Was Gary Clark our Best WR from 85-92?

Peter King (who was the Giants beat-writer in NY before going to SI) once said that the biggest threat the Giants had to worry about when playing Washington was Gary Clark -- and that was the reason he never thought Monk was a shoe-in. Now, Adam Scheffter says Monk wasn't even the best receiver on his team, implying that it was Gary Clark.

So here's a question: Why the hell isn't Gary Clark ever mentioned as being worthy of the Hall? He was everything Art Monk wasn't -- fiery, outspoken, the 'superstar' on the field -- you know, the things everybody says is Monk's biggest obstacle.

When we needed a knock-out punch, Clark was THE guy. That man was a game-breaker. For those who were too young to remember him, think of all the explosive dominance of Santana Moss in 2005 ... now, triple it.

According to the statements of the voters, Gary Clark should have been a first-ballot guy.


They both should be in but Art Monk should have been in years ago and i am only 18 and i remember gary clark still got taped games from his playing days and i was 3 when he left but gary clark got alot of his stats cause people payed more attention to monk but they both are remarkable players and both should be in the hall

Go to my grave? Anyway, Clark and Monk had the same opportunities and Monk ended up with better stats.

Well of course, Monk played longer than Clark did. But, Clark was our home run guy and easily our #1 receiver toward the late 80's. All three receivers..Monk, Clark, and Sanders were such threats that on any given day, any of the three could take over a game. Maybe the best way for Monk to get into the Hall of Fame is in a package deal of inducting the Posse as a whole.

Well of course, Monk played longer than Clark did. But, Clark was our home run guy and easily our #1 receiver toward the late 80's. All three receivers..Monk, Clark, and Sanders were such threats that on any given day, any of the three could take over a game. Maybe the best way for Monk to get into the Hall of Fame is in a package deal of inducting the Posse as a whole.
They played complementary roles - Monk did much more of the dirty work across the middle, while Clark was our primary home run threat. Monk had much better hands, that much is not even debatable. Watch highlights of Clark and he was much more of a "body catcher", often cradling the ball into his body, which ultimately led to more drops. Monk had among the best hands in the league, and was much more effective making a tough third down catch in traffic. Clark probably made more big plays when they played together, but Monk was far more reliable in my opinion.

Well of course, Monk played longer than Clark did. But, Clark was our home run guy and easily our #1 receiver toward the late 80's. All three receivers..Monk, Clark, and Sanders were such threats that on any given day, any of the three could take over a game. Maybe the best way for Monk to get into the Hall of Fame is in a package deal of inducting the Posse as a whole.

That's true. Ricky Sanders had 3 "signature catches" in the super bowl against Denver. PUT HIM IN THE HALL!!!

Clark was explosive and very underrated if you ask me. Even if he did suffer through a case of the drops now and then.

When you look at his numbers he was just 1 catch away from 700 and a few yards away from 11,000. He's still in the top 20 all-time for yardage, and he's still in the top 30 all-time for receptions.

A strong case could be made for him being in the Hall some day, but I don't think he'll make it, just my feeling on the matter.

if i need a wr to make a game winning catch it would be monk. Clark as good as he was alway dropped to many passes. Monk rarely drop any. The one that Monk drop that stays in my mind was the Monday night game against the rams when williams was the QB in 87. I cant think of any other ones that he drop. Clark drop a hell alot more but still was a great WR.

You know what gets me is that someone like Monk can't just go out week after week and help his team sustain drives by moving the chains and just catching everything that was thrown to him. Oh and by the way help his team win some Super Bowls and at the time when he played break a freak'in record for receptions. Doing this with EXTREME class and honor to the franchise. Something that the "play maker" would know nothing about. All of those people who are unworthy of casting a hall of fame vote for Monk can just eat a dick! Thanks Mr. Monk for the great memories and all that you did for our beloved team.

Put Monk in first, but the next guy we should be raising hell about is #84.

What about #66, #68, #79 (that was Lachey's number right)? Or are you talking only about wide receivers?

Well, in a perfect world lots of Redskins from the glory years would be in the Hall. Joe Jacoby and Russ Grimm should be in.

Jim Lachey I'm not so sure about. He was easily among the top 2 or 3 left tackles in the game when he played, but the longetivity wasn't really there with him. It's hard enough for O-linemen to get in -- since there aren't any real stats to go by, they had to have played solidly for 10+ years.

If I were dictator of the Hall of Fame, the following would be shoe-ins:

Art Monk
Gary Clark
Darrell Green
Joe Theismann
Jacoby
Grimm
Bostic
Monte Coleman
Don Warren
Dave Butz
Dexter Manley
Mark Mosley

Close, but not quite:

Ricky Sanders (very, very close - in fact, someone could convince me)
Jim Lachey
Mark May
Neal Olkewicz
Alvin Walton
Charles Mann
Earnest Byner
Clint Didier

Peter King (who was the Giants beat-writer in NY before going to SI) once said that the biggest threat the Giants had to worry about when playing Washington was Gary Clark -- and that was the reason he never thought Monk was a shoe-in. Now, Adam Scheffter says Monk wasn't even the best receiver on his team, implying that it was Gary Clark.

So here's a question: Why the hell isn't Gary Clark ever mentioned as being worthy of the Hall? He was everything Art Monk wasn't -- fiery, outspoken, the 'superstar' on the field -- you know, the things everybody says is Monk's biggest obstacle.

When we needed a knock-out punch, Clark was THE guy. That man was a game-breaker. For those who were too young to remember him, think of all the explosive dominance of Santana Moss in 2005 ... now, triple it.

According to the statements of the voters, Gary Clark should have been a first-ballot guy.


Talk about hypocrisy! Every statement either of them make applies to Harry Carson who they couldn't stick thier heads up his A** far enough, who was the best LB on the those Giant team's? Taylor! Who did we consider the biggest priority to stop on either side of the ball when we played the Giant's? Taylor! Not only wasen't he the best LB you could make a case that the Giants never missed a beat defensivly when Carson retired and Pepper Johnson stepped in, and yes he played in a 3-4 set. They can talk all they want about why they want to keep Monk out, but by sheer numbers regardless of any signature catch, or who was the best WR on the team in a given year, makes Monk an absolute no brainer!