|
King's first two arguments against Monk are pretty shitty. By number:
1) Do modern receivers catch a lot more balls than in the past? Yeah they do. But Monk played most of his career in the past era, not in the new modern pass catching one. He retired in 1993. You'll notice a sharp increase in passing numbers right after that, especially in 1994 and 1995. Even the great Jerry Rice never topped 100 catches until 1994, the year after Monk retired. And Rice then topped 100 catches in three stright years. So while people throw more today than ever, Monk was not a huge benefit of it like King makes it out to be.
2) Pure opinion, and as stated above, based on nothing. Ricky Sanders was now more "feared" than Monk? I guess by that logic, Wade Boggs is not a HOFer because he wasn't feared like George Brett. Since this is based on nothing by some storytelling, it's hard to give it much credibility. And fan perception also isn't always correct.
Now for the good argument
3) His lack of All-Pros and Pro-Bowls. Certainly a decent argument. But Pro-Bowls are not foolproof either. They make mistakes. Like how Corey Dillon isn't in the Pro-Bowl this year. Monk may have deserved more Pro Bowls, but missed out. He also played for a run first team which helped suppress his numbers. Much like Aikman never threw a ton of TDs, Monk probably could have put up bigger numbers on a more pass-oriented team. Might have helped him make a few more Pro Bowls. And HOFers combine greatness with consistency. The more consistent and lengthy a career, the less great it needs to be.
I don't know enough of the Football HOF to say Monk should or shouldn't get in, but there certainly seems to be a lot of info pointing towards yes, and very little pointing towards no.
__________________
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
|
01-27-05, 01:08 PM
