So should these Monks!
Posted on 01/31/2005 7:42:19 AM PST by xcullen
"It's legalized theft, a crime, that Art Monk is not in the Hall of Fame. Those voters ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.''
-- ESPN football analyst Sean Salisbury.
POSTSCRIPT TO QUOTE OF THE WEEK
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.
Should Art Monk be enshrined in the HOF?
IMO he's real close, but no. Peter King's case is in post 2.
Art Monk? Who is he? (hint hint)
The only thing that Peter King is missing is the context of when Art Monk played. Offenses are now pass happy, its not a fair comparison. Despite what King says, Monk was considered one of the best during his heyday.
He's a finalist this year. I didn't think the inductees were announced until Pro Bowl weekend. I'm sure he'll get there, anybody who sets a good record (ie, not something like most fumbles) will get there eventually, he hasn't been eligible very long give it some time.
The Redskins never threw 2 yard touchdown passes - they ran it in. How did they get to the 2? If Monk was not on those teams they would not have won 3 Super Bowls. He never played with a HOF quarterback and he played for a run oriented team and he still was the top pass receiver in NFL history at retirement. Being "most dangerous" is not a hall of fame quality. Consistency, excellency and championships should be.
I dunno, I guess the case can be made against him, but he gets my vote for the Hall. He was pretty great for a long time...and he did more than just catch the ball. And, I remember my friends who were 'Skins fans really loved the guy.
I think it's difficult to compare Monk's numbers to the numbers generated today. It's a different game with teams passing more frequently and the rules slanted to encourage passing.
Monk was truly a great reciever (I should say I'll always think of him as an Eagle, but that's just me ;-)), but just being great isn't enough to justify inclusion in the HOF. In fact, I'd rather go through the HOF for a few years and throw guys out than keep adding each year. Further, WR/RB/QB are heavily over represented and OL/DL/DB is under represented. I'd be much easier swayed to include one of the Hogs than Monk.
Twice he made the AP's All-Pro Team, which honors the top two receivers in football. He never made the second-team.
This is the real clincher. Being a top teir player for a long time is a great accomplishment and he ought to have a plaque or bust at FedEx field. His name should be revered by Redskins fans, and respected by others, but it's not enough for the NFL HOF. That's an honor reserved for the truly legendary players, the Jim Browns, the Ant Munoz's, the John Hannahs.
HL, bet you'll have a different take (or maybe not)
Owl_Eagle
”Unleash the Hogs of Peace.”
P.J. O'Rourke Parliament of Whores
Which player today reminds you the most of Art Monk? (Or are there two who combined remind you of Monk)?
Owl_Eagle
”Unleash the Hogs of Peace.”
P.J. O'Rourke Parliament of Whores
I don't dispute that Art Monk was a very good receiver. He had a long career, he was a complete receiver that did everything right, he showed up to play every game.
The point that hurts him, as Mr. King illustrates in #3; In a 16 year career, Monk was elected all-pro twice, and made three pro bowls. It's tough to make all-pro with Jerry Rice in the same conference, but only making three pro bowls in 16 years really hurts Monk's case. That means for most of his career, Monk wasn't one of the top four receivers in his conference. While Monk had a very good career, he wasn't considered the best amongst his peers at his position.
I totally agree.
Peter King shows himself to be an idiot in this piece. He says he covered the Giants in the mid-80's and they feared the Redskin running game. B.S. Carson ate them alive. Their only option was to run at LT-way to think things through.
Yep...Harry was in what?--9 Pro Bowls? He was a brick wall in the middle.
That makes Mike Alstott a first ballot HOFer as he was always the top at his position - always in the Pro Bowl. Monk was part of that running game and one the best blockers at his position. The All Pro issue is part of the same blind spot he is subject to now. In 15 playoff games - 69 catches, over 1,000 yards, 7 TDers. Thanks for letting me vent on this forum and and the goog dive and take. If Michael Irvin gets in - Gary Clark needs to get in (same state almost exactly). If Clark is in - do you leave Monk out?
Sorry "good give and take"
See post 13.
I think he belongs, no doubt about it. Look at it this way: When Art Monk retired, he led the NFL in many receiving categories and had three Super Bowl rings. Emmitt Smith has three rings and will retire as the leading rusher of all time, but will there be any doubt or argument as to his induction? Art Monk represents class, determination, longevity, success, and was an instrumental part of four conference championship teams - not many players can make that claim, and those that do are in the HOF. The real controversy should be why he's not in. One of the main reasons is that he doesn't politic the issue (much like Mel Gibson not promoting his films among the Oscar judges).
I think one of the main reasons is that he doesn't promote himself to the sportswriters the way many others do. Also, the stupid idea that "he just caught a bunch of eight-yard hooks and that anyone could have done that" seems to have infected the voters' brains. If what he did was so easy, then why haven't dozens of others done the same thing (on a run-oriented offense, not a Rams-style pinball machine offense)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.