Comments on: HOF Debate: Art Monk vs. Michael Irvin

By: christopher

christopher — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:00:26 +0000

Steve Largent was a great wide reciever. Steve Largent is in the HOF.
Art Monk was greater than Steve Largent. Nuf said…

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:29:10 +0000

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.

By: whitehat

whitehat — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:25:50 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:23:04 +0000

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.

By: whitehat

whitehat — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:06:50 +0000

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.

By: panger

panger — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:47:04 +0000

“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.

By: W

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:01:14 +0000

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.

By: Michael Tillery

Michael Tillery — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:35:32 +0000

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.

By: wct

wct — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:20:17 +0000

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

By: Ben Fleming

Ben Fleming — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 03:08:12 +0000

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.