Question: why isn't Gary Clark in the HOF?

I think Waters suffers from the "Hall Of Very Good" syndrome in that he never dominated but was consistently good. He also had a fumbling problem and cost his team a few games for that. He's one of those guys who didn't really stand out in his own day and as time moves on he becomes just another guy with good numbers.

Similarly, Clark will never make it in for all the reasons already said. Does he deserve it? The homer in me say "YES!!" but, objectively, and unlike Monk, I think Clark was more the beneficiary of the system than someone who would have, like Monk, excelled in any system. Don't get me wrong, I loved the guy but, regardless of P. King's take, he was receiver 1A to Monk and got a huge benefit playing opposite him. Again, he would be a lock for the Hall of Very Good.

It still makes me angry that Irvin got in before Monk. I grudgingly acknowledge Irvin's HOF credentials - I just think, as others have said, he got in b/c he was "media friendly" guy than Monk. To me, he is an ass in every way shape and form - listening to him made my head want to explode.

I think a case can be made for Watters. Over 10,000 yards rushing and over 4,000 receiving, 91 TDs. 7 one thousand yard seasons. 5 time Pro Bowler.

CJjTtpK8mYs

I didn't realize Watters had those kind of numbers. Those are HOF worthy.

Clark is just short of HOF material IMO. He had the heart of a lion and was definitely our best playmaking WR, but Monk's accomplishments probably took something away from Clark's total numbers. The Redskin that I believe deserves to be in the HOF is Joe Jacoby, a leader on one of the most dominant O-lines ever, and a 3-time Super Bowl Champion.

If Portis could have stayed healthy one more year, he would have passed Riggins' franchise yardage record AND topped 10,000 yards for his career. 9,923 yards just doesn't have the same ring as 10,000. I believe that would have helped his chances significantly despite the difference being just 77 yards. Portis ranked 28th all-time in rushing but also contributed a ton of receiving yards.

Portis and Tiki Barber are in the same boat...dominant when playing but did not play long enough to rack up the totals that HOF voters are looking for.

This is also the same case that makes people forget that Gale Sayers is one of the best running backs to ever step on a field. He had a short 7-year career, just 68 games and only 4 of those seasons were "full seasons".

Clark is just short of HOF material IMO. He had the heart of a lion and was definitely our best playmaking WR, but Monk's accomplishments probably took something away from Clark's total numbers. The Redskin that I believe deserves to be in the HOF is Joe Jacoby, a leader on one of the most dominant O-lines ever, and a 3-time Super Bowl Champion.

I think Jacoby will get in one day. It's so well deserved. I just think all those videos of him getting beat by LT aren't doing him any favors.

I think Jacoby will get in one day. It's so well deserved. I just think all those videos of him getting beat by LT aren't doing him any favors.

You do realize that wasn't Jacoby that playing that day. That is a common mistake most people make. I think you are right, people THINKING it was Jake that got beat has held Jake back from getting in so far.

You do realize that wasn't Jacoby that playing that day. That is a common mistake most people make. I think you are right, people THINKING it was Jake that got beat has held Jake back from getting in so far.

There are plenty of videos where Lawrence Taylor is running right by Joe Jacoby and getting to Joe Theismann or Jay Schreoder. I also personally saw them on TV back in the 80's. Taylor did that to everyone but it seems that Jacoby was always starring in them.

You do realize that wasn't Jacoby that playing that day. That is a common mistake most people make. I think you are right, people THINKING it was Jake that got beat has held Jake back from getting in so far.

You do realize he's not talking about the MNF Game where Joey T got his leg broke right?!!

The argument now seems to be that Clark doesn't have the numbers and a lot of receivers have passed him. Regardless of that being true my argument is if you compare Gary Clark's numbers to that of Michael Irvin, they are very similar. And the fact that Clark not only scored in 2 SBs, but has two rings.

Howabout Jerry Smith, he had insane numbers in his era. He doesn't measure up to todays TEs, but it was a different game then.