Hall of Fame Inductees

[eaglesrule]

so you are "Great" because you hang on to reach personal milestones?

Take a look at his career stats. like I said when 2/3 of your body of work is mediocre I don't know why you are so great.

I also said I don't care that much, but "slam dunk" is a tad off, considering the voters obviously don't see it that way either.

The fact is, he was a good player in his day, but he was never the best at his possesion, and had contemporaries who exceeded his acocmplishments, and people who followed him (irvin) who have exceeded his accomplishments.

He is the career catches leader, which counts for something, but sticking around just to reach it is a bit dodgy in my opinion. I think you should have good stats for at least half (or more of your career) to be considered HOF worthy.

[Lushcrush]

We'll just disagree on this one then. I don't feel like arguing. Our analysis of his stats are just too far apart.
And what I said was ... If Charlie Joiner (played like 18 years) is in the hall, then Monk is a slam dunk.

[eaglesrule]

that's fine. I think tenure has a place in the discussion, but it can't be the crux of the argument. And I don't really believe in the low water mark theory either. Just because one person made it in with inferior stats, that shouldn't become the benchmark for admittance. at the end of the day, perhaps monk should be in, I don't really care.

But other than catches, which tenure helped him reach, not necessarily skill (unless styaing healthy is a skill --could be) his stats aren't blowing anyone away. Irvin's stats are undeniably superior, but his sample size was smaller (but hardly insignificant).

I guess monk revolutionized the idea of possesion receiver, so for that he should get in. I think slam dunk is a tad much however.

[Plindsey88]

You have to take into consideration with Monk that his prime was during a different era of football, and he played on a team that was built around the run... His stats may not be as gaudy as some of today's stars, but ask any defensive back from that time, and they will tell you that Art Monk was a guy you didn't look forward to drawing in coverage...


Michael Irvin should certainly get in, but I can see why Hall voters would have a hard time putting a guy on the podium so soon after a drug arrest...

[moochman]

I think Monk is more worthy of a Hall ticket than Irvin. Like Plindsey said he was in a system that was as prolific as the Boys were, and not because of Monk. Irvin stats compared to his peers isn't Earth shattering when you consider the supporting cast he had.

Of course Monk is a private man who chose to live his live away from the spotlight, while Irvin is a shameless suck-up/self-promoter who is all about Irvin. So he is easier to discount.

[eaglesrule]

I know this isn't totally fair to do, which is why maybe they should just let monk in.

Byut the era argument only carries you so far when steve largent and jerry rice put up great stats in that "other era" too.

[Dr. Duran Duran]

We'll just disagree on this one then. I don't feel like arguing. Our analysis of his stats are just too far apart.
And what I said was ... If Charlie Joiner (played like 18 years) is in the hall, then Monk is a slam dunk.

I was just about to use Charlie Joiner as an example of why Monk should be in the Hall. Joiner had less 1,000 yard seasons than Monk, less touchdown, less yards and zero rings. If Joiner is in the Hall, Monk certainly needs to be in.

[Plindsey88]

I know this isn't totally fair to do, which is why maybe they should just let monk in.

Byut the era argument only carries you so far when steve largent and jerry rice put up great stats in that "other era" too.

OK, first of all, I don't think it is fair to compare anyone to Jerry Rice... He was the best ever... He will probably always be the best ever... To compare someone to Jerry Rice and say his stats pale in comparison is ridiculous... Everyone who ever played the game has stats that pale in comparison to Rice...

But let's compare Monk to Largent, who everyone agrees is Hall of Fame caliber, and one of the best ever:

Largent: 4.10 career receptions per game, 11th in all-time receptions, 7th in all-time yards

Monk: 4.20 career receptions per game, 5th in all-time receptions, 9th in all-time yards

Seems to me that Art Monk's stats hold up very well next to Largent's... And Monk put up his numbers on a team that was almost exclusively run-oriented... Largent WAS the Seahawk's offense for the better part of his career....

[Warhawk]

Look at George Blanda. His career passer rating was 60.6, his completion percentage was 47.7%, he holds the record for most interceptions in a season with 42, .85 TD:INT ratio. Of course, he did more kicking than passing. His career FG%? 52.2%.

He's in the HOF for playing 26 years (and playing 2 positions).

[Warhawk]

I know this isn't totally fair to do, which is why maybe they should just let monk in.

Byut the era argument only carries you so far when steve largent and jerry rice put up great stats in that "other era" too.

OK, first of all, I don't think it is fair to compare anyone to Jerry Rice... He was the best ever... He will probably always be the best ever... To compare someone to Jerry Rice and say his stats pale in comparison is ridiculous... Everyone who ever played the game has stats that pale in comparison to Rice...

But let's compare Monk to Largent, who everyone agrees is Hall of Fame caliber, and one of the best ever:

Largent: 4.10 career receptions per game, 11th in all-time receptions, 7th in all-time yards

Monk: 4.20 career receptions per game, 5th in all-time receptions, 9th in all-time yards

Seems to me that Art Monk's stats hold up very well next to Largent's... And Monk put up his numbers on a team that was almost exclusively run-oriented... Largent WAS the Seahawk's offense for the better part of his career....

Heck, compare him to other HOFers, how about John Stallworth, Charlie Joiner, Lynn Swann, and James Lofton?

Career receptions per game:
Monk: 4.19
Stallworth: 3.25
Lofton: 3.27
Joiner: 3.13
Swann: 2.92

Career yards per game:
Monk: 56.79
Stallworth: 52.86
Lofton: 60.1
Joiner: 50.82
Swann: 47.49

All-time receptions:
Monk: 5th
Stallworth: Well below 50th
Lofton: 17th
Joiner: 18th (tie)
Swann: Far below 50th

All-time yards:
Monk: 9th
Stallworth: 45th
Lofton: 3rd
Joiner: 13th
Swann: Far below 50th