Cross-posted on Poseur.
Art Monk finally got elected to the Hall of fame. It’s about friggin’ time.
I’m kind of a Hall of Fame geek. OK, not even kind of. I’m the person who is genuinely outraged by Tim Raines and Bert Blyleven’s stalled candidacies while Jim Rice keeps getting more and more support. But Art Monk has long been my pet candidate, as his absence from the Football Hall of Fame actually lessened the Hall because Monk isn’t just qualified, he’s obscenely qualified.
Passing in the NFL has radically changed in the past 25 years or so. And passing stats have become larger and larger as teams have relied on the pass. To see this in numbers, of the top 50 players ranked by career receptions, 33 of them started their career after 1990 and 15 of them are still active. That’s just a long way of saying passing stats are weighted heavily towards modern players.
Monk ranks 7th all-time in receptions. When he retired, he was #1. Monk played in an era before the current explosion in passes yet his numbers still stack up favorably against modern players, even Hall of Famers. For example, he had more receptions and more yards than Michael Irvin. He was also the first player to catch 100 passes in a season. And until Jerry Rice came along and broke every receiving record there was, Monk held the career receptions record, the single-season record, and the record for most consecutive games with a catch.
Those aren’t borderline Hall of Fame numbers. Those are inner circle, first-ballot numbers. That’s before we get into the three Super Bowl rings. And he had to wait for inferior receivers like James Lofton and Michael Irvin to get in before he got his ugly blazer (not to pick on Irvin who is a legit Hall of Famer, he just wasn’t Art Monk). Not to be mean to Lofton, but the only person who thought Lofton was better than Monk when they were playing at the same time was Lofton’s mom. The point is not that Lofton and Irvin don’t belong in the Hall of Fame, it is that they DO belong in the Hall and Monk is even better. There’s no better case for the Hall of Fame than being better than the people already enshrined.
It only took a decade, but Monk finally gets the honor he’s always deserved. He’s now a Hall of Famer, and he even gets to go in with his teammate, Darrell Green, who is in the conversation for the best cornerback to ever play the game. So not only do things work out, it works out even better if he hadn’t had the wait. The Hall of Fame is richer for having Art Monk in it. That’s the definition of a Hall of Famer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
new to your blog. just wanted to commend you for choosing exactly the correct words to describe monk's HOF candidacy. his good name has been dragged in the dirt for 8 years now-- due to misinformed arguments by lazy journalists--and that is a terrible shame. art monk could not have been more successful in his role for the redskins...as a receiver, a blocker, a leader. on 3rd down, it sometimes seemed that theismann or schroeder or rypien had no other "check down" options....they needed to move the chains, and art monk was going to be getting the ball. the league is entirely different now, and peter king's argument that a HOF with art monk would leave no room for all the receivers who eclipsed his statistics was outrageously misguided. a players' numbers can only be judged against his contemporaries, and art was widely hailed as a future HOFer...even years before his retirement. saturday was a happy day, and i'm glad monk and green will be inducted together, but i'm left with a bitter taste from the whole experience.
thanks again for your post!
-- kyle
That’s before we get into the three Super Bowl rings. And he had to wait for inferior receivers like James Lofton and Michael Irvin to get in before he got his ugly blazer (not to pick on Irvin who is a legit Hall of Famer, he just wasn’t Art Monk). Not to be mean to Lofton, but the only person who thought Lofton was better than Monk when they were playing at the same time was Lofton’s mom. The point is not that Lofton and Irvin don’t belong in the Hall of Fame, it is that they DO belong in the Hall and Monk is even better. There’s no better case for the Hall of Fame than being better than the people already enshrined.
I'm just going to argue with your contention everyone thoguht that Monk was better than Lofton. I am not arguing that Monk does not belong in the HOF.
That being said:
How many pro bowls did Lofton play in? Eight. How many did Monk play in? Three.
How many times was Lofton an Alll-Pro? Six. How many times was Monk? Three.
Not saying that Pro Bowls & All Pros selections are a perfect metric, but your statement that "the only person who thought Lofton was better than Monk when they were playing at the same time was Lofton’s mom" rings of Redskin homerism to me.
Clearly someones did think that. Lofton, however, suffered from playing with a mediocre team until he got to the Bills--well past his prime. The fact that during his time, his peers & the AP selectors thoguht more of Lofton, who was playing for 8-8 teams in tiny Green Bay, than Monk who was playing for some very good teams in a major market says a lot to me.
Actually, while Monk is a pet candidate of mine, I'm not a Redskins fan. I rooted for the Baltimore Colts as a kid which means I root against the Redskins. So what my line smacked of was not Rdskin homerism, which is impossible since I don't root for the Skins and therefore can't be a homer for them, is trying to make a joke. You didn't think it was funny. Fine.
But let's get to the actual argument. Pro Bowls aren't just an imperfect metric, they are a terrible metric, as deserving players are constantly passed over just due to laziness. Just look at this year's Pro Bowl roster. That said, playing on bad Green bay teams certainly HELPED Lofton's numbers as he was their only offensive weapon. He was the focal point of their offense and got the majority of the balls thrown to him. Being the best player on a bad team is more helpful to a player's chances of making the Pro Bowl.
Also, two of Lofton's Pro Bowl's were before Monk became a starter (1978 and 1980) and one was a late career courtesy election when he played in the AFC (1991). In fact, in 1991, Monk had 15 more catches than Lofton, yet only Lofton made the Pro Bowl. So Lofton's head to head edge in Pro Bowl's is really only 5 to 3. Still an edge, admittedly.
Lofton's highest catch total was 71, something he did twice (80 and 81). He never hit 70 again. Monk had 70 catches six times.
But Lofton was more of a deep ball guy, so its not fair to compare catches. Lofton had 1000 yards receiving six times. Monk did it five times, as a possession receiver. And he topped Lofton's best yardage total (though it's essentially the same 1361 to 1372).
But Monk was just a compiler, hanging around for 16 years. Lofton played for 16 as well. So it's a wash.
As mentioned, Monk retired as holder of two significant career records and at one point held the single season reception record. Lofton did not retire as a record holder, though he was #1 in career yards not counting Rice.
And honestly, winning matters. Not a huge amount, but it does. When Lofton played for Green Bay, the best team he played on won 8 games. He had three losing seasons. He was on some great Bills teams which fell short, but he was no longer the primary receiver. Monk won three Super Bowls and he was generally credited as one of the team leaders. Even when displaced as the #1 receiver, he still gets some points for being the recognized leader of a three-time champ.
I honestly don't see an argument that Lofton was better when they played EXCEPT for the Pro Bowls. And that's pretty flimsy.
But let's get to the actual argument. Pro Bowls aren't just an imperfect metric, they are a terrible metric, as deserving players are constantly passed over just due to laziness.
You only attacked one of my two arguments--you failed to examine the All-Pro selections, done by a different set of selectors, whom presuambly take the process more seriously.
Again, Lofton outnumber Monk there 6 to 3, with all of Lofton's selection coming in years where Monk was also playing. And your attempt to throw out two of Lofton's Pro Bowl selections is a bit silly. I don't see you tossing out Monk's final 93 reception because they came after Lofton retired. If you're comparing two player entire careers, you include their entire careers.
That said, playing on bad Green bay teams certainly HELPED Lofton's numbers as he was their only offensive weapon. He was the focal point of their offense and got the majority of the balls thrown to him. Being the best player on a bad team is more helpful to a player's chances of making the Pro Bowl.
Hmmm. I wondered if that was true. What you failed to mention is that while Lofton's Packer teams only had a winning record once, for a few years, they had a very good offensive team--sending two WRs and a TE to the Pro Bowl one year so to say his was their only offensive weapon is inaccurate.
Off.
Rank Rec. Yards
23 46 818
25 54 968
28 71 1226
14 71 1294
6 62 1237
5 58 1300
9 62 1361
16 69 1153
25 64 840
I ran a regression analysis and there is a weak (R squared = 0.041) positive relation for reception to rank--meaning he could expect a few more receptions when the offense was bad. But the it only amounts to about 3 receptions a year and the statistical significance is very low.
A much stronger negative relationship (R squared = 0.464) predicts that as the offense had a better (lower number) rank, his yardage went up. This would account for about 300 yards difference between the best and worst years. The statistical significance is only moderate, however.
But I think it is fair from Lofton's numbers to say your thoery has a tiny bit of truth regarding the number of receptions but is inaccurate regarding yardage--playing on better offensive teams helped his yardage.
But if you take Lofton's Packer career as a whole, his yardage numbers were hurt more in the bad offensive years than his receptions were helped in those years.
Monk's Redskins, on the other hand, were below-average offensive teams only twice, his first and final years there.
Monk's regression analysis showed that his numbers were only slightly effected by the team's offensive rank--but both were negative--the better the team did, his numbers decreased slightly. The relationship was neither very strong (R squared of 0.0044 and 0.0088) nor sharp--(-0.164 and -3.00) so dropping from best to average would cost Monk only about two receptions and 40 yards.
Lofton's highest catch total was 71, something he did twice (80 and 81). He never hit 70 again. Monk had 70 catches six times.
But Lofton was more of a deep ball guy, so its not fair to compare catches. Lofton had 1000 yards receiving six times. Monk did it five times, as a possession receiver. And he topped Lofton's best yardage total (though it's essentially the same 1361 to 1372).
If you prorate Lofton's yardage in the two strike years--1982 & 1987--he would have exceed 1,000 yard two additional times, Monk would not have. So lets call that an 8 to 5 advantage--Lofton.
As mentioned, Monk retired as holder of two significant career records and at one point held the single season reception record. Lofton did not retire as a record holder, though he was #1 in career yards not counting Rice.
Actually, at the time he retired, Lofton was that career receiving yardage leader, being the first to pass 14,000 yards in his final game.
And honestly, winning matters. Not a huge amount, but it does. When Lofton played for Green Bay, the best team he played on won 8 games. He had three losing seasons. He was on some great Bills teams which fell short, but he was no longer the primary receiver. Monk won three Super Bowls and he was generally credited as one of the team leaders. Even when displaced as the #1 receiver, he still gets some points for being the recognized leader of a three-time champ.
In two of the Redskins years, Monk was not the primary receiver--in 1983 Charlie Brown had 78 receptions to Monk's 47, in 1987 Gary Clark had 56 receptions to Monk's 38 (51 if you project to a full 12 games), and even when he did lead the team in 1991, it was only by one reception (71 to 70) over Gary Clark. So if you are down-playing Lofton's role in helping get the Bills to the Super Bowl because he wasn't the leading receiver, then Monk should be viewed in a similar light. I can not really give Monk, never a clear-cut first receiver in the Redskins' Super Bowl years, any more credit for the fact that the Redskins won three Superbowls while he played than what Lofton should get for being on Bills teams that made it to three Superbowls (he was not a member of the fourth Bills team).
I honestly don't see an argument that Lofton was better when they played EXCEPT for the Pro Bowls. And that's pretty flimsy.
Ok, how about these:
Number of times in top 10 for receptions:
Monk: 3
Lofton: 2
Advantage Monk, but considering he was more of a possesion receiver, that seems low. He caught a lot of passes but no so much more than a bunch of others did.
Number of times in top 10 for receiving yardage:
Monk: 3
Lofton: 8
Big Advantage Lofton. And isn't yardage more important than catches? If Lofton move the ball as far in two catches as Monk does in three, it is a wash on which was more valuable--they both got the ball that much closer to the endzone.
Number of times in top 10 for yards/reception:
Monk: 0
Lofton: 7
Number of times in top 10 for receiving TDs:
Monk: 1
Lofton: 4
Advantage Lofton.
Current Career Rank:
Monk Number of Receptions: 7th
Lofton Receiving Yardage: 3rd
Lofton had a better track record of excelling, of being one of the very best for a number of years as evidenced by both his rankings in statistical catergories and recognition from peers (Pro Bowl) and informed observers (All-Pro selectors).
Lofton also far outpaces Monk when comparing their seperate strengths--Lofton excelled at going deep (top-10 7 times) and gaining yardage (top-10 8 times) while Monk caught more passes (top-10 3 times).
And the fact that Lofton still ranks higher in yardage than Monk ranks in receptions, indicates that what Lofton accomplished was more difficult since it has been less often repeated.
Monk's only statistical advantage comes in number of receptions, which is overcome by Lofton's yaradage totals. Lofton also had 10% more touchdown receptions on about 20% few catches.
I fail to see any important statistical advantage Monk brings to the table.
Post a Comment