HOF Debate: Art Monk vs. Michael Irvin
Uncategorized February 6th. 2007, 8:17pm
We only briefly touched on it over the weekend, but Dallas Cowboys receiver/drug user/fan of prostitutes Michael Irvin was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Washington Redskins receiver Art Monk was once again passed over.
The DC Sports Bog has compiled blogger reaction, which seems to be heavily pro-Monk and anti-Irvin. This obviously isn’t the first time it’s been done, but we’re going to offer a side-by-side comparison for you anyway:
Art Monk:
224 career games
940 receptions (tied for 6th in NFL history)
12,721 receiving yards (11th in NFL history)
68 touchdowns
Three Pro Bowls
Five 1,000-yard seasons
Two Super Bowl victories (zero touchdowns)
Michael Irvin:
159 career games
750 receptions (tied for 20th in NFL history)
11,904 receiving yards (14th in NFL history)
65 touchdowns
Five Pro Bowls
Seven 1,000-yard seasons
Three Super Bowl victories (two touchdowns)
A fairly coarse assessment of their careers: Irvin’s was just like his lifestyle (or the way he treated hookers) – hard and fast. For a stretch in the 1990s, he was the top receiver in the league. Monk’s career was what you strive for in the sack – long and strong. The only knock on Monk is that he played about 65 more games than Irvin, and if the Pipemaker’s career had not ended early, his numbers would have been superior. Sorry, that logic doesn’t fly with us.
For our money, there’s no way humanely possibly one could vote for Irvin without voting for Monk. So somebody needs to get all Hardy Boys and get us a look at who voted for whom.
Art Monk Internet Reaction: Sad (DC Sports Bog)
24 Responses to “HOF Debate: Art Monk vs. Michael Irvin”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I thank you for siding with the Pro-Monk fans out there, it’s obvious that you’ve actually watched pro football before and understand the game on some level, something I can’t say for the Anti-Monk “fans,” who are just complete mindless idiots.
But please, please, please don’t bring up pro bowls in any sort of comparison/argument. They are absolutely meaningless. Tony Romo is representing the NFC this year. He played half a season. Enough said.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Disagree completely, a Hall of Fame vote should not be strictly numbers based, and should be based on whether or not the player was great. The biggest example of the difference between Art Monk and Michael Irvin that you completely failed to mention were the seasons in the top 10 Category which Irvin dominates.
Top 10 Receptions: 4 to 4
Top 10 Receiving Yards: 6 to 3
Top 10 Receiving TDs: 5 to 1
Top 10 Total Yards from Scrimmage: 4 to 0
Irvin was a great talent, Monk was a consistantly above average receiver, the Hall of Fame should reward brilliance more than consistancy. And they correctly did in this case.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
thank you for posting about this. a great player is being ignored.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
The Pipemaker’s playoff stats are far better than Monk’s. When it mattered most, The Pipemaker delivered. He’s far superior to Monk, and I can’t stand The Pipemaker.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Both Monk and Irvin are (or at least should be ) HOFers.
TBL, Monk played for three Super Bowl-champion Redskins teams, not two. It’s just that he was injured for the Riggins 4th-and-1 game in ‘83.
Whitlock, Irvin’s playoff stats are slightly superior to Monk’s, but Monk still rung up 69, 1,062 and 7 in 15 postseason games. I don’t see how that’s a knock against him, especially when you consider that Theismann, Schroeder, Williams and Rypien were his QBs as opposed to Aikman.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I am really surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that Irvin’s member of the media now. . . .There’s a Rex Grossman aside begging to made, but I’ll leave that alone.
Irvin has had a weekly (and in some cases nightly) platform on ESPN for the last two years. He was on Fox Sports prior to that. Prior to becoming a football pundit, a talking head, The Pipemaker was better known for his off-field activities (both the legal and carnal entanglements) rather onfield exploits. This regular exposure played a key role in “rehabilitating” his image in minds of the general public and, no doubt, many HOF voters.
Without the ESPN gig, Irvin, like Monk wouldn’t have made this year’s cut. He may have gotten a few more votes than Monk, but he would still be waiting for the call from Canton.
Maybe Art should call the NFL Network, or Fox Sports Network to see if there are any openings.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Ah-hahahahahahahaha!
I hope Irvin bangs Mrs. Art Monk, too.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:21 am
I think a lot of it has to do with Monk being a class act off the field, but in all honesty, Irvin was a tremendous talent during his playing days. Where Monk was consistent, Irvin was sometimes explosive.
And yet, the DC-Metro natives still mourn, and emotionally, rightly so.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Let’s judge on what REALLY matters: rap sheets; shortest one wins. Sorry Pipey. I got an idea, he him go up against Whitlock, if he can beat him he is in, if not Monk gets his spot. Besides, that Romo crack about a relative and a ‘brotha’ should knock him down a bit right? I am a little sore about this; he should have been suspended if not fired-at the very least send him to a pronunciation class so we can understand what he is trying to say without having to rewind the tape 30+ times.
During his career, he was always a the second best reciever. For my money it would have to be #80 by the Bay- Jerry Rice. Stack him next to Irvin and The Pipemaker couldn’t hold Rice’s jockstrap.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:02 am
While Monk didn’t get arrested for banging whores and snorting blow, he was widely considered an asshole. The media remembers these things. The Pipemaker was a journalists dream. Monk was just a prick.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Irvin was really the first big receiver with speed. You knew they were throwing to him on third down and he always converted. Ask any corner in the league who played at that time and they will tell you that Irvin was the one guy they did not want to cover (besides Rice). No one ever lost sleep knowing they were going to have to guard Art Monk. What was he gonna do, burn you for that 6 yard curl route? Monk is basically a stat compiler who stayed around long enough to acquire good stats, a.k.a. Rafael Palmero.
As far as P-Mutt’s post goes: 1) Why would Irvin’s off the field antics have anything to do with the Hall of Fame? Does that mean Lawrence Taylor and O.J. should be kicked out? 2) Rice’s numbers will blow any other receiver’s out of the water. If he was second best receiver of his time behind the greatest receiver of all time, then that’s pretty damn good.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:36 am
What I’m REALLY pissed about is that Sean Salisbury’s cock only got 24 votes, while Irvin’s got an overwhelming 96. That right there ought to tell you that what’s wrong with HOF voting. If you put Salisbury’s cock up against the Pipemaker’s, Salisbury was banging broads during playoff runs at a 4 to 2 ratio, while the Pipemaker barely edged out Salisbury’s wang in regular season gang bangs (842 to 834). However, during Super Bowl weekends, Pipemaker’s Big Guy did the number on an impressive 42 women total, while Salisbury was never in the big game, so his stats for this are N/A. However, if you look at the fact that Salisbury was a scrub for pretty much his entire career, and Pipemaker was one of the most popular in the sport, it’s quite impressive that Salisbury’s Big Gun was able to accomplish what it did.
February 7th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Well, Monk should have already been voted in, so to me, the point is moot. And as a lifelong Niner fan, I have the utmost respect for Irvin. Probably makes me an idiot, but the guy was supremely motivated and even though the thug image will never be lifted from either his or da U’s shoulders, he was amazing and funny, in a perverse, please give me the courage to take that step over the ledge kind of way.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:05 am
I thought the original question was about their performances on the football field. Anyway, at their respective peaks, Irvin was better, absolutely no doubt. Irvin had four seasons of 1300+ yards, Monk had one. Irvin’s yards per catch is way better too. Irvin dominates other categories as well. They both played for powerhouse teams and great coaches, so that’s a scratch. Monk in fact reminds me of John Stallworth, who’s not in yet. My $.02.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Andre Reed’s numbers, by the way — 227 games, 951 receptions (5th all-time), 13,198 receiving yards (8th all-time), 87 TDs (10th all-time), a fat 7 Pro Bowl appearances, and his numbers as per Simon’s comment are 5-3-4-2. Now, there’s obviously the problem of no Super Bowls. But given that Reed’s numbers are just better than both Monk’s and Irvin’s, and his level of dominance was JUST about on the same level as Irvin’s, this should definitely be a three-way conversation.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Most football fans of reasonable intelligence believe that BOTH Monk AND Irvin are hall of famers. Don’t kill Irvin because he got in 1st and the flunkies who actually vote on the HOF refuse to put Monk in for some reason
February 7th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Art Monk was one of the classiest people ever to play in the league.
He was everything Irvin was not.
His stats at the time of his retirement warrant his inclusion.
Loved the fun bunch.
He and Lofton–another similar example–just weren’t the flamboyant personalities that receivers are today.
Lofton is in. Monk is not.
Lofton did have more yards… less catches…but it’s a travesty that Art isn’t in.
What the hell is the criteria?
Jamie, the four qb’s you’ve mentioned have rings..Jay as a backup obviously.
Irvin helped change the position with his strength.
Eagles fan, but always respected Irvin’s desire and talent.
They both belong in the Hall.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
The Redskins have 3 Super Bowl victories (’82, ‘87, ‘91) and Monk was on the team for each. He was injured in Super Bowl XVII (’82) though. But Im pretty sure he still is credited with 3 Super Bowl victories.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:47 am
“While Monk didn’t get arrested for banging whores and snorting blow, he was widely considered an asshole. The media remembers these things. The Pipemaker was a journalists dream. Monk was just a prick.”
monk was “widely considered” an asshole and a prick? by WHOM? i’m a redskins fan and everything i’ve ever heard about him, from people who would know, completely contradicts that.
you make a blanket assertion about a man’s character without any evidence to back you up. offer specifics.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Monk was not the guy defenses feared. He was an average possession reciever on his best day. Lot’s of those guys not in the HOF.
By the way, Monk was not exactly cordial to the press, or even the fans. Of course, the Washington media could only grumble privately about it. When he left DC and headed to New York, the truth about his “prickness” really came out. He’s not even close to the football talent Irvin was.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:23 am
If your compare the stats, Monk has pratically the same numbers as Irvin, Loften, or Andre Reed. To say that Irvin belongs in the hall and Monk does’nt is to bring hair-splitting to a new art form.
Having actually watched all of these guys play from start to finish I can state that the view that defenders were never afraid to cover Monk is absolute crap. Monk was the first of these 4 wideouts to develop the rep as the NFL’s #1 clutch 3rd down pass catcher years before Irvin started playing. Monk has been slandered and belittled by hostile sportswriters. When he broke Largent’s record in 1993 virtually no-one believed that Monk would never be voted in the HOF. Enshrined defenders like Mike Singletarry and Ronnie Lott say that Monk was one of the greatest wideouts period. They played against him. They ought to know and have no reason to lie about it. But throughout the 1990’s the NFL became more pass oriented, the rules were changed to favor a more wide open passing game. Irvin, Reed, Chris Carter, Tim Brown and others benefited from this change. It came too late for Monk who spent over 55% of the snaps he played blocking for Redskin running backs.
The fact that Monk was so unselfish is twisted into an argument against him. I can hear the fools now,”If he were so great why did he spend more time blocking than catching?” How easy it is to forget that at the height of Monk’s career he had caught more passes than anyone else in History and was widely regarded as the best ever. If Monk is never voted into the NFL HOF I will never visit it, because I will consider the Hall to be illegitimate without Art Monk.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Whose offense was any more pass oriented than Joe Gibbs? Sure, they ran the ball with Riggins and a host of others, but did Irvin play in a wide open passing offense? Wasn’t there a guy there named Emmitt who was a pretty dominant runner? Does it seem odd that Monk, rarely recieved double coverage? Yes, I watched him from the start of his career as well. I think that most Redskin fans would have a problem with Irvin for several reasons. First, he was a Cowboy, second, the Redskins have NEVER had a recieving talent that was even close to him, and third, he was the one WR that dominated another favorite Redskin, Darrell Green.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I see that some people live in white stared fantasy world. Charly Taylor, Bobby Mitchel, and Art Monk were all better than Irving. The “playmaker” isn’t even the best wideout that the Cowboy’s ever had. That honor should go to Drew Pearson and then to Bob Hayes, Irvin comes in third. Irvin rarely was double covered, not because opposing defenses did’nt respect his talents, but because they respected Emmit Smith more. Many is the time that the Redskins brought their safeties up in vain effort to stop Smith leaving Irvin open to complete that signature 12 yard sidline route of his. I don’t oppose Irving’s induction based upon his “on the field” achievments. I do oppose the blatant hipocracy of celebrating Irving’s mid-range passing game while disrespecting Monk for making his career doing much the same thing. Is Irving better because he took the time to celebrate every first down? Two reasons why Monk was rarely double covered are that he usually lined up in the slot making doubling Monk awkward and when Gibbs was in a passing situation he usually opted for a three wideout package which stretched defenses preventing double coverage. Parcells developed the Giant’s zone defense to cope with the Skins and 49er’s. Ryan’s 46 focused on crushing the quarterback making double coverage somewhat irrelevant. These were the two main defenses that Monk faced for most of his career. His numbers speak for themselves. Like it or not Irvin is in the HOF. Monk should already be there.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Steve Largent was a great wide reciever. Steve Largent is in the HOF.
Art Monk was greater than Steve Largent. Nuf said…