Ryan Kerrigan

[Sportster 72]

Here is a debate I had for years. I was told for years how much better than Khalil Mack was than Kerrigan. It appears with two less years Mack is 11 sacks behind Kerrigan. It is certainly possible he will have more sacks given two more years. But a much better player .... I think not. Good luck Mack. It might be noted after 9 years Kerrigan had more sacks 90.5 .... same amount of years that Mack has now. Could I have been right when I said they were the same player?

 

[kbso83432]

Here is a debate I had for years. I was told for years how much better than Khalil Mack was than Kerrigan. It appears with two less years Mack is 11 sacks behind Kerrigan. It is certainly possible he will have more sacks given two more years. But a much better player .... I think not. Good luck Mack. It might be noted after 9 years Kerrigan had more sacks 90.5 .... same amount of years that Mack has now. Could I have been right when I said they were the same player?

Kerrigan was great. He just played on a bunch of bad teams. Skins dropped the ball by trading down. Could have had a general talent in Watt. That said RK did it the right way if you know what I mean. Just Google some old pictures of Watt.

If Kerrigan was on those Patriots teams or played for the Cowboys, he's doing TV right now and would be considered great not very good.

 

[Skin'EmAll]

Here is a debate I had for years. I was told for years how much better than Khalil Mack was than Kerrigan. It appears with two less years Mack is 11 sacks behind Kerrigan. It is certainly possible he will have more sacks given two more years. But a much better player .... I think not. Good luck Mack. It might be noted after 9 years Kerrigan had more sacks 90.5 .... same amount of years that Mack has now. Could I have been right when I said they were the same player?

That's an odd debate to me. IMO Kerrigan was just a notch below elite, but is a the type of gamer/person you dream to have on your squad.
On the other hand Mack has done serious damage stats wise, but i can't recall him really pushing his teams to greatness, he's on like his 12th team now

 

[Stymietee]

Ryan Kerrigan like Kirk Cousins are good players, what they aren't are force multipliers... players that make others around them better like Mack, or any of the top QBs in the league. No offensive coordinator has ever lost sleep game planning against a team because it had Kerrigan on it like they often did with Mack. Kirk Cousin is what we used to call some guys on the basketball court..."self-check".... just good enough to be on the court, because they can make a shot from time to time but never that guy you call on to design a game-deciding play for because the odds are they will miss it or do something that cost you the game.

There's nothing wrong with these players, as I've stated often, both are good players... just not force multipliers.

One other thing about getting sacks... WHEN you get them is far more important than getting them routinely, for example getting one that completely changes the outcome of a game carries more weight than getting two at the end of a game already lost.

 

[kbso83432]

Kerrigan wasn't elite, but he was great imo. Was in no way Dexter, but is the all-time Skins sack leader.

RK was scoring touchdowns early in his career. I'm sure Charlie Brown and Gary Clark kept defensive coordinators up at night more than Monk did. They were just more explosive, but Monk was great.

To your point RK is considered very good, not great, but I maintain if he played on the Pats and had a ring or two, with his numbers he would be considered great.

 

[skinsdad62]

Force multipliers are rare

 

[Stymietee]

Kerrigan wasn't elite, but he was great imo. Was in no way Dexter, but is the all-time Skins sack leader.

RK was scoring touchdowns early in his career. I'm sure Charlie Brown and Gary Clark kept defensive coordinators up at night more than Monk did. They were just more explosive, but Monk was great.

To your point RK is considered very good, not great, but I maintain if he played on the Pats and had a ring or two, with his numbers he would be considered great.

I don't think that "great" works with respect to Kerrigan even if he played with any other team. Sure he got his numbers and I cannot dispute his early proclivity to score TDs, but "great" and "elite" to me means HOF worthy and he certainly wasn't that.

Make no mistake, Art Monk was the force multiplier and the reason why Brown and Clark became more dangerous. He (Monk) is considered by many NFL players, coaches, and analysts to be one of the greatest wide receivers of all time. Monk was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2008. Neither Brown nor Clark to date has garnered enough backing to be inducted into the hall.

 

[kbso83432]

I don't think that "great" works with respect to Kerrigan even if he played with any other team. Sure he got his numbers and I cannot dispute his early proclivity to score TDs, but "great" and "elite" to me means HOF worthy and he certainly wasn't that.

Make no mistake, Art Monk was the force multiplier and the reason why Brown and Clark became more dangerous. He (Monk) is considered by many NFL players, coaches, and analysts to be one of the greatest wide receivers of all time. Monk was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2008. Neither Brown nor Clark to date has garnered enough backing to be inducted into the hall.

I love Monk but was he a force multiplier when they made two Superbowl playoff runs without him?

 

[Stymietee]

Force multipliers are rare

Yeah for Washington... Can you name any on this current team? Perhaps Dotson???

As for other clubs... There are currently several QBs, and many WRs, among other offensive and defensive players that easily fill this definition.

 

[Stymietee]

I love Monk but was he a force multiplier when they made two Superbowl playoff runs without him?

With or without him doesn't change the player or what he contributes to the team/game. I'm really not sure how your question relates to the subject unless you're asking if he wasn't HOF-worthy because he wasn't there when they made SB runs or that his absence somehow made him less of a player than he actually was. I'm not trying to be difficult or insulting, I just want clarity on how his absence made him less than what he was.

 

[kbso83432]

With or without him doesn't change the player or what he contributes to the team/game. I'm really not sure how your question relates to the subject unless you're asking if he wasn't HOF-worthy because he wasn't there when they made SB runs or that his absence somehow made him less of a player than he actually was. I'm not trying to be difficult or insulting, I just want clarity on how his absence made him less than what he was.

My question related to your insinuation that Monk made Brown and Clark go. Brown was lights out in the 82 run with Monk on crutches. Clark was lights out in the 87 run when Monk barely made it back in time for the Superbowl.

Monk was better than Brown and Clark of course. Monk's absence didn't make him less than what he was. This is not a post intended to disrespect the great Art Monk. I just feel you could have put a little more respect on Gary Clark and Charlie Brown's name.

They proved with or without Monk on the field, they were gonna get theirs. Both of those guys were plenty dangerous without Monk in the lineup.

 

[Debbie Does]

Do sack counts look at possible sack opportunities? I suspect not. But, if a defender is on a good team and his opponents are often behind, he's going to have more chances because the opponents typically have to pass more to catch up. Likewise, if the opponents are a true run--first team, there will be fewer chances to register sacks. A good ball-control team will keep the other team's offense off the field, limiting sack opportunities.

 

[Stymietee]

My question related to your insinuation that Monk made Brown and Clark go. Brown was lights out in the 82 run with Monk on crutches. Clark was lights out in the 87 run when Monk barely made it back in time for the Superbowl.

Monk was better than Brown and Clark of course. Monk's absence didn't make him less than what he was. This is not a post intended to disrespect the great Art Monk. I just feel you could have put a little more respect on Gary Clark and Charlie Brown's name.

They proved with or without Monk on the field, they were gonna get theirs. Both of those guys were plenty dangerous without Monk in the lineup.

I never put any disrespect on Clark or Brown by pointing out the obvious... Art Monk made both better. These things are not equal, they were good and he is a HOFer. Where's the disrespect? BTW; when mentioning Brown and Clark we would be amiss to not include the equally good Ricky Sanders.

 

[kbso83432]

I never put any disrespect on Clark or Brown by pointing out the obvious... Art Monk made both better. These things are not equal, they were good and he is a HOFer. Where's the disrespect? BTW; when mentioning Brown and Clark we would be amiss to not include the equally good Ricky Sanders.

I mean yeah, Sanders. Garrett went nuts in Monk's absence. For sure. Monk could definitely beat you deep, but Clark clearing out space for Monk happend a lot as well. I think they fed off of each other. Monk was the HOF and rightly so. Mentioning Monk when referring to Brown and Clark's success to me was an unfair overt slight. Especially when you juxtapose their production when he was out.

 

[Stymietee]

Do sack counts look at possible sack opportunities? I suspect not. But, if a defender is on a good team and his opponents are often behind, he's going to have more chances because the opponents typically have to pass more to catch up. Likewise, if the opponents are a true run--first team, there will be fewer chances to register sacks. A good ball-control team will keep the other team's offense off the field, limiting sack opportunities.

To answer your opening question...No they do not!

From a defensive perspective, sacks are good but as stated before, WHEN they occur is far more important than when they take place routinely. A fifteen-yard loss sack at the beginning of a game, although impactful at the moment doesn't carry the same weight as a fifteen-yard loss sack near the end of the same game with your opponent on your 35-yard line driving towards the winning FG.

 

[Stymietee]

I mean yeah, Sanders. Garrett went nuts in Monk's absence. For sure. Monk could definitely beat you deep, but Clark clearing out space for Monk happend a lot as well. I think they fed off of each other. Monk was the HOF and rightly so. Mentioning Monk when referring to Brown and Clark's success to me was an unfair overt slight. Especially when you juxtapose their production when he was out.

I respect your perspective!

 

[kbso83432]

I respect your perspective!

Yours as well. I love Monk.

 

[Stymietee]

Yours as well. I love Monk.

These guys were outstanding for this team and I respect and cherish the memories that they have left all of us. Good conversation man!

 

[kbso83432]

These guys were outstanding for this team and I respect and cherish the memories that they have left all of us. Good conversation man!

Good convo for sure. Monk was the man. Still have a picture i took with him at Carlisle when I was about ten. I did wear 84 in High School because of Clark though. That tough SOB was my guy.

 

[Sportster 72]

Clark and Monk were both great but Taylor and Mitchell ... they were two bad dudes. Different times but as I remember it Taylor was all time reception leader when he retired.