Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 24, 2014, 10:27:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should the bears give Jeff Garcia a call?  (Read 11313 times)
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: February 07, 2007, 04:49:04 PM »

Amateur? What's your professional sports pedigree, yard ape?

And you once again you're wrong. Monks numbers are comparable. Irvin won three rings, Monk 2 rings. Monk led the league in catches one year, Irvin never has. Irvin has had 6 1,000 yards seasons, Monk has had four.

Next question.

Actually i posted their numbers a few days ago, genius. Not comparable.

He's making Michael Irvin look stable with these irrational meltdowns. Shocked
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: February 07, 2007, 04:53:35 PM »

Here idiot. I posted this a few days ago.


Irvin 6 pro bowls, Monk 3, even though Irvin's career was considerably shorter.

Irvin with more great seasons in a shorter period of time. More 1,000 yard seasons, all bunched together in a string unlike Monk who only had 5 in 16 years (nothing special)!

Also had better more dominating post-seasons including more total receiving yards in a shorter time frame you idiot.

Average yards per catch a full 2.4 yard advantage over Monk in his career, tool.

Monk was not nearly as dominating. Irvin, not Monk, was the 2nd best receiver in the NFL for years, behind Rice.


Monk: 

               |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1980 was |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    58    797  13.7    3 |
| 1981 was |  16 |     1     -5   -5.0    0 |    56    894  16.0    6 |
| 1982 was |   9 |     7     21    3.0    0 |    35    447  12.8    1 |
| 1983 was |  12 |     3    -19   -6.3    0 |    47    746  15.9    5 |
| 1984 was |  16 |     2     18    9.0    0 |   106   1372  12.9    7 |
| 1985 was |  15 |     7     51    7.3    0 |    91   1226  13.5    2 |
| 1986 was |  16 |     4     27    6.8    0 |    73   1068  14.6    4 |
| 1987 was |   9 |     6     63   10.5    0 |    38    483  12.7    6 |
| 1988 was |  16 |     7     46    6.6    0 |    72    946  13.1    5 |
| 1989 was |  16 |     3      8    2.7    0 |    86   1186  13.8    8 |
| 1990 was |  16 |     7     59    8.4    0 |    68    770  11.3    5 |
| 1991 was |  16 |     9     19    2.1    0 |    71   1049  14.8    8 |
| 1992 was |  16 |     6     45    7.5    0 |    46    644  14.0    3 |
| 1993 was |  16 |     1     -1   -1.0    0 |    41    398   9.7    2 |
| 1994 nyj |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    46    581  12.6    3 |
| 1995 phi |   3 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     6    114  19.0    0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
|  TOTAL   | 224 |    63    332    5.3    0 |   940  12721  13.5   68 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Irvin:
                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1988 dal |  14 |     1      2    2.0    0 |    32    654  20.4    5 |
| 1989 dal |   6 |     1      6    6.0    0 |    26    378  14.5    2 |
| 1990 dal |  12 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    20    413  20.6    5 |
| 1991 dal |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    93   1523  16.4    8 |
| 1992 dal |  16 |     1     -9   -9.0    0 |    78   1396  17.9    7 |
| 1993 dal |  16 |     2      6    3.0    0 |    88   1330  15.1    7 |
| 1994 dal |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    79   1241  15.7    6 |
| 1995 dal |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |   111   1603  14.4   10 |
| 1996 dal |  11 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    64    962  15.0    2 |
| 1997 dal |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    75   1180  15.7    9 |
| 1998 dal |  16 |     1      1    1.0    0 |    74   1057  14.3    1 |
| 1999 dal |   4 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    10    167  16.7    3 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
|  TOTAL   | 159 |     6      6    1.0    0 |   750  11904  15.9   65 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15772


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #77 on: February 07, 2007, 05:01:51 PM »

Is this a cowboy's / redskins thing?

You know as an outside party... you can make a case for either one... the bottom line is that they're both amazing play makers and both Hall of Famers.

You could probably make cases for lots of guys... they were both awesome, let's just shake hands and be friends.
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: February 07, 2007, 05:05:40 PM »

Not for me, just common sense. Monk was not the dominant WR Irvin was, as proven by the numbers.
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15772


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #79 on: February 07, 2007, 05:09:13 PM »

Not for me, just common sense. Monk was not the dominant WR Irvin was, as proven by the numbers.

Aren't you just looking at yardage during his best years and stuff... I mean, you can also look at total receptions, touchdowns, games played... rushing yards (even though they are receivers). You mention having a longer career, but isn't that a GOOD thing... doesn't longevity count for something.

I'm just saying you can make a case either way, but if you say Irvin, you'll always say Irvin and nothing will change your mind... I'm just saying that I can make arguments for anyone if I want to.
Report to moderator   Logged
UPINTHEMGUTS
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5438


I can spot crazy pussy....


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: February 07, 2007, 05:15:10 PM »

Hey dude,

I never said Monk was better or more deserving of Hall of Fame candidacy. Monk has been retired a long time now. He should have already been inducted by now, bottom line. I just think Monk should have been elected before Irvin, that's all.

Hey genius, I know that Irvin was better than Monk. I never said otherwise. I just said Irvin is a piece of shit. He's got a police record longer than your little cock and in real life he's a little douchebag. I know several friends in Dallas that have at one time or another met Irvin and have confirmed my opinions. You're asking me about what I know about the player's personal lives? Nothing! But I know how to read several police reports indicting him on felony narcotic possessions. With that in mind how much about the dude's personal life do I need to know to back up my statements???

Lastly, he would not make a good NFL commentator. I'm still trying to fathom your belief. It's just so silly that it's comical.
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: February 07, 2007, 05:29:24 PM »

You make Irvin look stable with your irrational biases and obvious anger-management issues. Therapy may be looming on the horizon. Because you're so wrong about Monk it's hard to believe you're credible on anything else.

Monk is very iffy for the HOF. Only 5 1,000 yard seasons in 16 years is nothin special, and they weren't monster years for the most part. I don't think he deserves it unless the idea is to water down the HOF with borderline cases & unsophisticated voters like you who are as smitten with him as they are hateful and irrational towards Irvin. Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1594


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: February 07, 2007, 05:40:20 PM »

Here idiot. I posted this a few days ago.


Irvin 6 pro bowls, Monk 3, even though Irvin's career was considerably shorter.

Irvin with more great seasons in a shorter period of time. More 1,000 yard seasons, all bunched together in a string unlike Monk who only had 5 in 16 years (nothing special)!

Also had better more dominating post-seasons including more total receiving yards in a shorter time frame you idiot.

Average yards per catch a full 2.4 yard advantage over Monk in his career, tool.

Monk was not nearly as dominating. Irvin, not Monk, was the 2nd best receiver in the NFL for years, behind Rice.


Monk: 

               |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1980 was |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    58    797  13.7    3 |
| 1981 was |  16 |     1     -5   -5.0    0 |    56    894  16.0    6 |
| 1982 was |   9 |     7     21    3.0    0 |    35    447  12.8    1 |
| 1983 was |  12 |     3    -19   -6.3    0 |    47    746  15.9    5 |
| 1984 was |  16 |     2     18    9.0    0 |   106   1372  12.9    7 |
| 1985 was |  15 |     7     51    7.3    0 |    91   1226  13.5    2 |
| 1986 was |  16 |     4     27    6.8    0 |    73   1068  14.6    4 |
| 1987 was |   9 |     6     63   10.5    0 |    38    483  12.7    6 |
| 1988 was |  16 |     7     46    6.6    0 |    72    946  13.1    5 |
| 1989 was |  16 |     3      8    2.7    0 |    86   1186  13.8    8 |
| 1990 was |  16 |     7     59    8.4    0 |    68    770  11.3    5 |
| 1991 was |  16 |     9     19    2.1    0 |    71   1049  14.8    8 |
| 1992 was |  16 |     6     45    7.5    0 |    46    644  14.0    3 |
| 1993 was |  16 |     1     -1   -1.0    0 |    41    398   9.7    2 |
| 1994 nyj |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    46    581  12.6    3 |
| 1995 phi |   3 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     6    114  19.0    0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
|  TOTAL   | 224 |    63    332    5.3    0 |   940  12721  13.5   68 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Irvin:
                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1988 dal |  14 |     1      2    2.0    0 |    32    654  20.4    5 |
| 1989 dal |   6 |     1      6    6.0    0 |    26    378  14.5    2 |
| 1990 dal |  12 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    20    413  20.6    5 |
| 1991 dal |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    93   1523  16.4    8 |
| 1992 dal |  16 |     1     -9   -9.0    0 |    78   1396  17.9    7 |
| 1993 dal |  16 |     2      6    3.0    0 |    88   1330  15.1    7 |
| 1994 dal |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    79   1241  15.7    6 |
| 1995 dal |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |   111   1603  14.4   10 |
| 1996 dal |  11 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    64    962  15.0    2 |
| 1997 dal |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    75   1180  15.7    9 |
| 1998 dal |  16 |     1      1    1.0    0 |    74   1057  14.3    1 |
| 1999 dal |   4 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    10    167  16.7    3 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
|  TOTAL   | 159 |     6      6    1.0    0 |   750  11904  15.9   65 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+


  ok im interested, you can cut and paste numbers but with all do respect they played in different eras. in Monks prime, he was on team that ran the ball consistantly behind the Hogs, that was the teams focus, running the ball. In his hey day the majority of the teams didnt throw the ball as much as they did when Irvin was in his prime. that being said, Monk being on a team that didnt focus on passing the ball the majority of his carreer still was able to put up numbers like he did. at one point he was the leading reciever in yards. (for a short while, but still) also he was on a team that had two other good recievers, Ricky Sanders and Gary Clark. even with that receiving crew Gibbs always ran the ball. also consider that Monk played with three different quarterbacks, Theismann, Rypien, and Doug Wiliams. Irvin always had a consistant team.
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: February 07, 2007, 05:43:25 PM »

Nothing unexpected there. There was plenty of passing on the Redskins after the Riggo era, so that rationale doesn't fly, plus there was plenty of running on the 'Boys.

As far as the Redskins spreading the ball around, using that kind of speculation it's obvious that J. J. Jefferson from the Chargers and Bo are both better than Monk and should be in, if what ifs are to be used. For real.
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1594


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: February 07, 2007, 05:45:20 PM »

Also the HOF is just thaT. A HALL OF FAME. not a hall of stats. Look at Joe Namaths stats, they are pretty terrible. more INT's than TD's, and he isnt even the leading QB in Jets History, its Ken O'Brian and Ken isnt in the HOF. yes using my own argument of different eras is applicible but still he threw more INT's than TD''s and he is in my point being you cant just use stats.
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: February 07, 2007, 05:47:32 PM »

Also the HOF is just thaT. A HALL OF FAME. not a hall of stats. Look at Joe Namaths stats, they are pretty terrible. more INT's than TD's, and he isnt even the leading QB in Jets History, its Ken O'Brian and Ken isnt in the HOF. yes using my own argument of different eras is applicible but still he threw more INT's than TD''s and he is in my point being you cant just use stats.

No one said stats are the only thing. However it's a lot better than speculation and what-ifs, and when you see an undeniable trend going through multiple reams of stats they're of undeniable importance. By just about any important measure Irvin's out in front, not just one measure.

Aside from stats, plain and simple Monk wasn't usually a dominating receiver.

As far as Namath, it's a little bit like Warren Moon getting in to the HOF. In both cases there were intangibles involved that were very significant, that Monk doesn't have.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40022


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: February 07, 2007, 05:50:16 PM »

Wrong right back at 'cha!

Michael Irvin would not make a good announcer. Anybody else want to chime in on this???


You must be a Cowboys fan........

I agree.  Irvin is a terrible commentator.  He is very lucky he could play football and landed with the Cowboys.  He probably would have been pushing a broom otherwise. 
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: February 07, 2007, 05:51:33 PM »

I agree.  Irvin is a terrible commentator.  He is very lucky he could play football and landed with the Cowboys.  He probably would have been pushing a broom otherwise. 

I think he's far more interesting than the majority of banal announcers on there who have never played the game and offer nothing else that is special. For every guy who dislikes him there's someone who feels the opposite, which is good for ratings even if you don't realize it. Same love/hate for some of the best announcers such as Cosell and Meredith.
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1594


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: February 07, 2007, 05:53:07 PM »

No one said stats are the only thing. However it's a lot better than speculation and what-ifs, and when you see an undeniable trend going through multiple reams of stats they're of undeniable importance. By just about any important measure Irvin's out in front, not just one measure.

Aside from stats, plain and simple Monk wasn't usually a dominating receiver.

As far as Namath, it's a little bit like Warren Moon getting in to the HOF. In both cases there were intangibles involved that were very significant, that Monk doesn't have.

  I see you point Pump but there are a lot of non dominating players in the HOF now.sadly. Lyn Swan is another one that i dont think belongs in there. but if you rank the best receivers of the eighties you  would have to put Monk in that group no?
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: February 07, 2007, 05:55:17 PM »

 I see you point Pump but there are a lot of non dominating players in the HOF now.sadly. Lyn Swan is another one that i dont think belongs in there. but if you rank the best receivers of the eighties you  would have to put Monk in that group no?

I'm glad you brought up Swan. Maybe you didn't see the Superbowls he played in. He and Stallworth were dominant in most of the Superbowls, the best ever. The only other pair of receivers as dominant in playoff history were Rice and Taylor. The only reason he didn't get in much earlier was because the contrast with regular season stats was drastic-in the 70s before they changed the rules most receivers didn't get the ball much in the regular season.

I haven't paid attention, too bad they're diluting the HOF if it's true. Sometimes media hype enters into it, such as Howie Long who some feel was over-rated when compared to more deserving players like Joe Klecko. Or Harry Carson, probably the best MLB of the 80s who told the HOF to go to hell when they kept denying him before getting in last year.
Report to moderator   Logged
body88
Guest
« Reply #90 on: February 07, 2007, 06:04:53 PM »





Sorry guys, had to do it  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: February 07, 2007, 06:06:09 PM »

Looks like Sam Bam, the best blocking back of the 70s. It's not him though. Sam Bam and Mack Herron, formerly of the Winnepeg Blue Bombers behind John Hannah and Leon Gray. Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40022


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: February 07, 2007, 06:31:42 PM »

I think he's far more interesting than the majority of banal announcers on there who have never played the game and offer nothing else that is special. For every guy who dislikes him there's someone who feels the opposite, which is good for ratings even if you don't realize it. Same love/hate for some of the best announcers such as Cosell and Meredith.

Well obviously some people like him.   Roll Eyes  Who cares?  I don't base my opinion on what some people like.  I think he sucks.  Some people hate Jack Buck.  I like him.  Some people don't like Marv Albert.  I think he's very good.  Different strokes. 
Report to moderator   Logged
UPINTHEMGUTS
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5438


I can spot crazy pussy....


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: February 07, 2007, 07:13:15 PM »

No one said stats are the only thing. However it's a lot better than speculation and what-ifs, and when you see an undeniable trend going through multiple reams of stats they're of undeniable importance. By just about any important measure Irvin's out in front, not just one measure.

Aside from stats, plain and simple Monk wasn't usually a dominating receiver.

As far as Namath, it's a little bit like Warren Moon getting in to the HOF. In both cases there were intangibles involved that were very significant, that Monk doesn't have.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

Agree to disagree, I guess. You bring up credible arguments but I stand by what I say. Art Monk deserves to be in the hall. To say he's not derserving shows me a very short sighted view.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40022


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: February 07, 2007, 07:27:03 PM »

Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

Agree to disagree, I guess. You bring up credible arguments but I stand by what I say. Art Monk deserves to be in the hall. To say he's not derserving shows me a very short sighted view.

I agree.  I also agree with Mark Schlereth who said it's a travesty they haven't put Monk in and ridiculous that Irvin got in before Monk.   
Report to moderator   Logged
UPINTHEMGUTS
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5438


I can spot crazy pussy....


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: February 07, 2007, 07:33:10 PM »

Thanks bro. At least I got one person to agree with me. Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15772


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #96 on: February 07, 2007, 07:43:58 PM »

Thanks bro. At least I got one person to agree with me. Wink


I agree with you as well... Monk should easily be in the HOF and should have got in before Irvin... I think Irvin was definitely HOF, but to get in before Monk? Nah... I don't even like Monk, but I do know a good quality HOF receiver when I see one play.

Irvin and Monk are both that, but longevity must also count for something...
Report to moderator   Logged
UPINTHEMGUTS
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5438


I can spot crazy pussy....


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: February 07, 2007, 07:45:42 PM »

Very well put. Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: February 07, 2007, 07:48:20 PM »


I agree with you as well... Monk should easily be in the HOF and should have got in before Irvin... I think Irvin was definitely HOF, but to get in before Monk? Nah... I don't even like Monk, but I do know a good quality HOF receiver when I see one play.

Irvin and Monk are both that, but longevity must also count for something...

Longevity by itself without ample greatness isn't sufficient and his performance, only five 1,000 yard seasons out of 16, wasn't compelling. The HOF is supposed to be about greatness, not "fairly good" like Monk.

Obviously the HOF agrees with me.  Grin

Hope this helps. Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15772


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #99 on: February 07, 2007, 07:51:43 PM »

Longevity by itself isn't sufficient, and his performance, only five 1,000 yard seasons out of 16, wasn't compelling.

Hope this helps. Cheesy

How many WRs have 5 1000 yard seasons in their entire careers? No matter how long they play?

Much less 5 of them...

The HOF also takes into account how important a player is to a team... You can not tell me that every week when Monk was on the field that the Secondary was not worried about him burning them.

That too counts... You really seem to be against Monk for some reason... Who else in the mid-late 80s was DEFINITIVELY better than him?

Aside from Rice.

Hope this helps too. Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!