Quote:
|
Originally Posted by offiss
I agree, exept with or without Gardner he's our only big reciever. 
As far as the comparison, monk went 6'2" 180lbs when he entered the league he played bigger than that though, as far as McCants he's defiently bigger than Monk, McCants body type is much longer than Monks as well.
But to compare the 2 really isn't fair because there's really no comparison, McCants hasen't proven he's a clutch, go get the ball type of reciever, whether that's Gibbs fault or not we don't know, but he was raw when we drafted him, but he seemed to be progressing until last season, who knows about him at this point, I personally want to see him on the field he's a playmaker but Gibbs say's otherwise and he makes the final decisions.
http://nova.sportscombine.com/ap/p/a....asp?pid=36272 |
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/100/91.html
http://www.thehogs.net/History/ArtMonk/
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/me...?player_id=248
These sites have him at 6'3" 210lbs and I am sure that is where I got the idea that he was about 214 or around there. As for Monk being 6'2" and 180lbs out of college that may be, but on the his hall of fame page they have him listed as 6'3" 210lbs.
Anyhow I did only compare the two in size, I never compared them as to there abilities and talents. Art Monk makes McCants look like a pop-warner WR. Yeah McCants was starting to look good acouple of years ago, and I do think that he has alot to offer, but he does have a way to go to be able to compare his talents, abilities and skills to Art Monk.
I hope that everyone does understand that I think that McCants is only comparable to Monk in body type and thats it...