Monk vs. Irvin

I suspect that "character" will only be part of the equation in the negative sense and not the positive sense. If someone is CONVICTED or PLEADS GUILTY to something that is pretty outrageous, then he might be kept out of the HoF, but all the good works and solid citizenry in the world won't get anyone in. I still wonder what the HoF would have done if the jury had found OJ guilty...

One problem is that there are too many players in the HoF - and some coaches too - who were not universally nice people if you looked carefully at their entire life. Let me use Lawrence Taylor as an example; he was the best OLB to play the game, but he's not exactly the person I'd like my children to grow up to be. And there are others...

Michael Irvin was no saint by any stretch of the imagination but nothing pinned on him was outrageous, so I doubt that he will kept out of Canton because of his off-field notoriety.

d151b, I think that character should have a huge say in whether a person is included in the Hall of Fame or not. Michael Irvin's penchant for debauchery was a little extreme in most ways. Most people love the type of debauchery with a little booze and a few loose women. Irvin liked the type of hookers and a little "sniff sniff".

It is not justice that Monk will most likely be differed AGAIN, even though that may be the nature of the beast.


It's pretty funny that the same people that would put Irving into the hall and leave out Monk, are the same people that keep crying about Moss's little celebration in the end zone on sunday, I guess Randy was just making sure he get's voted in on the first ballot! what a joke!

It's pretty funny that the same people that would put Irving into the hall and leave out Monk, are the same people that keep crying about Moss's little celebration in the end zone on sunday, I guess Randy was just making sure he get's voted in on the first ballot! what a joke!

nice point

offiss hit it right on the head.

TO does that stupid shit for the publicity, same with joe horn. he did that so he could make the a name for himself.

art monk rarely did interviews. too bad for him the reporters are the ones voting him in.

why do you think tampa bays defence was so "talented"? because berman likes them and they are on sports center every single day. it's fucking rediculous. how many times have you seen mike alstott on the plays of the week for a 3 yard run...

Monk had more catches and yards then Swann and Stallworth combined and they got in before him.And they cant say its a ring thing cause he has 3.But i think he will get in this year.

When people are elected into the HOF I think that stats and how they effected the game should be taken into consideration.

Now some may wonder how Art Monk changed the game of football. It can be clearly seen that he was a prototype WR of todays bigger and stronger recievers. I mean look at Art Monks Height, 6'3" and Weight, 210 lbs. Now look at the top recievers in the leage today, Terrel Owens - Height - 6'3', Weight - 226lbs. Randy Moss - Height 6'4" Weight - 210.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Art Monk was a reciever before his time. I know that Owens and Moss will probably exceed Monks career but at the time that Art Monk played not every Wide out was built like him. Now just about every reciever in the leauge is almost molded like him. IMO Art Monk not only was a Redskin great, he also helped the progression of the game and the Wide Reciver position

Monk amd Irvin are universes apart.

Art- A model of consistency. Never hyped, pouty, showy. Only time I ever saw emotion out of him was the 83 reg season game against the raiders where he and Lester Hayes were grabbing each others face mask after the whistle. Seems mild, but Art was pissed.
Led by example.

Irvin-Flashy, showy, mouthy arrogant. Everytime he dropped a pass he looked for the ref and pointed at the defender. Fiery leader, always in someones face on the sideline.

Both would catch that much needed 3rd and 8 pass.

I think if you combine the 2, you come up with Hines Ward

I have a feeling Irvin will get in before Monk and here's why. I love Monk as much as anyone, but keep an open mind here.

Take a look at their career stats, take a close look at the 'Seasons among the league's top 10':

Irvin (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/IrviMi00.htm)

Monk (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MonkAr00.htm)

Here's my quick summary of some of the key stats:

1000 yard seasons: Monk (5), Irvin (7)
Season high yardage: Monk (1372), Irvin (1603)
Seasons over 1200 yards: Monk (2), Irvin (5)
Seasons with at least 6 TD catches: Monk (5), Irvin (6)

Monk's career numbers are much better, but he also played 4 more seasons than Irvin.

Monk will get in the Hall eventually in my opinion, but he isn't the kind of WR that blows the hall voters away and when you look at his stats there isn't much there to better his case.

If you take a straight average of all his stats to his 16 year career, his average season works out to be 59 catches, 795 yards and 4 TD's.

Irvin in comparison over his 12 years averages out to 63 catches, 992 yards and 5 TD's per season.

Monk was a very solid WR for a long period of time, Irvin was a very good WR for a shorter amount of time.

I know they played in different eras and there's always the intangibles to account for, but just looking at the numbers and the way they break down, I won't be the least bit surprised if Irvin gets in before Monk.

I have a feeling Irvin will get in before Monk and here's why. I love Monk as much as anyone, but keep an open mind here.

Take a look at their career stats, take a close look at the 'Seasons among the league's top 10':

Irvin (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/IrviMi00.htm)

Monk (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MonkAr00.htm)

Here's my quick summary of some of the key stats:

1000 yard seasons: Monk (5), Irvin (7)
Season high yardage: Monk (1372), Irvin (1603)
Seasons over 1200 yards: Monk (2), Irvin (5)
Seasons with at least 6 TD catches: Monk (5), Irvin (6)

Monk's career numbers are much better, but he also played 4 more seasons than Irvin.

Monk will get in the Hall eventually in my opinion, but he isn't the kind of WR that blows the hall voters away and when you look at his stats there isn't much there to better his case.

If you take a straight average of all his stats to his 16 year career, his average season works out to be 59 catches, 795 yards and 4 TD's.

Irvin in comparison over his 12 years averages out to 63 catches, 992 yards and 5 TD's per season.

Monk was a very solid WR for a long period of time, Irvin was a very good WR for a shorter amount of time.

I know they played in different eras and there's always the intangibles to account for, but just looking at the numbers and the way they break down, I won't be the least bit surprised if Irvin gets in before Monk.

Excellent points, Matty. There's a very simple explanation I've heard among voters and members of the media as to Monk's absence from the Hall: He didn't "stand out". Peter King often says that when the Giants played the Skins, their first concerns were the running game, and Gary Clark. For that reason, and probably because he hates the Skins in general, King has said he will never vote for Art Monk.

Those averages for a season over his career are very telling. Monk was dependable and solid, but he wasn't exactly a game-breaker. That was Gary Clark. One other little tidbit, Monk never caught a touchdown pass in a Super Bowl. The fact that Monk didn't stand out in big games probably doesn't help his case either. My feeling is that he'll get in someday, but he's simply not a "shoe-in" for the HoF.

listening to John Thompson yesterday on 980, he brought up a good point (which i couldn't believe either...)

more and more, people are choosing value over talent. guys like TO, Moss, Irvin are in the headlines because of their antics and their value to the media to create those headlines...Irvin's nickname is the Playmaker.

on the flip side, back in Monk's day, players did what they had to do in order for the team to succeed. Monk has no value to the media because he didn't provide headlines for them to thrive off of.

in this day and age of 24/7 media, unless you're making the headlines, you tend to be forgotten...and unfortunately, those in the past are being compared to those now...