2007 Hall of Fame Ballot

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Absolute crock that Monk's not in. The guy retired as the All-time leader in receptions. Nuff said. When he finished his career, he had more catches than any other player in history. Should be in. Should have been in long time ago.

 

Irvin, the crackhead, gets in. Shame. Complete shame.

[Bill Swerski]

Monk was top 10 in catches 4 times, yds 3 times and td's once.

 

Irvin was top 10 in catches 4 times, yds 6 times and td's 5 times.

 

NJMO.

 

 

Fair enough, but who was BETTER in the '80s and early '90s than Monk? Besides Rice, Lofton, and Largent, of course.

 

Monk is also 6th all-time in yards and 11th all-time in receptions. Irvin is 20th and 14th, respectively. Now tell me who had the better career.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[HowboutthemCowboys]

Fair enough, but who was BETTER in the '80s and early '90s than Monk? Besides Rice, Lofton, and Largent, of course.

 

Monk is also 6th all-time in yards and 11th all-time in receptions. Irvin is 20th and 14th, respectively. Now tell me who had the better career.

 

tough to compare stats from guys that had 12 and 16 year careers but while Monk had 190 more catches, he only had 817 more yds and Irvin has 3 more td's. I just think if Irvin would have stayed off the pipe, more people would be ok with him getting in.

[justin]

As stated in original post, I can't understand how Irving gets in and Monk doesn't.

 

I can see neither of them, or both of them getting in. Just can't see one and not the other.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Monk also retired as the single season leader in receptions with 106, and the all-time consecutive games streak at 183. Maybe he should have done more end zone celebrations and maybe smoked the hooch or smeting, then the media would pay attention. The guy's a class act. The type of player todays criminals could learn a lot from.

[skins]

Irvin might not have made it onto ballot if he didn't happen to play on three SB-winning teams.

 

And it's just disgusting that this Megan Fox made it and Art Monk didn't.

 

 

You are the wisest huddler of all.

 

Monk also retired as the single season leader in receptions with 106, and the all-time consecutive games streak at 183. Maybe he should have done more end zone celebrations and maybe smoked the hooch or smeting, then the media would pay attention. The guy's a class act. The type of player todays criminals could learn a lot from.

 

 

Good info here.

[Bill Swerski]

tough to compare stats from guys that had 12 and 16 year careers but while Monk had 190 more catches, he only had 817 more yds and Irvin has 3 more td's.

 

Three things...

 

(1) Irvin played with a HOF QB. Monk played with a Joe Theisman, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien.

 

(2) The bulk of Irvin's career was in the pass-happy '90s. The bulk of Monk's career was the '80s.

 

(3) Irvin VOLUNTARILY retired in the middle of the '99 season. I don't blame him for retiring after being briefly paralyzed but, unlike Sterling Sharpe, he wasn't FORCED into retirement.

 

I just think if Irvin would have stayed off the pipe, more people would be ok with him getting in.

 

I think there's some truth to that, although I think that more people are annoyed with having to listen to his stupid ass on ESPN than his drug use. That said, I agree that it shouldn't have affected his HOF eligibility.

 

Here's my problem with Irvin's enshrinement: He was a very good player, but not one of the GREAT players of his era. I can name six WRs of the '90s who were definitely more accomplished and at least two more who were just as good (Smith, Fryar) and I know won't get in. Irvin got in mostly because of what his TEAMS did, not because he was one of the Top 3 or Top 5 receivers of his era. That's not what the HOF is supposed to be about.

[Bill Swerski]

You are the wisest huddler of all.

 

Oh, NOW I'm wise!

[HowboutthemCowboys]

Three things...

 

(1) Irvin played with a HOF QB.

 

I think there's some truth to that, although I think that more people are annoyed with having to listen to his stupid ass on ESPN than his drug use.

 

I'm curious, while giving alot of Irvin's success to Aikman, do you think he (Troy) should have been a 1st ballot HOF?

 

And I agree, Irvin on ESPN makes me wanna puke sometimes.

[Bill Swerski]

I'm curious, while giving alot of Irvin's success to Aikman, do you think he (Troy) should have been a 1st ballot HOF?

 

Good point. No, I don't. Like Irvin, Aikman was very good at what he did, was instrumental in getting his team 3 SB titles, but he wasn't an elite player at his position. He certainly wasn't on the level of Marino, Favre, Young, Kelly, and Elway.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Ask Ronnie Lott, another guy who played the game the way it was meant to be played, about Art Monk:

 

Ronnie Lott, HOF inductee:

 

"Art Monk was an example for Jerry Rice. That's what Jerry always told me."

 

"There's nothing negative to say. He has the numbers, the catches, the championships."

 

"You have a Hall of Fame for all it represents. I know he represents all that it's about. Integrity, love and passion for the game, community, what he gave back. Look how he conducted himself. Nobody I know deserves it more."

[Clubfoothead]

In Irvin's era, I can name A LOT more WRs who were clearly better: Rice, Carter, Brown, Reed, Bruce, Henry Ellard. Jimmy Smith and Irving Fryar were AT LEAST as good as Irvin.

 

That's a f*cking joke. The only WR on that list that's better than Irvin is Rice.

 

Carter is nothing more than a loud Art Monk without the rings and the rest of that pathetic list couldn't carry Michael Irvin's jock if they all tried at the same time and were allowed to use a forklift.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

That's a f*cking joke. The only WR on that list that's better than Irvin is Rice.

 

Carter is nothing more than a loud Art Monk without the rings and the rest of that pathetic list couldn't carry Michael Irvin's jock if they all tried at the same time and were allowed to use a forklift.

 

[Bill Swerski]

That's a f*cking joke. The only WR on that list that's better than Irvin is Rice.

 

Carter is nothing more than a loud Art Monk without the rings and the rest of that pathetic list couldn't carry Michael Irvin's jock if they all tried at the same time and were allowed to use a forklift.

 

 

 

See what excessive homerism does to your brain, kids?

[kraftykraft]

How can you put Michael Irvin in the HoF and not vote in Art Monk?! Is Irvin dealing to some of the voters?

 

On the plus side, Irvin had to make it in as a player, since he blows as a broadcaster....

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

This is something the fat-a s s Peter King wrote last year regarding Monk's nomination to the Hall. He votes no every year, and this is his 'justification' for that vote (highlighted portions are my points of emphasis):

 

"I'm one of the voters, Sean. And I'm not ashamed at all. Over the past few years, there's been significant outrage over Monk not getting into the Hall of Fame. Salisbury's feelings are shared by many. Mel Kiper has raked me over the coals a time or two on this one. How can the 39 guys who sit in judgment of the merit of retired players think that Monk didn't do enough to earn a spot in the Hall of Fame, particularly when he had more receptions than any of the 17 current receivers enshrined in the Hall?

 

Since I get a lot of mail on this particular issue every year, I want to spend a couple of minutes going over Monk's case. At the end, you may think I'm wrong, but at least you'll know my reasoning.

 

It's a complicated situation, at least from my standpoint, but I'll start by explaining a couple of things about the voting system. Monk is one of the 15 finalists for the Hall this year, as he has been the last several years. We elect a minimum of three and a maximum of six to the Hall each year. There is a winnowing process that cuts the list to six in the room, and then the 39 voters are asked to vote yes or no on the final six. To make it, a player either has to have 80 percent of the vote, or in the event that fewer than three get 80 percent of the vote, the players with the most votes up to three are then elected. And so, if Monk makes it to the final six, basically, he needs to have at least 31 of the voters go his way. Eight no votes can squash a finalist, and obviously, he's had at least eight no votes every year he's come before the board of selectors. I am certainly not the gatekeeper. I have voted yes on Monk when the Hall asks us to cut the list from 25, and then to 15, in advance of the meeting, because I do think he is worthy of discussion, and I think he's one of 15 most deserving candidates in a given year -- which is different from thinking he's a Hall of Famer. But I have voted no on Monk each year he has gotten to the final six. These are the reasons:

 

1. I think numbers should be considered significant, but shouldn't be the god of election to the Hall. And they should be put in perspective. This says everything about why statistics alone shouldn't put people in the Hall of Fame: The year Jerry Rice entered football, 1985, there were four players with 600 career catches in NFL history. Today there are 34. Monk led the NFL in receptions with 940 when he retired after the 1995 season. Since then, four receivers have passed him. One of them is Andre Reed, who I also consider to be a marginal Hall-of-Famer. In the next few years, others will get into the 900 range: Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, maybe even Keenan McCardell (755 now, and he wants to play two or three more years). Think of the receivers who haven't turned 32 yet who could get to 900ville: Terrell Owens (31, 669 catches), Eric Moulds (31, 594), Muhsin Muhammad (31, 578), Randy Moss (27, 574). Torry Holt's 28. He's got 517. Four more years in that offense, and he's in Monk's neighborhood statwise. In other words, in the 30-year window between 1980 and 2010, a dozen guys, or more, could pass 900 catches. We can't elect them all. There has to be some positional integrity to the Hall of Fame. I believe that Redskins-era team, for instance, should have three offensive Hall-of-Famers: Russ Grimm, Joe Jacoby and John Riggins (though Riggins was obviously on the early side of that era), along with the offensive mastermind, Joe Gibbs. Two are in now. I hope at least one of the linemen makes it.

 

2. Monk was about the fourth-most dangerous skill player on those teams. I covered the New York Giants for Newsday from 1985-'88, and I remember covering a lot of those great Giants-Redskins games. And the guys in that locker room really respected Monk as a consistent player who gave a great effort on every play. But they feared Gary Clark. To a lesser degree, they feared Ricky Sanders. And they feared the run game, whoever was toting it on that particular day. If you stopped the run, and you stopped the fast, quick guys on the outside, the Giants felt, you'd beat the Redskins every time. I started covering the NFL in 1984, and I saw much of Monk's career. Some of what he did was unseen and important to the success of that offense. He was an excellent blocker downfield. That helps his candidacy. It doesn't get it over the top, at least not to me.

 

3. Monk was the not considered one of the very best receivers of his era either by his peers or the media. He played 16 years. Twice he made the AP's All-Pro Team, which honors the top two receivers in football. He never made the second-team. So twice in 16 years the media considered Monk to have had one of the top four seasons by a receiver in football. Three times he was named to the Pro Bowl. That means three times in 16 years his peers thought he'd had one of the top four seasons by a receiver in the NFC. Those facts are significant to me. We're saying no to guys who made 10 Pro Bowls. Mick Tinglehoff was an All-Pro center seven times, more than any center in history, and five times more than enshrinee Jim Langer ... and that guy can't come close. Think of it this way: Eight wide receivers go to the Pro Bowl every year. In three of 16 NFL seasons Monk was judged to be one of the top eight. Is a Hall of Fame player one considered one of the top eight at his job three times in 16 seasons?

 

One of the interesting things this time of year is listening to the passion of people advocating for their favorites for the Hall of Fame. I respect the opinions of the Monk side very much, but I don't believe he was a Hall of Fame football player. I just thought you'd like to know the feelings of one of the 39 people in that room."

 

I found this very good rebutal to King's "points" written by Steve Czaben (not sure who he is. Anyone?):

 

"Try Again, Pete

Peter King has issued a lengthy, yet unconvincing defense of his stonewalling of Art Monk as a HOF inductee. Never mind the fact that Monk has more career catches than ALL 17 of the current WR’s in the Hall, that doesn’t matter. Let me excerpt King’s key points, and lay them out like Ronnie Lott would a receiver coming over the middle. King’s points, paraphrased.

 

1) Monk has numbers, but that shouldn’t be the holy grail of hall induction. Plus, King says, look at all the receivers who are ON PACE to end up with 900 plus catches. REBUTTAL: Who cares about what players NOW, or in the FUTURE are going to post in terms of numbers? What matters, is statistical relevance to ERA in which the player played. The game changes, and evolves, and teams became much more passing dominant because of rules changes, television, improved fields, and all kinds of things. Art Monk RETIRED with the All-Time catch record, the single season catch record, and the consecutive game catch record. What should he do, Peter? Unretire now, and try to keep up with the “modern” NFL numbers at WR? King implies that we have to “reserve” some spots for guys with modern numbers, like Isaac Bruce. Holy Sega!. Let’s screw Monk out of the Hall, to save a spot for this fumbling, turf-system specialist! Illogic in, illogic out.

 

2) King also says that HE personally covered the Giants from 85-88, and that Monk was not the most “feared” playmaker at the time according to the Giants. REBUTTAL: This is a stupid, typical King ANECDOTE, that is wholly personal in nature, and not the least bit analytical or FACT based. (Much like his coffeehouse anecdotes). It hardly bears comment. But since we are here, let me make this point. Ask any team that played the Redskins, who the LAST guy they wanted to see even SLIGHTLY open on 3rd down? Um, that would be #81, a guy who had hands of velvet, and repeatedly kept the Skins offense on the field by making catches that other receivers might have dropped.

 

3) King’s final point, is that Monk only made two AP All-Pro teams in his 16 years. REBUTTAL: Great point, Pete. John Riggins only made ONE Pro Bowl! Now, what was your point again? Furthermore, King makes a fatal mathematical error when he says that “8 wide receivers go to the Pro Bowl every year. Is a Hall of Fame player one considered one of the top eight at his job three times in 16 seasons?” MORE REACT: Dear field hockey boy. Art Monk was only eligible for one of FOUR spots in the NFC each year, not 8, dingaling! Certainly Monk might have been voted in ahead of the 3rd AFC WR, but he wasn’t eligible! Sheesh!"

 

I've lost what tiny bit of respect I had left for King.

[kraftykraft]

Three things...

 

(1) Irvin played with a HOF QB. Monk played with a Joe Theisman, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien.

 

 

 

Joe Theisman, Jay Schroeder and Doug Williams were all above average QBs during their stint with the Skins'. Troy Aikman is in the HoF, yes--but mostly because he didn't turn the ball over between handoffs to Emmit Smith. I don't think Troy ever threw more than 20 TDs in any of the seasons he played, and he was certainly not the kind of guy who you could turn to when you are down 2 TDs at the end of the 3rd quarter and tell him to go out and win the game for us.

[Clubfoothead]

What in the world does Art Monk even have to do with Michael Irvin?

[kraftykraft]

That's a f*cking joke. The only WR on that list that's better than Irvin is Rice.

 

Carter is nothing more than a loud Art Monk without the rings and the rest of that pathetic list couldn't carry Michael Irvin's jock if they all tried at the same time and were allowed to use a forklift.

 

 

Michael Irvin, is that you?

 

(If it is, don't bogart that J--share it this way!!)

[Clubfoothead]

he was certainly not the kind of guy who you could turn to when you are down 2 TDs at the end of the 3rd quarter and tell him to go out and win the game for us.

 

 

Mainly because with Troy as your quarterback, you were never down by two TDs at the end of the 3rd quarter.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

What in the world does Art Monk even have to do with Michael Irvin?

 

 

Irvin shouldn't be in until Monk gets in?

 

thought that point had been made earlier

[skins]

King is a moron.

[Clubfoothead]

Irvin shouldn't be in until Monk gets in?

 

thought that point had been made earlier

 

 

I haven't seen that point made anywhere in this thread. You want Art Monk in, I don't care. You want Art Monk in to the exclusion of Drew Pearson, I'll debate you. There is no argument between Monk and Irvin.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

I haven't seen that point made anywhere in this thread. You want Art Monk in, I don't care. You want Art Monk in to the exclusion of Drew Pearson, I'll debate you. There is no argument between Monk and Irvin.

 

 

Monk has more catches than every WR that is allready in the Hall. I think there's an arguement between he and anyone.

[Bill Swerski]

King is a moron.

 

 

Wow, skins and I agree twice in the same day!

 

King is an idiot of epic proportions.

 

Steve Young and Jerry Rice belong in the Hall of Fame. Troy Aikman and Michael Irvin belong in the Hall of Very Good