What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Steve Smith - when all is said and done, HoF? (2 Viewers)

moleculo

Footballguy
was reading a playoff-preview article today that really sang the praises of Smith. Got me thinking about his HoF credentials.

link

Steve Smith made playoff magic exactly one decade ago Friday. He caught six passes for 163 yards in a playoff upset of the Rams, including a 69-yard touchdown pass in double overtime -- the greatest play in the greatest game in Panthers history, and one of the greatest playoff games in NFL history.

Yes, that was the same Steve Smith, not his father or some other receiver with the same name. He was the star of a playoff game that featured Marshall Faulk and Orlando Pace, Stephen Davis and Jake Delhomme, Aeneas Williams and Dan Morgan and … believe it … JASON SEHORN. He has been in Carolina the whole time. He has changed, as Pearl Jam would say, by not changing much at all.

Smith followed his double overtime heroics with four catches and a touchdown in the Super Bowl loss to the Patriots. He was back two years later to catch 10 passes and score two touchdowns in a playoff shutout of the Giants, 12 passes for 218 yards and two touchdowns (58 and 39-yarders) in a victory over the Bears and return a punt for a touchdown in an NFC championship loss to the Seahawks.

Smith has 10 career playoff touchdowns. The Panthers have scored 219 playoff points in franchise history. John Kasay, their kicker for a generation, scored 81. Smith scored 60. Everyone else -- Davis, Muhsin Muhammad, Wesley Walls, DeShaun Foster, Ricky Proehl, DeAngelo Williams, Nick Goings -- have combined for 78 points. Only Tom Brady has had as big an impact on his current franchise's playoff fortunes as Steve Smith has had on the Panthers.

...

Smith is also the chronicler of Panthers history. He was there for double overtime, for Jake Delhomme's Arizona meltdown and Janet Jackson's nipple. He was there for 2-14, catching passes from Jimmy Clausen and Brian St. Pierre. He broke an arm scoring a touchdown that did nothing but edge the Panthers closer to .500. He welcomed Newton and challenged Newton, and the current Panthers have absorbed Smith's personality in a way that recent Ravens teams became extensions of Ray Lewis. The Panthers are dangerous, daring and scrappy, and they are not quite as new to the playoff picture as they appear.
his case (so far):

  • 13 seasons
  • 5x pro-bowler, 2x all-pro (once as KR), 2x 2nd team all-pro
  • 2005 comeback playoer of the year
  • led league in 2005 is receptions, yards, TD's
  • career receiving stats: 836 receptions (25th), 12197 yards (19th), 67 TDs (39th)
  • playoff heroics are detailed above.
  • if he plays one more season, it's likely he moves into top 15 receiving yards and top 20 in receptions.
He has a pretty weak case, I think, when compared to Harrison/Moss/Owens and probably is on the outside looking in, but I think there's something to be said for the guy who has been the face of a franchise across multiple eras. He was never lucky enough to be on a high-scoring offense with a good QB, but he's got a reputation as being scrappy, feisty, loyal. I'd imagine he could get dinged for some of his TD-celebration antics and breaking a teammates jaw in training camp, but IMO he's one of those guys you would love to have on your team.

I believe he should be comparable to Tim Brown, Andre Reed, Bruce, and I'm sure some will say Ward. Guys that should go in before Smith include Owens, Moss, Harrison, and Holt.

thoughts?

 
Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.

 
Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.
Agreed. Outside of maybe one very good seasonh, he was always a "good" receiver, but never a great one. Tough, quick, I'd really love to have him on my team. But he won't and shouldn't sniff the HoF.

 
Was going to post a similar thread. Heard a discussion on the radio yesterday and the commentators mentioned that he was a sure fire HOFer and with 5 guys in the room, no one had an opposing perspective.

 
Let's see if he wins a SB this year.
Would winning a SB put him in the HoF in your eyes?
Let's see if he wins a SB this year.
Would winning a SB put him in the HoF in your eyes?
I think if they do, and he has a big impact in winning the game, then yes. He will prob play another 1-2 years to put up more stats to pad on top of his 1 title. He has been to the SB before (beating my Eagles in the process/McNabb) - but winning a title would certainly help push him up some.

 
This seems patently ridiculous. There are plenty of other receivers with better stats and who were more consistent who haven't even gotten in yet (and probably won't).

 
Let's see if he wins a SB this year.
Would winning a SB put him in the HoF in your eyes?
Let's see if he wins a SB this year.
Would winning a SB put him in the HoF in your eyes?
I think if they do, and he has a big impact in winning the game, then yes. He will prob play another 1-2 years to put up more stats to pad on top of his 1 title. He has been to the SB before (beating my Eagles in the process/McNabb) - but winning a title would certainly help push him up some.
I would argue that if they make it to the SB, win, and he has an awesome game, he's still nowhere close.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While he did not have the luxury of a high-powered offense in an era of high-power offenses, he will be judged by the numbers (unless he wins a SB MVP or something) and they just don't jump off the page at you. Moss, for example, has 90 more TDs than Smith. 90!!

You know who has eerily similar numbers to Smith? Anquan Boldin...and Boldin won a Super Bowl. Would you consider Boldin a HOFer? The line is going to be too long for Mr. Smith. You have guys like Owens, Moss, etc. who will be in front of him, Fitz/Calvin who will likely be retired or about to retire when Smith's 5 year waiting period ends, and worthy players at other positions.

 
My motto is: If Namath is there, anyone has a chance. Not saying he has a great chance, but it would be like 15% ---25% if he won a title. Namath would have never made it without his title. Yeah yeah, different era and all..

 
My motto is: If Namath is there, anyone has a chance. Not saying he has a great chance, but it would be like 15% ---25% if he won a title. Namath would have never made it without his title. Yeah yeah, different era and all..
Not to get off-topic (but maybe it is on-topic), Namath held the single-season passing record for yards for 12 years. What has Steve Smith done that is "out-of-the-ordinary"...besides jacking up a teammate?

 
He has a better case than I realized, with two 1st team All Pro selections and 5 seasons with 1200+ yards from scrimmage. But I don't think he will make it. His career overlaps with too many other more deserving WRs, including (in no particular order):

Moss

Harrison

Owens

Holt

Bruce

Wayne

Calvin Johnson

Andre Johnson

Fitzgerald

It doesn't help that he played his career in Carolina, not a prime media market and not a franchise that played many national games over the course of his career.

It really hurt his resume that he got hurt and missed his age 25 season, just as he entered his prime. That was the season before the best season of Smith's career (103/1563/12 receiving). And while Smith was hurt that season, Muhsin Muhammad had 93/1405/16 receiving, a crazy outlier for him (54/837/3 the year before and 64/750/4 the year after). Had Smith not gotten hurt, he would almost certainly have a sixth impressive season on his resume.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hall of the Very Good.

Hall of the people with giant chips on their shoulder

Hall of Angry Smurfs?

 
I'd put him third on the list of "Receivers named Smith who had pretty good careers but don't deserve the Hall", behind Rod and Jimmy.

 
Should he? Yes.

Will he? No.

Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.
I thought exactly this during the 2005 postseason. I saw how Smith was playing, and I saw how teams were defending him, and I thought "oh my god, this guy is one of the best receivers of all time". Chicago was the best passing defense in the entire NFL, and Smiff just DESTROYED them in one of the best receiver games in NFL history. The following week, Seattle's defensive gameplan was "we literally do not care about anything at all except for stopping Steve Smith". Smiff was one of two players who I have seen face routine triple-coverage through the entire course of a game (Calvin was the other, FWIW). And it worked! Carolina's RBs had 9 carries for 21 yards, their passing game fell apart as Jake Delhomme (who at that point was the highest-rated postseason passer in NFL history, with 6 straight games with a rating over 95, 5 of 6 with a rating over 100, 9.2 career yards per attempt, 10 TDs vs. 2 INTs, and a 5-1 record) just imploded without Smiff to bail him out- below 50% completions, below 6 yards per attempt, 1 TD vs. 3 INTs. Oh, and while Seattle managed to slow Smiff down in the passing game by just throwing bodies at him, Smiff still scored half of Carolina's points off of a punt return for a touchdown.

Steve Smith's career numbers are hurt by the fact that he played his entire career in a mediocre, run-first offense with barely competent quarterback play. Despite this, he basically averaged 100 receiving yards per game with anything that even remotely resembled an NFL-caliber quarterback (i.e. Jake Delhomme or Cam Newton), and only struggled otherwise because he was working with Chris Weinke, Vinny Testeverde, David Carr, Matt Moore, and Jimmy Clausen. The guy was a one-man offense, and if his team gave him even the slightest chance, Smith would carry them.

I don't think Smiff was as good as Moss/Owens/Harrison. I also don't think he's as good as Calvin/Fitz. I don't think he's very far behind them at all, though, and if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection. I think he's a rich man's Tim Brown, and I say that as someone who believes Tim Brown should be in the Hall of Fame.

 
doubtful.

i think there is a long list a of wide outs a head of him many of which have been mentioned.

I'd think Hines Ward will get in before him.. and im not sure if hines is a lock either

 
Should he? Yes.

Will he? No.

Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.
I thought exactly this during the 2005 postseason. I saw how Smith was playing, and I saw how teams were defending him, and I thought "oh my god, this guy is one of the best receivers of all time". Chicago was the best passing defense in the entire NFL, and Smiff just DESTROYED them in one of the best receiver games in NFL history. The following week, Seattle's defensive gameplan was "we literally do not care about anything at all except for stopping Steve Smith". Smiff was one of two players who I have seen face routine triple-coverage through the entire course of a game (Calvin was the other, FWIW). And it worked! Carolina's RBs had 9 carries for 21 yards, their passing game fell apart as Jake Delhomme (who at that point was the highest-rated postseason passer in NFL history, with 6 straight games with a rating over 95, 5 of 6 with a rating over 100, 9.2 career yards per attempt, 10 TDs vs. 2 INTs, and a 5-1 record) just imploded without Smiff to bail him out- below 50% completions, below 6 yards per attempt, 1 TD vs. 3 INTs. Oh, and while Seattle managed to slow Smiff down in the passing game by just throwing bodies at him, Smiff still scored half of Carolina's points off of a punt return for a touchdown.

Steve Smith's career numbers are hurt by the fact that he played his entire career in a mediocre, run-first offense with barely competent quarterback play. Despite this, he basically averaged 100 receiving yards per game with anything that even remotely resembled an NFL-caliber quarterback (i.e. Jake Delhomme or Cam Newton), and only struggled otherwise because he was working with Chris Weinke, Vinny Testeverde, David Carr, Matt Moore, and Jimmy Clausen. The guy was a one-man offense, and if his team gave him even the slightest chance, Smith would carry them.

I don't think Smiff was as good as Moss/Owens/Harrison. I also don't think he's as good as Calvin/Fitz. I don't think he's very far behind them at all, though, and if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection. I think he's a rich man's Tim Brown, and I say that as someone who believes Tim Brown should be in the Hall of Fame.
Do you mind ranking your top 10 WR who played since the 2000 season? I have a hard time believing Steve Smith would rank #6 on that list. But speaking as someone who assuredly knows less than you do on the subject (I respect your opinion as highly as anyone on this board), I'd be interested in seeing it. Sure, Smith was very good. Sure he had a couple games where he dominated. And sure he had a bad QB and run-first offense for a lot of his career. Is that really Hall of Fame worthy? I don't think so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd put him third on the list of "Receivers named Smith who had pretty good careers but don't deserve the Hall", behind Rod and Jimmy.
of course I love Rod Smith but IMO he was a beneficiary of a very astute west-coast passing attack. His career numbers pale to Smith, he was never all-pro, and only a 3x pro-bowler.

Jimmy Smith has slightly more career yards and receptions, but Steve should pass Jimmy in both next season (provided Steve doesn't retire). jimmy was a 5x pro-bowler just like Steve, but never all-pro. He had really only one really great year (1999), and a couple of great playoff games. I suppose jimmy is pretty close, but Steve is in-line to pass everything he ever did.

 
Should he? Yes.

Will he? No.

Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.
I thought exactly this during the 2005 postseason. I saw how Smith was playing, and I saw how teams were defending him, and I thought "oh my god, this guy is one of the best receivers of all time". Chicago was the best passing defense in the entire NFL, and Smiff just DESTROYED them in one of the best receiver games in NFL history. The following week, Seattle's defensive gameplan was "we literally do not care about anything at all except for stopping Steve Smith". Smiff was one of two players who I have seen face routine triple-coverage through the entire course of a game (Calvin was the other, FWIW). And it worked! Carolina's RBs had 9 carries for 21 yards, their passing game fell apart as Jake Delhomme (who at that point was the highest-rated postseason passer in NFL history, with 6 straight games with a rating over 95, 5 of 6 with a rating over 100, 9.2 career yards per attempt, 10 TDs vs. 2 INTs, and a 5-1 record) just imploded without Smiff to bail him out- below 50% completions, below 6 yards per attempt, 1 TD vs. 3 INTs. Oh, and while Seattle managed to slow Smiff down in the passing game by just throwing bodies at him, Smiff still scored half of Carolina's points off of a punt return for a touchdown.

Steve Smith's career numbers are hurt by the fact that he played his entire career in a mediocre, run-first offense with barely competent quarterback play. Despite this, he basically averaged 100 receiving yards per game with anything that even remotely resembled an NFL-caliber quarterback (i.e. Jake Delhomme or Cam Newton), and only struggled otherwise because he was working with Chris Weinke, Vinny Testeverde, David Carr, Matt Moore, and Jimmy Clausen. The guy was a one-man offense, and if his team gave him even the slightest chance, Smith would carry them.

I don't think Smiff was as good as Moss/Owens/Harrison. I also don't think he's as good as Calvin/Fitz. I don't think he's very far behind them at all, though, and if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection. I think he's a rich man's Tim Brown, and I say that as someone who believes Tim Brown should be in the Hall of Fame.
Do you mind ranking your top 10 WR who played since the 2000 season? I have a hard time believing Steve Smith would rank #6 on that list. But speaking as someone who assuredly knows less than you do on the subject (I respect your opinion as highly as anyone on this board), I'd be interested in seeing it. Sure, Smith was very good. Sure he had a couple games where he dominated. And sure he had a bad QB and run-first offense for a lot of his career. Is that really Hall of Fame worthy? I don't think so.
It wasn't just a couple of games where he dominated. Steve Smith is one of three receivers since the 16-game season to lead the NFL in receptions, yards, and touchdowns in the same year (the other two are Jerry Rice and Sterling Sharpe). Like I said, his per-16-game averages with Jake Delhomme from 2005 to 2008 were about 1600 yards. Had Smiff not missed 2004 (when Muhammad led the league in receiving in his absence), and had Delhomme not missed 2007, I think we'd be looking at one of the great 5-year runs in NFL history.

Just a rough pass, but ranking receivers just based on their contributions since 2000, I'd go with Owens > Moss > Fitzgerald > Calvin > Harrison > Smiff/Andre/Torry > Boldin/Ochocinco/Wayne > and then your Derrick Masons, Hines Wards, and Roddy Whites.

 
Not a chance.

It sucks for Smith that he never really got to play with an above average QB - and even since getting one in Cam, he still hasn't lit it up - but players are judged on what they did, not what they could have done, and Smith simply doesn't have the numbers:

-Only three seasons with 1,200+ receiving yards

-Only one season with double digit scores

-Never much of a scorer, only going over 7 twice, and having 4 or less four times (not counting his rookie year or the season he missed most of, '04)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It wasn't just a couple of games where he dominated. Steve Smith is one of three receivers since the 16-game season to lead the NFL in receptions, yards, and touchdowns in the same year (the other two are Jerry Rice and Sterling Sharpe). Like I said, his per-16-game averages with Jake Delhomme from 2005 to 2008 were about 1600 yards. Had Smiff not missed 2004 (when Muhammad led the league in receiving in his absence), and had Delhomme not missed 2007, I think we'd be looking at one of the great 5-year runs in NFL history.
I don't think the fact that Muhammad led the league in 2004 speaks well to Smith's contribution. Muhammad put up 87.8 yards per game, which Smith bested only twice, and 16 TDs, which Smith never got close to (12 in 2005 was his one and only time better than 8). That was actually a very good offense for WR stats.

 
Should he? Yes.

Will he? No.

Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.
I thought exactly this during the 2005 postseason. I saw how Smith was playing, and I saw how teams were defending him, and I thought "oh my god, this guy is one of the best receivers of all time". Chicago was the best passing defense in the entire NFL, and Smiff just DESTROYED them in one of the best receiver games in NFL history. The following week, Seattle's defensive gameplan was "we literally do not care about anything at all except for stopping Steve Smith". Smiff was one of two players who I have seen face routine triple-coverage through the entire course of a game (Calvin was the other, FWIW). And it worked! Carolina's RBs had 9 carries for 21 yards, their passing game fell apart as Jake Delhomme (who at that point was the highest-rated postseason passer in NFL history, with 6 straight games with a rating over 95, 5 of 6 with a rating over 100, 9.2 career yards per attempt, 10 TDs vs. 2 INTs, and a 5-1 record) just imploded without Smiff to bail him out- below 50% completions, below 6 yards per attempt, 1 TD vs. 3 INTs. Oh, and while Seattle managed to slow Smiff down in the passing game by just throwing bodies at him, Smiff still scored half of Carolina's points off of a punt return for a touchdown.

Steve Smith's career numbers are hurt by the fact that he played his entire career in a mediocre, run-first offense with barely competent quarterback play. Despite this, he basically averaged 100 receiving yards per game with anything that even remotely resembled an NFL-caliber quarterback (i.e. Jake Delhomme or Cam Newton), and only struggled otherwise because he was working with Chris Weinke, Vinny Testeverde, David Carr, Matt Moore, and Jimmy Clausen. The guy was a one-man offense, and if his team gave him even the slightest chance, Smith would carry them.

I don't think Smiff was as good as Moss/Owens/Harrison. I also don't think he's as good as Calvin/Fitz. I don't think he's very far behind them at all, though, and if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection. I think he's a rich man's Tim Brown, and I say that as someone who believes Tim Brown should be in the Hall of Fame.
Adam, this is a really well thought out (and written) post. While I practically agree with everything you said, I don't think you (and the masses) are taking into account the reality of the HOF. I can't remember off the top of my head if it is four or five men who get elected each year, but lets assume it is five. You have listed five others who you (and I think everyone on the board) would agree are better than Smith. I personally think Andre is better, and Boldin/Bruce are just as good or better...and Andre Reed is just as good IMO. But lets say he is #6 and five men get in each year. Over the course of a decade, that leaves 50 spots. For Smith to get in, that is six spots on WR. That leave 46 spots for QBs, RBs, TEs (at least Gonzo), OL, DL, LBs, and DBs...about 6.5 spots for each position. QBs will take more, TEs less, but it is cutting it way too close for a guy who is "arguably" on the bubble at his own position.

I used the "decade" span, as I really believe if he does not get in during his first 10 years of eligibility, he won't get in. In the end, there is just not enough space for him. If he can compile for the next 3+ years, then he will leapfrog Bruce/Boldin in my mind (but again, each has a SB ring), but then how will he compare to a guy like Brandon Marshall, who is three years younger and has only 120 less receptions, 1000 or so less yards, and just 10 less TDs and put up 81-1214-6 in that dismal season in MIA when both careers are over?

 
if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.

 
Bruce and Holt are far more deserving than Steve Smith.

Andre Johnson is an interesting case, as he always has the yards, but never scores a lot, and he put up a lot of those big yardage years in seasons where the Texans were throwing all day because they were always losing and/or in shootouts. Granted, it's not easy to rack up big yards that way, otherwise the Raiders WRs would be lighting it up every year :lol: . but I am just saying.

 
brohan if jack morris can not make it there is no way a football player is going in take that to the bank

 
if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.
Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.

 
if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.
Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.
Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.

 
if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.
Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.
Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.
Hines Ward, Chad Johnson, Keenan Mccardell, Keyshawn Johnson, Derrick Mason, Joe Horn

 
Last edited by a moderator:
if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.
Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.
Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.
I think a case could be made that Smith > Bruce.

Smith has 2 All-Pro selections, Bruce has 0. Smith has 5 pro-bowl appearances, Bruce had 4. Smith has been top 10 in receptions twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 just once. Smith was top 10 in yards 4x, leading league once. Bruce: same. smith was top 10 in receiving TD's twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 3x. Smith has 10 career post-season TD's (7 receiving), Bruce has 4. Smith has 782 career post-season receiving yards (and counting), Bruce has 759.

Bruce has more composite career stats, but he also had a 16 year career and played until he was 37. Smith is in year 13 at age 34, although it's likely he won't pass any of Bruces career numbers.

I'm cool with everyone else on that list (except Jimmy smith) being considered clearly better than Steve Smith in terms of HoF eligibility. It is a lot of WR's, but you've gotta think that in the era of exploding passing stats, the HoF would adjust and bring in more of the WR's that helped drive that change. It's possible for 10-12 of these guys to ultimately make it.

 
Should he? Yes.

Will he? No.

Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.
I thought exactly this during the 2005 postseason. I saw how Smith was playing, and I saw how teams were defending him, and I thought "oh my god, this guy is one of the best receivers of all time". Chicago was the best passing defense in the entire NFL, and Smiff just DESTROYED them in one of the best receiver games in NFL history. The following week, Seattle's defensive gameplan was "we literally do not care about anything at all except for stopping Steve Smith". Smiff was one of two players who I have seen face routine triple-coverage through the entire course of a game (Calvin was the other, FWIW). And it worked! Carolina's RBs had 9 carries for 21 yards, their passing game fell apart as Jake Delhomme (who at that point was the highest-rated postseason passer in NFL history, with 6 straight games with a rating over 95, 5 of 6 with a rating over 100, 9.2 career yards per attempt, 10 TDs vs. 2 INTs, and a 5-1 record) just imploded without Smiff to bail him out- below 50% completions, below 6 yards per attempt, 1 TD vs. 3 INTs. Oh, and while Seattle managed to slow Smiff down in the passing game by just throwing bodies at him, Smiff still scored half of Carolina's points off of a punt return for a touchdown.

Steve Smith's career numbers are hurt by the fact that he played his entire career in a mediocre, run-first offense with barely competent quarterback play. Despite this, he basically averaged 100 receiving yards per game with anything that even remotely resembled an NFL-caliber quarterback (i.e. Jake Delhomme or Cam Newton), and only struggled otherwise because he was working with Chris Weinke, Vinny Testeverde, David Carr, Matt Moore, and Jimmy Clausen. The guy was a one-man offense, and if his team gave him even the slightest chance, Smith would carry them.

I don't think Smiff was as good as Moss/Owens/Harrison. I also don't think he's as good as Calvin/Fitz. I don't think he's very far behind them at all, though, and if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection. I think he's a rich man's Tim Brown, and I say that as someone who believes Tim Brown should be in the Hall of Fame.
I was going to quote him and say something similar. I mainly had issue with the part where he said he never saw Smith and said he was one of the "best of all time". I would venture to say you didn't get to see a lot of him early in his career.

I've watched almost every game he's played since he came into the league, and many games I walked away saying "Smith is ####### amazing...". He was that good when he was on. There's no way he should have been able to make catches at his size that he made. He was ferocious when going up to get a ball. He never had fear of any potential hit he was going to take. He blocked like a mini-tight end oftentimes. He was hard as hell to keep covered for more than a second.

Like Adam said, it's a shame he got injured when he did. I loved watching him play in his prime.

 
Just finished reading the thread.

It's a shame the lack of respect Smith gets. I'm not saying he's a HoF guy, but some of the lists you guys have, saying it's not even close for Smith to be in them, is incredible.

And sad. I really wish you had gotten to watch him every week in his prime. He was a heck of a wide receiver.

 
Just finished reading the thread.

It's a shame the lack of respect Smith gets. I'm not saying he's a HoF guy, but some of the lists you guys have, saying it's not even close for Smith to be in them, is incredible.

And sad. I really wish you had gotten to watch him every week in his prime. He was a heck of a wide receiver.
I never said he was last on the list, just added a bunch of names for discussion.

 
Adam, this is a really well thought out (and written) post. While I practically agree with everything you said, I don't think you (and the masses) are taking into account the reality of the HOF. I can't remember off the top of my head if it is four or five men who get elected each year, but lets assume it is five. You have listed five others who you (and I think everyone on the board) would agree are better than Smith. I personally think Andre is better, and Boldin/Bruce are just as good or better...and Andre Reed is just as good IMO. But lets say he is #6 and five men get in each year. Over the course of a decade, that leaves 50 spots. For Smith to get in, that is six spots on WR. That leave 46 spots for QBs, RBs, TEs (at least Gonzo), OL, DL, LBs, and DBs...about 6.5 spots for each position. QBs will take more, TEs less, but it is cutting it way too close for a guy who is "arguably" on the bubble at his own position.

I used the "decade" span, as I really believe if he does not get in during his first 10 years of eligibility, he won't get in. In the end, there is just not enough space for him. If he can compile for the next 3+ years, then he will leapfrog Bruce/Boldin in my mind (but again, each has a SB ring), but then how will he compare to a guy like Brandon Marshall, who is three years younger and has only 120 less receptions, 1000 or so less yards, and just 10 less TDs and put up 81-1214-6 in that dismal season in MIA when both careers are over?
Oh, I agree with all of this and the reality of the HoF, which is why I began my post with the "will he/should he" distinction. There's little chance Smiff makes the Hall of Fame, but if it were a just world and if I were placed in charge of deciding who got in, he would have no trouble making it.

Also working against Smiff is that the Hall is historically awful at deciding what makes a WR worthy of the Hall of Fame. I don't think there's any other position where the criteria are so confused and unclear.

 
if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.
Sorry, in a later post I tried to clarify that I was talking about guys whose HoF candidacy is primarily built on their contributions since 2000, not the complete list of all WRs who played a single snap after Y2K.

On that list, I think Smiff was a better receiver than Brown, Bruce, and Jimmy (who is also wildly underrated), and roughly comparable to Andre and Holt. IIRC, Chase's "greatest WR ever" series pegged Smiff as one of the top 10 receivers of all time.

Edit: Also, I would probably enshrine 10 of the names on that list in the Hall of Fame. Which the actual Hall would never do, because the actual Hall hates pass catchers, but if I were in charge of the process, I would. Everyone always talks about how it's a passing league, so it would make sense that receivers are becoming more productive than ever, more important than ever, and should be earning greater representation than ever before, too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.
:goodposting: this is the right answer - Guys from his era will include Andre Johnson, Megatron, Fitz (very questionable although he has the talent), Randy Moss, TO, etc.

 
Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.
:goodposting: this is the right answer - Guys from his era will include Andre Johnson, Megatron, Fitz (very questionable although he has the talent), Randy Moss, TO, etc.
Fitz is not questionable - he's a HoF before Steve Smith.

 
It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?

 
I remember watching a game back in 08 and in the pregame show Steve young said he would take smith over any receiver in the nfl. I thought was pretty interesting to here from a HOF qb like Young. The stat they flashed was something like 26 100 yard games since 05 which was tops in the league (Moss was second). Don't ask me how I remember all that lol.

 
It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
statistically, Ward isn't as great of a candidate as Smith - never an all-pro, fewer pro-bowls, never led the league in any meaningful stat, top 10 in receptions 4x, yards 3x, and TD 3x. He's got quite a few more career receptions but Smith already has more career TD's and yards. In the post season, he has the same number of career TDs in over 2x as many games. The one thing he does have is a SBMVP, which counts for a lot in my book. I could see a case for Ward ahead of Smith, but it's not a case that can be made statistically.

 
Not even close IMO. I dont care where his numbers shake out, he just isnt a guy that when he laced up the cleats, I sat and said, wow, this guy is one of the best of all time.
:goodposting: this is the right answer - Guys from his era will include Andre Johnson, Megatron, Fitz (very questionable although he has the talent), Randy Moss, TO, etc.
Fitz is not questionable - he's a HoF before Steve Smith.
Larry Fitzgerald had the most receptions in NFL history of any player through age 22.

Larry Fitzgerald had the most receptions in NFL history of any player through age 23.

Larry Fitzgerald had the most receptions in NFL history of any player through age 24.

Larry Fitzgerald had the most receptions in NFL history of any player through age 25.

Larry Fitzgerald had the SECOND most receptions in NFL history of any player through age 26.*

Larry Fitzgerald had the most receptions in NFL history of any player through age 27.

Larry Fitzgerald had the most receptions in NFL history of any player through age 28.

Larry Fitzgerald had the most receptions in NFL history of any player through age 29.

Larry Fitzgerald had the most receptions in NFL history of any player through age 30.

Larry Fitzgerald needs 33 receptions next year to set the record through age 31. 81 receptions over the next two years will get him the record through age 32, pending what Jason Witten does. Even 5 mediocre seasons (around 61 receptions a year) could get Fitzgerald the record all the way through age 35. Guy's going to rank among the top 5 all-time in a lot of statistics by the time he hangs them up. Add in the fact that he's pretty much the best postseason WR in history, and it'll take a murder investigation to keep him out of the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.

*Randy Moss had a huge age-26 season.

 
It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
Here is my list posted earlier in the thread:

Rice
Brown
Carter
Owens
Harrison
Moss
Bruce
Holt
Andre Johnson
Calvin Johnson
Fitzgerald
Jimmy Smith

I think all of them are more HOF worthy than both Steve Smith and Ward. And I'd rank Smith above Ward.

Jimmy Smith won't make the HOF unless through the veteran committee, and he is the most debatable name on that list IMO. I think the rest of these guys will make the HOF.

I don't think Ward should make it, but it wouldn't shock me based on the hype. Still, I've always felt that the media overestimates how many players will make the HOF because they typically don't consider it in the same way as the HOF voters (i.e., comparing Ward to all other players at all positions in addition to his WR peers, as well as non-player contributors).
 
It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
Not an oversight.

Again, a distinction must be made when discussing whether a player *WILL* be a HoFer, and whether he *SHOULD* be a HoFer. I think Ward is easily one of the 10 most likely candidates to actually make the actual HoF from his era. As it concerns desert, I do not think that Ward should be one of the 10 receivers who would most merit induction.

I feel the same way about Jerome Bettis. He probably will get into the Hall of Fame, but if it were up to me, he'd never come close.

 
I remember watching a game back in 08 and in the pregame show Steve young said he would take smith over any receiver in the nfl. I thought was pretty interesting to here from a HOF qb like Young. The stat they flashed was something like 26 100 yard games since 05 which was tops in the league (Moss was second). Don't ask me how I remember all that lol.
Ronde Barber said that Smiff was the toughest receiver he was ever assigned to cover.

 
Larry Fitzgerald needs 33 receptions next year to set the record through age 31. 81 receptions over the next two years will get him the record through age 32, pending what Jason Witten does.
Receptions are by far the weakest receiving stat, as the inclusion of Witten as competition here shows. Witten isn't even a great candidate for the HOF at TE, let alone at WR. Output stats (yardage and TDs) are more important than input stats, and TDs are more important than yardage. (Certainly in an NFL sense, and it seems in HOF voting as well).

Fitzgerald's receiving yardage and TD numbers are quite good, also, but not enough to make him a shoo-in for the first ballot at this point. And "best postseason WR in history" is a pretty rich claim for someone who's only been in six postseason games. He had a great run in 2008, up there with Rice's 1988 and 1989 but not really better than them. In 2009 he had one very good game and one OK game. When that's your entire postseason resume, you have a ways to go to speak to Mr. 151/2245/22.

To use an argument you often use elsewhere: Rice's 1988 and 1989, where in 6 games he had 40/726/11, are better by themselves than Fitzgerald's entire postseason career. Are you going to mark Rice down for "only" getting 14 receptions and 2 TDs in the Raiders' last Super Bowl run (at age 40)?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top