the Colts last year by clearly botching the Polamalu interception, and this allowed the Colts to drive down for a TD and 2 point conversion to get within 3 points, when the interception should have ended the game. Oh well Poster Boy Manning got his ring this year so we don't have to hear him whine or throw his team under the bus anymore.
What do the Steelers have to do with this? Marvin Harrison is great, but that, nor Irvin's brash, offensive, horrendous personality take nothing away from his accomplishments as a player. Irvin was a dominant player and an obvious Hall of Famer. Harrison is like the Curtis Martin of wide receivers, not in the discussion of GREATEST OF ALL TIME, but probably in the equation as the most consistently excellent player at his position. Unlike MONK, Harrison's consistently high level of achievement puts him at the top of all these all-time lists. Monk got there by an average achieving receiver after many years. -X-
I just wanted to say that I enojoyed the debate on this thread, and the give and take, Winstonbiggs. In response to your question, I am a Redskins fan. (My nephew is a Jet's fan, so I occasionally lurk here, and I also like to see how other team's fans view what's happening around the league.) I just wanted to add, one more note, about Monk, is that often what's overlooked were the little things that made him a great player. This is one reason why he is often included in NFL "Great Teams" from the era, and why many still view him as a great. But obviously that is the point of contention and probably will be a point of contention until he possibly goes into the Hall. Also, I agree with Winstonbigg's note about great players who get the Hall of Fame snub, year after year, and probably deserve to receive the recognition for their playing ability. But thanks again for the debates and I hope everyone has a good offseason!
