Source: http://nyti.ms/i4xM3l
Marshall Faulk
Deion Sanders
Shannon Sharpe
Richard Dent (:D)
Ed Sabol (NFL Films founder)
Chris Hanburger
Les Richter
Some notable snubs:
Curtis Martin
Jerome Bettis
Charles Haley
Cris Carter
NFL Hall of Fame Inductees: Deion, Faulk, Sharpe, Dent, more
This topic is locked from further discussion.
You left Willie Roaf off of the snub list.
:|:|:|
Hanburger is a joke, this guy has no fudging business in the HoF. This is my problem with the selection process. The Hall is for GREAT players, not pretty good players nor is it a longevity award. Now it has just gotten more and more political over the years.
What a joke the hall of fame is, Cris Carter is one of the 3 best wideouts ever and he continually gets robbed. The voters really need to get the sand out of their vaginas-Halftime-
I thought I was going to vomit when I saw that Art Monk got in over Carter some time ago. Seriously WTF, Carter must have really pissed some people off.
Was Carter some kind of prick off the field or something?No_Hablo_InglesHe had drug problems in Philly, that's why Buddy Ryan cut him. But I like how the voters act like they've never made a mistake before in their lives, asshats
[QUOTE="No_Hablo_Ingles"]Was Carter some kind of prick off the field or something?-Halftime-He had drug problems in Philly, that's why Buddy Ryan cut him. But I like how the voters act like they've never made a mistake before in their lives, asshats
Even that doesn't make sense because Michael Irvin is in and he was probably a worse guy than Carter was.
[QUOTE="No_Hablo_Ingles"]Was Carter some kind of prick off the field or something?-Halftime-He had drug problems in Philly, that's why Buddy Ryan cut him. But I like how the voters act like they've never made a mistake before in their lives, asshats
That was forever ago and very early in his career. Getting smacked like that is what likely helped clean up his career and his life. I know he is a bit of an abrasive personality. I'm guessing he's made some remarks on Inside the NFL that have likely put people off.
He had drug problems in Philly, that's why Buddy Ryan cut him. But I like how the voters act like they've never made a mistake before in their lives, asshats[QUOTE="-Halftime-"][QUOTE="No_Hablo_Ingles"]Was Carter some kind of prick off the field or something?JML897
Even that doesn't make sense because Michael Irvin is in and he was probably a worse guy than Carter was.
He behaved like a Jimmy Johnson era Miami Hurricane his whole career, which leads me to believe that Carter isn't getting in because of some personal grudges.
[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]What a joke the hall of fame is, Cris Carter is one of the 3 best wideouts ever and he continually gets robbed. The voters really need to get the sand out of their vaginasQuistisTrepe_
I thought I was going to vomit when I saw that Art Monk got in over Carter some time ago. Seriously WTF, Carter must have really pissed some people off.
You sound kind of biased against Redskins players. First Hanburger and saying Carter should've been in before Art Monk is quite ridiculous. Art Monk was way over due to be inducted into the HOF. He deserved to be in way before 2008.
Chris Hanburger was very deserving as well. four time all pro, nine pro bowls through his 14 year career. C'mon I'm very proud that the Washington Redskins have been represented so well in the HOF, it's definitely well deserving.
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]What a joke the hall of fame is, Cris Carter is one of the 3 best wideouts ever and he continually gets robbed. The voters really need to get the sand out of their vaginasXCNormX
I thought I was going to vomit when I saw that Art Monk got in over Carter some time ago. Seriously WTF, Carter must have really pissed some people off.
You sound kind of biased against Redskins players. First Hanburger and saying Carter should've been in before Art Monk is quite ridiculous. Art Monk was way over due to be inducted into the HOF. He deserved to be in way before 2008.
Chris Hanburger was very deserving as well. four time all pro, nine pro bowls through his 14 year career. C'mon I'm very proud that the Washington Redskins have been represented so well in the HOF, it's definitely well deserving.
Cris Carter is better than Art Monk....[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]What a joke the hall of fame is, Cris Carter is one of the 3 best wideouts ever and he continually gets robbed. The voters really need to get the sand out of their vaginasXCNormX
I thought I was going to vomit when I saw that Art Monk got in over Carter some time ago. Seriously WTF, Carter must have really pissed some people off.
You sound kind of biased against Redskins players. First Hanburger and saying Carter should've been in before Art Monk is quite ridiculous. Art Monk was way over due to be inducted into the HOF. He deserved to be in way before 2008.
Chris Hanburger was very deserving as well. four time all pro, nine pro bowls through his 14 year career. C'mon I'm very proud that the Washington Redskins have been represented so well in the HOF, it's definitely well deserving.
Yes, that's it. You've unmasked my true intentions.:roll:
At no point in Monk's career was he ever the best receiver on his team, let alone HoF worthy. Again, the HoF isn't a longevity award. Hanburger was a cheap shot artist who clotheslined people, hence his nickname, "The Hangman." I'd call him a good player, but a HoF'er? Child please. For him to be in the same HoF with Butkus, Singletary, Taylor, Ham, and Lambert is a joke.
Carter was truly a great receiver. Your comment above is laughably absurd. Just any receiver manages back to back 122 catch seasons, right? And those 56 TDs and 515 catches in just five seasons (before Randy Moss was drafted), yeah, real chump change isn't?
[QUOTE="XCNormX"]
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
I thought I was going to vomit when I saw that Art Monk got in over Carter some time ago. Seriously WTF, Carter must have really pissed some people off.
QuistisTrepe_
You sound kind of biased against Redskins players. First Hanburger and saying Carter should've been in before Art Monk is quite ridiculous. Art Monk was way over due to be inducted into the HOF. He deserved to be in way before 2008.
Chris Hanburger was very deserving as well. four time all pro, nine pro bowls through his 14 year career. C'mon I'm very proud that the Washington Redskins have been represented so well in the HOF, it's definitely well deserving.
Yes, that's it. You've unmasked my true intentions.:roll:
At no point in Monk's career was he ever the best receiver on his team, let alone HoF worthy. Again, the HoF isn't a longevity award. Hanburger was a cheap shot artist who clotheslined people, hence his nickname, "The Hangman." I'd call him a good player, but a HoF'er? Child please. For him to be in the same HoF with Butkus, Singletary, Taylor, Ham, and Lambert is a joke.
Carter was truly a great receiver. Your comment above is laughably absurd. Just any receiver manages back to back 122 catch seasons, right? And those 56 TDs and 515 catches in just five seasons (before Randy Moss was drafted), yeah, real chump change isn't?
:shock:
Wow how under-minded people are, and how little they know about sports is very amazing but then again I am discussing sports on a gaming website so it's very understandable. You and of course the other guy above are the only ones I've EVER heard downgrade a player like Art Monk, how much respect could you possibly have for the game to say that? How absurd a comment to say Hanburger was cheap shot artist. Next time leave your google results to yourself if I needed stats I could look 'em up myself. I really wish I had never even said anything at all, should have just let yall ramble on, with me just looking at the screen shaking my head and letting my friends and family laugh at yalls statements because they are quite funny but also very sad to see that people actually think like that, but I should've known I'd get that kind of reply. There are so many young kids on this website that they don't know how to reply to someones statement without trying to insult them.
Well anyway I'm done already and I'm only one reply into this conversation, please continue to ramble.
But I will say this, I never said Cris Carter wasn't a great reciever, but when people compare Art Monk to Cris Carter I mean HELLO? We are talking about way two different time periods here ha omg do yall not even understand that? Cris Carter was the greatest in his time period, Art Monk was the greatest in his time period. But that's all I'm saying about that because I don't want to know what could convince yall otherwise.
:lol: at this guy not really having anything to back up his argument other than "well this is a gaming website so you're wrong" and "everyone here must be a little kid"
PS - Belittling users for being on a gaming forum while you're on that forum with a DragonballZ avatar seems a little hypocritical.
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
[QUOTE="XCNormX"]
You sound kind of biased against Redskins players. First Hanburger and saying Carter should've been in before Art Monk is quite ridiculous. Art Monk was way over due to be inducted into the HOF. He deserved to be in way before 2008.
Chris Hanburger was very deserving as well. four time all pro, nine pro bowls through his 14 year career. C'mon I'm very proud that the Washington Redskins have been represented so well in the HOF, it's definitely well deserving.
XCNormX
Yes, that's it. You've unmasked my true intentions.:roll:
At no point in Monk's career was he ever the best receiver on his team, let alone HoF worthy. Again, the HoF isn't a longevity award. Hanburger was a cheap shot artist who clotheslined people, hence his nickname, "The Hangman." I'd call him a good player, but a HoF'er? Child please. For him to be in the same HoF with Butkus, Singletary, Taylor, Ham, and Lambert is a joke.
Carter was truly a great receiver. Your comment above is laughably absurd. Just any receiver manages back to back 122 catch seasons, right? And those 56 TDs and 515 catches in just five seasons (before Randy Moss was drafted), yeah, real chump change isn't?
:shock:
Wow how under-minded people are, and how little they know about sports is very amazing but then again I am discussing sports on a gaming website so it's very understandable. You and of course the other guy above are the only ones I've EVER heard downgrade a player like Art Monk, how much respect could you possibly have for the game to say that? How absurd a comment to say Hanburger was cheap shot artist. Next time leave your google results to yourself if I needed stats I could look 'em up myself. I really wish I had never even said anything at all, should have just let yall ramble on, with me just looking at the screen shaking my head and letting my friends and family laugh at yalls statements because they are quite funny but also very sad to see that people actually think like that, but I should've known I'd get that kind of reply. There are so many young kids on this website that they don't know how to reply to someones statement without trying to insult them.
Well anyway I'm done already and I'm only one reply into this conversation, please continue to ramble.
I don't know anyone that thinks Art Monk is better than Cris Carter. That's not downplaying how good Monk is, it's just Cris Carter is one of the best receivers to ever play the game. The guys numbers speaks for itself. No one had better hands than Cris.
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
[QUOTE="XCNormX"]
You sound kind of biased against Redskins players. First Hanburger and saying Carter should've been in before Art Monk is quite ridiculous. Art Monk was way over due to be inducted into the HOF. He deserved to be in way before 2008.
Chris Hanburger was very deserving as well. four time all pro, nine pro bowls through his 14 year career. C'mon I'm very proud that the Washington Redskins have been represented so well in the HOF, it's definitely well deserving.
XCNormX
Yes, that's it. You've unmasked my true intentions.:roll:
At no point in Monk's career was he ever the best receiver on his team, let alone HoF worthy. Again, the HoF isn't a longevity award. Hanburger was a cheap shot artist who clotheslined people, hence his nickname, "The Hangman." I'd call him a good player, but a HoF'er? Child please. For him to be in the same HoF with Butkus, Singletary, Taylor, Ham, and Lambert is a joke.
Carter was truly a great receiver. Your comment above is laughably absurd. Just any receiver manages back to back 122 catch seasons, right? And those 56 TDs and 515 catches in just five seasons (before Randy Moss was drafted), yeah, real chump change isn't?
:shock:
Wow how under-minded people are, and how little they know about sports is very amazing but then again I am discussing sports on a gaming website so it's very understandable. You and of course the other guy above are the only ones I've EVER heard downgrade a player like Art Monk, how much respect could you possibly have for the game to say that? How absurd a comment to say Hanburger was cheap shot artist. Next time leave your google results to yourself if I needed stats I could look 'em up myself. I really wish I had never even said anything at all, should have just let yall ramble on, with me just looking at the screen shaking my head and letting my friends and family laugh at yalls statements because they are quite funny but also very sad to see that people actually think like that, but I should've known I'd get that kind of reply. There are so many young kids on this website that they don't know how to reply to someones statement without trying to insult them.
Well anyway I'm done already and I'm only one reply into this conversation, please continue to ramble.
But I will say this, I never said Cris Carter wasn't a great reciever, but when people compare Art Monk to Cris Carter I mean HELLO? We are talking about way two different time periods here ha omg do yall not even understand that? Cris Carter was the greatest in his time period, Art Monk was the greatest in his time period. But that's all I'm saying about that because I don't want to know what could convince yall otherwise.
With this post, you have removed all doubt as to whether or not I should ever engage with you in discussion again. I suppose I should be grateful. You're acually countering hard statstics with opinionated rhetoric. The era contrast argument doesn't work so well here. If Carter were playing nowadays that point would be somewhat credible. You act as though Monk played in the 60s for crying out loud.
Wow, just wow.
:lol: at this guy not really having anything to back up his argument other than "well this is a gaming website so you're wrong" and "everyone here must be a little kid"
PS - Belittling users for being on a gaming forum while you're on that forum with a DragonballZ avatar seems a little hypocritical.
JML897
Well see I never said "well this is gaming website so you're wrong" nor did I say "everyone here must be a little kid" even though I am seriously starting to believe that last statement.
But just like you, the best thing you can come up with is speaking up about my avatar.....really? This is what makes me believe that last statement. I wasn't belittling anyone, and I travel into the sports section here because sports means a hell of alot more to me then video games ever will. But while I'm here on this site I try and keep to the video game side of things, but sometimes that doesn't happen, but normally if I want to discuss sports I go to other sites that are actaully sports based and that'd all. But by no means am I a hypocrite. I stated my opinion that's it, and I get bashed for my opinion (which seems to always happen on this site). It seems everyone here thrives to be the center of attention by pointing out others mistakes or just plain making fun of there posts just to try and get a few laughs out of other users that'll come by and read what you wrote. You know I left this site a long time ago because I just couldn't deal with the immature nature of the other users on here, I finally created a new account thinking it'll be different..that was a long time ago but I'll be damned if things haven't changed one but, if anything it's worse.
Well anyway I'm done already and I'm only one reply into this conversation, please continue to ramble.XCNormX
[QUOTE="XCNormX"]
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
Yes, that's it. You've unmasked my true intentions.:roll:
At no point in Monk's career was he ever the best receiver on his team, let alone HoF worthy. Again, the HoF isn't a longevity award. Hanburger was a cheap shot artist who clotheslined people, hence his nickname, "The Hangman." I'd call him a good player, but a HoF'er? Child please. For him to be in the same HoF with Butkus, Singletary, Taylor, Ham, and Lambert is a joke.
Carter was truly a great receiver. Your comment above is laughably absurd. Just any receiver manages back to back 122 catch seasons, right? And those 56 TDs and 515 catches in just five seasons (before Randy Moss was drafted), yeah, real chump change isn't?
QuistisTrepe_
:shock:
Wow how under-minded people are, and how little they know about sports is very amazing but then again I am discussing sports on a gaming website so it's very understandable. You and of course the other guy above are the only ones I've EVER heard downgrade a player like Art Monk, how much respect could you possibly have for the game to say that? How absurd a comment to say Hanburger was cheap shot artist. Next time leave your google results to yourself if I needed stats I could look 'em up myself. I really wish I had never even said anything at all, should have just let yall ramble on, with me just looking at the screen shaking my head and letting my friends and family laugh at yalls statements because they are quite funny but also very sad to see that people actually think like that, but I should've known I'd get that kind of reply. There are so many young kids on this website that they don't know how to reply to someones statement without trying to insult them.
Well anyway I'm done already and I'm only one reply into this conversation, please continue to ramble.
But I will say this, I never said Cris Carter wasn't a great reciever, but when people compare Art Monk to Cris Carter I mean HELLO? We are talking about way two different time periods here ha omg do yall not even understand that? Cris Carter was the greatest in his time period, Art Monk was the greatest in his time period. But that's all I'm saying about that because I don't want to know what could convince yall otherwise.
With this post, you have removed all doubt as to whether or not I should ever engage with you in discussion again. I suppose I should be grateful. You're acually countering hard statstics with opinionated rhetoric. The era contrast argument doesn't work so well here. If Carter were playing nowadays that point would be somewhat credible. You act as though Monk played in the 60s for crying out loud.
Wow, just wow.
Hmm...well lets see Cris Carter came into the league in '87 but his carreer really took off in the 90's. Art Monk started playing in 1980 and by 1992 his carreer really started to diminish. So Art Monk was mainly a 80's player and Cris Carter was mainly a 90's player whether YOU want to believe it or not that is two different time periods. Yeah apparently it don't work so well here if someone like you doesn't understand the difference between the 80's era and the 90's era of the NFL.
*Reads the rambling DBZ fan post* Umm... didn't you say something like [QUOTE="XCNormX"]Well anyway I'm done already and I'm only one reply into this conversation, please continue to ramble.No_Hablo_Ingles
Ha you know I did and I was just waiting for that to get thrown back into my face. See others don't see that so instead of them moving on as well they continue to use my post as the main topic of discussion. It's people say "you hear what you want to hear." well that applies here too, they read what they want to read and reply on the one out of my whole post that they think they can use against me without reading that I was done with all this, but I'm not just going to stand back and take the criticism. But really I just love discussing sports, I could say something like that but yet I'll be here for hours just discussing sports. I find it to be alot of fun. Btw whats up with the DBZ stuff I mean geez it's damn avatar picture.
[QUOTE="No_Hablo_Ingles"]*Reads the rambling DBZ fan post* Umm... didn't you say something like [QUOTE="XCNormX"]Well anyway I'm done already and I'm only one reply into this conversation, please continue to ramble.XCNormX
Ha you know I did and I was just waiting for that to get thrown back into my face. But really I just love discussing sports, I could say something like that but yet I'll be here for hours just discussing sports. I find it to be alot of fun. Btw whats up with the DBZ stuff I mean geez it's damn avatar picture.
I think it's more likely you enjoy getting the last word in a discussion. I wasn't using your avatar as an insult, but that kind of avatar usually gives your age away[QUOTE="XCNormX"][QUOTE="No_Hablo_Ingles"]No_Hablo_Ingles
Ha you know I did and I was just waiting for that to get thrown back into my face. But really I just love discussing sports, I could say something like that but yet I'll be here for hours just discussing sports. I find it to be alot of fun. Btw whats up with the DBZ stuff I mean geez it's damn avatar picture.
I think it's more likely you enjoy getting the last word in a discussion. I wasn't using your avatar as an insult, but that kind of avatar usually gives your age awayWell I actually I edited that post of mine a little bit so you should go back read it. Ok so it gives my age away well DBZ was aired in the US in 1998 at that time I was 8 years old and March is my birth month so do the math.
But if you and others want to discuss my avatar and since you can tell SOOO much about me just from looking at avatar...which is quite amazing btw. Lets discuss your's. Looking at your avatar makes me think you have a very dark personality, like you're an emo or gothic, idk if that's you or not but that's what I'm getting from your avatar. Am I right?
I thought both Bettis and Carter would get in. But it seems like Carter gets robbed every year
I think it's more likely you enjoy getting the last word in a discussion. I wasn't using your avatar as an insult, but that kind of avatar usually gives your age away[QUOTE="No_Hablo_Ingles"][QUOTE="XCNormX"]
Ha you know I did and I was just waiting for that to get thrown back into my face. But really I just love discussing sports, I could say something like that but yet I'll be here for hours just discussing sports. I find it to be alot of fun. Btw whats up with the DBZ stuff I mean geez it's damn avatar picture.
XCNormX
Well I actually I edited that post of mine a little bit so you should go back read it. Ok so it gives my age away well DBZ was aired in the US in 1998 at that time I was 8 years old and March is my birth month so do the math.
I didn't need any of that information. You would have had to be 18-24 to get the full impact of DBZ. Which probably means you got into Pokemon at some point in time as well.[QUOTE="XCNormX"][QUOTE="No_Hablo_Ingles"] I think it's more likely you enjoy getting the last word in a discussion. I wasn't using your avatar as an insult, but that kind of avatar usually gives your age awayNo_Hablo_Ingles
Well I actually I edited that post of mine a little bit so you should go back read it. Ok so it gives my age away well DBZ was aired in the US in 1998 at that time I was 8 years old and March is my birth month so do the math.
I didn't need any of that information. You would have had to be 18-24 to get the full impact of DBZ. Which probably means you got into Pokemon at some point in time as well.Well I'll turn 21 in less then a month now so you pretty much had it with your age spread there. Yeah I was into Pokemon mainly in the elementary days like grades 1-5 but yeah I was.
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
[QUOTE="XCNormX"]
:shock:
Wow how under-minded people are, and how little they know about sports is very amazing but then again I am discussing sports on a gaming website so it's very understandable. You and of course the other guy above are the only ones I've EVER heard downgrade a player like Art Monk, how much respect could you possibly have for the game to say that? How absurd a comment to say Hanburger was cheap shot artist. Next time leave your google results to yourself if I needed stats I could look 'em up myself. I really wish I had never even said anything at all, should have just let yall ramble on, with me just looking at the screen shaking my head and letting my friends and family laugh at yalls statements because they are quite funny but also very sad to see that people actually think like that, but I should've known I'd get that kind of reply. There are so many young kids on this website that they don't know how to reply to someones statement without trying to insult them.
Well anyway I'm done already and I'm only one reply into this conversation, please continue to ramble.
But I will say this, I never said Cris Carter wasn't a great reciever, but when people compare Art Monk to Cris Carter I mean HELLO? We are talking about way two different time periods here ha omg do yall not even understand that? Cris Carter was the greatest in his time period, Art Monk was the greatest in his time period. But that's all I'm saying about that because I don't want to know what could convince yall otherwise.
XCNormX
With this post, you have removed all doubt as to whether or not I should ever engage with you in discussion again. I suppose I should be grateful. You're acually countering hard statstics with opinionated rhetoric. The era contrast argument doesn't work so well here. If Carter were playing nowadays that point would be somewhat credible. You act as though Monk played in the 60s for crying out loud.
Wow, just wow.
Hmm...well lets see Cris Carter came into the league in '87 but his carreer really took off in the 90's. Art Monk started playing in 1980 and by 1992 his carreer really started to diminish. So Art Monk was mainly a 80's player and Cris Carter was mainly a 90's player whether YOU want to believe it or not that is two different time periods. Yeah apparently it don't work so well here if someone like you doesn't understand the difference between the 80's era and the 90's era of the NFL.
I'm sorry, I really don't understand your logic here. It's not as if receivers in the 80s put up dramatically worse statistics than players in the 90s. Players like Steve Largent and Jerry Rice did just fine in the 80s. Carter not only caught anything thrown his way, he was also a touchdown machine. I just don't think there's any comparison here. Carter is a better player.[QUOTE="XCNormX"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
With this post, you have removed all doubt as to whether or not I should ever engage with you in discussion again. I suppose I should be grateful. You're acually countering hard statstics with opinionated rhetoric. The era contrast argument doesn't work so well here. If Carter were playing nowadays that point would be somewhat credible. You act as though Monk played in the 60s for crying out loud.
Wow, just wow.
frostybanana
Hmm...well lets see Cris Carter came into the league in '87 but his carreer really took off in the 90's. Art Monk started playing in 1980 and by 1992 his carreer really started to diminish. So Art Monk was mainly a 80's player and Cris Carter was mainly a 90's player whether YOU want to believe it or not that is two different time periods. Yeah apparently it don't work so well here if someone like you doesn't understand the difference between the 80's era and the 90's era of the NFL.
I'm sorry, I really don't understand your logic here. It's not as if receivers in the 80s put up dramatically worse statistics than players in the 90s. Players like Steve Largent and Jerry Rice did just fine in the 80s. Carter not only caught anything thrown his way, he was also a touchdown machine. I just don't think there's any comparison here. Carter is a better player.I'm sorry but I don't understand your post here. How did any of that come across that 80's players put up worse statistics then 90's players. If you see what I was replying to maybe you would have understood my reply a little more then what you did. The person I was replying to was acting as though the 90's and 80's were the same time period and that Art Monk and Cris Carter played in the same time period which they didn't.
And I don't why everyone thinks I'm hating on Cris Carter, because no where did I say that Cris Carter wasn't a great receiver nor would I ever. There is no questioning what Cris Carter was able to do. And yes he does deserve to be in the HOF, for the past two years I've been voting for Cris Carter to be in the HOF and he's constently being snubbed but I know as well as you and everyone else should that he will be in, there's no doubt, I did vote for Shannon Sharpe this year though and atleast he got in. I'm not even saying whether Art Monk was better then Cris Carter, but to say Art Monk was a joke or that they almost "vomit" when Art Monk was elected into the HOF just doesn't understand the Washington Redskins of the 80's. Or to say that "he wasn't the best reciever on his team" first of all there wasn't just one best receiver on the Washington Redskins in them days there were 3, Art Monk, Gary Clark, Ricky Sanders, that's why they got the nickname "The Posse" and they were the first trio of receiver's in NFL history to post 1,000+ yards in the same season. That's what I'm defending.
I read exactly what you said and the point is you're implying that by playing in the 80s Art Monk's statistics can't be compared to Cris Carter's because they played in different time periods. You even explicitly stated this. The only reason anyone would bring that up is because they feel as though players in the 80s overall put up worse statistics than players of the 90s. That's exactly how that came across as 80s players put up worse statistics than 90s players. Now you're trying to say that all you were saying is that Carter and Monk didn't play in the same time period? I don't buy that because there is literally no reason to point that out unless you were trying to say that 80s players put up worse stats. Come on man, you know what you were implying. And no one is bashing Art Monk at all. I don't know where you're getting that from. They're saying that Cris Carter, who has been snubbed from the hall of fame multiple times, is more worthy of the hall of fame and a better overall player and therefore he should have made the hall of fame before Monk. That's all. That's not insulting Art Monk or calling him a bad player, that's saying that one of the greatest wide receivers of all time getting snubbed from the hall of fame while a guy who simply wasn't as good got in before him is an absolute travesty. I don't even LIKE Cris Carter. I hated how he ran his mouth and yelled at his own teammates. But the guy is too good not to be in the hall already.I'm sorry but I don't understand your post here. How did any of that come across that 80's players put up worse statistics then 90's players. If you see what I was replying to maybe you would have understood my reply a little more then what you did. The person I was replying to was acting as though the 90's and 80's were the same time period and that Art Monk and Cris Carter played in the same time period which they didn't.
XCNormX
[QUOTE="XCNormX"]I read exactly what you said and the point is you're implying that by playing in the 80s Art Monk's statistics can't be compared to Cris Carter's because they played in different time periods. You even explicitly stated this. The only reason anyone would bring that up is because they feel as though players in the 80s overall put up worse statistics than players of the 90s. That's exactly how that came across as 80s players put up worse statistics than 90s players. Now you're trying to say that all you were saying is that Carter and Monk didn't play in the same time period? I don't buy that because there is literally no reason to point that out unless you were trying to say that 80s players put up worse stats. Come on man, you know what you were implying. And no one is bashing Art Monk at all. I don't know where you're getting that from. They're saying that Cris Carter, who has been snubbed from the hall of fame multiple times, is more worthy of the hall of fame and a better overall player and therefore he should have made the hall of fame before Monk. That's all. That's not insulting Art Monk or calling him a bad player, that's saying that one of the greatest wide receivers of all time getting snubbed from the hall of fame while a guy who simply wasn't as good got in before him is an absolute travesty. I don't even LIKE Cris Carter. I hated how he ran his mouth and yelled at his own teammates. But the guy is too good not to be in the hall already.I'm sorry but I don't understand your post here. How did any of that come across that 80's players put up worse statistics then 90's players. If you see what I was replying to maybe you would have understood my reply a little more then what you did. The person I was replying to was acting as though the 90's and 80's were the same time period and that Art Monk and Cris Carter played in the same time period which they didn't.
frostybanana
Whatever bud, I mean I know what I meant, if that's the way it came across then I'm sorry. But I am a very honest person and if that's what I meant to put down then I would have, or I'd tell you right now, but I just hate it when people try and put words in my mouth and think they know what someone meant even when that person tells you it wasn't. So I'm just going to say this your opinion, there opinion, my opinion. Even though I may not understand your opinion or agree with it and the same goes for the others opinions as well, but either way I will respect it. I'll finish this off by telling you what I meant, to me comparing Cris Carter to Art Monk is like comparing Joe Theisman to Brett Farve, Sonny Jurgensen to Sammy Baugh, Emmit Smith to Tony Dorsett. All these players are from two different time periods and most were the best in there own time period. Same with Art Monk being one of the best receivers in 80's and Cris Carter being one of the best of 90's. And the Vikings were a pass-first offenses while the Redskins back in the 80's were a running team at heart even with them having "The Posse" Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders, or with them also having "The Smurfs" Charlie brown, Alvin Garrett, and Vergil Seay. And the #1 receiver for the 'Skins (Art Monk) wasn't part of that group because of him being 6'3". But still you can also look at Art Monk's playoff and Superbowl stats alone and see why he got in as well and seriously compare the playoff numbers of Cris Carter and Art Monk...almost similar. This of course is my opinion and it'd be nice you could respect it as I do respect others as well.
I read exactly what you said and the point is you're implying that by playing in the 80s Art Monk's statistics can't be compared to Cris Carter's because they played in different time periods. You even explicitly stated this. The only reason anyone would bring that up is because they feel as though players in the 80s overall put up worse statistics than players of the 90s. That's exactly how that came across as 80s players put up worse statistics than 90s players. Now you're trying to say that all you were saying is that Carter and Monk didn't play in the same time period? I don't buy that because there is literally no reason to point that out unless you were trying to say that 80s players put up worse stats. Come on man, you know what you were implying. And no one is bashing Art Monk at all. I don't know where you're getting that from. They're saying that Cris Carter, who has been snubbed from the hall of fame multiple times, is more worthy of the hall of fame and a better overall player and therefore he should have made the hall of fame before Monk. That's all. That's not insulting Art Monk or calling him a bad player, that's saying that one of the greatest wide receivers of all time getting snubbed from the hall of fame while a guy who simply wasn't as good got in before him is an absolute travesty. I don't even LIKE Cris Carter. I hated how he ran his mouth and yelled at his own teammates. But the guy is too good not to be in the hall already.[QUOTE="frostybanana"][QUOTE="XCNormX"]
I'm sorry but I don't understand your post here. How did any of that come across that 80's players put up worse statistics then 90's players. If you see what I was replying to maybe you would have understood my reply a little more then what you did. The person I was replying to was acting as though the 90's and 80's were the same time period and that Art Monk and Cris Carter played in the same time period which they didn't.
XCNormX
Whatever bud, I mean I know what I meant, if that's the way it came across then I'm sorry. But I am a very honest person and if that's what I meant to put down then I would have, or I'd tell you right now, but I just hate it when people try and put words in my mouth and think they know what someone meant even when that person tells you it wasn't. So I'm just going to say this your opinion, there opinion, my opinion. Even though I may not understand your opinion or agree with it and the same goes for the others opinions as well, but either way I will respect it. I'll finish this off by telling you what I meant, to me comparing Cris Carter to Art Monk is like comparing Joe Theisman to Brett Farve, Sonny Jurgensen to Sammy Baugh, Emmit Smith to Tony Dorsett. All these players are from two different time periods and most were the best in there own time period. Same with Art Monk being one of the best receivers in 80's and Cris Carter being one of the best of 90's. And the Vikings were a pass-first offenses while the Redskins back in the 80's were a running team at heart even with them having "The Posse" Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders, or with them also having "The Smurfs" Charlie brown, Alvin Garrett, and Vergil Seay. And the #1 receiver for the 'Skins (Art Monk) wasn't part of that group because of him being 6'3". But still you can also look at Art Monk's playoff and Superbowl stats alone and see why he got in as well and seriously compare the playoff numbers of Cris Carter and Art Monk...almost similar. This of course is my opinion and it'd be nice you could respect it as I do respect others as well.
See, that's what makes absolutely no sense to me. You're saying that there's a distinction between time periods. Meaning one time period has lower overall statistics than the other. That's a coherent argument. But it's not relevant here. Like I said, receivers stats were not THAT much different from the 80s to the 90s. So there's no real distinction there. You're claiming Monk's stats are more impressive because they were done in the 80s. Which makes no sense. You can't sit there and tell me that the game changed that drastically over that span of time. If you're comparing a quarterback from the current era to the 80s, yes, there is a distinction because the rules to help offenses play better are being taken advantage of. But receivers from the 80s did just as well as receivers from the 90s. It's not like quarterbacks were only throwing 2000-3000 yards every year and there was a dramatic difference there. QBs were throwing 4000 yards back then too. And receivers were getting 1300-1400 yards every year as well. You can't play that difference in era card here. It makes no sense. I can buy your other argument about the styles of offense being different. That's a relevant argument. I still think Carter was a superior player, but that's reasonable.This argument is ridiculous. Cris Carter and Art Monk are both great recievers and both of them deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Do I think it's a little ridiculous that Monk got put in so many years before Carter? A little. Do I think Carter should be in by now? Absolutely. But arguing about which reciever is better is a difficult thing to do because they need good quarterbacks to throw to them. A lot of their stats depend on this. It doesn't matter how good a wide reciever may be, if the quarterback is **** or just average, the reciever's stats and his time in the spotlight are going to diminish.
[QUOTE="XCNormX"][QUOTE="frostybanana"] I read exactly what you said and the point is you're implying that by playing in the 80s Art Monk's statistics can't be compared to Cris Carter's because they played in different time periods. You even explicitly stated this. The only reason anyone would bring that up is because they feel as though players in the 80s overall put up worse statistics than players of the 90s. That's exactly how that came across as 80s players put up worse statistics than 90s players. Now you're trying to say that all you were saying is that Carter and Monk didn't play in the same time period? I don't buy that because there is literally no reason to point that out unless you were trying to say that 80s players put up worse stats. Come on man, you know what you were implying. And no one is bashing Art Monk at all. I don't know where you're getting that from. They're saying that Cris Carter, who has been snubbed from the hall of fame multiple times, is more worthy of the hall of fame and a better overall player and therefore he should have made the hall of fame before Monk. That's all. That's not insulting Art Monk or calling him a bad player, that's saying that one of the greatest wide receivers of all time getting snubbed from the hall of fame while a guy who simply wasn't as good got in before him is an absolute travesty. I don't even LIKE Cris Carter. I hated how he ran his mouth and yelled at his own teammates. But the guy is too good not to be in the hall already. frostybanana
Whatever bud, I mean I know what I meant, if that's the way it came across then I'm sorry. But I am a very honest person and if that's what I meant to put down then I would have, or I'd tell you right now, but I just hate it when people try and put words in my mouth and think they know what someone meant even when that person tells you it wasn't. So I'm just going to say this your opinion, there opinion, my opinion. Even though I may not understand your opinion or agree with it and the same goes for the others opinions as well, but either way I will respect it. I'll finish this off by telling you what I meant, to me comparing Cris Carter to Art Monk is like comparing Joe Theisman to Brett Farve, Sonny Jurgensen to Sammy Baugh, Emmit Smith to Tony Dorsett. All these players are from two different time periods and most were the best in there own time period. Same with Art Monk being one of the best receivers in 80's and Cris Carter being one of the best of 90's. And the Vikings were a pass-first offenses while the Redskins back in the 80's were a running team at heart even with them having "The Posse" Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders, or with them also having "The Smurfs" Charlie brown, Alvin Garrett, and Vergil Seay. And the #1 receiver for the 'Skins (Art Monk) wasn't part of that group because of him being 6'3". But still you can also look at Art Monk's playoff and Superbowl stats alone and see why he got in as well and seriously compare the playoff numbers of Cris Carter and Art Monk...almost similar. This of course is my opinion and it'd be nice you could respect it as I do respect others as well.
See, that's what makes absolutely no sense to me. You're saying that there's a distinction between time periods. Meaning one time period has lower overall statistics than the other. That's a coherent argument. But it's not relevant here. Like I said, receivers stats were not THAT much different from the 80s to the 90s. So there's no real distinction there. You're claiming Monk's stats are more impressive because they were done in the 80s. Which makes no sense. You can't sit there and tell me that the game changed that drastically over that span of time. If you're comparing a quarterback from the current era to the 80s, yes, there is a distinction because the rules to help offenses play better are being taken advantage of. But receivers from the 80s did just as well as receivers from the 90s. It's not like quarterbacks were only throwing 2000-3000 yards every year and there was a dramatic difference there. QBs were throwing 4000 yards back then too. And receivers were getting 1300-1400 yards every year as well. You can't play that difference in era card here. It makes no sense. I can buy your other argument about the styles of offense being different. That's a relevant argument. I still think Carter was a superior player, but that's reasonable.Geez, I'm gonna be the bigger man here and just tell you to take it. How about this you're right, I'm wrong, I'm stupid, you're smart, you know more, I don't know anything, that better? You feel good now?...good. F*** this is getting to be annoying :roll: I'm not going to tell you anymore about how I meant something, either you take my word for it or you don't THAT'S IT. Look at the post below your last post, above this post^^and just go with that...please. Totally agree with him this is 100% pointless. End it, done deal.
Have a good one, hope everyone enjoyed Superbowl XLV :D
Congrats to the Packers and there fans and to Aaron Rodgers for getting the MVP.
See, that's what makes absolutely no sense to me. You're saying that there's a distinction between time periods. Meaning one time period has lower overall statistics than the other. That's a coherent argument. But it's not relevant here. Like I said, receivers stats were not THAT much different from the 80s to the 90s. So there's no real distinction there. You're claiming Monk's stats are more impressive because they were done in the 80s. Which makes no sense. You can't sit there and tell me that the game changed that drastically over that span of time. If you're comparing a quarterback from the current era to the 80s, yes, there is a distinction because the rules to help offenses play better are being taken advantage of. But receivers from the 80s did just as well as receivers from the 90s. It's not like quarterbacks were only throwing 2000-3000 yards every year and there was a dramatic difference there. QBs were throwing 4000 yards back then too. And receivers were getting 1300-1400 yards every year as well. You can't play that difference in era card here. It makes no sense. I can buy your other argument about the styles of offense being different. That's a relevant argument. I still think Carter was a superior player, but that's reasonable.[QUOTE="frostybanana"][QUOTE="XCNormX"]
Whatever bud, I mean I know what I meant, if that's the way it came across then I'm sorry. But I am a very honest person and if that's what I meant to put down then I would have, or I'd tell you right now, but I just hate it when people try and put words in my mouth and think they know what someone meant even when that person tells you it wasn't. So I'm just going to say this your opinion, there opinion, my opinion. Even though I may not understand your opinion or agree with it and the same goes for the others opinions as well, but either way I will respect it. I'll finish this off by telling you what I meant, to me comparing Cris Carter to Art Monk is like comparing Joe Theisman to Brett Farve, Sonny Jurgensen to Sammy Baugh, Emmit Smith to Tony Dorsett. All these players are from two different time periods and most were the best in there own time period. Same with Art Monk being one of the best receivers in 80's and Cris Carter being one of the best of 90's. And the Vikings were a pass-first offenses while the Redskins back in the 80's were a running team at heart even with them having "The Posse" Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders, or with them also having "The Smurfs" Charlie brown, Alvin Garrett, and Vergil Seay. And the #1 receiver for the 'Skins (Art Monk) wasn't part of that group because of him being 6'3". But still you can also look at Art Monk's playoff and Superbowl stats alone and see why he got in as well and seriously compare the playoff numbers of Cris Carter and Art Monk...almost similar. This of course is my opinion and it'd be nice you could respect it as I do respect others as well.
XCNormX
Geez, I'm gonna be the bigger man here and just tell you to take it. How about this you're right, I'm wrong, I'm stupid, you're smart, you know more, I don't know anything, that better? You feel good now?...good. F*** this is getting to be annoying :roll: I'm not going to tell you anymore about how I meant something, either you take my word for it or you don't THAT'S IT. Look at the post below your last post, above this post^^and just go with that...please. Totally agree with him this is 100% pointless. End it, done deal.
Have a good one, hope everyone enjoyed Superbowl XLV :D
Congrats to the Packers and there fans and to Aaron Rodgers for getting the MVP.
There's no OTHER way to take what you said and you're not specifying what you meant. You're just asserting over and over that you didn't mean it that way but then you come right back again and imply the SAME thing. So what exactly am I supposed to think? The point is there is no reason to bring up the era argument unless you were implying that there's a big discrepancy in statistics between those eras. And there isn't. If there was another reason to bring that up, by all means, tell me what that is. You were using flawed logic and I was confused so I pointed it out for an explanation. Then you backtrack and claim that's not what you meant but then you use the argument again? Look, it's not really about what your opinion is. If you said Art Monk's a better receiver in my opinion, then fine. But then you tried to say that their stats are somehow not comparable and at that point we're talking about facts, not what your opinion is. There is no "in my opinion Art Monk had better stats", that's not logical. If you say something that doesn't make sense, why wouldn't someone point that out? And no, I'm not going to take some random guys opinion and accept it as my own. IMO, Cris Carter IS a better receiver and should have gotten in before Art Monk.
Agreed. The HoF should be reserved for the super elite and the legendary players, not every great and above average player out there. Whatever, it really means nothing to me.Doesn't really have to do with this years cast, but I wish they'd cut down the inductees to 2 a year. Just too many getting in...
Chutebox
saying Carter should've been in before Art Monk is quite ridiculous. XCNormX
How so... :?
It is not even close to a fair comparison.
They both played about 15 full seasons (Carter '87-2002) (Monk '80-'95)
They were really close as far as eras (7 years apart)
Carter's stats: 1100 receptions, 14000 yards, 12.6 average, 130 td's
Monk's stats: 940 receptions, 13000 yards, 13.5 average, but only 68 td's
Even if you take away 10% of Carter's td's for the difference in eras (more offense and passing yards as time goes on), he stills KILLS monk when it comes to TD's
-so they are almost even for years played, receptions, and yards...but one destroys the other as far as td's goes (only 7 years later in time) and yet you say the other is more deserving :?
Carter may not be a first ballot HOF'er (like an Emmit Smith, Deion, Favre, etc), but he is a second ballot HOF'er...Monk is not
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment