2007 HOF

I thought Matthews was the strongest candidate. Longetivy is a big part of it. He was just excellent for so, so many years.

I think Monk is borderline. He has the numbers, but this is not a numbers game. He wasn't a threat.

I was surprised about Tags. I'm sure he will get in. The voters seem to want to save the 1st time eligible votes for the very best. He didn't have as much impact as Pete Rozelle, its true, but he has shaped the league nonetheless, and kept trouble from becoming serious.

I'm continued to be surprised about Richard Dent. I only was aware of him for a couple of years. He was a pass rushing terror. Maybe that's all he was, and for only that long. I don't know.

Lot of older players. They were probably about to not be eligible anymore, except as a Seniors nomination. Those are hard to get. Maybe the voters decided to step back a little. I remember Wehrli. Not much detail, except that he was good.

Thomas was a solid pick.

 

Yeah I was hammered when I posted that. Somehow whenever I think baseball now, I think roids.

 

Remember, it's hard to get in. You have to get 80 percent of the votes, and their can be only 6 each year. If there were 7 that got 80 percent, number 7 doesn't get in.

Given the number of automatic first ballot guys that are coming up, I think there was a rush to get in some guys who may have their last shot.

 

What about Lawrence Taylor? Where's this guy's angst over LT? Not a very good argument.

 

LT was 10x the player Irvin was on or off the field

 

PFT is stupid, so just stop posting it. In any case, look at the following statistical comparison of Monk and Irvin:

Irvin - 750 rec, 11904 yards, 65 tds
Monk - 940 rec, 12721 yards, 68 tds

Looks like Monk should have a slight edge, right? It does until you consider that Irvin did that over 159 games while Monk took 224. Monk never led the NFL in receiving yards and finished in the top 10 only three times. He also finished in the top 10 for receiving touchdowns only once in his career. He was a very good receiver, but not even close to Hall-worthy unless you care more about longevity than greatness.

 

Peter King certainly has expressed his feelings about Monk and his non-selection into the HOF, but Czaban had a funny rebuttal to King's reasoning:

Steve Czaban Response (http://www.czabe.com)

Try Again, Pete
Peter King has issued a lengthy, yet unconvincing defense of his stonewalling of Art Monk as a HOF inductee. Never mind the fact that Monk has more career catches than ALL 17 of the current WR’s in the Hall, that doesn’t matter. Let me excerpt King’s key points, and lay them out like Ronnie Lott would a receiver coming over the middle. King’s points, paraphrased.

1) Monk has numbers, but that shouldn’t be the holy grail of hall induction. Plus, King says, look at all the receivers who are ON PACE to end up with 900 plus catches. REBUTTAL: Who cares about what players NOW, or in the FUTURE are going to post in terms of numbers? What matters, is statistical relevance to ERA in which the player played. The game changes, and evolves, and teams became much more passing dominant because of rules changes, television, improved fields, and all kinds of things. Art Monk RETIRED with the All-Time catch record, the single season catch record, and the consecutive game catch record. What should he do, Peter? Unretire now, and try to keep up with the “modern” NFL numbers at WR? King implies that we have to “reserve” some spots for guys with modern numbers, like Isaac Bruce. Holy shit. Let’s screw Monk out of the Hall, to save a spot for this fumbling, turf-system specialist! Illogic in, illogic out.

2) King also says that HE personally covered the Giants from 85-88, and that Monk was not the most “feared” playmaker at the time according to the Giants. REBUTTAL: This is a stupid, typical King ANECDOTE, that is wholly personal in nature, and not the least bit analytical or FACT based. (Much like his coffeehouse anecdotes). It hardly bears comment. But since we are here, let me make this point. Ask any team that played the Redskins, who the LAST guy they wanted to see even SLIGHTLY open on 3rd down? Um, that would be #81, a guy who had hands of velvet, and repeatedly kept the Skins offense on the field by making catches that other receivers might have dropped.

3) King’s final point, is that Monk only made two AP All-Pro teams in his 16 years. REBUTTAL: Great point, Pete. John Riggins only made ONE Pro Bowl! Now, what was your point again? Furthermore, King makes a fatal mathematical error when he says that “8 wide receivers go to the Pro Bowl every year. Is a Hall of Fame player one considered one of the top eight at his job three times in 16 seasons?” MORE REACT: Dear field hockey boy. Art Monk was only eligible for one of FOUR spots in the NFC each year, not 8, dingaling! Certainly Monk might have been voted in ahead of the 3rd AFC WR, but he wasn’t eligible! Sheesh!

 

Don't tell that to his drug addictions.

 

So who will Key go in as?

And, yes...unless he retires this year, he should go.

 

Michael Irvin:

11.5 seasons (injury)
750 receptions
11904 yards
15.9 YPC
65 TD's
3 SB Titles

James Lofton:

16 seasons
764 receptions
14000 yards
18.3 YPC
75 TD's
0 SB Titles (but three appearances)

Key:

11 seasons
814 receptions
10571 yards
13.0 YPC
64 TD's
1 SB Title

Monk:

16 seasons
940 receptions
12721 yards
13.5 YPC
68 TD's
2 SB titles (three appearances)

There's playoff statistics too, but there's part of the argument....Should receivers be penalized if their team sucked? Or just rewarded a tad if they happened to be great (their performance was a contributing factor in that greatness)

Just thought I'd post some comparative data.