Who cares if Clark was never consensus 1st team? All that means is Monk's '84 season was the best that either had but one season doesn't sway this argument when Clark was consistently better than Monk on a yearly basis. Did you not notice what I posted? In 8 seasons together: Led in Recs: Monk 4, Clark 4 Led in yds: Monk 2, Clark 6 led in TDs: Monk 0, Clark 8 So out of a possible 24, Clark led 18 times. Clark was the best WR Washington had. It's funny you want an apology yet you were being a jerk w/ your "Nice reading on your part" line. Explain to me how Green was a nice player but not great and how Monk was great? I'd love to hear it. 4/1 to 3/1 might not be much of a difference but it is a differnce and it favors Green plus the HOF site lists Monk as a 2 time all-pro selection. http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=248 Green played 15 full years as a starter, Monk played 15 full years as a starter. The comparison is fair. In 15 full seasons as a statret the man was top 10 in recs just 4 times, top 10 in rec yds just 3 times, top 10 in Tds once(tied for 10th). He was a compiler, how else can we look at him? You want to know what someone who isn't a compiler looks like? Jerry Rice in 18 seasons was top 10 in recs 12 times(67% compared to 27% for Monk), top 10 in rec yds 12 times(67% compared to 20% for Monk), and top 10 in rec TDs 12 times(67% compared to .07% for Monk). I am not comparing the 2 as players b/c that's obviously not fair buit just showing how a true HOFer would be top m10 more than the 27%,20% and .07% that Monk was.
No. This is not baseball. This is football. Stats are of less importance here. When I asked for proof I was wanting quotes from players, scouts, and coaches or stills from game film- stuff like that. I'd love to see film. Against the Cowboys in 1986, did Monk draw Everson Walls? Was Gary Clark covered by the lesser Dallas cornerback Ron Fellows? Against the 49ers in 1990, who covered who? I believe Don Griffin covered Monk and the lesser 49ers CB, Darryl Pollard covered Clark. These things are important. Monk was the big receiver (6-3, 210) on those Redskins teams. Clark was a small fry at 5-9, 173. Monk was the WR who could beat you inside and outside the numbers. There have been very few receivers who worked the middle of the field as well as they worked sideline routes as well as Monk did it. The way I remember it is that Monk was covered by opponents' better CB more often than not. He was an overall better receiver than Clark, Ricky Sanders, and Charlie Brown and defensive coordinators had to plan accordingly. Posted by me in another thread- From a post at the Football Outsiders Hall of Fame announcement thread-
So what you are telling me is #s mean very little, it's all about quotes from peers?:lol: They were friends and good teammates, what do you expect him to say? and I don't care what those other guys say, the bottom line is it is backed up in the #s to which he wasn't good enough to get in to the Hall by only being a top WR for such a small % of his career. Let's ignore the factual evidence and read quotes instead, brilliant. I didn't attack you I merely asked a question then you came back w/ that silly comment so stop acting like you are blameless and while I respct alot of hat you have to say you are in way over your head here w/ this weak argument providing quotes from players and coaches and ignoring all the legitimate evidence. Players, coaches all stick together. They support each, no one is going to say a bad word about Monk who was a classy player. The man simply doesn't have the resume to make the Hall but, much like Lynn Swann, a great media campaign to get him elected took place and eventually he got in. The HOF is a complete joke w/ the fringe players they let in and Monk just adds to the long list of undeserving players.
If somebody watched zero Redskins games from 1985-1992 (the years when both Monk and Clark were on the team) and they thought football was like baseball whereby statistics (lies, damned lies...) can tell you a very good story, then I could see someone thinking Clark was better than Monk. For those of us who watched Redskins games in those years (I could figure out an exact list, but I'll estimate and say I likely watched between 45-50 of those Washington games), Monk was the better player. Best thing you brought up today. I've already mentioned Monk, obviously. Here's my issue with Green. The first half of his career he was very good and because he was once a consensus 1st team All-Pro cornerback, to be fair, one would have to say he was great at one time. During the second half of his career he was just good and in some years just mediocre. Repeatedly, he would have massive trouble with Michael Irvin. In his later years, Tom Carter, Cris Dishman, and Champ Bailey were the better Washington cornerbacks. In the 1980s, you'd see Darrell Green be very effective and make big interceptions and chase down runners with his great speed. After 1991, 1992you didn't see that very much. He warrants a PFHOF induction because he played at a high level for 5 years. He had another 15 years of solid, good, nice, okay, adequate ball. 5 years of very good to great ball and 15 years of nice ball and guys are getting in. As I wrote in another thread- Green's in that second group. There's nothing wrong with him be inducted into the PFHOF. The baseball and football HOFs are not watered down. They have not become jokes. Remember, they are Halls of Fame. They are not Halls of Great. Guys who were "only" Very Good can be rightfully inducted. The key is to recognize that there are two types of Hall of Famers. No-brainer guys and guys we can argue about until the cows come home. Again, Darrell Green's in that second group.
I'm a moron yet I post facts to back up my argument while you post quotes. OK, I am also supposed to apologize even though you enflamed the situation w/ your obnoxious comment. :drunk:
Now you don't have to. You already proved you don't have it in you. I have since opted for the ol' two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right-but-hell-I'm-going-to-do-it-anyway option. Look, football stats don't tell the whole story all the time. Sometimes they tell you something, sometimes they tell you nothing. Been watching the game long, junc? You should know this about football by now. I honestly don't know how anyone could piss on everything I wrote in this thread unless that person had an agenda and an axe to grind with me. What is your fuckin' problem with me?
What is MY problem w/ you? I don't have any. Let's recap: -I posted how I didn't think Monk was Hall worthy and how I thought Clark was better. -YOU then asked me for proof and I provided it. -You then made excuses for monk's lack of TDs and I proved how silly that was by showing you Clark's TD #s. -I then MISTAKENLY wrote you didn't think Green should be in and you came back w/ this obnoxious comment "Nice reading on your part". -I responded w/ a "whatever" and you expected ME to apologize for some reason. Obviously I know football and obviously I know stats don't tell the entire story but you need #s to make the Hall. Not compiled #s, #s against your peers and w/ his lack of HOF caliber seasons he does not belong in the Hall. I remember Art Monk playing, I remember gary Clark being alot better. Art grew up not far from me so I am a fan of his. he's also a class guy so I am happy he made the Hall but that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't belong. The Hall is supposed to be for the best of the best and 4 years top 10 in recs, 3 in rec yds and once(barely) in TDs in 15 seasons does not earn that player a spot in the HOF. If you think this is about you then I can't help you, you started the argument w/ me. I merely stated my opinion supported by facts. It's nothing personal against you it's just the way it is.
Again, Monk's stats were not "compiled". (Actually, all counting stats are compiled, but I understand what you mean what with the negative connotation of the term.) Your comments in this thread struck me as elitist, as if you are almighty and have all the answers and that everything in football can be reduced to stats. I gave you quotes about Monk while he was playing (such as the Clark quote) and quotes from after he retired (such as the Polian one) and you laughed it all off. Everyone reading this thread understands why people said nice things about Monk, but they said 'em. Give me the quotes on Clark. You had no response to the issue of which type of cornerbacks covered Monk and which ones covered Clark. If a poster WILDLY distorts something I write and I respond with something like, "Nice reading on your part", they should be able to take that. You could not take it. Instead of apologizing and/or thinking to yourself, "I deserved that 'nice reading on your part' line", you opted to exacerbate the situation. I happened to like Gary Clark and dislike having to knock him here. I remember Clark playing for the Jacksonville Bulls. I also remember that he wasn't the better player. Clark played long enough to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. He compiled enough good statistics. Why's he not in, junc? Here's the full quote from Bill Polian:
A juxtaposition for others to ponder: At 2:20 I posted the following- Roughly 40 minutes later, nyjunc wrote-
I'm just wondering... If players need numbers to make the Hall, then how do offensive lineman get inducted? And what about defensive lineman who played before 1982, the year in which sacks became an official stat?
This stuff is getting out of hand. I am going to take a new approach. All personal attacks like this will be deleted.
I don't care. If you must ban me, that would be okay. I'm fed up with the guy. He pissed on everything I wrote and refused to go anywhere with the debate except to post numbers like he's doing a Rain Man impression. We talk about this nutcase on this site and offsite...
Junc give it up.... regardless of numbers Monk was one of the best WRs of his generation. Conisistency is a stat that never gets talked about. I don't care how good you are because if you don't do it consistently your not as good as your stats. I grew up around Skins fans as my step mother and her entire family (3 sisters, 1 brother parents, nieces, nephews, cousins) would always say Monk was the best WR the Skins have ever had. Was Clark good? Yes but Monk was better. I don't need statistics to tell me that I watched the games. By the way Cakes nic write up on Dean but that guy is not a HOF player. Not even close.... I'd argue Joe Klecko had a just as good if not better career than him.
He is the definition of a compiler, very rarely was he among the best in any given year but when you look back at his overall #s they look great. he had 1-2 big time years, that's not a HOFer. He was consistently good and rarely great, the Hall is supposed to be for great players. Who cares what players said about Clark? I am sure many said great things, the Monk quotes are easy to find b/c of the media campaign to get him in. Clark doesn't have that luxury and again quotes are meaningless. Last offseason I think it was Rodney Harrison who told evryone how much elker killed the Pats as a dolphin when in actuality in 4 games Welker caught a total of 14 balls and he had zero TDs so please explain how welker killed the Pats? I think you get the point that quotes don't determine how good a player was. A good guy like Monk will always have positive feedback from his peers. I don't know, neither one of us knows unless we go back and review game tape but it doesn't matter. Clark produced more than Monk, HOF caliber WRs always get the tougher CBs to deal w/ and have to worry about double teams yet they still put up the #s which Monk did not on an annual basis. Overall he did b/c he played forever. I didn't "wildly distort", I made a small mistake and stop whining about others apologizing when you escalted the tensions on here. I was debating whether Monk should be in the Hall and you took it to another level then you expect someone else to apologize when you are the reason it got to that point in the first place. B/c he didn't play long enough to compile overall great #s but he has Hall worthy #s right now w/ the unworthy players they have inducted and much like Monk and Swann I think at some point Clark will get in. I don't think Clark belongs in BUT if there was a choice btw Clark and Monk clearly Clark beloings in ahead of him. WHO CARES? Do you expect him to say he wasn't a HOFer? find me the quotes where these players, coaches and execs are saying a certain player shouldn't be in the Hall. You have already gotten silly but now you are taking it to another level. We are talking about WIDE RECEIVERS not OL or DL. WRs, QBs, RBs need great #s to get in and Monk on an annual basis did not have those great #s. In 15 years he only had 4 in the top 10 in recs, 3 in the top 10 in rec yds and 1(barely) in the top 10 in TDs. That's not a HOFer. I hope you do get banned b/c you deserve it. I was not heated at all, just rationally discussing this topic. I post facts and you post quotes yet you think my argument was weak. What planet do you live on? You asked me to prove how Clark was better than Monk and I did that, my argument blows your weak argument away. Take a step back and read through this thread again and remember I didn't make it personal YOU did. I watched alot of skins games growing up and the guy making all the big plays was Clark not Monk. Clark was definitely the better player and yes you do need stats to get in. Consistency is great but it doesn't make you a great player. Monk was a consistently GOOD player, the Hall is for GREAT players or at least it should be. Rod Smith was incredibly consistent during his career and was better on an annual basis than Mo0nk- is he a HOfer? Jimmy Smith was very consistent, is he a HOFer? Herman Moore was consistent for a long time and was better on an annual basis than Monk- is he a HOfer? Keenan McCardell, Isaac Bruce, Eric Moulds, Keyshawn Johnson, Derrick Mason, ... the list goes on and on. The Hall is going to get awfully crowded w/ consistently good players rather than great players.
You could be right. Fred Dean was definitely a borderline guy. My thing with him is that at his height he was greater than Darrell Green, Emmitt Thomas and Gary Zimmerman. But, if you say Klecko is better than Dean I wouldn't say that is wrong at all.
What is this "clearly" nonsense? For you to use that term is clearly wrong as evidenced by the fact Monk is in the PFHOF and Clark needs a ticket to get in.
I have a bunch recently from Ron Wolf. If I so choose to do so, I will post Wolf quotes and quotes from others.
I posted much more than quotes. Perhaps you need to read through the thread again. All you posted were counting stats. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Wes Welker accumulate more stats than Randy Moss in the 2007 playoffs? Gary Clark is the 2007 postseason Welker to Art Monk's 2007 postseason Moss. Go compare Fred Biletnikoff and Cliff Branch. Branch outcompiled Biletnikoff from 1974-1977, when they were the starting WRs for the Oakland Raiders. Does this mean Branch was "clearly" better? Biletnikoff is in the PFHOF; Branch is not.
