Jump to content
TSM Forums

Leelee's Blog.

  • entries
    96
  • comments
    430
  • views
    14970

92. NFL HOF Profiles: Art Monk.

Sign in to follow this  
Guest

617 views

92.

 

p1280746dt.jpg

 

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?

No. The only year where Monk would receive any consideration would be 1984 where he broke the single season reception record. And that was the year of Marino throwing for 5000+ yards, and Dickerson rushing for 2000+.

 

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Doubtful. Monk was the best skill player for them in 1984, and probably 1985. Not enough to be considered one of the all-time best in the franchise.

 

3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?

No, and no. Even in his huge 1984 season, he was 4th in receiving yardage. Then Jerry Rice came along.

 

4. Did he have an impact on a number of great seasons?

Leaning towards no. For each of the Redskins 3 Super Bowl appearances, Monk did not have a big year. In 1983, Charlie Moore was still WAS's main target. In 1987, Monk was injured. And 1991, Gary Clark had better stats. Monk, however, did have solid playoff performances.

 

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Yes. Monk was still a productive player into his upper-30's.

 

6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No. He's not even the best receiver not in who was eligible last year.

 

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Eh... most. WR is a tough position to rate when guys like Lynn Swann are in. Also, many players around Monk's level have recently qualified for HOF voting, so many of them are not in.

 

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Yes. 8th in receptions. 12th in receiving yards. 2 Super Bowl titles. That would be more than enough in most circumstances...

 

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Monk's vast amount of receptions definitely overrate his value, statistically. The longevity of his career hasn't hurt.

 

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No.

 

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

A tough argument for 1 in 1984 if there were lesser competition. Other than that, never close.

 

12. How many Pro Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro-Bowl games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro-Bowl games go into the Hall of Fame?

2, maybe 3 if you include 1989 which was a stacked year for WR's in the NFC.

3, he probably shouldn't have made the 1986 Pro Bowl.

All have higher or equal amount of Pro Bowl appearances. He's only tied with the highly debatable deserving PIT's receivers, and Charlie Joiner.

 

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their division/conference?

Probably not.

 

14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he change the game in any way?

No.

 

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Yes. A quiet WR. A rarity these days.

 

Would he get my vote?

No. I flip-flop on Monk often... but I can't ignore that Monk wasn't even the best WR on his TEAM except for at best, a three year period. Most agree that Gary Clark was the playmaker for the Redskin offense, especially in the Posse days. And the stats agree with that. It's unfortunate that these great Redskin teams get shafted with the amount of HOF's. Monk simply was not a great player for long enough. He was a top tier WR for one, maybe two years at best. Monk was a very good WR for 15 years. But, it's not the Hall of Very Good. No matter how many pretty stats you rack up, and how many championships your team wins, in that amount of time.

Sign in to follow this  


6 Comments


Recommended Comments

It is a common myth that Art Monk was not the best WR on his team. Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders(the other two members of "the posse") were Deep Threats. They had speed, which was valuable, but Art Monk moved the chains. He demanded the double-teams that left Sanders and Clark in one-on-one coverage.

 

Art Monk is also undeservedly called a possession receiver, even though his career YPC is higher then Marvin Harrison, 13.5

 

Art Monk also played in an era where there was a lot more contact allowed by DB's and the man still caught everything thrown his way.

 

Also, don't get me started about ProBowls, that is the single most overrated statistic out there. ProBowls are popularity contests. Art Monk was a quiet man on and off the field, he didn't put his mug in front of the camera every other day to get media coverage, in fact he was more likely to talk to the media when he had a bad game, then a good game.

 

Art Monk also compiled his stats while playing on the same with with the Posse, and a coach who had a run-first offense.

 

I think Art Monk unfairly gets compared to today's WR's because he played into the 90's. People want to put Monk's stats up against players that peaked 10-15 years after he retired, and that is bullshit. You use that player's career and stack it up against the players he played against in his era.

 

Also, I'm not sure who what Wide Receiver that is eligible right now that was better then Monk. Andre Reed? No. Henry Ellard? No. Michael Irvin? Close....probably the 90's version of Art Monk, but no. Michael Irvin to me is the closest I can think of that was almost a clone of Art Monk who came after Monk's generation, but I believe in career stats Irvin only has the edge in one category.

 

Another thing that hurts Monk, is he doesn't have "That one catch" that defines his career. Of course, that is the most ludicrous statement of all, because a HOF career should not be made on a single catch. A single catch, like say for Lynn Swann should not elevate lackluster stats into a HOF Career.

 

Leena, I don't question your knowledge of sports what-so-ever overall, you usually make sound and just arguments, but your own questions and answer session SCREAMS of someone who didn't see much of Art Monk actually play and rather is just looking at a stat sheet(which even then shows he has the stats to be in the HOF). When you listen to guys like Bill Parcells, Ronnie Lott, Joe Gibbs, Theismann, Al Michaels etc....talk about Monk, it shows that they witnessed Greatness and they knew it.

 

If you want to witness further evidence for Art Monk in the hall, and trust me you should......watch this video: http://www.monk4thehall.com/

Share this comment


Link to comment

I only watched Monk in the late 80s-early 90s, so I admit I didn't watch his best years. Back then, Gary Clark was regarded as their playmaker. And he was. He torched the Bills enough for me to recognize how good he was.

 

Your stat sheet point doesn't make sense because if you just look at Monk's stats, you think he's a HOF player in a heartbeat.

 

I'll dispute the points that video makes:

 

Monk was a "clutch" receiver? I know I'm using a stat here, but it can't be ignored...

Monk - 14 seasons with WAS, 66 TD's, less than 5 TD's per season.

Clark- 8 seasons with WAS, 58 TD's, more than 7 TD's per season.

 

I agree when people say "star WR was double teamed, and that leaves WR2 with more chances". That's definitely the case with Harrison and Reggie Wayne today, as it's silly when some think Wayne is the better player.

 

So, the video is telling me that Clark and Sanders were the "speed" WR's given the chances to make the plays, and Monk was the "clutch", "move the chains" guy. Ok. Then, when we get in the red zone, Clark and Sanders are getting most of the TD's...

 

Clark outperformed Monk every year when he was with the Redskins, except one. And that year, Ricky Sanders did. The "defenses were focused on Monk" line doesn't last for that long.

 

Gary Clark can be as respectful as he wants to Mr. Monk... but, who exactly is helping who here?

 

Basically, the video pointed out the main, and only true case Monk has for being in the HOF. He played a long time, and caught a lot of balls. If you want to vote him in because of that, I can see why people would think that's deserving.

 

But, selling me on "#4: Monk was the top skilled WR for the Redskins". Can't do it.

 

 

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

The video also showed that Monk was often blocking for the Running backs when they were scoring. Not to mention having the trio of Don Warren/Clint Diddier/Doc Walker at TE which I am sure took TD stats away from the WRs.

 

Like I said, the Redskins were a run-oriented team, in a run-oriented era of the NFL.

 

The game has changed, which is why I think it is unfair to compare Monk to WRs of the 90's and today.

 

Of his era, Art Monk was probably the best, besides Jerry Rice, but again, you can't be punished for not being the Best of All Time. It's kind of like Dominique Wilkins in his prime vs. Jordan in his prime. 'Nique was usually always just behind Jordan in terms of scoring, but it isn't fair to punish Wilkins for not being as good as the best of all time.

Share this comment


Link to comment
×