He's the most underrated player in the NFL history!
2007-02-03 12:58:48 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
No. He isn't being robbed. He just isn't as good as some of the other players available. I mean c'mon Bruce Matthews, Warren Moon, Micheal Irvin. Those names are historical. Art Monk is not as spectacular as those players. Heck even Derrick Thomas was better than Monk. He will get in eventually but not this year and probally not next.
2007-02-03 13:06:17 · answer #1 · answered by Kbear 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
To say that Michael Irvin has rings and Monk doesn't is just WRONG. Art Monk has three Super Bowl rings, and retired as the NFL's ALL TIME leading WR. Arguing that another WR from after his time is a completely unfair comparison. Art Monk re-defined the WR position, and led to the aerial-attack based offenses we see today. Despite the impressive numbers, stats don't tell you how INCREDIBLE of a downfield blocker he was, and how just by being on the field, he could change the course of a game (and in many cases, a season).
Art Monk was (and still is) a quiet legend, but unfortunately, his humility and lack of super-ego shown by many athletes today have made him too easy to be overlooked by selectors. It is really unfortunate that people whose career relies on their knowledge of sports can make such an obvious faux pas as this. Michael Irvin even stated that Monk should have been inducted on his first ballot. Ask Jerry Rice or Randy Moss who their idol was, and they will tell you, Art Monk. I hope someone in the sports community has the guts to stand up and say the selectors are wrong to exclude Monk again.
2007-02-05 04:06:45 · answer #2 · answered by Mike 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art Monk was a great player and worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. His problem was he wasn't a very likeable or personable guy and the people who vote just don't care for him. Look at the stats - all time receptions & yards. 5th all time in receptions - 9th all time in yards. No offense to Michael Irvin, but he is not in the top 10 in either category - but he was an outgoing guy with lots of charsima and 3 Super Bowl rings - This injustice ought to be corrected ASAP
2007-02-03 13:36:49 · answer #3 · answered by leos1964 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
certain, he truly benefits to be in. The huge receivers of immediately earnings from overwhelmingly effective regulations hostile to defenders. paintings Monk battled for balls lower back even as corners might want to draw close throughout receivers without drawing a flag. Now, if a nook taps the shoulder of a WR, that is a penalty. he's fifth all-time for receptions. he's ninth all-time for receiving yards. He owns about an excellent Bowl earrings. And, for sure, the consecutive-video games streak. both paintings Monk AND Henry Ellard should be in, in spite of no longer being superstars.
2016-11-24 23:23:19 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art Monk was probably a better player than Irvin but fair or not the rings get Irvin over the hump
2007-02-03 13:14:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. He was one of the greatest possesion receivers of all time.
As long as Peter King is allowed to influence voters, he'll never get in.
If Lynn Swann is good enough, how do you keep out Monk?
BTW Kaylon, it's retarded to compare players that don't play WR to reason why he doesn't belong.
2007-02-03 13:10:59 · answer #6 · answered by Clint H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. He will get in. He may be under rated by the media but, us guys whose teams(NEW YORK GIANTS), He played against, know who He is. look how long it took Carl Banks to get in.
2007-02-03 13:33:39 · answer #7 · answered by ny21tb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yup. And no, I'm not a Redskin's fan.
2007-02-03 13:09:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course he was robbed!
Fact is he should have been in the HOF years ago!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-02-03 14:58:53 · answer #9 · answered by mikea_va 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋