The Hall of Fame must be smoking the crack Michael Irvin provided the selection committee. Hey, they can put Irvin in the Hall, but ahead of Art Monk? Are they serious?
Let's compare where they rank on the all-time lists:
RECEPTIONS
Monk 7th, Irvin 20th
RECEIVING YARDS
Monk 11th, Irvin 14th
RECEIVING TD
Monk 30th, Irvin 37th
Now let's look at the peripherals...
Irvin won multiple Super Bowls. He once led the league in receiving yards. And he did lots of cocaine and had that whole "white house" thing which Dallas is so proud of. He wasn't exactly a model citizen.
Monk also won multiple Super Bowls. He actually was a model citizen, and as far as we know, never did drugs. And he certainly never showed up to the grand jury wearing a fur coat. He was also the first guy to ever catch 100 balls in a season. He held the record for most consecutive games with a catch until Jerry Rice broke the record, but let's be honest, most receiving records are "if not for Jerry Rice".
So, given the choice between the guy with superior stats, some claim to the record book, a legit trend setter, and on top of that a decent human being; the NFL instead chose to honor the guy with inferior stats, no claim to primacy, and a spotty arrest record.
Good job, Hall of Fame. Can someone explain this to me?
16 comments:
I can't explain it Baker. Irvin was a fine receiver but Monk was clearly better. I also think Derrick Thomas is more deserving than Irvin. Mainly because he seemed more relevant to his team and the NFL game than Irvin. The superbowl rings are nice, but I guess I am not sold based on that.
Let's not forget that Irvin's career was cut short because of an awkward tackle and crappy turf in Philly. Had he been able to play out his career, he would have been higher on those lists. Also, let's compare YPC. Monk is well higher on the list in catches but isn't that much higher on yards. That makes me think Irvin made more out of his catches which would tend to make me think Irvin was the better player. I don't know...I'm just sayin'.
Here's what I hate about "if only" arguments... they didn't happen.
If only I could hit a 80 MPH curveball, I'd be in the Hall of Fame. The fact is Irvin DID get injured and his career DID get cut short. He doesn't get bonus points for that. We don't base these things on conjecture, its based on what a player actually did.
It's why Bo Jackson isn't in the Hall.
Irvin "made more of his catches?" Maybe, but if Monk had an o-line of all-pros and Emmitt Smith, Aikman, and Novachek on his team he would have done the same I think. But I could be wrong, maybe Monk wouldn't have been an ego maniac like Irvin so he would have had fewer thrown to him. Bottom line if Irvin were on a lesser team his yards per catch would be more impressive to me.
What does the talent around a player have to do with YPC? How many times do you see tackles getting down field blocks to spring a WR for a TD? The fact is that once a receiver gets the ball in his hands, it is basically him versus the defense. And the more yards someone gets in that situation, the more impressive it is. Here's a stat for you, Irvin had 2.4 YPC more over his career than Monk. Hard to argue with that playmaking ability. Also, the 'Boys in those years were a run first offense which seriously limited The Playmakers chances.
Here's more breakdown:
Averages per game over each career
Rec/game: Monk 4.196; Irvin 4.717
Yards/game: Monk 56.79; Irvin 74.87
TD/game: Monk 0.304; Irvin 0.409
But, Irvin didn't have the back slope of a career due to the injury. Irvin played 12 seasons and Monk played 16.
Here's the comparisons for the first 12 years.
Rec/game: Monk 4.630; Irvin 4.717
Yards/game: Monk 63.49; Irvin 74.87
TD/game: Monk 0.347; Irvin 0.409
Based on the on field play, Irvin was the superior player. He shouldn't have a freak injury be held against him--can't control those. Say what you will about the off field antics, but his on the field production speaks for itself.
YPC is not the same as yards after catch. Even if Irvin's YAC is harder he didn't face the tight coverage Monk did.
The more attention other players get the less attention Monk/Irvin gets. The easier it is to gain yards and make plays. That is my assertion, it may be wrong, but I think it is sound.
That is "higher" not "harder," sorry.
What? You don't think teams knew they had to stop Irvin when they played the Cowboys? I would think many coaches put their best CB on Irvin and planned coverage around him in an effort to make the role players beat them. It just so worked out that Irvin still beat them plus allowed his teammates to make plays. The only way that argument is even plausible is if there is no running game at all. If that is the case, the defense can drop back an extra defender and basically play a nickel or dime package all game thus putting an extra defender in space to tighten the gaps. But I don't think any NFL team could get away with doing that without the opposing offense having a hay day running the ball. I don't know what Monk had, but the 'Boys' running game just kept defenses honest. It didn't mean they didn't play Irvin tight or as best they could.
Irvin faced the opponents best corners. But Art Monk and Jerry Rice faced more than that. Irvin was a genuine concern for defenses, but a tertiary priority for opposing defenses.
"The only way that argument is even plausible is if there is no running game at all"... Strange comment, rushing offense is "all or nothing" but the following I guess is the explanation:
"the defense can drop back an extra defender and basically play a nickel or dime package all game thus putting an extra defender in space to tighten the gaps."
Well that is one way to give more attention to a receiver and the passing game. The best way in Madden football I might add. In my opinion there are others that work like blitzing, more subtle personnel changes and double teams. All of which are more effective in real life than in Madden.
"the 'Boys' running game just kept defenses honest"
Seriously? Did you watch them run the ball? 4 rushing titles for Smith and 11 consecutive seasons of 1,000 yards. I guess the best that the premire rushing offense (not RB) of an era can aspire to is "keeping the defense honest."
Irvin was solid, I just don't get quite why my point seems so ridiculous to you. Irvin made Aikman and Smith's jobs easier and the reverse is true in my opinion.
texas alum also doesn't understand the context of the numbers. For example, hitting .300 in the 1960s was not the same thing as hitting .300 in the 1920s or last season. Context matters.
Irvin played in a more pass-wacky era in which all receiver's numbers were higher because the game had shifted to a more aerial game. Monk's numbers are more impressive because he played in an era when receivers didn't put up those kind of numbers.
Of the top ten players all-time in receptions, nine started playing after Monk (the other is Monk himself). Expand that to the top 20, we've added three more: Largent (13th), Lofton (19th), and Joyner (20th). Monk far outpaced his contemporaries. Irvin did not.
Stats without context are meaningless. Irvin played in an era of inflated receiver stats. His numbers, when viewed in context, are not nearly as impressive.
Also, Irvin better have a higher YPC, Art Monk was a possession receiver.
I should add, I don't think Irvin is unworthy per se. He's got a very good case to be in the Hall of Fame.
But I think one of the first questions you should ask is: Is he the best player at his position not enshrined? And in Irvin's case, the answer is no. Monk was also the first player to reach 800, and then 900 receptions. He was the clearly the pre-eminent receiver of his era before Jerry Rice came along and sort of changed the record book.
If you're thinking of a comp for Monk, think Marvin Harrison. Only more consistent and without the disappearing act in the playoffs.
While we're at it, check out this one:
PLAYER X
755 Rec, 11616 yards, 67 TDs
IRVIN
750 Rec, 11904 yards, 65 TDs
Player X is Gary Clark, Monk's teammate, if you add his USFL numbers which I think is pretty legit. Forget why Irvin over Monk, the better question is why Irvin over Clark?
(remember, those numbers were before the NFL basically made it illegal for DB's to cover anyone)
Spot on Poseur.
Poseur, thanks for giving me another statistical analysis which further proves my point. The following stats compare the years that Monk and Irvin where in the league at the same time, 1988-1995. These years were rookie through year 8 for Irvin, and year 9 through year 16 for Monk. The fact that those years encompass Irvin's rise and Monk's fall may offset any arguments that the stats shouldn't be compared because of timing in a career. Also remember the 'Boys were always a run first offense in these years--hardly the pass-wacky offsense. But here are the stats.
Averages per game over those years
Rec/game: Monk 3.791; Irvin 4.705
Yards/game: Monk 49.46; Irvin 76.23
TD/game: Monk 0.296; Irvin 0.446
Again, is there really any comparison?
Saying that Monk was better and the stats lie because Monk was a "possession receiver" is complete talking head/hyperbole/cliche BS. One, if he was such a possession receiver he would have more receptions per game (but the "possession receiver" label might limit his YPC). Two, Irvin was also a possession receiver. He was also a long ball threat at any time. Advantage: Irvin.
Another thing, people point to the team Irvin had around him as an advantage for Irvin. If so, that would mean he would have fewer chances to get the ball than another player on a lesser team--say Art Monk? Yet, Irvin still averaged more catches per game than Monk even though Irvin was not necessarily the premier player on the team, while Monk probably was (I didn't watch many Redskin games in those years).
Also, the contemporaries/timing argument is complete BS, too. You can't hold the fact that Irvin came into the league a few years later against him. Had he started when Monk did, I have no doubt that Irvin still would have better numbers. And if you would have asked anyone who that person would take over Irvin while he was in the league, no one would take anyone over Irvin, except may Rice. Also, that is why I break down the stats to averages to show what each did on an idividual play or game. Irvin was clearly superior in that light.
One more counterpoint about the "times", if pass-whacky offenses weren't in style in the early 80's, then pass defenses would assumably not have been as good. So considering bad pass O's and bad pass D's compared to better pass O's and better pass D's, doesn't everthing equal out?
Another thing, where did you get Gary Clark's numbers? The NFL stat book has these for Clark's 11 years:
167 699 10856 15.5 65
I think these stats (as have all the stats I have used) don't take into account playoff games, which may be the reason for the discrepancy.
Now, PTH, I think you have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say--probably partly my fault for not being clear. My point is that no NFL defense can load up to stop one player because some other player would burn the defense. What I was saying about the 'Boys run O was that no defense could put 8 or 9 guys in the box to stop the run because Aikman, Irvin, Novacek, Harper, etc. would have a hay day. Conversely, if a defense played nickel or dime all game, E. Smith would rush for 200+. In that way the run/pass offense of the 'Boys kept a defense honest.
And blitzing has nothing to do with a receiver and catching the ball. It has everything to do with a QB's ability to throw the ball to the receiver, but once the ball is in the receiver's hands, everything is on the receiver to make the play.
Your defense analysis...seriously? Double team? Personel changes? What does personel changes have to do with anything? Would not both receivers have to deal with personel changes? And double teams? Really? How often do you see these at any level? Never. You might see a zone and one where one man might man up on the receiver while everyone else sits back in a zone, but this would weaken a defense dramatically and any other receiver would go off and have a great game at the NFL level if this happened. Realistically, double teams are no more effective than basic man to man and thus no one uses the double team.
In reality, all a defense can do is put the best CB on the best receiver and drop another player into coverage. But by consistently dropping another player into coverage, i.e. nickel or dime, then you weaken the run D and any half-way competent run game would rush for 200+ yards.
You might say that the D can "disguise coverages" or something, but this really doesn't affect the WR, only the QB's ability to get the ball to the WR. And I would say that Aikman/Irvin had to face that more than Monk did.
Ok, I'm rambling now, but my overall point is that Monk did not play against harder, tighter, or superior defenses. If anything, Irvin did, yet Irvin had the better numbers.
Wow, way to compare the twilight of Monk's career to Irvin's prime. By 1988, Mok was a nine year vet. And I already said where Clark's numbers came from, it was adding his USFL numbers to the NFL (trust me on this one, the USFL was fairly legit, its not like counting XFL numbers).
And the reason for the explosion of pass offense was multitude, but mostly it has been a concerted effort on the part of the NFL to make it more and more difficult to cover the passing game. The NFL now puts radios in helmets, has banned the head slap for rushers, banned all contact by DB's outside of the five yards by the line of scrimmage, and practically invalidated the offensive PI rules.
You have to compare numbers to their era. Think baseball and modern home run numbers. Same concept. Irvin's numbers don't really distinguish himself from his contemporaries like, say Reed and Bruce. Monk's numbers outpace his era's stars like Lofton (already in the Hall) and Largent (also in the Hall) and Ellard.
Well, except Jerry Rice, but he's the best ever.
Also, while not about Monk specifically, the 1980s Washington Redskins are sorely underrepresented in the Hall. They went to four Super Bowls, and won three. And they have exactly one guy in the Hall (Riggins), and he really shouldn't be in there and only played in one Super Bowl. The BILLS have two and will have three once Bruce smith is eligible (and should have a fourth
in Kent Hull, one of the greatest centers ever). The Bears made one Super Bowl and have three guys in.
Most of those great Cowboys players aren't eligible yet, and a lot will be in the Hall, possibly as many as seven or eight (Aikman, Irvin, Emmitt, Haley, Norton, Newton, Williams, Maryland, Novacek, Lett... that's a pool of ten).
Not a single Hog is in the Hall, which is arguably the greatest offensive line ever. Darrell Green will probably get in next year, so that'll be two players from one of the great teams of all time. That's just bizarre. I know players get in not teams, but the Skins teams of the 1980s have just fallen through the NFL memory hole. This just in: they were great. Monk is a symbol of how they were forgotten, but Russ Grimm (who also was on the final ballot) should also be pissed. If Jacoby and Green don't go in first ballot, it will be a mistake.
(While we're not on the subject, the 1980 49ers are also sorely underrepresented. Rice isn't eligible yet, but right now, they only have three players in (Montana, Young, and Lott). Hello? Randy Cross? Brent Jones?)
The Cowboys magically were run first now. They transformed after you got called out for saying they only kept defenses honest... Oops!
There is a case for Irvin, but you are not making it very well. Monk's worst 8 years against 8 of Irvin's best doesn't say much. For example, Michael Jordan's last 8 seasons versus Grant Hill's first 8 don't look that great either. Anyone with 2 cents worth of common sense knows Jordan is the better player.
"In reality, all a defense can do is put the best CB on the best receiver and drop another player into coverage."
That is like saying the only way Shaq could draw more attention is if the opponent put two centers in the game. To state your proposition is to defeat it. Personnel changes are not required to give a receiver more attention. I am getting really suspicious that you play Madden now.
You have failed to see the best argument for Irvin. So I will give it to you.
Premise - the Cowboys had a tremendous offense and lots of other guys got touches.
Premise - Monk played on a lesser offense and that is why he made more catches.
Conclusion - Irvin got less opportunities so his numbers reflect that and the fact that he did as much as he did is more impressive.
2 possible counters to that argument:
1. The Cowboys offense was so prolific they were on the field a lot more and Irvin's touches didn't really suffer.
2. Irvin would have gotten more attention from the defense if he was playing somewhere else.
Don't the numbers warrant both of them being in the hall? Why does it have to be one or the other?
Also, I would hate to let Steve forget, but the reason that Irvin got the votes was that he played for AMERICA'S Team...
Post a Comment