I disagree.
Clark hurt Monk's numbers, but Monk helped Clark's numbers.
Think about this. If we had Monk now, would Santana's (and RE's) numbers go up or down? Do you think we would have had as many 3-and-outs as we had today? And with all those extra plays, would they have had better numbers or worse (God forbid.) On the other hand, Monk set the single-season reception mark before those guys showed up (and the mark lasted a LONG time.)
By the way, the play-calling at the end of the game was the most attrocious I have seen them do. Considering what was going on, they should have been calling high-percentage passes on first down. That would have almost certainly kept the clock going after each down and would have had a much better chance for first down. It was very clear that they weren't getting enough yardage running to get a first down without passing on at least one of the downs. Why not try it on first down? And then instead of a high-percentage pass, they try a low-percentage pass on second down. So they went 3-and-out with an all-too-predictable 1st-down run, followed by 2 incomplete passes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouperMeister
... Clark and Monk clearly would have had better stats had the other not been on the team, much like Swann and Stallworth had to share the ball in Pittsburgh. Monk alone retired with more receptions than the Steelers duo COMBINED, yet they are both in the HOF. Monk's day will come.
|