bradmahn

Art Monk played before my time, but is there a general consensus amongst the posters on this board that he is absolutely Hall worthy? I have no other resources at my hands other than statistics, which is a very poor method (if taken by itself) to diagnose how great someone was. He had few singularly great seasons, and failed to rank in the top ten more than four times in receptions, more than three times in yards, once in TDs, and for his career he is 7th in receptions and 12th in yards before falling completely off the charts in the other major receiving categories. Was he great or is this a case of the media lamenting over a player justly being left out?

__________________
I don't like Dungy and that's because he [was] the head coach of the Colts. Period. End of question. The degree to which I like a player or coach is predicated solely on the color of the laundry they wear on Sunday. When fans admit this and stop bashing players and coaches for any other reason, the world of sports will be infinitely improved.

IcyPatriot

The Redskins were primarily a running team. Their offensive line dubbed the "Hogs" were big, strong and nasty. Monk was a $$$ player and played his best when the game was on the line. He was a foxhole type of player ... great hands ... lots of moves and tough.

Xzibit23

I remember the tail end of his career..but players who played against him unanimously think he should've been in. I'm shocked Chris Carter isn't in though, even though he'll eventually get in.

brady199

He's not a hall of famer, If he was on a worse team with those same numbers no one would even consider him a hall of famer. He was Very Good.

PonyExpress

I watched Monk play, I have nothing against the Redskins but IMO he is not a HOF player. Monk was a possession receiver who was in no way dynamic or a game changer. His playoff performances were nondescript. He wasn't even the best receiver or most dangerous WR threat on his own team. It would be like inducting Donald Driver.

TommyD4207

Art Monk is a LOCK Hall of Famer, and I'm glad he finally got his due.
He had nearly 1000 receptions, with all but one season spent on a team that primarily ran the ball.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

-Don't disreputeatate me.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PonyExpress

I don't see it that way at all. He wasn't the most dangerous WR on his own team, did nothing special in the playoffs. He was a possession receiver whose catch totals are not remarkable in retrospect. At the time they seemed remarkable, because the league was evolving from the dead ball era of the '70s when the passing rules were restrictive. I realize skin fans feel very attached to this player, and the Redskins are a very important franchise, but that is not enough to justify induction. IMO the selectors were browbeaten into submission over many years by influential reskins supporters and overlooked the mediocre merits of Monk's case.

TommyD4207

Gary Clark or Ricky Sanders more dangerous than Art Monk?

Wow.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

-Don't disreputeatate me.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.