Jimmy Smith Retired - HOF Bound? - Page 2

SFL Cat · 05-12-2006, 07:29 PM

He's definitely not a first ballot HOFer, if ever.

Franklinnoble · 05-13-2006, 02:02 AM

Funny thing about it is, Art Monk is the sort of guy who doesn't give a darn about making the HOF nearly as much as his fans do. He was always the quiet, steady professional. Didn't have much to say, and he didn't spend much time with the media. That, more than his perceived lack of production, probably hurt his chances more than anything.

oykib · 05-13-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Funny thing about it is, Art Monk is the sort of guy who doesn't give a darn about making the HOF nearly as much as his fans do. He was always the quiet, steady professional. Didn't have much to say, and he didn't spend much time with the media. That, more than his perceived lack of production, probably hurt his chances more than anything.

Jerry Rice never talked. Neither did Steve Largent-- at least before he bacame a politician. It's the production.

If Monk had been a five-time All-pro, he'd be in the Hall already.

Glengoyne · 05-13-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oykib

Jerry Rice never talked. ...

Nah he let his wife do that.

Buccaneer · 05-13-2006, 01:00 PM

I agree with JG, Monk deserves to be in if they are considering the likes of Smith.

oykib · 05-13-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I agree with JG, Monk deserves to be in if they are considering the likes of Smith.

Why? Smith was a significantly more productive receiver-- both in terms of overall production and production relative to his peers. Smith is not good candidate. But he's better than Monk.

st.cronin · 05-13-2006, 02:20 PM

I really don't care at all, but when Monk was active, wasn't he widely considered a future hall of famer? I could swear that's how he was regarded.

oykib · 05-13-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I really don't care at all, but when Monk was active, wasn't he widely considered a future hall of famer? I could swear that's how he was regarded.

Which is why we wait five years to vote on players. You won't find many three-time All-Pros in the Hall. Monk was a compiler. Had either reception record stood up for a while, he'd be in. But neither one lasted that long. And we're not talking about him being number two. His records were totally blown by.

Contrary to what people in this thread are saying, he played under the same rules as Rice, Largent (who preceded him and managed better numbers), Smith, Sharpe, Irvin, and Clark-- all of whom put up better numbers.

I'm going to throw out a name-- Al Toon. Jet's fans will surely remember him. Is he a Hall of Famer? His career was cut short by multiple concussion syndrome. I haven't even looked at his stats yet. But here is his card:

Code:

| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1985 nyj |  15 |     1      5    5.0    0 |    46    662  14.4    3 |
| 1986 nyj |  16 |     2     -3   -1.5    0 |    85   1176  13.8    8 |
| 1987 nyj |  12 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    68    976  14.4    5 |
| 1988 nyj |  15 |     1      5    5.0    0 |    93   1067  11.5    5 |
| 1989 nyj |  11 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    63    693  11.0    2 |
| 1990 nyj |  14 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    57    757  13.3    6 |
| 1991 nyj |  15 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    74    963  13.0    0 |
| 1992 nyj |   9 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    31    311  10.0    2 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
|  TOTAL   | 107 |     4      7    1.8    0 |   517   6605  12.8   31 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Seasons among the league's top 10
Receptions:	1986-3, 1987-2, 1988-1, 1991-8	
Receiving yards:	1986-5, 1987-6, 1988-10	
Receiving TDs:	1986-10t

That's also the career of a three-time All-Pro. Now, Monk's career numbers are greatly superior. But, there were the same number of Years that they were considered among the best in the league at what they do. the main difference between them is about 8 average seasons.

Clark · 05-13-2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I really don't care at all, but when Monk was active, wasn't he widely considered a future hall of famer? I could swear that's how he was regarded.

Yes.
Quote from the 1991 Sporting News Pro Football Yearbook, "Monk continued his run toward the Hall of Fame by becoming the third receiver ever to catch 700 passes. He needs 21 to pass second place Charlie Jonier and is 89 catches behind Steve Largent."
Quote from The Football Encyclopedia, "Rypien was able to open it up and throw long to a corps of receivers that included future Hall of Famer Art Monk.."

He was an excellent player. An important member of four Redskins teams that made it to the Super Bowl. Definitely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Bad-example · 05-13-2006, 04:43 PM

Andre Rison = Art Monk < HOF

Warhammer · 05-13-2006, 05:04 PM

One thing everyone forgets is that Monk was the go-to receiver when the Redskins needed a catch. Yes, Clark and I forget the other guy in the Smurfs were the deep threats, but whenever they needed a first down, or a shot in the arm they looked to Monk.

When you have three above average WRs, they are going to take balls from each other.

For a few years in the late 90s, Jimmy Smith WAS regarded as one of the best WRs in football. I remember in 99 when I first got into Fantasy Football that Smith was a player you wanted because he was very underrated, and if you could get him, you would do as well as or better than a bunch of WRs taken in front of him.

Another thing, being All-Pro or making the All-Star game in the NFL is not the same as in baseball because many players get into it based upon reputation, so just because he was only selected 3,4, or 5 times does not indicate that he should have not gotten in more times. Hell, Isaac Bruce caught 119 passes one year and didn't get in (on a brutal Rams squad at that!).

That brings up my question which pertains to Bruce, one of my favorite players. How do you judge players that have high quality top 10 players opposite them? Bruce and Holt have both posted good numbers, but they also hurt each other from the standpoint of raw production because there are only so many balls to go around. Plus, throw in that they had Ricky Proel and Az-Hakim, and later Curtis and McDonald taking passes from them since they were such good #3 and #4 guys.

How do you take this into account when it comes to the HOF?

05-13-2006, 02:20 PM	#57
st.cronin General Manager Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New Mexico	I really don't care at all, but when Monk was active, wasn't he widely considered a future hall of famer? I could swear that's how he was regarded. __________________ co-commish: bb-bbcf.net knives out

05-13-2006, 02:02 AM	#52
Franklinnoble Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Placerville, CA	Funny thing about it is, Art Monk is the sort of guy who doesn't give a darn about making the HOF nearly as much as his fans do. He was always the quiet, steady professional. Didn't have much to say, and he didn't spend much time with the media. That, more than his perceived lack of production, probably hurt his chances more than anything.

05-13-2006, 01:00 PM	#55
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	I agree with JG, Monk deserves to be in if they are considering the likes of Smith.

05-13-2006, 04:43 PM	#60
Bad-example College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: san jose CA	Andre Rison = Art Monk < HOF

05-13-2006, 05:04 PM	#61
Warhammer Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Dayton, OH	One thing everyone forgets is that Monk was the go-to receiver when the Redskins needed a catch. Yes, Clark and I forget the other guy in the Smurfs were the deep threats, but whenever they needed a first down, or a shot in the arm they looked to Monk. When you have three above average WRs, they are going to take balls from each other. For a few years in the late 90s, Jimmy Smith WAS regarded as one of the best WRs in football. I remember in 99 when I first got into Fantasy Football that Smith was a player you wanted because he was very underrated, and if you could get him, you would do as well as or better than a bunch of WRs taken in front of him. Another thing, being All-Pro or making the All-Star game in the NFL is not the same as in baseball because many players get into it based upon reputation, so just because he was only selected 3,4, or 5 times does not indicate that he should have not gotten in more times. Hell, Isaac Bruce caught 119 passes one year and didn't get in (on a brutal Rams squad at that!). That brings up my question which pertains to Bruce, one of my favorite players. How do you judge players that have high quality top 10 players opposite them? Bruce and Holt have both posted good numbers, but they also hurt each other from the standpoint of raw production because there are only so many balls to go around. Plus, throw in that they had Ricky Proel and Az-Hakim, and later Curtis and McDonald taking passes from them since they were such good #3 and #4 guys. How do you take this into account when it comes to the HOF?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)