Guest DrTom Posted January 26, 2003 Report Posted January 26, 2003 I guess there was supposed to be a message here? Must be a board snafu. Monk's certainly deserving of the Hall, but his reticence continues to cost him. Things like that shouldn't come into play when considering someone for a Hall of Fame, but they do.
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 27, 2003 Report Posted January 27, 2003 He's not in the Hall yet? Damn, I thought he was...
Guest Vern Gagne Posted January 27, 2003 Report Posted January 27, 2003 Barry Sanders and John Elway are eligible for the first time next season. Hard to believe Barry Sanders is already HOF eligible next season. How old is Sanders by the way?
Guest phoenixrising Posted January 27, 2003 Report Posted January 27, 2003 Sanders is 34 years old. It's a shame he got tired of the losing in Detroit and retired, imagine the yardage he would have racked up by now. As for Monk, I feel that it is wrong when an honor based on on-field performance is affected by off the field behavior. One of the new HOF inductees, James Lofton, is another example...off field stuff being the reason why he wasn't in the Hall sooner. IMO, Monk deserves to be in the Hall, he was one of the best recievers of his time, which I feel is very important when considering HOF nominees.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted January 27, 2003 Report Posted January 27, 2003 Did Monk do something off field?
Guest Youth N Asia Posted January 27, 2003 Report Posted January 27, 2003 Barry retired cause Bobby Ross benched a good quarterback like Scott Mitchelle (who owns just about every Lion's passing record) and put in the rookie, Batch. In Scott's last game he put 30+ points on the board, Batch didn't match that the rest of the season. After that Barry was getting killed by defenders cause everyone knew Batch was shit. Barry didn't even speak to Ross on the sidelines for the rest of that (his last) season. That's why Barry wasn't around to shatter Payton's rushing record...if he had played as long as he safely could've he would have put that record so far out of reach, no one could touch it. And I'm shocked Monk isn't in...I thought that one was a gimmie
Guest El Satanico Posted January 27, 2003 Report Posted January 27, 2003 Oh yeah because Scott Mitchell was such a great QB...Isn't he considered one of the biggest FA busts in the NFL.
Guest Youth N Asia Posted January 27, 2003 Report Posted January 27, 2003 Oh yeah because Scott Mitchell was such a great QB...Isn't he considered one of the biggest FA busts in the NFL. Barry and the Lions did a lot better with him
Guest DrTom Posted January 28, 2003 Report Posted January 28, 2003 Bah, Mitchell's best days were running the gimmicky "Run & Shoot" offense, which Buddy Ryan accurately called the "Chuck & Duck." When he played for teams (including the Lions) who ran more conventional offenses, he wasn't nearly as successful.
Guest phoenixrising Posted January 28, 2003 Report Posted January 28, 2003 Mitchell had one great year - in 1995, he threw for over 4,300 yards and 30 touchdowns. And Detroit made the playoffs twice during his time at QB, so he wasn't as horrible as people think. However, he was supposed to be the missing link, the quaterback of the future...and he never quite cashed in.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted January 28, 2003 Report Posted January 28, 2003 Every QB seemed to have a great year, in 1995. If I remember something like 10 players caught over 100 passes.
Guest NoCalMike Posted January 28, 2003 Report Posted January 28, 2003 if Lynn Swann is in the HOF, Art Monk should have been in the first year of his eligibility. He was one of the BEST of his era and retired holding MANY records. Just because he wasn't a "star" it is hurting him now. Ridiculous.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now