Pro Football Hall of Fame

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Monk seems borderline to me.

In 16 years: (1) only 3 Pro Bowls; (2) only 5 seasons w/ 1000+ yards receiving; (3) top 10 in receptions in a season just four times; (4) top 10 in receiving yards in a season just three times; (5) top 10 in receiving TDs for a season just once. To me, those Top-10 finishes would be a great indication of what kind of player he was for his era, and Monk doesn't have very many over a long career as compared to Irvin (more top 10 seasons with less seasons played) and Reed (although, I am not sold on Reed either).

Also, through the mid-to-late 80s, I am not even sure Monk was the best WR on the 'Skins (eg Gary Clark had more pro-bowls and more top 10 finishes).

Lastly, I am not sure why Monk gets much more "grassroots" support than Henry Ellard as they have very similar numbers. At this point, I would tend to vote NO on Monk.

YOu started out with a very bad arguement and made it look better. Pro Bowls... What the hell does that count for? Tony Romo and Roy Williams, both from the Cowboys, made the Pro Bowl this year. So the Pro Bowls mean squat. Delete that first part and you make some sense.
And longevity should probably count for, not against a player. Emmitt Smith does not come close to the best running back I have ever seen, but it is amazing he lasted as long as he did as a competent player.

[slotdirt]

The NFL HOF voting process is a complete joke, and always will be in its current form. That's why Art Monk doesn't get the recognition he deserves.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

Sniper brings up some good points about Irvin but left out the most important...how many rings he has compared to reed and monk.

Do you honestly believe that if you swapped Monk/Reed/Irvin amongst their teams that any of the Super Bowls would have had a different outcome? I sure don't which is why I think using the number of championships as a major factor is stupid.