Make your Case for non-HOFer

[Leader In Sports]

Originally Posted by skinster

I can't speak to what era Monk played in, so I don't have much to compare him to. But if you look at his production, he has a career high of 8 tds and only five 1,0000 yd seasons. Doesn't look "great" to me, unless that was somehow good for WRs in his day.

Really the argument that seems to be going on here is cumulative career numbers vs impact of season by season. I'm of the camp that a player that plays at an elite level for around 7 years or so should be considered to the HOF. I don't believe that a player playing longer and thus upping his numbers should improve his status in the HOF at all. Bettis might be 6th on the all time rushing list (although he is 18th on yds from scrimmage), but he didn't have more than 4 good seasons in his entire career...and only 3 of them were with the steelers.

And Monk was the all time leading receiver upon his retirement.

Yes, the HOF is a look at your body of work, not just a portion of it.