i mean the guy has better stats than guys like irvin and swann who are in, how is he not in the hall?
2007-03-11 07:29:44 · 11 answers · asked by sabes99 6 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
No, here's why
The fact is that Monk was consistently average. He played 16 seasons, yet he was not even the top receiver on his own team in 12 of them. He only put up 1000 yards 5 times in 16 seasons. Monk was never the focal point of the Redskins offense. He was a consistent performer, but he was just average. On the Redskins alone, he was behind Charlie Brown, then Gary Clark, then Ricky Sanders.
These are Monk's lines from the NFC Championship games and SB's
82 - did not play in either game
83- vs. SF 3 catches 35 yds
83- vs Raiders 1 catch 26 yards
87 - did not play in NFC Championship game
87- vs. Denver 1 catch 40 yds.
91- vs. Detroit 5 catches 94 yds. 1 TD
91- vs. Buffalo 7 catches 113 yds
Irvin was the top receiver on Dallas for 8 straight seasons. He was a key integral part of the three Super Bowl Champions, where as Monk was just on four Super Bowl Champions. Irvin went over 1000 yards 7 times in 8 seasons.
Irvin's lines in the NFC Championship games and SB's
92- vs. SF 6 catches 86 yds
92- vs. Buffalo 6 catches 114 yds 2 TD's
93- vs SF - 2 catches 23 yds
93- vs. Buffalo - 5 catches 66 yds.
95- vs. GB - 7 catches 100 yds 2 TD's
95- vs. Pitt - 5 catches 75 yds
the 94 NFC championship game that Dallas lost to SF
12 catches 192 yds. 2 TD's
one more comparison
Monk's numbers during Washington's 4 SB's
82- 35 catches 447 yds 12.8 avg 1 TD (granted 9 game season due to strike)
83- 47 catches 746 yds 15.9 avg 5 TD (missed 4 games due to injury)
87- 38 catches 483 yds 12.7 avg 6 TD (lost 4 games due to strike, missed 3 others due to injury)
91- 71 catches 1049 yds 14.8 avg 8 TD
Irvin during Dallas 3 Super Bowl seasons
92- 78 catches 1396 yds 17.9 avg 7 TD
93- 88 catches 1330 yds 15.1 avg 7 TD
95- 111 catches 1603 yds 14.4 avg 10 TD
2007-03-11 07:34:05 · answer #1 · answered by d b 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have no idea; I guess it's because he didn't make the big plays like Irvin and Swann. He was more of a possession receiver who just happened to rack up a ton of receptions and yards over the course of his career. He definitely should be in the Hall of Fame!
2007-03-12 09:51:01 · answer #2 · answered by RichMac82 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Monk deserves to be in. What probably is keeping him out is that he was not spectacular. Has anyone seen a great catch he made on a highlight? Big receiving game in a Super Bowl or NFC Championship game?
He happened to play for a talented and well coached team that would run the football in big games.
I think he'll still get in eventually.
2007-03-14 22:56:27 · answer #3 · answered by steve p 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes Art Monk should be in the Hall of Fame.
2007-03-11 14:44:41 · answer #4 · answered by paul_gchs 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By all means, this guy BELONGS! When he retired, he held the all time record for receptions in a career. How this guy is not in, I don't know, but it's a scandal. And this is coming from a Redskins hater!!!
2007-03-11 14:36:09 · answer #5 · answered by Chris L 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. But then I dont think Irvin and Swann belong in either.
2007-03-11 15:17:41 · answer #6 · answered by stan l 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes he should be in the Hall, Irvan really got in because he had big names pushing to get him there.
2007-03-11 15:19:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
definite hall of famer.
2007-03-11 15:15:05 · answer #8 · answered by The New England Patriot 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah he should, but so should randall cunninghan, vince papile, william perry, emmit smith, maybe class of 2007
2007-03-11 15:29:24 · answer #9 · answered by were making fiction of our lives 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2014-10-30 18:34:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋