2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists

SmootSmack

Well I mean I love Monk. But there are some great receivers in the league today. And a few who've had more than two seasons of 100+ catches:

Marvin Harrison-115 in 1999, 102 in 2000, 109 in 2001, 143 in 2002

Rod Smith-100 in 2000, 113 in 2001

Randy Moss-106 in 2002, 111 in 2003

Incidentally-Randy Moss (2002) 106 receptions, 12.7 ypc, 7 TDs
Art Monk (1984) 106 receptions, 12.9 ypc, 7 TDs

__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

GhettoDogAllStars

I love Monk too, but I have to say that Marvin is better. I think he's my favorite player in the NFL -- and he's not even a Redskin! He'll be a first ballot HOFer, even if they don't win a Superbowl.

__________________
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

The Huddle

Yes, these numbers are all impressive, and all posted 15-20 years after Monk had his biggest year...which goes back to my point that numbers have to be considered relative to the era.

irish

You dont need to compare Swann's numbers to today's numbers because he got in in 2001 so one has to look at how they held up relative to 2001. Unfortunately for Monk this is 2007 and 6 years have gone by since 2001 for his numbers to fade even further. I'm not saying its right or fair but that's the way it is.

Mattyk72

Swann's numbers don't hold up very well when compared to most eras.

336 catches? C'mon, modern day WRs do that in 3-4 years.

Monk's numbers still compare very favorably with today's standards.

__________________
Warpath VIP | Warpath Shop | DC Pro Sports Report

12thMan

I still think Swanny got in, by and large, on style points if you will. Don't get me wrong, he was amazing to watch. But usually when they show highlights of Swann, it's the same two or three memorable catches. The one against Dallas in the Super going down the sidelines, one against the Rams in another Super Bowl, and yet another against Dallas.

irish

I guess my question is if Monk's numbers are so amazing and outstanding in any era then why is he not in? And dont give me any of the redskin bias junk or Monk didnt suck up to the press because lots of players in the HOF didnt suck up to the press and got in. IMO the reason Monk is not in is because he was a good posession WR but not a game changer.

I dont have a problem with him getting in but I really think Monk is not a HOF caliber WR. There are lots of players in the HOF that IMO dont belong but they gotta have a ceremony every year so guys go in.

irish

I agree, Swann was a WR that could change the outcome of a game with 1 catch. He was the Super Bowl MVP because those highlight catches you keep seeing changed the tide of the game in the Steelers favor.

Mattyk72

Sorry you don't want to hear it but the main reason he's not in I believe is the fact he was a very quiet, unassuming guy who wasn't very open with the media.

If he was flashier, bragged on himself more, and was in the public eye more I really believe he would be in by now. What other reasonable explanation is there other than some sort of bias?? During his career you constantly heard the words 'Monk' and 'Hall of Fame' mentioned together.

So what changed?

Nothing really, the guy put up the numbers but not the hype, and unfortunately in today's society hype will get you further most of the time.

By virtue of the fact he was a great 3rd down possession guy, he indeed was a game changer. Maybe not a game changer in the mold of a more explosive type of WR such as Rice, but he extended countless drives by coming up with clutch catches. And this notion that he was just a possession guy is so overblown it's not even funny. The guy could get deep and he made plenty of big plays down the field in his career.

__________________
Warpath VIP | Warpath Shop | DC Pro Sports Report

irish

I hear what your saying but I just dont buy the bias arguement. Lots of quiet guys are in the HOF and lots more will get in. I just think if Monks numbers and career was as overwhelming as people here say he'd have been in in 2000 in but the reality is he had a solid career that is borderline HOF.

dblanch66

Then why...when he was playing....did practically EVERYONE refer to him as "future hall of famer"???? What changed? Matty has a point. He was quiet and in this day and age, if you are quiet and professional, you don't often get much recognition.

dblanch66

Cool. Thanks for the numbers. I would take Monk over Smith and Moss any day. And...that's a pretty short list. Get him in the friggin' HALL already!

irish

But Monk didnt play in this day and age. He retired in 1995 and was eligible in 2000, that's 7 years ago and the loudmouth player had not developed to the extent it has today. IN fact I think most players were on the quiet side. IMO it just keeps getting worse for Monk because now 12 years after he played his numbers dont compare and he wont promote himself when he needs it most.