One More Time - Art Monk for the HoF

I blogged on this last November, but it is worth touching on again as we near the annual gathering of reporters who will vote on this year's NFL Hall of Fame class. Art Monk belongs in the Hall, period.

As others have noted, at the time of his retirement, Monk held the all-time record for career receptions, receptions in a single season, and consecutive games with at least one reception. He accomplished all this in a Joe Gibbs offense that stressed a running game that routinely called for Monk to be heavily involved in blocking schemes - which he did better than any receiver that has played the game. In this respect, Monk redefined the position, not in a sexy way, but in a selfless, courageous, and team-first way. In addition, Monk accomplished his receiving records even though there was no Hall of Fame QB throwing him the ball. Lynn Swann had Bradshaw. Jerry Rice had Montana. James Lofton had Jim Kelly. Monk, on the other hand, had people like Theismann and Doug Williams (both good QBs), and then people like Mark Rypien and Jay Schroeder. Monk did not have the advantage of a legend throwing the ball to him like many other legendary receivers did. And yet, his reception statistics are still better than any (that's right, ANY) wide receiver currently in the Hall of Fame.

Among the poor excuses that some have made to justify their repeated votes against Monk are that Monk was not a big impact receiver, nor was he the primary offensive weapon that defenses feared. These are bogus arguments. First, part of why the Skins' running game was so dominant was because of Monk's unprecedented blocking skill as a wide receiver. The Hogs deservedly get a lot of credit for the greatness of the Joe Gibbs running attack. But it was also due to the blocking of Monk that people like Riggins, Joe Washington, Kelvin Bryant, George Rogers, Earnest Byner, and even Timmy Smith got the glory they did. Second, to say that Monk was not a big impact receiver is to argue that being the guy who so often converted key third downs for 13 years has no real impact on a team's offensive success (and defensive success, since 3rd down conversions keep defenses fresh by keeping them off the field). Not even sports reporters are dumb enough to say that. What is really meant here is that Monk was not flashy enough; he didn't make enough spectacular highlight reel catches to make an impression on people looking for glitzy moments to separate Hall of Fame candidates from each other. The absurdity of this kind of standard for measuring excellence is self-evident. It is because of Monk that the running game was as dominant as it was, and people like Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders were as open as often as they were to make the 'big catches' that the voters seem to be looking for. I put 'big catches' in quotes, because as a Redskins fan, I remember Art Monk making more 'big catches' in 'big games' than Sanders, and maybe even Clark. Clark made a lot of big catches, but he dropped a few too. I can honestly only remember Art Monk dropping one pass in his entire career with the Redskins. He no doubt dropped more than that, but I sure can't think of any.

This leads to a final point that some consider irrelevant, but is far from it. Art Monk was a team guy first and last. He was no crybaby whining for the ball, and his unselfish commitment to the goals of the squad comes up over and over again whenever anyone talks to his former coaches and teammates. Put simply, Art Monk was a character guy and the most important guy in the locker room during the great decade-long Redskin run of the 1980s and early 90s. In response to this, some have said that Monk's character is irrelevant to the voting process, in that this is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Virtue. Well first, such an attitude doesn't exactly reflect well on the selection process, and it is quite sad that there are people who proudly proclaim such a standard who are on the selection committee. In my view, and in the view of many others, such arguments seriously tarnish the credibility of the committee. But second, let's assume there's nothing wrong with this standard. The bottom line is that it still misses the mark. Art Monk never demanded the ball, never made a fuss about his role in the offense, never asked the coaches to build their offensive philosophy around his need for getting the ball, and he still held multiple prestigious receiving records at the time of his retirement. It is fair to ask how many more touchdowns, receptions, and 'big catches' Monk would have made if he had ever emulated the modern-day phenomenon of receivers demanding that the offense be centered around him getting the ball. This is no minor issue. Monk is being compared to other receivers who did exactly this, and this makes the comparison unfair. The worst part about it is that anti-Monk voters have had the gall to look at Monk's receiving numbers and tell us that induction into the Hall isn't just about numbers; it's about intangibles too. Indeed!! But in Monk's case, he has both the numbers AND the intangibles as I've tried to outline above. Yet, he has been denied entrance into the Hall.

As I said back in November, it is long overdue for the selection committee to do the right thing, and put a great receiver and a great human being into the Hall of Fame. The credibility of the selection process and the worthiness of the Hall itself are in play. Enough is enough.