Best Ever Series: WIDE RECEIVER

[PennSkinsFan]

Ok, Darrell Green is the BEST EVER CB and we didn't even put that oen for a vote. Congrats to Pat Fischer for winning the backup role and the opposite slot on the hR Best Ever Series roster. Fischer beat out Champ Bailey.

Now to a BIG one. Moving on to Wide Receiver!

[skins111111]

Monk for HOF

[redskin_rich]

This is personally the hardest poll to vote on.

I give my vote to Charley Taylor for the best ever WR that played for the burgundy and gold.

If I could split the vote between him and Monk, I would but Taylor was simply more dangerous.

[BurgundyNGold]

I love Monk to death and there is no way that he shouldn't already be in the HOF. But, IMO, Charley Taylor was the best WR we've ever had.

[PennSkinsFan]

I went with Taylor. Very. very close though.

[The Iceman]

I love you guys, but your smokin crack!!!!!! Art Monk by leaps and bounds.

I saw someone said that Taylor was more dangerous. Maybe, but Joe Gibbs has often said that Monk could have done so many more things, but he used him in a way to best help the team. Monk is not only one of the Greatest Redskins ever, but IMO one of the best WR to ever grace a football field. I remember the day that he broke Steve Largents' NFL record for most career receptions. I was probably about 12 years old. Maybe younger, but I know one thing....... The way that guy played the game with class and toughness. I have never seen that matched.

MONK FOR HOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BurgundyNGold]

I love you guys, but your smokin crack!!!!!! Art Monk by leaps and bounds.

I saw someone said that Taylor was more dangerous. Maybe, but Joe Gibbs has often said that Monk could have done so many more things, but he used him in a way to best help the team. Monk is not only one of the Greatest Redskins ever, but IMO one of the best WR to ever grace a football field. I remember the day that he broke Steve Largents' NFL record for most career receptions. I was probably about 12 years old. Maybe younger, but I know one thing....... The way that guy played the game with class and toughness. I have never seen that matched.

MONK FOR HOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everything you said here is true. Add a little more to it and you have Charley Taylor.

[28Zcomeback]

Taylor played in an era when defenders were basically allowed to do anything they wanted to do with you at the line of scrimmage; including head slapping and the like.

To catch 40-50 passes a year, Taylor not only had to run the route, and catch the ball, but he also had to evade the cornerback at the line who was jamming him.

This all changed in 1977, just the year Taylor went out.

Also, from 1971 to 1977, the chief QB of the Redskins was Billy Kilmer. Kilmer was not a deep passer, and consequently, teams took advantage of this shortcoming. Obviously, it your QB is Kilmer rather than Jay Schroder, your stats will look different.

[bgforever]

Taylor played in an era when defenders were basically allowed to do anything they wanted to do with you at the line of scrimmage; including head slapping and the like.

To catch 40-50 passes a year, Taylor not only had to run the route, and catch the ball, but he also had to evade the cornerback at the line who was jamming him.

This all changed in 1977, just the year Taylor went out.

Also, from 1971 to 1977, the chief QB of the Redskins was Billy Kilmer. Kilmer was not a deep passer, and consequently, teams took advantage of this shortcoming. Obviously, it your QB is Kilmer rather than Jay Schroder, your stats will look different.

Yep, and does anyone remember Dick Night Train Lane, Fred Williamson (the hammer), Mel Blount, Donnie Shell, Jake Scott, Ken Houston (played in Houston first), Mike Haynes, Hacksaw Reynolds, Dick Butkus (who liked to drop back in short patterns), Herb Adderly, Travis Williams, Willie Brown, George Atkinson, Aaron Brown, Mel Renfro, Tom Jackson, Roger Wherli, - welll if you haven't , then go to the HALL of FAME where Taylor and those guys are or on highlight reels of them there. Taylor made an indelible impression on all of them! That's why he's there.

However, Art Monk who actually was coached by the great Charley Taylor himself, prior to and during the Joe Gibbs run, showed he could MATCH, EXCEED and set a new bar of what Taylor had done!!!! Not only that, he had an accurate arm. His running style on end and arounds was reminiscint of Taylor and his acrobatic, flying catches clearly show that if he didn't catch that ball, it would have normally been OUT OF PLAY! Thats just Gawdy and phenomenal he really was. I watched both IN PERSON TWICE (Taylor and Monk) Monk had 5 gears, his body movement, matched only by Taylor and his temperament, again the same. Even in his low profile demeanor, off the field, he was still a sought after advertising and marketable person for quality, air lines, art, community work! To this day, he still participates in area action around D.C. and is on that list of the 70 greatest.

Art Monk - CANTON WELCOMES YOU! God Bless You and your humbleness and patience, matched only by Darrell Green.

"You're Simply the Best" Tina Turner

[Redskin-4-life]

I voted for Monk. From the times I've seen him, he always left it all on the field, and never complained.

[Keino]

Charley Taylor. Not only was he the most dominant WR this franchise has ever had, he was a 1st ballot HOFer, played 14 game seasons in which the Defensive backs were allowed to bump the WR until the ball was in the air. Taylor still has more TD's than ANY SINGLE PLAYER IN FRANCHISE HISTORY. Furthermore, Art Monk's successes are largely due the the tutelage of Charley Taylor, who was Monk's position coach. While as Skins WR coach, the route running of our WR's top notch and huge part of the unit's successes.

No disrespect intended to Sir Arthur Monk, but he can't hold a candle to Charley Taylor, the most prolific WR this franchise has ever seen.

[Santheb]

I think I remember reading somewhere that some guys who were on the team when Charley Taylor was coaching the wide receivers, and said something like "Some guys are really good at coaching after their careers, but Charley Taylor wasn't one of them." It was something like that. It was either that, or I'm just stupid or something.

[flave1969]

It was very hard for me to look past Charley Taylor, the more I learn the harder it becomes. I have been lucky to see a fair few of Charley Taylor TD's and it was clear that he was a master at using his physical gifts. It was a rough game when he played and for him to record the totals he did is amazing.

For me to pick Art Monk it was a hard decision. Obviously he does not stand out head and shoulders above Taylor, no receiver does.

Taylor in 174 NFL games had 649 receptions 9110 yards, 14.0 ypc average 79 receiving TD's. After 12 seasons in the NFL Art Monk had played 173 games.
He had amassed 801 receptions, 10984 yards had a 13.8 ypc average and had scored 60 TD's. Is this enough of a generational leap to consider him the best? Not quite.

So I looked closely at some other things. I did wonder about his lack of TD production but when you look at how often Joe Gibbs ran in the Red Zone and in general it is not hard to figure. In fact Monk was an integral part of that running game as were many receivers under Gibbs, Monk was a special blocker for a man in his position. That means a lot too me.

Too me Art Monk made that team tick, without him I think the passing game would not have been the same. Clark, Sanders, Brown and a whole host of receivers saw a lot of single coverage because of Monk. He gave Joe Gibbs the licence to send those guys deep because Monk was so reliable underneath and kept defenders honest. I think the hardest place to make your living as a receiver is on the sideline and over the middle, he was excellent at both.

It is so long since we had a great receiver but I cannot remember a finer route runner, a player with better hands or better moves after the catch.
I still wonder what would have happened if Joe Gibbs had a different philosophy towards the game. I think Monk could have easily have passed a 1000 receptions and amassed 14000 yards plus he was that good. Between 1965 and 1990 only one player caught more than 100 passes in a season that was Art Monk when he caught 106. He caught 26 more passes than all other Redskin Wideouts combined. That was what happened when Joe Gibbs went to the Art Monk well. It worked for him and it worked for the team. I vote Art Monk.

[NCskinsfanatic]

I too love Monk and enjoyed being able to watch him throughout his redskins career. And although most of what I know about Taylor is through reading books and /or watching NFL Films and highlight reels. I feel like Taylor was more of a dominant force and was a premier WR in a tougher era for WRs. I cant take anything away from Monk though, and it's ridiculus that he is not in Canton at this point. Just in this instance my money is on Taylor.

[flave1969]

Charley Taylor 1964-1977 649 Receptions
Charlie Joiner 1969-1986 750 Receptions (difference plus 101)
Steve Largent 1976-1989 819 Receptions (difference plus 69)
Art Monk 1980-1995 940 Receptions (difference plus 121)

All four retired the all time reception leader, each raised the bar a notch. Why is it that Art Monk raised the bar himself, is the only one who is in the Top Ten postseason reception list, granted he played more postseason games but he actually averages more catches, yards, and scores than the others.

What the hell changed for him too be so overlooked?

For me it is three things. Jerry Rice and the fact that passing stats went mad from 1993 onwards. Finally had Art Monk been Mr Effusive with the media instead of the private man he naturally was he would have been straight in first time. He really suffered a revisionist history from his retirement to his eligibility and it sucks.

I realise this is not the platform but it sucks. The notion that a wide receiver can only be one type is a falsehood and Art suffers for it.

[Wild Bore]

This is a hard poll. First off, as great as Clark and Sanders were, they don't belong on the list. Sorry.

It is too bad we can't be in a three wide-out set all the time. That is what it would take to get this one right. I waited on this one to think it through. The fact that either Taylor, Monk or Mitchell will not make this list and Larry Centers will is a crime. (We should do this poll with a one back offense.)

OK. Monk was great. Taylor was even better. If he hadn't started off his career as a running back (made rookie of the year doing that too!), he would have had even more catches. Someone said something about yards after the catch. Taylor was a jack rabbit, much better than Monk. (Monk was better at 3rd down tough yards though.)

With all that said, I truly believe that Mitchell was a better athlete than both. He was the best athlete to ever wear a Redskin uniform, period. He also started his career as a running back and played a few years with Cleveland, else his Redskins stats would be better. I wish there was a category for best all purpose. Many would vote for Brian Mitchell, but Bobby Mitchell blows Brian away.

Taylor gets my vote.

[Spence]

Taylor deserves serious consideration, but I went with Monk. Not an easy decision, though.

[GibbsFan]

I love Monk to death and there is no way that he shouldn't already be in the HOF. But, IMO, Charley Taylor was the best WR we've ever had.

Yup, that how I felt about it.

[Meatsnack]

Charley Taylor by a hair over Art. Mr. Taylor played the game the same way Art did, with class, efficiency and 100% effort. Taylor gets the slight nod for playing in a run dominated era and being a dangerous receiver catching Kilmer's lame ducks.

[flave1969]

This is a hard poll. First off, as great as Clark and Sanders were, they don't belong on the list. Sorry.

It is too bad we can't be in a three wide-out set all the time. That is what it would take to get this one right. I waited on this one to think it through. The fact that either Taylor, Monk or Mitchell will not make this list and Larry Centers will is a crime. (We should do this poll with a one back offense.)

OK. Monk was great. Taylor was even better. If he hadn't started off his career as a running back (made rookie of the year doing that too!), he would have had even more catches. Someone said something about yards after the catch. Taylor was a jack rabbit, much better than Monk. (Monk was better at 3rd down tough yards though.)

With all that said, I truly believe that Mitchell was a better athlete than both. He was the best athlete to ever wear a Redskin uniform, period. He also started his career as a running back and played a few years with Cleveland, else his Redskins stats would be better. I wish there was a category for best all purpose. Many would vote for Brian Mitchell, but Bobby Mitchell blows Brian away.

Taylor gets my vote.

Bobby Mitchell had two phenomenal seasons in 1962 and 1963.

1962 72 Receptions 1384 Yards 19.2 Average 11TD's
1963 69 Receptions 1436 Yards 20.8 Average 7TD's

Amazing. I thought a lot about Bobby Mitchell.

[Redskin006]

Art Monk no doubt in my mind.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I went w/ Charley. He was one of the first big WR's.

[Wild Bore]

Bobby Mitchell had two phenomenal seasons in 1962 and 1963.

1962 72 Receptions 1384 Yards 19.2 Average 11TD's
1963 69 Receptions 1436 Yards 20.8 Average 7TD's

Amazing. I thought a lot about Bobby Mitchell.

14 game season too!

[Keino]

I gotta say, this year, Im most proud of this poll. In years past, Monk blew away Taylor in the voting, simply because people weren't familiar with Taylor and his contributions, and Many voted Monk in part because of the unjust way that writers like Peter King and Dr. Z are keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. What disturbed me in polls past was the treatment of this particular position as if it was a no-brainer. I appreciate the fact that Charley Taylor hasn't been completely disrespected.

I agree Bobby Mitchell deserves serious consideration, but for me at the WR position, Taylor and Monk are the cream of the crop. I'd like to see as Bore suggests, doing away with the FB position and playing 3 wides on our All-time team, that way Mitchell (Bobby not Brian), also a HOFer can get his just do as well.

[Spence]

I'd like to see as Bore suggests, doing away with the FB position...How can you do that to Otis Wonsley?!?!?! :)

[Keino]

How can you do that to Otis Wonsley?!?!?! :)

He is best on Special Teams Coverage. Of course Brian mitchell will win that poll, unjustly........

[dj_stouty]

For me...This was a toss up between Kevin Lockett, Jaquez Green and Derrius Thompson.

I went with Lockett. ;)

[charleesdad]

I voted Monk but do appreciate all that Taylor did and meant to the team.

I will admit that my vote may be based on the fact that I watched Monk's career in total and even watched him when he played for the Jets but I still believe that Art Monk was one of the 5 best receivers ever.

His character and heart are unquestionable as has been stated throughout this thread. His route running and hands were awesome. He had no problem going over the middle...ran the end around well... blocked like a fullback (Monk by the way came to the NFL as a running back out of Syracuse). When most people think about SBXXII they think about the 2nd quarter... I think about the first quarter when Monk (playing hurt... I dont think he played more than a handful of total plays) took a pass and ran 40 yards to wake up the offense. It may not have been until the 2nd qtr that they really got things going but IMO Monk's play made them believe they were still in the game.

He may not have caught a ton of TDs in his career but the little things he did are what set him apart. He could get open against any D and passed on this skill to many of the younger guys that came through. (I hate to bring up his time outside the skins but I specifically remember hearing comments from the Jets receivers in '94 on how Monk always found a way to get open and how much of an impact he had on them.)

[charleesdad]

For me...This was a toss up between Kevin Lockett, Jaquez Green and Derrius Thompson.

I went with Lockett. ;)
That is a great post... maybe you should have considered desmond howard too... I think he caught almost 10 balls in his career

[HAWGZHEAD]

It's Art Monk so just stop arguing.

[openallnight]

No disrespect to Charlie Taylor but, Monk was a better football player. He could run with the ball, catch and run routes just as good as Taylor. The place where he separates himself was with his blocking skills. He has to be one of the best downfield blockers the game has ever seen. He was a huge reason for Clark's success. Anytime Clark caught one of those 15 yard crossing patterns and turned it into a 50 yard gain Monk was leveling a safety along the way.
I've even seen him matched up with Reggie White and get the best of him on several occasions.

[Wild Bore]

No disrespect to Charlie Taylor but, Monk was a better football player.

Is this conclusion based on personal observations? You were barely eight when Taylor retired. So, at most, you were able to watch maybe a year, two at most, at the tail end of his career. Taylor was a consenses HOFer, a distinction Monk has yet to attain. I can understand you wanting to vote for Monk as the receiver of your youth. But I can't understand how you can be so sure of your statements to make an unequivocal statement such as the one you made.

[Axegrinder]

Bobby Mitchell.
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=152

[dogfight6]

This was a tough one, I flipped a coin and Taylor beat Monk, that was the only way I could decide.

[openallnight]

Is this conclusion based on personal observations? You were barely eight when Taylor retired. So, at most, you were able to watch maybe a year, two at most, at the tail end of his career. Taylor was a consenses HOFer, a distinction Monk has yet to attain. I can understand you wanting to vote for Monk as the receiver of your youth. But I can't understand how you can be so sure of your statements to make an unequivocal statement such as the one you made.
It's true that I obviously saw alot more of Monk than I did of Taylor growing up. But as I explained, the reason I gave the nod to Monk was because of his blocking skills. Would anyone argue that Taylor was a superior blocker to Monk?

[Keino]

No disrespect to Charlie Taylor but, Monk was a better football player. He could run with the ball, catch and run routes just as good as Taylor. The place where he separates himself was with his blocking skills. He has to be one of the best downfield blockers the game has ever seen. He was a huge reason for Clark's success. Anytime Clark caught one of those 15 yard crossing patterns and turned it into a 50 yard gain Monk was leveling a safety along the way.
I've even seen him matched up with Reggie White and get the best of him on several occasions.

You are aware that Taylor, Mitchell and Smith were 1, 2 & 3 in the league in receiving one year ....'67 I believe (Yards & Receptions) are you not? I don't think Monk, Clark & Sanders ever attained such a standard.

Like Bore, I can understand a vote for Monk, what I cannot understand however, is acting as if it is a no brainer. This is not a slam dunk. One has to do something special in ones career to be a 1st ballot HOFer and in that regard, Taylor is thought of in higher esteem by his peers than Monk is/was by his.......

[Wild Bore]

It's true that I obviously saw alot more of Monk than I did of Taylor growing up. But as I explained, the reason I gave the nod to Monk was because of his blocking skills. Would anyone argue that Taylor was a superior blocker to Monk?

If the primary reason you want a wide receiver is for his blocking skills, then by all means, use that logic. Personnally, I put more value on ability to get separation, speed and quickness, sure handedness, yards after catch and other such factors. But, hey, blocking is important. It got Donnie Warren on the team too!

[Wild Bore]

Bobby Mitchell.
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=152

Thank you for preventing a shutout. I should have done this myself. You may be the only one who is right in this poll.

[Keino]

If the primary reason you want a wide receiver is for his blocking skills, then by all means, use that logic. Personnally, I put more value on ability to get separation, speed and quickness, sure handedness, yards after catch and other such factors. But, hey, blocking is important. It got Donnie Warren on the team too!

LOL. C'mon Bore, that Donny Warren thing is sore subject for me.

As for Taylor, I guess scoring more TD's than any other person who has worn the uniform means nothing........

[charleesdad]

If the primary reason you want a wide receiver is for his blocking skills, then by all means, use that logic. Personnally, I put more value on ability to get separation, speed and quickness, sure handedness, yards after catch and other such factors. But, hey, blocking is important. It got Donnie Warren on the team too!

I think the point he was trying to make is that he feels Monk matches Taylor in all other aspects of the receiving game but that his blocking made him more valuable to the team in total.

I too was also too young to watch Taylor play but from all the reading and research I have done over the years I must say that this poll is in no way a no brainer for Monk. I voted for Monk myself and gave him the nod for the intangibles (including his blocking). I thought Monk made the team better and the other receivers better but I haven't done specific research to the affect Taylor had on the rest of the receiving corps. Taylors TD numbers certainly say something and I think Monks lack in that area are a big part of why he is not in the hall YET.

[flave1969]

If the primary reason you want a wide receiver is for his blocking skills, then by all means, use that logic. Personnally, I put more value on ability to get separation, speed and quickness, sure handedness, yards after catch and other such factors. But, hey, blocking is important. It got Donnie Warren on the team too!

Whilst I agree that blocking skills should not be a criteria for a Wide Receiver, the fact that Art Monk and the other Gibbs receivers were asked to do it so much was a factor in reducing their overall production and it has reduced them in peoples minds in the past. With Art Monk all those things you listed except maybe his speed(physically not mind) were his strong points.

[openallnight]

I think the point he was trying to make is that he feels Monk matches Taylor in all other aspects of the receiving game but that his blocking made him more valuable to the team in total.

I too was also too young to watch Taylor play but from all the reading and research I have done over the years I must say that this poll is in no way a no brainer for Monk. I voted for Monk myself and gave him the nod for the intangibles (including his blocking). I thought Monk made the team better and the other receivers better but I haven't done specific research to the affect Taylor had on the rest of the receiving corps. Taylors TD numbers certainly say something and I think Monks lack in that area are a big part of why he is not in the hall YET.
Exactly! Thanks, for clarifying my point.