As someone with an irrational love of Andre Tippett, let me say a fervent "woo hoo!"

But only one offensive lineman? Did Kuechenberg, Grimm, and McDaniel cancel each other out?

Derrick Thomas and Cris Carter both should have made it. I'm sure they will soon.

Regardless of what you thought of Monk's candidacy, you've got to be kind of happy for the guy.

I guess its good for Monk, but I think it sets a horrible precedent for the Hall. I imagine some back room deals were cut for that on the committee.

Surprised about Carter not getting in. Even more surprised about Tags not getting in.

As a Redskin fan I understand why my fellow-fans were so upset about Monk, but I tried to put together an article spelling out his case and I couldn't do it. He was very-good for a long time doesn't cut it for me.

I'm also surprised by Tippett. I think Thomas was better than Tippett just based on All-Pro selections but I never saw him play too much. To me it seems like they agreed Carter and D. Thomas would have to wait.

I always thought D. Thomas was a first ballot HoF... don't know what the bite with him is.

D Thomas definitely not Hll of Famer. Good pass rush but good at nothing else. Tippett more all around player. R ay Guy again screwed by writers. Guy best punter of all time.

#3

Tagliabue not getting in doesn't suprise me. His 'legacy' was the the 2006 CBA, and right now there are an awful lot of people talking about its premature demise. If this is just sabre-rattling, he probably makes it next year. If it falls apart, Tags might never make it.

Yeah, that Randall McDaniel really slipped up, having missed making All-Pro in 2 of his 13 years.

Well, the selector/hacks actually managed to vote in a linebacker this year, so their performance was not as pathetic as in most years, despite falling further and further behind, with only one offensive lineman.

Terrible selection of Art Monk. Just terrible.

Gary Clark on the same team, in the same position, with the same QBs outperformed Monk in virtually every WR statistical category over the same time period.

I guess 17 years of catching 5 yard outs is all it takes to get in the HOF these days.

Good to see Tippett and Green get the nod but Monk...just horrible.

Re: 8

Monk must have had amazing YAC if all he caught were 5-yard outs.

I guess I'll just put my Ray Guy flag away for another year, then.

Is it possible that the recent prominence of the Pats has helped raise Tippett's profile? At one time he seemed like a long shot.

I thought Carter to be much more dangerous than Monk.

Much as it pains me to agree with Raiderjoe, he's right about Thomas. He was a one-dimensional pass rusher who couldn't even do that when offenses went to three-step drops. He couldn't hold the point of attack against the run. In his last two years he was surviving on reputation.

As someone who watched Andre Tippett for his whole career, he belongs. His stats, while great, would have been better if he didn't get hurt in the last pre-season game of 1989 (along with three other starting Pats -ugh), missing the entire season.
And he's the 1st Jew elected as a player in a long time! And he used to date a former co-worker of mine (boy, she was smoking).

I'm glad my former teammate got in and for Gary Zimmerman as we need more dominate linemen in.
Finally, it's too bad Randy Gradishar didn't get in. I'm not a Broncos fan, but they don't have enough members in and he was a great defensive player playing with mostly average teammates.

The Pro Football HOF is a joke. Any HOF that does not elect a player like Cris Carter in his first year, is not a HOF I would want to be a part of. Even Derrick Thomas should be in. His stats are better than Tippett's in every way (more sacks, more fumbles recovered, more touchdowns). And I'm not saying Tippett shouldn't be in. I just think its a joke that's all. Thomas will get in after another 5 years of waiting. I guess it really doesn't matter when it happens though, because he'll never see it.

Dent got robbed. He really should be in.

I am a Green Bay fan, so I could pretty much care less about the AFC. That being said it is a crime Derrick Thomas is not yet in the Hall of Fame. Outside of Lawrence Taylor, DT was the single most dominant and disruptive pass rushing LB of the last 20 years

RE #13:

Thomas was not surviving on reputation. Weren't those the years they actually moved away from the 3-4 where he was a blitzing LB, and played the 4-3 after that? They essentially took his position off the field. He was forced to be a hybrid DE, and LB that never blitzed. It pained me to watch that defense because they wouldn't let Derrick do what he was good at.

But really, 6 less sacks than LT in 2 fewer seasons is not enough? How about 40 Forced Fumbles and 19 fumble recoveries where 4 were run back for TDs? Thomas even had 1 INT. LT had 33 FF and only recovered 10. He did have 9 INTs however and only had 2 Defensive TDs.

The Chiefs playoff run started when Thomas got there. He is almost singlehandedly the catalyst for the 1990s defensive teams that dominated (for the most part). The Chiefs had one of the highest Takeaway/Giveaway ratios in the league those years, and if I remember right, they were first by a long shot. Thomas holds the single game sack record at 7 and had another game where he got 6. Maybe all he did was blitz, but he was damn good at it. He changed the game by being on the field and if teams used 3 step drops against him, it is a sign that they knew they couldn't beat him straight up.

DT is a Hall of Famer.

It's easy to see why they kept Carter out of the Hall of Fame. It's the low YPC. If they held out Monk for years based on that, why wouldn't you expect them to do the same wrt Carter. I think its valid, and YPC is significant. It's hard to be consistently so good with low YPC (queue Will Allen re: DPAR/DVOA, but that argument holds up if you look at Hines Ward, TJ Houshmanzedeh, and those playing now with low YPC).

We've had this discussion in the past 2 years, but Carter will get in.

As to Monk, I'd rate these peers of his better than him at least, only based on stats (not offense, QB, etc.). Mike Quick (short career but he must've been good), Mark Duper, Henry Ellard, and Chris Collinsworth. If I had to choose one to put in the Hall it'd probably be Ellard. All of those guys had at least 2 YPC more than Monk.

The WR with stats closest to Monk is Dwight Clark. Hard for me to judge since I didn't watch a lot of football from that era. The PFP2007 article on Hall of Fame WRs is really enlightening.

re18
Maybe you not hear news but Thomas is not Hall of famer. Last sentence you wrote is wrong. Maybe Thomas have better luck next year.

#8:

Great argument about Gary Clark. I had never bothered to compare the two, but Clark had 5 1000 yard seasons in 8 years with the Skins, while Monk had 5 1000 yard seasons in 14 years with the Skins. Clark's season highs in yards and TDs were 1340 and 10, while Monk's season highs were 1372 and 8. In the years where they didn't break 1000 yards, Clark never had lower than 892 yards in a season, while Monk averaged 710. And each receiver put together one halfway decent year after moving on to another team.

Essentially, the HOF is rewarding Monk for having a career almost as good as Clark's, plus playing six more seasons at about the average productivity of Roydell Williams' 2007 season (55-719-4). Simply asinine.

ok, #20 has to be post of the year!

Awesome as always Raiderjoe

Raiderjoe belongs in the FO Commenters' Hall of Fame.

Carter seems somewhat unique in that his YPC might not be great but unlike others in that vategory he has tons of touchdowns which has to add huge value to his candidacy. His TDS will be what land him in the HOF

Monk over Carter, Zimmerman over McDaniel, Tippett over Derrick Thomas.

Lunacy.

I think Gibbs has lobbied for Monk, saying tht his stats would have been higher if he'd been used differently, and that his blocking was a valuable but uncounted contribution. I expect that carried some weight.

I'm a Chiefs fan and glad Emmitt Thomas got in, but really, I'm not sure he was that deserving. He was another very good player who compiled a headline stat, but I don't think he was dominant.

Derrick Thomas was not a great run defender and he was much more effective on turf than grass - part of his decline his last couple of years was the installation of a grass field at Arrowhead. But the question is, how good does a one-dimensional player have to be in that one dimension to make the HoF?

#27:

DT (and perhaps others like Dent, Kevin Greene, Charles Haley and Rickey Jackson) will probably make it into the HOF very soon now that Fred Dean has broken the logjam among the "sack artist/pass rush specialist" guys. Fairly or not, I think Dean went first because he's been waiting the longest.

Re: 10, 23 (Monk vs Carter)

You ought to know better than to attempt such an analysis in football when you don't have all the stats.

How many times did Monk and Carter lead the league or place in the top 10 in first downs caught? In catch %?

You don't know, because those stats aren't avaiable and maybe they never will be. But Monk was famous for catching a high % (he was the first great possession receiver), for converting on 3rd down, and for getting first downs in general. FO has taught us that these are the true measures of a WR's value, more that raw catches, yards, and touchdowns.

I'm not saying Carter doesn't deserve to get in. He does. But don't say he was better than Monk on stats when you don't have a real basis to make a judgment.

Re: 8, 21 (Monk vs G. Clark)

If Gary Clark was better than Monk, why do every player and every coach on the Redskins in the 80's consistently say that Monk was the #1 guy and go-to receiver on those teams? And they do, don't doubt it. Hell, Gary Clark himself would tell you Monk was the true top guy. Don't believe me? Here's a smattering of quotes from around the end of Monk's career:

"I believe he's a Hall of Famer. It's hard for me to believe [those who don't think he belongs] ever saw him play."
-Bill Polian, Indianapolis Colts President

"There's nothing negative to say. He has the numbers, the catches, the championships. Nobody I know deserves it more."
-Ronnie Lott, Hall of Famer

"Art was always the guy I looked to when we were in trouble. Art bailed me out of more jams..."
-Joe Theismann, QB

"We all want to be the best receiver on the team, but we know that Monk is the best."
-Gary Clark, WR

"I look forward to being with you at your induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame."
-Paul Tagliabue, NFL Commish

"I can't see how a receiver could be more valuable to a team."
-Joe Gibbs, Hall of Fame coach, 3-time SB champ

"I feel, no doubt, he was one of the best receivers to ever play the game."
-Jerry Rice, WR

"Monk is headed to Canton downhill on roller skates."
-Bill Parcells, head coach, 2-time SB champ

And for those who say his individual numbers weren't good enough:

"A lot of guys have it backwards. They want to do well and hope their team does well. I believed that if the team did well, the individual things would take care of themselves."
-Art Monk

Finally, if Art Monk is a borderline candidate, and you claim Gary Clark was better, shouldn't Clark be a slam-dunk HOF candidate? It's simple logic.

Oh, Vince, I forgot to include this:

How many times did Monk lead the league in blocking? What about sacrificing his individual numbers for the good of his team?

Red ink and gray ink tests in football, honestly, this isn't MLB, I expect better.

re: 28

My dear fellow, when has simple logic ever had a single damn thing to do with Hall of Fame selection? In any sport? (If anybody really wants to see dilution by mediocrity, look at tennis - any day now, winning a single Slam will be a ticket to Newport.)

#31:

lol

That's a fair point, but I'd still be very surprised if DT doesn't make it in now that Dean has opened the door for those guys. And, while it's just an educated guess on my part, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of these decisions came down to "well, player A has been waiting a lot longer than player B, so we'l go with player A first."

The Pro Football Hall of Fame clearly suffered from many years of gridlock that never should have happened and made many people very angry. As a consequence, there's a slight bias towards electing older candidates. Once that get clears up, the HOF voting will make more sense.

According to both Peter King and Paul Zimmerman (both HOF selectors), a few unnamed selectors have real issues with electing almost anyone on the first ballot. Carter will almost certainly be elected in the next couple of years. As for the guards, I don't know what it takes to be elected, because this is becoming more of a travesty every year. The skill position bias is really annoying.

#28:

I'm not saying that "counting" stats should be the sole measure of a player in consideration for Canton. And I'm definitely not trying to make the case that Gary Clark belongs in the Hall.

All I'm saying is that Monk's rough "rate" stats, measured in production per game and season, shouldn't be enough to get him anywhere close to Canton. He may have been a good blocker, a "clutch" third down possession receiver (for all that we know about clutchiness), and a solid teammate, but those factors shouldn't be enough to overcome his mediocre per-game production.

It seems pretty clear to me that if the Redskins don't win three rings during his career, or if he had a 10 year career rather than a 16 year career, he wouldn't have even been in consideration. And in my opinion, being surrounded by great teammates or adding a few years of marginal production at the beginning and end of a career shouldn't even be in the discussion.

Re: 34

I can't prove to you that Monk had a high catch rate, or that he was outstanding on 3rd down. The stats simply were not recorded. But generally, speaking, that is what people who watched him play remember.

If Monk had only played 10 years, he probably would not be a candidate, but longevity counts. That's why Kurt Warner, Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, etc., probably won't get in.

I really take issue with your claim that he was "surrounded by great teammates," though. Which great teammates would those be? Doug Williams? Mark Rypien? Jay Schroeder? Earnest Byner? Gerald Riggs? The great teammates claim is horrible and kills your argument. The fact is, Art Monk is the same player as Marvin Harrison, just without Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Edgerrin James/Joseph Addai, etc., and adjusted for era. If Monk had played his whole career with a HOF QB (he played with none) in a modern passing offense, his numbers would probably be identical to Harrison's. And nobody claims Harrison is not a HOFer. (They have almost identical career YPC, look it up.)

As to Super Bowl rings, I don't think that was really a huge factor in Monk's selection.

28, that's patently untrue. Yeah, Parcells said Monk should go to Canton downhill on roller skates. When do you ever say anything bad about former players though? Clark was that offense, there's no way around it.

If you're going to complain about the hall, you should have put your efforts towards getting Hanburger. Or Jacoby. Even Grimm, with his shortened career, was a better candidate.

It was nice to see Zimmerman finally get in, but the voters really need to stop discriminating against linemen. McDaniel should be a lead-pipe lock. Dawson was tremendous too. What about Bruce Matthews? Steve Wisniewski?

Re: 36

Honestly, I had already given up on Monk and had thrown all my efforts toward Hanburger, whose absence is a travesty which will probably not get rectified for decades. I'm only making a stink in this thread because I believe Monk is deserving and some posters have claimed, after the fact, that he is not.

As for Clark, I found 3 quotes from Redskins essentially saying that Monk was the top guy. Find me a quote saying Clark was more important to the offense than Monk, and I'll listen. And, BTW, do you believe Clark is deserving of Hall induction? (I don't.)

the wide reciever debates are really starting to get old for me but is that position really worth the number it sends or has considered?

Its a real big shame the Gradishar got snubbed. I remember how last year everyone was commenting on an article about denvers lack of hall of famers and how the most common line was, Gradishar should have been an auto-choice. Now he has to wait to be eligible as a senior.

Every ballot convinces me that it is just plain silly how few they elect each year. The only problem is I am afraid that they would add monk and carter instead of putting in gradishar or grimm.

Er, I meant Bruce Armstrong. I'm just as bad as the PFWA...

I'm also deeply saddened to see Gradishar's modern-era eligibility expire. He caused as many turnovers per game as Ray Lewis, the posterchild for big-play, first-ballot MLBs... and his tackle numbers were out of this world. I mean it, they were so unbelievably insane that it's like no one else was even playing the same sport. Gradishar averaged 15.4 tackles per game over his career, which would pro-rate to 246 tackles per year. On average. TWO HUNDRED FORTY SIX!!! His worst season was his second, where he averaged 12.6 per game, which pro-rates to 202 tackles in 16 games. Lewis's best season was 184 tackles, which is more than a full tackle per game less. In Gradishar's best season, he was on a 286 tackle pace. This year, the league's #2 and #3 leading tacklers combined for 281 stops. Throw in 7 pro bowls and 5 all-pros in 10 years to go with a DPoY award, a SB appearance, headlining a nicknamed defense, and not missing a single game his entire career... how is he not in the HoF?

I mean, the LB's biggest statistic is the tackle. It's his bread and butter, the one that he's most judged on. No LB in history has even APPROACHED Gradishar's tackle totals. Throw in the awards, the achievements, the INTs and fumble recoveries and sacks, the leadership, and everything else... let's just say that I'd love to sit down with a pro football HoF selector and ask them to give me one good reason why Gradishar went 20 years without getting elected. Just one will do.

#28:

I probably shouldn't have included Rickey Jackson on the "pass rush specialists" list I compiled since he was a more complete player than the other guys listed. Arguably he's more deserving than any of those guys (though he did have some other very talented LBs around him).

Re: 41

Gradishar's tackle totals kind of work against him, because they're widely known to be fictitious.
Denver's stat-keepers were incredibly generous.

The irrational "no receiver who isn't Jerry Rice gets in" lobby lost a big battle this year with Monk, but they cleverly managed to keep Carter out for another year.

Re: Other candidates besides the ones who got in

It's kind of silly. Of the final 17, I would keep Ray Guy and Andre Reed out, I don't know jack about Marshall Goldberg, and I'm undecided about Tags. Everyone else should be in, as far as I'm concerned. Let me run down the list: Carter, Grimm, Grandishar, Dent, Kuechenberg, McDaniel (especially), Thomas. All in. Call me generous, I think the NFL HOF is way too exclusive. All of these guys had periods of dominance, all of them had long, productive careers, all of them were critical to their teams' success. What standard do they fail that the guys already in make?

Monk deserved it. Monk was THE constant on the Redskins Super Bowl teams. The HOF is more than just stats, its the play you see. The argument of a great team with no HOFers and the anti-small market mentality of the voters kills me. I was also happy to see Green get in on the first ballot.

Re: 29 But Monk was famous for catching a high % (he was the first great possession receiver), for converting on 3rd down, and for getting first downs in general. FO has taught us that these are the true measures of a WR’s value, more that raw catches, yards, and touchdowns.

Carter was even more famous for each of those things (except replace “the first great possession receiver” with “the greatest possession receiver”).

Re: 36 As to Super Bowl rings, I don’t think that was really a huge factor in Monk’s selection.

Of course it was a huge factor. That’s the only case he has over Carter. Give Carter Monk’s rings, and Carter would have been in on the first ballot while very few people ever would have been pushing Monk. Remember, a large motivating factor behind the Monk crusade was that those great three-time-Super-Bowl-champion first-Gibbs-era Redskins were thought to be underrepresented in the Hall of Fame.

I don’t have a big problem with Carter not getting in the Hall of Fame or Monk getting in, but I do have a problem with Monk getting in while a similar but by all appearances superior player like Carter wasn’t selected.

I am surprised at how much voters change their minds. When Monk's career is done (or anyone else's), you make an assessment, and vote. Perhaps your ballot is already full and a player has to wait a couple of years. However, I am incredulous that so many voters can be lobbied into changing their minds. I assume that nobody is going around strenuously lobbying against certain players, so all the arm twisting goes into accepting players.

I know King has written about how so many Redskins players have told him how great Monk was, but what else would you expect them to say?

Re: 47 (Monk ahead of Carter)

Generally speaking, when two candidates have similar credentials but one is older and has been waiting while the other is new, the voters have a bias toward the older candidate. I think this is true of all Halls.

Re: 48 (voters changing their minds)

Monk only waited 8 years. Tippet and Dean had to wait a lot longer. So did Harry Carson. I agree that ideally voters should stick to their guns, but when people like Peter King are voting, they should also be open to the possibility that they are wrong and more knowledgeable observers might correct their misconceptions.

I probably would have voted against Monk but I don't feel strongly about it. However, I'm not sure about several claims:

"the constant" on the Redskins Super Bowl teams:
I think Monk, Don Warren, Jacoby, Grimm, Jeff Bostic, and Monte Coleman played on all the Redskins SB-winners (and Monk didn't even play in SB XVII).

"First great possession receiver":
I'd have to know how this is defined, but I suspect if we had a definition we could find others.

"adjusting for era":
Monk actually played part of his career in a pro-passing era, post '78 to sometime in the late '80s was a veru good passing era. There was then a decline until '94-95, so that works against him. Compared to some players who played after '94, he played in a less pass-friendly time, but not compared to many before him.

At any rate, Monk deserved consideration and congratulations to him for his selection.

Gradishar: I think he should have gotten in. I'd sure like to see his home/away tackle numbers.

why do so many here see it as Monk "at the expense" of Carter?

Monk didn't make it for years, and now he finally did. If you actually watched football back then, you'd be hard-pressed to oppose Monk. If you're too young, and only know the pass-whacky NFL, then perhaps Monk doesn't look so good to you.

So Carter didn't get in his first year. So what? He'll get in next year or the year after.

I like the choices of Green, Monk, Zim and Tippett. All were great players. I'm too young to remember Emmitt Thomas.

Congrats to Art Monk in particular. As strong a character as there ever was.

I agree with post 51. Cris Carter didn't get negged for life, he's merely going to have to wait a year or two. It's another Thurman Thomas sort of case. He's a lock to get in fairly soon.

A receiver with just three Pro Bowls seems flimsy to me. Art Monk, congrats - you've just compiled your way into the Hall of Fame. You and Tony Perez will have a lot to talk about (I realize that's apples and lawnmovers in a lot of ways, but in a very general sense they got in on the same bill).

Besides the whole winning versus losing Super Bowls issue, what makes Monk more deserving than Reed?

Reed's statistics are better, and he didn't always have a Gary Clark opposite him. Also, he caught passes over the middle. So many highlight-film-hits show Reed being demolished!

He's more deserving than Monk.

But for some reason (please enlighten me), Reed's exclusion is a virtual non-issue outside Buffalo.

Hey, I'm the first to say that great players who didn't win SBs belong in the Hall. History has been fairly kind to those Bills, with them being usually being considered four-time AFC Champions than four-time SB losers. They had an amazing run with that, and certainly deserve a few more players.

But, they're small-market and not NYC, along with the losses, and it works against them in the NYC-centric HOF voters.

Re: 53
Also, he caught passes over the middle. So many highlight-film-hits show Reed being demolished!

Monk was also superb running routes and catching passes over the middle. Monk was a very tough player. He also made more acrobatic catches than Reed.

I've previously argued Irvin over Monk, but I'm glad to see Monk in. I actually guessed that with Irvin in, Monk would follow. Because that specific argument was no longer to be.

But I don't see the argument for Reed over Monk. Reed had more Pro Bowls, but the NFC was vastly superior to the AFC during that stretch of time.

#4: Tippett and Derrick Thomas both have 2 first team all pro selections, with Tippett having 5 pro bowls and Thomas 9. Both are on all decade teams. If what I've seen in speculation about both players is correct, the supposed rap against Thomas is that he was a terrific pass rusher but not so great against the run or in pass coverage -- Tippett was supposedly also good against the run and not bad in pass coverage, and the HoF seems to prefer LBs who supposedly were good at many things. Plus Tippett did all this as a strong side LB with a blocking TE in his face. I think Thomas gets in within the next few years regardless.

#16: Why do you think Richard Dent got robbed?

#38: With Randy Gradishar not getting in on his last shot, I'm wondering what the chances now will be for Chris Hanburger or Maxie Baughan even if they get nominated as Seniors -- or Robert Brazile for that matter, as he probably won't make it as a finalist next year (his last before being a Senior). Their "1st team all pro/pro bowl profiles" are very similar (3/7, 3/9, 3/9) and none are on all decade teams, while Brazile is at 5/7/70s.

Re 53, 56 (Monk vs Reed)

You're going to be sorry you brought this up.

Reed has more Pro Bowls than Monk. So what? We always argue about Pro Bowl snubs and conclude that they are worthless. Did you know-

Monk had more 1,000 yard seasons than Reed.
Monk led the league once in receptions (setting a record) and once in receiving yards per game. Reed never led the league in anything.
They had basically the same catches per game, yards per catch, and yards per game for their careers.
Reed had roughly twice as many career fumbles as Monk.
Monk set records for consecutive games with a catch and career catches, Reed did not set any records I am aware of.

All this despite the fact that Monk played in an era with less passing than Reed, and Reed played basically his whole career with HOF QB Jim Kelley, while Monk played with 0 HOF QB's.

Now I am done with Monk! He's in! Give it a rest and argue with me about Chris Hanburger.

Re: 54

But, they’re small-market and not NYC, along with the losses, and it works against them in the NYC-centric HOF voters.

The 44 Hall of Fame voters are comprised of 1 media rep from each NFL city (2 for NYC, as it has 2 teams), a PFWA rep, and 11 at-large voters. Looking at the list, no more than 5 could be considered New Yorkers.

A truly NYC-centric voting body would have put Harry Carson in before his 13th year of eligibility, and would make Phil Simms and Joe Klecko finalists.

The first great possession receiver was probably Steve Largent .... unless you just consider him to be a great receiver period (which I do).

As far as I can tell the NFL hall of fame has no standards. There is simply no way based on who is already in, to guess if a player is or isn't worthy of HOF status.

Am i the only one that thinks Steve Atwater's continuing snub is a bit of an anomoly or is there a general perception that he's actually in the Hall?

I was shocked when i first found out but no-one seems to miss a beat about him not being there.

8 Pro Bowls, 1990-99 All Decade Team, Great game in SBXXXII win, and that hit on Okoye.

Atwater good player, not great player. Atwater not worthy candidate for Hall of fame. Not better player than great Raiders safetys Eric Turner and Rod Woodson.

Funny how Tippett is supposedly good against the run, yet his teams consistently ranked in the bottom half of the league.

Funny how Derrick Thomas was supposedly bad against the run, yet the Chiefs were in the top half of the league against the run almost every year.

Go ahead and check the stats, I'm waiting.

raiderjoe not good but great.

62- I'd like to see Atwater in, especially as a Broncos fan, but safety is definitely a considered a low impact position and very difficult to make HOF from.

I just checked Art Monk & Cris Carter's stats out. Monk averaged almost a whole yard more per catch than Carter over the course of his career, with about 160 fewer receptions. YPC is one thing, but its not the be-all and end-all of great receiver-dom. I'm more interested in receptions per times thrown at, which I can't find. Anybody know if they even keep these stats?

#62: True, Steve Atwater was an 8 time pro bowler and is on the all-90s team, but he was also a 1st team all pro only twice, which is a little low. That being said, I see no reason why he, Kenny Easley, Joey Browner, and Leroy Butler should not get more HoF consideration. Sorry to say, they'll probably all sit in a logjam outside the HoF while Rod Woodson deservedly does get elected.

#60: I doubt if Steve Largent was the first great possession receiver. Weren't Charlie Joyner, Ray Berry, Charley Taylor, Lionel Taylor, and Billy Howton also possession WRs? I'm thinking they all predated Largent and were pretty darned good at the very least.

#69:

Don't forget Fred Biletnikoff.

Other arguments for Monk over Carter:
Compare each guy's top 5 games in yards in both the reg. season and playoffs. Monk comes out on top 10-0.

Compare each guy's top 5 games in fantasy scoring (which includes both yardage and TDs) in both the reg. season and playoffs. Monk comes out on top 7-0-3 (Carter ties him 3 times, but NEVER bests him!)

Compare not only whether or not their teams won in the playoffs when they played ('Skins and Monk 10-5, Eagles/Vikes and Carter 4-10), but also how Monk and Carter compare in their personal numbers. Monk had more playoff catches per game, yards per game, and a higher YPC than Carter. (These same facts are true when comparing Monk to Reed or Tim Brown.)
Carter only broke the century mark in the playoffs twice, while Monk did it four times. Carter scored 2 TDs once(in a loss). Monk scored 2 TDs twice (both times in wins).

Stats which are adjusted for era place Monk ahead of Carter in both catches and yards.

Monk was a better blocker than Carter and a more positive locker room presence.

Carter belongs in the Hall of Fame, but the idea that he was clearly superior to Monk just isn't displayed in the facts.