Was Gary Clark our Best WR from 85-92?

[skinsfan69]

I heard the Czaban interview this morning on Sports Talk. Adam S. from the NFL Network says that one of the reasons Monk has not got in the HOF was that he was not even the best WR on his own team. Any comments on this? Was Gary Clark the better WR from 85-92?

[AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace]

two COMPLETELY different styles so its hard to compare...I think what made monk so much more valuable was his durability..and the fact that they practically announced to the stadium where the ball was going on 3rd down and no one could stop Monk

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

are we forgetting that one point art monk held numerous nfl records gary clark was a great reciever too but there is no reason why art monk isn't in the hall of fame right now

[FRPLG]

I think if you look at stats Clark's are SLIGHTLY better during that time frame but Clark played far fewer seasons and Monk was easily the best WR on this team prior to Clark(for 5 season). In fact he had over 300 catches before Clark was on this team so. So to say "well he wasn't ALWAYS the best WR on the team" is dumb. Jerry Rice wasn't ALWAYS the best.

I think it is safe to say Monk was the best WR from 80-84, Clark and Monk were then about equally as valuable.

In fact why should he suffer for having a good teammate? One could argue that it hindered him more than anything.

Everyone also forgets that had Clark played probably 3 more years at his average level then he'd be in the HoF mix also.

Edit:
Stats for 85-92
.....Rec YPC TD
GC 549 15.9 58
AM 545 13.5 41

[Beemnseven]

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.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

He is mentioned. He just didn't play long enough. One thing I LOVED about Clark ( this has nothing to do w/ the topic) was that he was not going to be taken out of the line up. NO MATTER WHAT. Sore hamstrings and all. He didn't care he was going to play. Plus this guy just hated to lose. I know he was a pain the in ass to Gibbs but give me 53 Gary Clarks on my team and I'll give you a winner.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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!

[mike340]

I can't remember a single "signature catch" for Harry Carson. ;-)

More to the point, one of the most convincing reasons that Monk should be in the HOF is that there is no fan asking for Clark to enter before Monk. Clark was extremely high in the list of career receptions and yardage when he retired (does someone know how to get this data?) and he has "sexy" (i.e. home-run) catches, yet almost all Redskins fans feel that Monk should be in the HOF before Clark.

In addition, Monk's 106 catches in 1984 was 11 more than any other receiver in the time period from 1964 to 1989 (and the record at the time). The first time an AFC player got more than 106 catches was 1999!

As an additional aside, Monk helped Clark's stats, but Clark hurt Monk's stats. Monk kept on getting the first downs, allowing more long shots to Clark. But Clark took away a lot of the big receptions that Monk otherwise would have gotten.

Maybe if we retire his number...?

Originally Posted by offiss

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!

[Pocket$ $traight]

No. Art Monk was our best wideout during that period. Without Art Monk, Clark would have had less impressive stats.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

No. Art Monk was. Without Art Monk, Clark would have mediocre stats.

No what? Art Monk was what?

Grimmy, you and I will go to our graves on this one. I don't mean to take anything away from Art Monk, the man deserves to be in.

But please, stop the "without Art Monk" crap. He DID have Art Monk on the opposite side of the field. He DIDN'T have mediocre stats.

You could go on and on with the "without this guy or that guy" nonsense. What if Clark didn't have Jay Schroeder or Mark Rypien throwing him the ball? I mean, you could just as easily make the argument that without Art Monk, Clark's numbers would be off the charts. Please, enough already.

My main point was to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Hall of Fame voters. If the reason they're keeping Art Monk out was that he didn't catch enough touchdowns or didn't have the signature catches, or that he didn't take the spotlight -- then Gary Clark should have been voted in long ago. I also happen to think Clark should be in too.

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

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

No what? Art Monk was what?

Grimmy, you and I will go to our graves on this one. I don't mean to take anything away from Art Monk, the man deserves to be in.

But please, stop the "without Art Monk" crap. He DID have Art Monk on the opposite side of the field. He DIDN'T have mediocre stats.

You could go on and on with the "without this guy or that guy" nonsense. What if Clark didn't have Jay Schroeder or Mark Rypien throwing him the ball? I mean, you could just as easily make the argument that without Art Monk, Clark's numbers would be off the charts. Please, enough already.

My main point was to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Hall of Fame voters. If the reason they're keeping Art Monk out was that he didn't catch enough touchdowns or didn't have the signature catches, or that he didn't take the spotlight -- then Gary Clark should have been voted in long ago. I also happen to think Clark should be in too.

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

Go to my grave? Anyway, Clark and Monk had the same opportunities and Monk ended up with better stats. Given the people that have made the hall, Monk is a no-brainer. Clark is a legitamate contender.

Bottom line, my viewpoint is that the Hall has a bias against Redskins.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

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.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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!!!