Biggest travesty in HOF history...Harvey Martin

[Eternal_Cowboy]

How can a man who had 23 sacks in a 14 game season back in 1977 not be in the HOF? Had sacks been a tracked stat in his day, he would be second all-time. Played in 3 SBs, won 1, was the MVP of that SB, and was part of one of the greatest defenses ever.

[whatmeworry]

How can a man who had 23 sacks in a 14 game season back in 1977 not be in the HOF? Had sacks been a tracked stat in his day, he would be second all-time. Played in 3 SBs, won 1, was the MVP of that SB, and was part of one of the greatest defenses ever.

Hmmm, Monk retired as all-time receiving leader, most consecutive games with catches, 4 super bowls and won three and was part of one of the greatest offenses ever,

Check and mate.

[BigDFan5]

Hmmm, Monk retired as all-time receiving leader, most consecutive games with catches, 4 super bowls and won three and was part of one of the greatest offenses ever,

Check and mate.


Jerry Rice passed Monk to become the all time leading reciever the year Monk Retired. so he retired #2

[Spartacus87]

How about, regardless of whether we're Cowboys or Redskins fans, we can agree that the current HOF voting format sucks and until certain changes are made to the process, these two cases won't be the last screw jobs to take place.

[whatmeworry]

Jerry Rice passed Monk to become the all time leading reciever the year Monk Retired. so he retired #2

that's the best you can do?

[BigDFan5]

that's the best you can do?


What bringing an actual fact to the table hurt your feelings?

[IrishOrange15]

How about, regardless of whether we're Cowboys or Redskins fans, we can agree that the current HOF voting format sucks and until certain changes are made to the process, these two cases won't be the last screw jobs to take place.

Absolutely.

I don't believe Monk belongs because his per season stats do not compare well against his peers. But, it's hard to say that Monk doesn't belong when guys like Swann and Joiner make it.

There's way too much comparison of players from different eras and a great lack of consistency in the voting process. Even while I agree that Monk doesn't belong, a fellow anti-Monk voter like Peter King needs to come up with better reasoning that "he never scared people."

And while I certainly believe Bob Hayes should be in the HOF, I can't stand the Bills and had to deal with a certain former Bills players that I positively believe was one of the biggest jerks I've had the displeasure of dealing with. Despite that, I have no idea on how Thurman Thomas wasn't a first ballot HOF'er.


Rich..........

[JStone2126]

Was this Harvey Martin guy consistent year in and year out at producing numbers with sacks? When he retired from the league...how many sacks did he rack up in his career? As far as Monk/Irvin in the Hall Of Fame, both sides can come up with plenty of reasons as to why any of these 2 guys dont deserve to get in. IMO, they both put up Hall-worthy numbers, BUT the only reason why I think Monk deserves to get in more sothan Irvin is because how classy the guy was.

[jrockster21]

Jerry Rice passed Monk to become the all time leading reciever the year Monk Retired. so he retired #2

Monk retired the day he left the Skins. The stats may show that he played for two other teams, but they don't count. Only his time in the B&G is what matters. :)

[bubba9497]

Jerry Rice passed Monk to become the all time leading reciever the year Monk Retired. so he retired #2


Monk actually first retired as #1, however, Philly asked to comeback for the end of the season to play three games, so "offically Rice passed him that last year... but kind of misleading since he only played the final three games.



Harvey Martin was a good DE, but I am sorry he wasn't HOF worthy, Dexter Manley was a better DE, Played in 3 superbowls won 2, also played 10 years, but he is not HOF worthy either.

I am curious about your stat of 23 sacks in a 14 game season. Sacks were never considered an offical stat until after he retired, and I have never even heard that "unoffical stat" even mentioned among the great DL feats.

Doomsday was a good defense with a great name, but it wasn't one the greatest defenses ever

[flave1969]

Absolutely.

I don't believe Monk belongs because his per season stats do not compare well against his peers. But, it's hard to say that Monk doesn't belong when guys like Swann and Joiner make it.

There's way too much comparison of players from different eras and a great lack of consistency in the voting process. Even while I agree that Monk doesn't belong, a fellow anti-Monk voter like Peter King needs to come up with better reasoning that "he never scared people."

And while I certainly believe Bob Hayes should be in the HOF, I can't stand the Bills and had to deal with a certain former Bills players that I positively believe was one of the biggest jerks I've had the displeasure of dealing with. Despite that, I have no idea on how Thurman Thomas wasn't a first ballot HOF'er.


Rich..........


Sorry but you are completely wrong to say Monk's stats do not compare to his peers. I have broken down his stats on a per season and per game basis and Monk's stats absolutely stand up to scrutiny against his peers and more importantly those in the Hall of Fame who shared playing time with Monk. Steve Largent stands out, he was simply the best of his generation. You should take the time and look for yourself.

Monk averages more passes per game played than any of his peers as well as First Downs. Only James Lofton and Steve Largent have more yards per game and in Lofton's case it is a one yard difference.

If you consider Monk's peers to be those who played during the 1990's then I would remind you that Monk had played 11 seasons at the end of the 1990 season. Monks true peers were the receivers of the 1980's and Monk stands every test. Also if you bring up Gary Clark please remember in the eight seasons they played together Monk had 542 receptions(120 games), Clark 547 receptions(123 games) and the difference in yardage was a little over 1100 yards which is a difference of 9 yards a games. If you took it further to say things like 100 yard games, Clark had 28, Monk 25.

Monks record stands up. Check it out.

[Eternal_Cowboy]

Monk actually first retired as #1, however, Philly asked to comeback for the end of the season to play three games, so "offically Rice passed him that last year... but kind of misleading since he only played the final three games.



Harvey Martin was a good DE, but I am sorry he wasn't HOF worthy, Dexter Manley was a better DE, Played in 3 superbowls won 2, also played 10 years, but he is not HOF worthy either.

I am curious about your stat of 23 sacks in a 14 game season. Sacks were never considered an offical stat until after he retired, and I have never even heard that "unoffical stat" even mentioned among the great DL feats.

Doomsday was a good defense with a great name, but it wasn't one the greatest defenses ever

Bubba's hate for Dallas shines through once again

The Dallas Cowboys average defensive ranking from 1967 to 1980, the "Doomsday" era, was second only to the Steel Curtain in Pittsburgh. In those 14 seasons, Dallas finished outside of the top 10 in defense ONCE. No other team has EVER been that consistant for that long. They finished #1 in defense twice, #2 twice, and in the top 5 a total of 7 times. That's insanely good. Statistically speaking, Doomsday is the second best defense ever, with the Steel Curtain being #1.

And to say Dexter Manley was a better DE than Harvey Martin is akin to saying Simeon Rice is better than Reggie White. Yeah, both were great players, but one was clearly the superior player. Harvey Martin was the Reggie White and the Bruce Smith of his era. Like I said, he would be #2 all-time if sacks were totaled in his day. 23 sacks in 14 games = 1.64 sacks per game. That's unheard of, if a player did that in today's NFL, they would have nearly 27 sacks in a season.

[whatmeworry]

What bringing an actual fact to the table hurt your feelings?

Well, it's really splitting hairs since he had already retired I think as the record holder but came back for a few games. No, my feelings dont get hurt ... oops... I think i just tweaked a hammie... see you in a few weeks...

[Warhead36]

Both Irvin and Monk deserve to be in the HoF.

[Chachie]

I have NO idea why Eternal posted this complaint on a Redskins website but the thread's about Martin, not Monk. I don't see why it has to go straight to Art EVERY time the Hall is mentioned, but it's the nature of this beast and I love the beast.
Now to the issue of Harvey. As I reflect on watching Cowboy games during his day, I have to be honest with myself. I think I did pretty much view Harvey Martin as a future HOFer. I don't crunch numbers or sweat stats very often and never have so I couldn't debate or support a player on that alone. I can imagine my "standards" for HOF inductees are softer than most as well, but I got to go with my gut. Despite making me miserable on so many occasions in his bright career, Harvey should go in.

So should Art. (Doh! It's a knee-jerk reaction!)

[Buford]

This is what happens when writers carry too much power when it comes to the HOF.

It should be cut into 1/3's.

1/3 goes to Writers
1/3 goes to ex-players who are in the HOF already
1/3 goes to current NFL players, coaches, owners, front office people, refs, etc. It would all be secret balloting anyways.

back on point. give the writers a minority and maybe they'll understand that its not about the guys they liked and didn't like covering. It was how that person impacted their teams, and the game. Interviews afterwords should mean the least.

[Barney B]

Harvey Martin was the Reggie White and the Bruce Smith of his era. Like I said, he would be #2 all-time if sacks were totaled in his day. 23 sacks in 14 games = 1.64 sacks per game. That's unheard of, if a player did that in today's NFL, they would have nearly 27 sacks in a season.

By the early 80's, Harvey Martin was an old player, and that famous chef, Joe Jacoby, was busily serving up Harvey Martin pancakes for Sunday brunch. So, since I don't remember Mr. Martin's best days too well, I decided to do some research. What I found was this:

Harvey Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Martin)

"He still holds team records for most sacks as a rookie (9), in a season (23), and career (113). Former Cowboys GM Tex Schramm stated "He'll be remembered as one of the great Cowboys of the golden years ... He was a great player, one of the first great pass rushers."

Notice that the Cowboys started keeping sack totals on Harvey since he was a rookie.

I could find no evidence to back you up on this claim:



Like I said, he would be #2 all-time if sacks were totaled in his day.

With all due respect, Eternal Cowboy, you need to substantiate this claim, since you seem to be contradicting the Cowboys team officials.


While we're at it, I sure hope you aren't asserting that Harvey Martin belongs in the same league as Reggie White, simply because he had more sacks during one or two seasons. By that measure, you could claim that Mark Gastineau is better than Reggie White, and I don't think anybody wants to go there.

On the other hand, if you want to say that Harvey Martin, at his peak, was as good as Bruce Smith or better, and absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, then OK, you probably have a case.


By the way, here are Harvey Martin's career pass-rushing stats:

Games played: 158. Sacks: 113. Sacks/game: .715

Now, here are Dexter Manley's career stats:

Games played:143 Sacks: 97.5 Sacks/game .681


Dexter is almost as good, measured through his career, but let's legitimately give the edge to Martin.

Now, let's look at Bruce Smith's career, just for gits and shiggles:

Games played: 279 Sacks: 200.0 Sacks/game: .716


See, Harvey Martin is just as good as Bruce Smith by the measure of sacks per game over a career. You didn't even have to feed us incorrect info to make his case. My guess is that he'll get into the HOF eventually.

[GrimReefa]

Now, let's look at Bruce Smith's career, just for gits and shiggles:

Games played: 279 Sacks: 200.0 Sacks/game: .716


See, Harvey Martin is just as good as Bruce Smith by the measure of sacks per game over a career. You didn't even have to feed us incorrect info to make his case. My guess is that he'll get into the HOF eventually.

Watch out looking at Bruce Smith's career as a pass rusher by his sack totals; you HAVE to factor in that he was playing in a 3-4 for the meaningful portion of his career, which means he wasn't even the outside pass rusher much of the time. Smith is the greatest DE ever, IMO.

[Barney B]

Watch out looking at Bruce Smith's career as a pass rusher by his sack totals; you HAVE to factor in that he was playing in a 3-4 for the meaningful portion of his career, which means he wasn't even the outside pass rusher much of the time. Smith is the greatest DE ever, IMO.

It could be my memory, GrimReefa, but I don't remember Bruce being inside of anyone much of the time, if at all. As I recall, the Bills best pass-rushing linebacker during most of that period was Cornelius Bennett, he usually didn't come from the right hand side. Put it this way: if you were a defensive coordinator, and you had Bruce Smith on your defense, you'd want to give him as much room to work as possible, wouldn't you?

[IrishOrange15]

Sorry but you are completely wrong to say Monk's stats do not compare to his peers. I have broken down his stats on a per season and per game basis and Monk's stats absolutely stand up to scrutiny against his peers and more importantly those in the Hall of Fame who shared playing time with Monk. Steve Largent stands out, he was simply the best of his generation. You should take the time and look for yourself.

Monk averages more passes per game played than any of his peers as well as First Downs. Only James Lofton and Steve Largent have more yards per game and in Lofton's case it is a one yard difference.

If you consider Monk's peers to be those who played during the 1990's then I would remind you that Monk had played 11 seasons at the end of the 1990 season. Monks true peers were the receivers of the 1980's and Monk stands every test. Also if you bring up Gary Clark please remember in the eight seasons they played together Monk had 542 receptions(120 games), Clark 547 receptions(123 games) and the difference in yardage was a little over 1100 yards which is a difference of 9 yards a games. If you took it further to say things like 100 yard games, Clark had 28, Monk 25.

Monks record stands up. Check it out.

When I’m looking at HOF’ers, I’m looking at how they stacked up against their peers on a season-by-season basis.

For WR’s, receptions mean almost nothing to me. I’d rank receptions just a little higher in importance than say carries for a tailback. The big, important factors for me when it comes to WR’s is receiving yards and TD’s. The name of the game is to score points and put your team in the best position to score. So out of those, I’ll look at yards as the most important, followed by TD’s. If I get two players that are equals in those aspects, *then* I will look at receptions.

In Monk’s entire career, he only finished in the top 10 in receiving yards in 3 different seasons. Furthermore, he finished in the top 10 in TD’s in only one season. The argument with Monk is that he had other options eating away his stats, but his high amount of receptions show that he had plenty of opportunity to get a lot of yards and TD’s, he just failed to achieve that.

Comparing that to Largent is laughable, as Largent finished in the top 10 in receiving yards and TD’s on 8 different occasions (not to mention total TD’s in 3 different seasons).

Irvin finished in the top 10 in receiving yards 6 times and TD’s 5 times. Gary Clark finished in the top 10 in those categories 5 different times. And hell, Roy Green finished in the top 10 in those categories 3 times a piece.

Monk was a good player, a great teammate, and incredibly durable and consistent. But when I look at yards and TD’s on a per season basis, he just wasn’t great. I’d take him over Lynn Swann and Charlie Joiner (both HOF’ers), but I don’t believe they belong in the HOF either.



Rich……….

[BigDFan5]

Monk retired the day he left the Skins. The stats may show that he played for two other teams, but they don't count. Only his time in the B&G is what matters. :)


Now that is a point I can live with since in my eyes Emmitt Smith was never a Cardinal, Dorsett was never a Bronco, Allen isnt a 49er etc. LOL

[DjTj]

When I’m looking at HOF’ers, I’m looking at how they stacked up against their peers on a season-by-season basis.

For WR’s, receptions mean almost nothing to me. I’d rank receptions just a little higher in importance than say carries for a tailback. The big, important factors for me when it comes to WR’s is receiving yards and TD’s. The name of the game is to score points and put your team in the best position to score. So out of those, I’ll look at yards as the most important, followed by TD’s. If I get two players that are equals in those aspects, *then* I will look at receptions.Why do you have to take such a narrow view of great receivers? Receptions may not be the most important stat, but when someone puts up numbers that were unprecedented in league history, you have to take notice.

Art Monk wasn't the same kind of receiver as Gary Clark, and especially when they are on the same team, one guy is going to get more long passes and TD's while the other is going to pick up the tough first downs across the middle.

There can't be just one kind of wide receiver in the Hall of Fame. It's like saying we should keep Marcus Allen out of the Hall because he only rushed for 1,000 yards three times (but he caught a lot of passes) or that we should keep John Riggins out because he averaged less than 4ypc (but scored a lot of touchdowns).

This is even more prevalent with wide receivers, because there are usually at least two wide receivers on the field, so each has to play a particular role.

If you use your narrow-minded view, Gary Clark should probably be a Hall of Famer, but almost everyone would put Monk in over Clark. That's because it's not all about catching deep passes or scoring touchdowns on a per season basis. It's about being the absolute best at what you do, and Art Monk was exactly that: When you needed a first down, Monk was always there, drive after drive, game after game, season after season, better than anyone that came before him. He broke the record for receptions in a season, receptions in consecutive games, and receptions in a career. If that's not good enough for the Hall of Fame, I don't know what is.

[bubba9497]

Bubba's hate for Dallas shines through once again

The Dallas Cowboys average defensive ranking from 1967 to 1980, the "Doomsday" era, was second only to the Steel Curtain in Pittsburgh. In those 14 seasons, Dallas finished outside of the top 10 in defense ONCE. No other team has EVER been that consistant for that long. They finished #1 in defense twice, #2 twice, and in the top 5 a total of 7 times. That's insanely good. Statistically speaking, Doomsday is the second best defense ever, with the Steel Curtain being #1.

And to say Dexter Manley was a better DE than Harvey Martin is akin to saying Simeon Rice is better than Reggie White. Yeah, both were great players, but one was clearly the superior player. Harvey Martin was the Reggie White and the Bruce Smith of his era. Like I said, he would be #2 all-time if sacks were totaled in his day. 23 sacks in 14 games = 1.64 sacks per game. That's unheard of, if a player did that in today's NFL, they would have nearly 27 sacks in a season.

Dude you are a nut

First off it ain't hate

Second I actually watched the Cowboys play through the 70's, and 80's, while Harvey Martin was good DE, he was not spectacular. He had a couple of great seasons, but that's it. Dexter was a complete DE, and not only made sacks, and Big sacks at key moments, he also was great against the run. Martin was aided a great deal playing along side Randy White, He was also aided by having Ed "too Tall" Jones on the other end, and underrated Larry Cole at the other tackle. Unfortunately like Dexter he had demons that erroded his talents the last couple of seasons, and ended his career much sooner than it should have normally. If had played longer, and not been so affected by his demons, he may have had a shot at the HOF... but even then it is far from a travesity.

Using "cowboy" stats is hardly impressive, and tend to be a wee bit on the "generous side", especially if Gil Brandt supposedly kept them. He is known to "pump up and pad all things silver and blue :laugh:

there were several defenses in the 70's and 80's that were more dominate than "Doomsday".. (Like the Orange Crush in Denver, Pittsburg's Steel Curtain, The No Name defense in Miami ... later the Killer B's ... though not as good as the No Name, The Grits blitz in Atlanta for a year or two, Minnesota in the early 70's was also pretty dominate ranked #3 in 72, #1 in passing, rushing, and total defense '75, #4 in '76) they were good, but not great.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

Here's some "real" rankings for you, I don't know where you got you BS rankings from, but they were never #1 overall, only #2 once, and finished #4 twice, but as you can see, even when the fisnished in the top 10 overall, most years they had a weakness.(usually against the pass)

72 Pass #17, Rush #1, total #7, PTA #6
73 Pass #16, Rush #3, Total #6, PTA #7
74 Pass #15, Rush #2, total #5, PTA #10
75 Pass #8 Rush #4, total #4, PTA #9
76 Pass #7, Rush #6, total #6, PTA #5
77 Pass #4, Rush #3, total #4, PTA #8
78 Pass #10, Rush #1, total #2, PTA #3
79 Pass #5, Rush #11, total #7, PTA #12
80 Pass #19, Rush #18, total #18, PTA #13
81 Pass #21, Rush #16, total #20, PTA #7
82 Pass #16, Rush #13, total #14, PTA #3
83 Pass #27 Rush #2, total #20, PTA #20
84 Pass #4, Rush #24, total #7, PTA #9
85 Pass #27, Rush #11, total #23, PTA #14
86 Pass #4, Rush #23, total #12, PTA #18
87 Pass #27, Rush #6, total #20, PTA #18
88 Pass #26, Rush #13, total #22, PTA #25

Started at 72 because Profootballrefrence.com didn't have any before

I will give you they were better than I remembered in the mid 70's, however they still were not all that dominate, in the early 70's they gave up lots passing yards.Then by 1979, they were average and just got worse. They never finished in the top five in all catagories, and several times finished in the middle or lower half of teams in certain catagories

Lets not forget before 76 there was only 26 teams, and before mid 90's just 28, So finishing below #13 or #14 was in the bottom half of the league

[bubba9497]

And for the Monk vs Irvin Debate

this is old, but still applies:

through 12 years, same as Irvin career


Michael Irvin...750 11904 15.9 65

Art Monk........847 11628 13.7 63


Monk played in 4 SB, won 3

Irvin played in 3 SB, won 3

Monk broke all time receptions record, most receptions season record, most consecutive games with a reception record, in those 12 years

Irvin, broke none

Monk never had the same QB for more than 3 years (only Theisman for 3, at that) none HOF quality

Irvin had Troy Aikmen 11 of his 12 years, a HOF QB


(not to mentionthe qualty of #2, #3 WR's with whom Monk had to share the ball, compared to Irvin, who during his years as the pokes #1, only had one #2 WR catch over 40, and in two different years never had another cowboy WR have over 30 catches :yikes: )

Monk:
Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t
Receiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10
Receiving TDs: 1991-9t

Irvin:
Receptions: 1991-2, 1992-7, 1993-3, 1995-5
Receiving yards: 1991-1, 1992-2, 1993-2, 1994-8, 1995-4, 1997-8t
Receiving TDs: 1991-9t, 1992-8t, 1993-9t, 1995-10t, 1997-6t

Even now 12 years after he retired Monk's career rankings

Among the league's all-time top 50
Receptions: 5
Receiving yards: 9
Receiving TDs: 29t
Yards from scrimmage: 27

Micheal Irvin's career rankings after being retired 7 years

Among the league's all-time top 50
Receptions: 18t
Receiving yards: 14
Receiving TDs: 35t
Yards from scrimmage: 38

and BTW

Clark vs Irvin, over 11 years Clark's career

Clark: 699 10856 15.5 65
Irvin: 740 11737 15.8 62

Considering Clark was a #2 most of his career, If Irvin goes in, so should Clark

[flave1969]

When I’m looking at HOF’ers, I’m looking at how they stacked up against their peers on a season-by-season basis.

For WR’s, receptions mean almost nothing to me. I’d rank receptions just a little higher in importance than say carries for a tailback. The big, important factors for me when it comes to WR’s is receiving yards and TD’s. The name of the game is to score points and put your team in the best position to score. So out of those, I’ll look at yards as the most important, followed by TD’s. If I get two players that are equals in those aspects, *then* I will look at receptions.

In Monk’s entire career, he only finished in the top 10 in receiving yards in 3 different seasons. Furthermore, he finished in the top 10 in TD’s in only one season. The argument with Monk is that he had other options eating away his stats, but his high amount of receptions show that he had plenty of opportunity to get a lot of yards and TD’s, he just failed to achieve that.

Comparing that to Largent is laughable, as Largent finished in the top 10 in receiving yards and TD’s on 8 different occasions (not to mention total TD’s in 3 different seasons).

Irvin finished in the top 10 in receiving yards 6 times and TD’s 5 times. Gary Clark finished in the top 10 in those categories 5 different times. And hell, Roy Green finished in the top 10 in those categories 3 times a piece.

Monk was a good player, a great teammate, and incredibly durable and consistent. But when I look at yards and TD’s on a per season basis, he just wasn’t great. I’d take him over Lynn Swann and Charlie Joiner (both HOF’ers), but I don’t believe they belong in the HOF either.



Rich……….

As I said in my original post Largent was far and away the best of his generation and I purposely seperated him as the best.

Saying receptions dont matter is absolute nuts, the NFL's Top 20 is listed by Receptions, it obviously matters for someone. Likening a reception to a carry is like comparing Apples to Oranges. If I put something in your hands you may drop it but the fact that relatively few fumbles happen at a handoff should tell you how straightforward they are.

A reception has so many variables to it. I bet the number of dropped catches is a 1000 times the amount of fumbled handoffs. For multiple receptions you need reliable QB's, something Monk rarely had by the way. Generally as a Wide Receiver you have no line sat in front of you as instant protection. The list goes on.

As for TD's yes Monk caught less than say Largent and Lofton and many others but that still has to be put in context. As a Redskin Monk caught 72 Regular and Post Season TD's. 61%(44) of those TD's came from 18 yards or further. It kind of belies the myth that Monk caught only short passes. His average YPC for TD's was 21.2 yards. That should tell you something about whether Monk was a capable deep threat or not.

However the fact remains Monk was utilised for his size and strength and his ability to play in the heart of a D. It allowed Gibbs to use Max Protection and is why our TE's caught so few passes in the Gibbs years. Gibbs new he could send Monk into places you would send a TE and still be able to get people like Clark and Sanders in single coverage. How many WR's can you name that were utilised like that and a)Lasted more than couple of seasons and b) still got their yards. Also I might add Gibbs won 140 games with that system so it must of worked. In Football you play to your strengths if you want to win. We could have used Monk as a traditional wideout but whilst I am sure Monk would have been successful, I know the REdskins would not have been as successful. Also the Redskins simply did not have the QB to be any other way.

Monk was the key to that Offense working. The NFC East was the best division in Football in the 80's providing four teams with better than .500 records. Gibbs went max protection because of the threat New York with LT and Philly with Reggie White posed as well as the fact it helped the running game. It was absolutely contingent on having a receiver like Monk who could stop teams putting 8 or 9 in the box to stop the run as we saw in Gibbs first year back. Monk was that disruptive.

We will never know whether Monk in a traditional receivers role would have been as a effective because he only played in that system. His TD average YPC would indicate he was more than capable of being a deep threat.

As for your other point of Top 10 finishes in receiving. You used Roy Green as an example who actually was a dangerous receiver. Yet Green is the perfect example of how a player can have two or three good seasons in a career and crack the Top 10, it doesnt mean a thing really. Green never had an 800 0r 900 yard season in any other of his 14 seasons. The fact is every year during the 1980's half a dozen players every year would have career years. Wes Chandler, Mike Quick, Alfred Jenkins and JT Smith all led the league in the 1980's in receiving yards. Good receivers all but never having more than two or three 1000 yard seasons in their career. Mark Carrier had 1422 yards in 1989, the closest he came to that again was a 1002 yards in 1995. The 1980's was full of Mark Carriers. Consistent 1000 yard seasons were rare.

At the end of the day Monk stands 9th ALL TIME in receiving yardage. Only Largent and Lofton played the majority of their time in the 80's like Monk and they simply were not asked to play the same role as Monk.

[bubba9497]

By the way, here are Harvey Martin's career pass-rushing stats:

Games played: 158. Sacks: 113. Sacks/game: .715

Now, here are Dexter Manley's career stats:

Games played:143 Sacks: 97.5 Sacks/game .681



The stat you are using for Dexter Manley is his "official" sack total, of 97.5.... but what is not mentioned or allowed for is that sacks did not become an official stat until 1982, what's not counted is the six he had his rookie year, Un-official sack total is 103.5....


So Manley's sack rate is actually a little better than Martin's

.724 to .715

[JPM285181]

The stat you are using for Dexter Manley is his "official" sack total, of 97.5.... but what is not mentioned or allowed for is that sacks did not become an official stat until 1982, what's not counted is the six he had his rookie year, Un-official sack total is 103.5....


So Manley's sack rate is actually a little better than Martin's

.724 to .715Incidentally both Monk and Manley played during the two strike shortened seasons making their compiled stats somewhat misleading and a similiar argument should be made for Gary Clark

[Barney B]

The stat you are using for Dexter Manley is his "official" sack total, of 97.5.... but what is not mentioned or allowed for is that sacks did not become an official stat until 1982, what's not counted is the six he had his rookie year, Un-official sack total is 103.5....
So Manley's sack rate is actually a little better than Martin's
.724 to .715


Thanks, bubba. In this case, it's good to be wrong. :cool:

[bubba9497]

When I’m looking at HOF’ers, I’m looking at how they stacked up against their peers on a season-by-season basis.

For WR’s, receptions mean almost nothing to me. I’d rank receptions just a little higher in importance than say carries for a tailback. The big, important factors for me when it comes to WR’s is receiving yards and TD’s.

just because Irvin had the fewest of the three compared had nothing to do with you thinking :laugh:

Lets see, Yards and TD... hmmmm how does a WR total up yards & TD's... :idea: by getting receptions!!!!

[bubba9497]

Thanks, bubba. In this case, it's good to be wrong. :cool:


unless you are eternal-plowboy, whose credibility as well as his track record of stating facts, and stats....gets worse by the minute

[Seabee1973]

Bubba's hate for Dallas shines through once again

The Dallas Cowboys average defensive ranking from 1967 to 1980, the "Doomsday" era, was second only to the Steel Curtain in Pittsburgh. In those 14 seasons, Dallas finished outside of the top 10 in defense ONCE. No other team has EVER been that consistant for that long. They finished #1 in defense twice, #2 twice, and in the top 5 a total of 7 times. That's insanely good. Statistically speaking, Doomsday is the second best defense ever, with the Steel Curtain being #1.

And to say Dexter Manley was a better DE than Harvey Martin is akin to saying Simeon Rice is better than Reggie White. Yeah, both were great players, but one was clearly the superior player. Harvey Martin was the Reggie White and the Bruce Smith of his era. Like I said, he would be #2 all-time if sacks were totaled in his day. 23 sacks in 14 games = 1.64 sacks per game. That's unheard of, if a player did that in today's NFL, they would have nearly 27 sacks in a season.

Who was the guy that played fro the rams late 60's early 70's they said if they had kept records of his sacks his sack record would never be broken

[redman]

I find it disconcerting that none of the 'Skins fans in this thread have mentioned a Redskins player from this very same era who has been snubbed for the HoF repeatedly despite 9 (yes, 9) Pro Bowls.

LB Chris Hanburger.

He is no less deserving - and possibly more deserving - than Jacoby or Grimm, and that is saying something!

[crazycanuck]

Who was the guy that played fro the rams late 60's early 70's they said if they had kept records of his sacks his sack record would never be broken

that would be Deacon Jones....

[kingfish50]

How about, regardless of whether we're Cowboys or Redskins fans, we can agree that the current HOF voting format sucks and until certain changes are made to the process, these two cases won't be the last screw jobs to take place.
Agreed! Get rid of the sports writers. Have the NFL set up a commitee of former coaches and players to do the voting. You should be voted in by your peers, not a bunch of geeks in which half of them never played the game.

[JPM285181]

Agreed! Get rid of the sports writers. Have the NFL set up a commitee of former coaches and players to do the voting. You should be voted in by your peers, not a bunch of geeks in which half of them never played the game. Played? It appears to me half of them have never watched a game.