Art Monk Denied Admission to the HoF

My brother composed this:

Single-Season Reception Leaders in the 1980's:

1980: Winslow, 89, TE
1981: Winslow, 88, TE
1982: D. Clark, 60, TE
1983: Christensen, 92, TE
1984: Monk, 106, WR
1985: Craig, 92, RB
1986: Christensen, 95, TE
1987: Smith, 91, WR
1988: Toon, 93, WR
1989: Sharpe, 90, WR

Largent (HOF) doesn't appear on this list.

Lofton (HOF) doesn't appear on this list.

Rice (HOF) doesn't appear on this list.

Since 1990, only one non-WR (Gonzalez in 2004) has led the NFL in receptions. That's ONE compared to SIX from 1980-1989—SIX in a span of TEN years.

Folks, if that doesn't indicate a shift from a run-oriented league to a pass-oriented league, then I don't know what else to say.

Also, if you look at the receptions leaderboard, you will notice a definite trend after 1990 of rising catches. In fact, only once since 1990 has the number dipped below 100. Um, only ONCE in the 80’s did the number exceed 100.

Is this a coincidence, or a sign that the league has evolved into a more pass happy league?:

More to chew on...

# of 1,000 seasons

1) Lofton: 5

2) Largent: 4

2) Monk: 4

2) Rice: 4

# of receptions (first number starting with 1980, OR player's first year in the 80's;last number ending with 1989 OR player's last year in the 80's):


1) Rice: 86, 65, 64, 82 / average=74.25

2) Monk: 56, 35, 47, 106, 91, 73, 38, 72, 86 / average=67

3) Largent: 66, 75, 34, 72, 74, 79, 70, 58, 39, 28 / average=59.50

4) Lofton: 71, 71, 35, 58, 62, 69, 64, 41, 28 / average=55.44

# of TD's (first number starting with 1980, OR player's first year in the 80's;last number ending with 1989 OR player's last year in the 80's):

1) Rice: 3, 5, 22, 19, 17, 13 / average=13.16 (note: insane TD production by Rice, who--IMO--along with Jim Brown, is the greatest football player EVER. Just absurd)

2) Largent: 6, 9, 3, 11, 12, 6, 9, 8, 2, 3 / average=6.9

3) Lofton: 4, 8, 4, 8, 7, 4, 4, 5, 0, 3 / average=4.7

3) Monk: 3, 6, 1, 5, 7, 2, 4, 6, 5, 8 / average: 4.7

Average YPC's in 80's:

1) Lofton: 19.15

2) Rice: 17.88

3) Largent: 15.57

4) Monk: 13.9

There is no doubt that Monk was a possession WR, just like there is no doubt from looking at these stats that James Lofton was a deep threat, that Largent was the most “all-around,” and that Rice was the best of the bunch and the best ever.

More importantly, what all of these stats indicate, aside from Rice's insane TD production, is how different the WR position is today than it was in the 1980's.

Stats are relative and should not be analyzed in a vacuum. To quote Brad Oremland, “Monk's 106 catches were in 1984 what Harrison's 143 were last season [2002]” (Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials...39189.asp))

Therefore, it is absolute insanity to compare Monk's stats “directly” to players like Chris Carter and Tim Brown.

All stats taken from Pro Football Reference:

pro-football-reference.com - football stats and history (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/)

Wow, that's quite a compilation. Hats off to your bro for that. Hard to believe that TEs were the leaders in receptions during the 80s more than WR. That speaks volumes.

Tim Brown I think is similar to Monk in terms of overall numbers and longetivity. Brown was also Mr. 'Dependable', but he wasn't really the knockout punch -- ditto for Monk -- Gary Clark was the speedster, the deep touchdown threat.

Sad truth: If it's Chris Carter vs. Monk, the winner will be Carter. Tim Brown is on equal footing with Monk. So that's more of a toss-up. But again, the HOF voters don't have that long a memory. Advantage: Brown.

I heard it. Cowherd says he doesn't belong because Monk was just a "compiler". He mentioned that out of 7 big games, Super Bowls and NFC Championships, Monk only caught one touchdown. He said that being "dependable" on countless 6-yard curl patterns aren't enough to get you the label of playmaker, and it's not worthy of the Hall of Fame. He says it's not the Hall of Nice Guys, Hall of "dependable", or Hall of Longetivity. He maintains that Monk was really good, just not great. He did say he'll probably get in someday.

Wingo and Schlereth said that Monk should be recognized because he compiled the records on a run first team. Also that it shouldn't be overstated that Monk didn't have Hall of Fame QBs throwing the ball to him. They said that his modest TD numbers should be discounted because the NFL was different then compared with the Marvin Harrisons and Chris Carter days of pass happy offenses. Schlereth really drove home the point that when he retired, he was the leading receiver in NFL HISTORY.

I like Cowherd, but he strikes me as the type of talk show host who will say anything to get his audience fired up -- but he probably doesn't believe half of what he says.

What is Marino..............but a compiler? No SB's. Kind had a tendency to choke in the big game and toss the ball to the wrong color. Colin, Colin, Colin.............you dumb ass

I heard it. Cowherd says he doesn't belong because Monk was just a "compiler". He mentioned that out of 7 big games, Super Bowls and NFC Championships, Monk only caught one touchdown. He said that being "dependable" on countless 6-yard curl patterns aren't enough to get you the label of playmaker, and it's not worthy of the Hall of Fame. He says it's not the Hall of Nice Guys, Hall of "dependable", or Hall of Longetivity. He maintains that Monk was really good, just not great. He did say he'll probably get in someday.

Wingo and Schlereth said that Monk should be recognized because he compiled the records on a run first team. Also that it shouldn't be overstated that Monk didn't have Hall of Fame QBs throwing the ball to him. They said that his modest TD numbers should be discounted because the NFL was different then compared with the Marvin Harrisons and Chris Carter days of pass happy offenses. Schlereth really drove home the point that when he retired, he was the leading receiver in NFL HISTORY.

I like Cowherd, but he strikes me as the type of talk show host who will say anything to get his audience fired up -- but he probably doesn't believe half of what he says.

Jeez now we've gone from Dr. Zzz and his 8 yard curls take to Cowherd with a 6 yard curl. How much longer until someone tries to reduce Monk to catching 4 yard curls?

I like Cowherd most of the time, but you're right he does try to get his audience fired up, and sometimes he's just plain ignorant but he's too much of a blowhard to admit it, he'd rather stubbornly stick to his point no matter how wrong he may be.

What is Marino..............but a compiler? No SB's. Kind had a tendency to choke in the big game and toss the ball to the wrong color. Colin, Colin, Colin.............you dumb ass

Yeah, he addressed the Marino inconsistency. A caller pointed that out, and Cowherd says that his stats are so unbelievably outstanding that they are at the very least "a factor".

Sounded like a backpeddle if I ever heard one. But does having the record for All-time leader for receptions in NFL history mean nothing? That's the problem -- the record was broken in 1992 -- and that's ancient history to some.

Apparently, that record being broken has been the biggest obstacle. If Monk retired just after that feat, and the Hall allowed for players to get in immediately, then Monk's bust would have been in Canton long ago.

What the crap is a compiler and how is that supposed to explain anything?

Stupid Colin Cowherd.

Wow, that's quite a compilation. Hats off to your bro for that. Hard to believe that TEs were the leaders in receptions during the 80s more than WR. That speaks volumes.

Tim Brown I think is similar to Monk in terms of overall numbers and longetivity. Brown was also Mr. 'Dependable', but he wasn't really the knockout punch -- ditto for Monk -- Gary Clark was the speedster, the deep touchdown threat.

Sad truth: If it's Chris Carter vs. Monk, the winner will be Carter. Tim Brown is on equal footing with Monk. So that's more of a toss-up. But again, the HOF voters don't have that long a memory. Advantage: Brown.

Whats sad is that a guy with a full time job can come up with these numbers...but guys who's sole purpose is to elect people to the hall of fame can't.

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;274633]Due to requests for a new Monk thread to discuss Monk's denial, here goes! Vent.


I am trying to create a letter to the HoF selection committee.

Here is a list of the voters. Does anyone care enough about Monk to google these guys' emails so we can send a letter?

Arizona Kent Somers, Arizona Republic
Atlanta Len Pasquarelli, ESPN.com
Baltimore Scott Garceau, WMAR-TV



In fairness to Somers, he predicted Monk to get voted in, in Sunday's paper (I can't find his prediction on-line though). So It's reasonable to assume he voted for Art.

I'm still too full of rage at this point to discuss anything else at this time.

it's cause art didnt (or doesnt) do enough cocaine to keep up with irvin i guess

Here is the most recent commentary from Peter King on Art Monk:

Late in the afternoon, we visited the physical therapy center and chatted with soldiers getting used to their new prostheses. Just before we were going to leave, one soldier called me over.
"You're Peter King, right?'' he said.
"Yes,'' I said.
"You guys ever going to put Art Monk in the Hall of Fame?''
"We're trying,'' I said.

SI.com - Writers - Monday Morning QB (cont.) - Monday February 12, 2007 10:58AM (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/02/11/jones/3.html)

Hopefully the wait won't be too much longer!

That's the coolest thing I ever heard!