Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
moleculo

Steve Smith - when all is said and done, HoF?

Recommended Posts

some interesting arguments here...

Hooper31: how would you react to a known case of politics in another Hall of Fame?  it is an established fact that Frankie Frisch had the most pull on the Veterans Committee for the baseball HoF, and he used that position to get some of his buddies elected.  by any remotely advanced metrics these were not deserving players - they had superficially great numbers but played in the most hitter-friendly era ever.  would you still be saying the same thing about them earning the highest level of respect and so on?

basically i just can't understand how a thinking person can believe this kind of system never makes mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fariq said:

Well, there are only two WR spots on the all-league team.  

AP selects All Pro 1st and 2nd teams each season, so there has never been fewer than 4 WRs selected as All Pro during Smith's career. At times, there has been a higher number because there have been ties on 1st or 2nd team. PFW and TSN also select All Pro teams each season, and have occasionally chosen a different WR than the 2 chosen by AP.

As many as 6 WRs have been selected as All Pro in a season by one of these sources during Smith's career, and there were as many seasons with 5 WRs selected as with 4.

Smith was 1st team All Pro in 2001 as a kick returner, 1st team All Pro in 2005 as a WR, and 2nd team All Pro in 2008 as a WR. This is one of the areas in which Smith's resume is lacking in comparison to his peers who will also be under HOF consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, one QB gets 50 ### Press votes. If so, then there is no second team QB.

Meanwhile, ten linebackers are "named to the second team."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Smith, Vontaze Burfict,  and Terrell Suggs got votes at different positions in recent years. The astute observer can poke holes in Asso Press voting every year. 

 

To me, all-league (all-pro is a dinosaur term as there is no AAFC or AFL anymore) selections are good and useful but they are not great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Fariq said:

For example, one QB gets 50 ### Press votes. If so, then there is no second team QB.

Meanwhile, ten linebackers are "named to the second team."

Yet Smith only made second team once. Thanks for helping make my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

Yet Smith only made second team on ce. Thanks for helping make my point. 

You're welcome.

I am not in the prediction business. All i am here for is to give my opinion. I feel he belongs in the Hall of Fame.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

AP selects All Pro 1st and 2nd teams each season, so there has never been fewer than 4 WRs selected as All Pro during Smith's career. At times, there has been a higher number because there have been ties on 1st or 2nd team. PFW and TSN also select All Pro teams each season, and have occasionally chosen a different WR than the 2 chosen by AP.

As many as 6 WRs have been selected as All Pro in a season by one of these sources during Smith's career, and there were as many seasons with 5 WRs selected as with 4.

Smith was 1st team All Pro in 2001 as a kick returner, 1st team All Pro in 2005 as a WR, and 2nd team All Pro in 2008 as a WR. This is one of the areas in which Smith's resume is lacking in comparison to his peers who will also be under HOF consideration.

Could you imagine Smith's numbers if he had a good QB that matched his skill set throughout his career??

Instead of Jake Delhomme who was good for 1 year mainly because Smith made him look good, and Muhammad who was in his Prime as well.. the crap Carolina had at QB for several years, and than Cam who didn't click well with Smith throwing it over his head all the time, and ultimately led to Smith's departure from Carolina.  I am pretty sure his Resume would have looked a lot better if he wasn't stuck with crap at QB, and the fact that he has the numbers that he has at this point and the late resurgence in his career I think shows that Smith deserves to be in the HoF, and the fact that he can excel at this age because he finally has a QB who can get him the damn ball.  Many CB's have talked about how Steve Smith is one of the most difficult WR's to cover including Ronde Barber who said Smith was tougher than anyone in his era (T.O., Moss, Owens, etc.).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CalBear said:

He may have been the best WR in the NFL for one year, 2005. Other than that he's never had more than 8 TDs, never led the league in a receiving stat, and hasn't made All-Pro except as a returner (and then only once).

 

Great thing about the HoF is that it's kind of like art, you can't always define it but you know it when you see it.

Steve Smith belongs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fariq said:

Justin Smith, Vontaze Burfict,  and Terrell Suggs got votes at different positions in recent years. The astute observer can poke holes in Asso Press voting every year. 

 

To me, all-league (all-pro is a dinosaur term as there is no AAFC or AFL anymore) selections are good and useful but they are not great. 

Well, OK, what measure do you use instead? Top 5 receiving yardage seasons? Smith has three. Top 5 receiving TD seasons? Smith has one. Top 5 yards/reception seasons? Smith has one. 

Smith's HOF resume is:

  1. He had one great season
  2. He's short
  3. He mostly had mediocre QBs throwing to him
  4. He lasted a long time

That's a pretty weak case relative to his peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2016 at 9:22 PM, Just Win Baby said:

That is a great trivia fact. 

Yes, it is.  Any stat that indicates Smith might be the greatest pound for pound WR of his era is not just great - it's a fantastic fact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2016 at 1:42 AM, CalBear said:

He may have been the best WR in the NFL for one year, 2005. Other than that he's never had more than 8 TDs, never led the league in a receiving stat, and hasn't made All-Pro except as a returner (and then only once).

 

(your facts are incorrect, btw)

I thought of this thread today after watching the Baltimore game.  My line of thinking heading over here was "I bet the thread is dead.  There can't really be any argument against him anymore, can there?".

I'm flabbergasted there is.  People say he wasn't the best WR in the league, and then use his stats when he was on the worst passing team (attempts) in the league, or the year he missed two games and still ravaged DBs to put up top stats.  Here's a secret:  he was still the best WR when on bad teams.  In fact, he was historically good for being on those teams.  Another of my favorite WRs, Fitz, is in a similar boat - but Fitz is well liked, built like a stud WR and a hell of a representation of what a WR should be marketing wise - and the NFL (and media) has taken advantage of that.  Good for Fitz.  I love the guy.

Smith is not that guy, but has done strikingly similar work on the field with, at times, less.

Give me some time to round up Smith's work.  His all time ranking, not just in stats overall, but stats within dismal offeneses, is amazing.

Edited by Hoss Style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, msommer said:

I think we can all agree he belongs in the "Hall of Fame for angry smurf receivers"

He'd rule the Smurfs, but they would not be nearly as happy and carefree.

And they'd wash everyone's feet.

Edited by Hoss Style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2016 at 9:39 AM, Josh the FunkDOC said:

basically i just can't understand how a thinking person can believe this kind of system never makes mistakes.

Nah, that's not insulting. 

There's no metric other than opinions of the voters. If that bothers you I suggest you do what you can to change it. If it's out of your sphere of influence, well, I suggest you get over it. 

Lastly, you should write a sternly worded letter to the baseball HOF. Good luck with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinder response...

I'm getting old and have experienced the intergoogle more than most. I started with the text only web that took the form of the USENET news groups. RSFF anyone? Age sometimes comes with some wisdom, and perhaps even a kinder hand when it comes to disagreement. Well, sometimes kinder. 

If people start using terms like mistake and wrong when it comes to purely subjective opinion I have to draw the line. You might as well argue over which is the best color. 

Do I think Steve Smith is a HOFer? Yes. He played with a passion and intensity that I respect. Much more than any other receiver in his era in my opinion.  The stats don't matter as much to me. Should he have some quality stats? Sure, I guess so, but I'm fine with his. If that means you don't respect my opinion I'm long past over it. 

Seriously, do we have to live in an era where everyone needs to be a copy of you? Wouldn't that boring? Now, try to tell me blue isn't the best color. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hoss Style said:
On 11/20/2016 at 8:22 PM, Just Win Baby said:

That is a great trivia fact. 

Yes, it is.  Any stat that indicates Smith might be the greatest pound for pound WR of his era is not just great - it's a fantastic fact!

My point was that it is a great trivia fact but that's all it is. It doesn't bear on the subject of discussion, whether or not Smith is HOF worthy.

Also, there are quite a few WRs who were better "pound for pound"... per PFR, Smith weighs 185. I'd say all of these guys were better "pound for pound", based on their weights listed at PFR:

Jerry Rice - 200
Steve Largent - 187
Don Hutson - 183
Marvin Harrison - 175

And Torry Holt (190) and Isaac Bruce (188) are right there, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hooper31 said:

f that means you don't respect my opinion I'm long past over it.

I must say, I really don't get responses like this. If you aren't interested in discussing the subject of the thread with people who may have different opinions, why post in the thread at all? And if you are interested in such discussion, why post a comment like this one that I quoted?

You responded above to highlight a dissenting post that you characterized as insulting, yet you posted previously in the thread to dismiss the opinions of the "stat hounds," i.e., those who disagree with you, and went on to dismissively state your thankfulness that the voters "get it" and don't pay attention to such differing opinions. That is about roughly as insulting as the post you responded to above, it's just that your insults are in line with your opinion on the matter, so you possibly don't see them as insulting, just "right."

:potkettle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

I must say, I really don't get responses like this. If you aren't interested in discussing the subject of the thread with people who may have different opinions, why post in the thread at all? And if you are interested in such discussion, why post a comment like this one that I quoted?

You responded above to highlight a dissenting post that you characterized as insulting, yet you posted previously in the thread to dismiss the opinions of the "stat hounds," i.e., those who disagree with you, and went on to dismissively state your thankfulness that the voters "get it" and don't pay attention to such differing opinions. That is about roughly as insulting as the post you responded to above, it's just that your insults are in line with your opinion on the matter, so you possibly don't see them as insulting, just "right."

:potkettle:

I fully respect your right to an opinion. I'm glad that the voters tend to agree with me. 

Be well. 

PS Blue is still the best color. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hoss Style said:

(your facts are incorrect, btw)

I thought of this thread today after watching the Baltimore game.  My line of thinking heading over here was "I bet the thread is dead.  There can't really be any argument against him anymore, can there?".

I'm flabbergasted there is.  People say he wasn't the best WR in the league, and then use his stats when he was on the worst passing team (attempts) in the league, or the year he missed two games and still ravaged DBs to put up top stats.  Here's a secret:  he was still the best WR when on bad teams.  In fact, he was historically good for being on those teams.  Another of my favorite WRs, Fitz, is in a similar boat - but Fitz is well liked, built like a stud WR and a hell of a representation of what a WR should be marketing wise - and the NFL (and media) has taken advantage of that.  Good for Fitz.  I love the guy.

Smith is not that guy, but has done strikingly similar work on the field with, at times, less.

Give me some time to round up Smith's work.  His all time ranking, not just in stats overall, but stats within dismal offeneses, is amazing.

Larry Fitzgerald is a great example of someone who deserves the Hall more than Smith. Also playing with mostly mediocre QBs, he finished in the top 5 in receiving yards 4 times, led the league in receiving TDs twice, went to 9 Pro Bowls, and is reasonably likely to end his career as #2 all time in receiving yards, and in the top 5 in receiving TDs. He is better than Smith in every receiving metric and is better on the field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CalBear said:

Larry Fitzgerald is a great example of someone who deserves the Hall more than Smith. Also playing with mostly mediocre QBs, he finished in the top 5 in receiving yards 4 times, led the league in receiving TDs twice, went to 9 Pro Bowls, and is reasonably likely to end his career as #2 all time in receiving yards, and in the top 5 in receiving TDs. He is better than Smith in every receiving metric and is better on the field. 

9 of Fitz's 13 seasons have been with Warner or Palmer.  Smitty has never had anyone remotely close to that caliber.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith vs. Fitzgerald is an interesting comparison. If we look at their career totals (excluding Smith's rookie year when he barely played offense, and including playoff games), we get:

Smith: 210 games, 1058/15315/88 receiving on 1779 targets, 58/389/3 rushing, 693 first downs, 74.8 YFS/g, 0.43 TD/g, 8.6 YPT
Fitz: 206 games, 1153/15110/113 receiving on 1926 targets, 20/68/0 rushing, 771 first downs, 73.7 YFS/g, 0.55 TD/g, 7.8 YPT

So yardage is very similar with a slight edge to Smith if you including rushing, Fitz has more TDs and first downs, and Smith has higher per-target efficiency. I haven't looked up team stats to compare things like market share, but Smith would also have the advantage there since his teams threw a lot less and probably threw less efficiently as well.

What if we look at their peaks? Looking at each player's 4 best seasons in terms of yards per game (including playoffs, min 10 games), we get:

Smith: 64 games, per-16-game stats of 93/1481/9.3 receiving on 147 targets & 7/55/0.8 rushing, 96.0 YFS/g, 0.63 TD/g, 10.1 YPT
Fitz: 67 games, per-16-game stats of 98/1482/11.2 receiving on 163 targets & 2/10/0 rushing, 93.2 YFS/g, 0.70 TD/g, 9.1 YPT

Basically the same pattern. Similar yardage with a slight edge to Smith due to rushing, Fitz with more TDs, Smith with higher YPT. Smith's QB was Jake Delhomme for 3 of these seasons and Cam Newton for 1 (with about 6% of passes thrown by Chris Weinke and rarely others). Fitz had Kurt Warner at QB for about 61% of his team's passes, with the rest a mix of Skelton, Kolb, Leinart, McCown, and rarely others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hooper31 said:

You might as well argue over which is the best color. 

British racing green.

 

[/thread]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's interesting about comparing players is that people will think some guys are locks and others not worthy when their totals are very similar.

PLAYER A:
197 games, 1096 receptions, 14236 YFS, 103 TD, 104 AV

PLAYER B:
197 games, 1057 receptions,, 13816 YFS, 81 TD, 113 AV

PLAYER C:
193 games, 1062 receptions, 14239 YFS, 70 TD, 124 AV

One of those players is considered a lock, one of those players is considered a near lock (or has an excellent chance), and one of those players rarely is even mentioned as a potential HOFer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

9 of Fitz's 13 seasons have been with Warner or Palmer.  Smitty has never had anyone remotely close to that caliber.

Delhomme was absolutely of Palmer's caliber. They are actually very similar QBs,. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

What's interesting about comparing players is that people will think some guys are locks and others not worthy when their totals are very similar.

PLAYER A:
197 games, 1096 receptions, 14236 YFS, 103 TD, 104 AV

PLAYER B:
197 games, 1057 receptions,, 13816 YFS, 81 TD, 113 AV

PLAYER C:
193 games, 1062 receptions, 14239 YFS, 70 TD, 124 AV

One of those players is considered a lock, one of those players is considered a near lock (or has an excellent chance), and one of those players rarely is even mentioned as a potential HOFer.

Are those players all from the same era?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

What's interesting about comparing players is that people will think some guys are locks and others not worthy when their totals are very similar.

PLAYER A:
197 games, 1096 receptions, 14236 YFS, 103 TD, 104 AV

PLAYER B:
197 games, 1057 receptions,, 13816 YFS, 81 TD, 113 AV

PLAYER C:
193 games, 1062 receptions, 14239 YFS, 70 TD, 124 AV

One of those players is considered a lock, one of those players is considered a near lock (or has an excellent chance), and one of those players rarely is even mentioned as a potential HOFer.

This is why statistics are only part of the story. How about adding the honors/awards, winning/postseason success, impact on the game (if any), and compelling/signature seasons/games/plays into this comparison?

We could also consider whether East Coast bias and/or playing for a historically popular franchise factors in.

ETA: And also add in how much productive time each likely has remaining in his career, in case they are at different points.

I suspect that will reveal why one is considered a lock, one a near lock, and one rarely mentioned.

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anarchy99 said:

What's interesting about comparing players is that people will think some guys are locks and others not worthy when their totals are very similar.

PLAYER A:
197 games, 1096 receptions, 14236 YFS, 103 TD, 104 AV

PLAYER B:
197 games, 1057 receptions,, 13816 YFS, 81 TD, 113 AV

PLAYER C:
193 games, 1062 receptions, 14239 YFS, 70 TD, 124 AV

One of those players is considered a lock, one of those players is considered a near lock (or has an excellent chance), and one of those players rarely is even mentioned as a potential HOFer.

I generally prefer to look at things season-by-season, when I have the time. First compare each player's best season, then compare each player's second best season, etc. The player's peak is more important - it matters more if he had 100 YPG or 80 YPG in his second-best season than if he had 50 YPG or 30 YPG in his worst season. And going season-by-season also makes it easier to consider context, e.g. if one guy had Peyton Manning for his 3rd best season and another had Skelton & Kolb, or if one guy's team threw 450 passes and another's threw 740 passes. To make things a little quicker to look through, you can also group things to look at a player's totals in his 3 best seasons, then his next 3 best, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smitty? What the hell is that?

 

If we are making up nicknames again, try these-

Tom "The Arm" Brady

Rob "The Polish Sickle" Gronkowski

DeAndre "Antoine" Hopkins

J.J. "The Icicle" Watt

Larry "Pudding" Fitzgerald

Eli "The Master of Disguise" Manning

Lamar "Television Set Jones" Miller

Kelvin "Captain Venus" Benjamin

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CalBear said:

Delhomme was absolutely of Palmer's caliber. They are actually very similar QBs,. 

Well if you exclude the stats and production you are correct.

Palmer - 1.6 TDs, 253 yds, 21.6 comps per game

Delhomme - 1.2 TDs, 204 yds, 16.9 comps per game

Basically Palmer throws 33% more TDs per game, 25% more yards per game, and completes 30% more completions per game.  

Adjusting Smitty's numbers for Fitz caliber QBing and you would have 1300 catches, 105 TDs, and 18000 yards.  That would put Smitty 2nd behind Rice in yards, 8th and roughly tied with Fitz for TDs, and 2nd behind Rice in receptions.  Stone cold HOF lock.

 

By the way, Warner was 1.6 TDs, 260 yards, 22.5 comps per game during his tenure in Arizona.  That's 9 years of good QBs for Fitz while Smitty got 7 years of Delhomme and two years of take your pick from Chris Weinke, Randy Fassani, Jimmy Clausen, or who could forget Brain St. Pierre.  If I adjust the later for Fitz quality QBing Smith might be threaten a Rice record or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Well if you exclude the stats and production you are correct.

Palmer - 1.6 TDs, 253 yds, 21.6 comps per game

Delhomme - 1.2 TDs, 204 yds, 16.9 comps per game

Basically Palmer throws 33% more TDs per game, 25% more yards per game, and completes 30% more completions per game.  

Adjusting Smitty's numbers for Fitz caliber QBing and you would have 1300 catches, 105 TDs, and 18000 yards.  That would put Smitty 2nd behind Rice in yards, 8th and roughly tied with Fitz for TDs, and 2nd behind Rice in receptions.  Stone cold HOF lock.

 

By the way, Warner was 1.6 TDs, 260 yards, 22.5 comps per game during his tenure in Arizona.  That's 9 years of good QBs for Fitz while Smitty got 7 years of Delhomme and two years of take your pick from Chris Weinke, Randy Fassani, Jimmy Clausen, or who could forget Brain St. Pierre.  If I adjust the later for Fitz quality QBing Smith might be threaten a Rice record or two.

Palmer: Passer rating 87.8, YPA 7.3, TD% 4.7

Delhomme: Passer rating 81.3, YPA 7.2 TD% 4.3

The main difference is that Palmer throws more passes (35 att/gm vs. 30), and Warner even more. But Smith also has more targets/attempt; Smith got about as many targets/game as Fitzgerald during his prime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

 

 

Adjusting Smitty's numbers 

I see you have asked for more. No prob. Ask and you shall receive. 

Carson "L. Ron Hubbard II" Palmer

Mike "Mr. Electricity" Evans

Patrick "Butter Knife" Peterson

Kenneth "Flowerpot" Dixon

Colin "The Wise One" Kaepernick

Travis "Scotty" Frederick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CalBear said:

Palmer: Passer rating 87.8, YPA 7.3, TD% 4.7

Delhomme: Passer rating 81.3, YPA 7.2 TD% 4.3

The main difference is that Palmer throws more passes (35 att/gm vs. 30), and Warner even more. But Smith also has more targets/attempt; Smith got about as many targets/game as Fitzgerald during his prime.

If by about as many you really mean a lot less then I would agree...

Smitty's top 7 seasons: 150, 148, 142, 139, 137, 137, 134, 129

Fitz's top 7 seasons: 173, 167, 165, 156, 154, 154, 153

So 7 of Fitz's season target total eclipsed Smith's best total (he roughly gets 20 more targets a year every year).  Based on Smith's production he would have amassed rough another 180 receipts, 2600 yards, and 14 TDs over the course of his career.  That puts Smith at 17000 yards (2nd all time), 1200 receipts (2nd all time WR), and 93 TDs (12th all time).  

Edited by BassNBrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

If by about as many you really mean a lot less then I would agree...

Smitty's top 7 seasons: 150, 148, 142, 139, 137, 137, 134

Fitz's top 7 seasons: 173, 167, 165, 156, 154, 154, 153

So 7 of Fitz's season target total eclipsed Smith's best total (he roughly gets 20 more targets a year every year).  Based on Smith's production he would have amassed rough another 180 receipts, 2600 yards, and 14 TDs over the course of his career.  That puts Smith at 17000 yards (2nd all time), 1200 receipts (2nd all time WR), and 93 TDs (12th all time).  

Smith missed games. The target differential in those seven seasons is less than one per game. (.96).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Smith missed games. The target differential in those seven seasons is less than one per game. (.96).

Smith missed 3 games, Fitzpatrick missed one.

Doesn't matter how you slice it, no reasonable person is going to equate Delhomme to Kurt Warner and Carson Palmer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

Smith missed 3 games, Fitzpatrick missed one.

Doesn't matter how you slice it, no reasonable person is going to equate Delhomme to Kurt Warner and Carson Palmer.

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2016 at 8:57 AM, CalBear said:

Delhomme was absolutely of Palmer's caliber. They are actually very similar QBs,. 

 

10 hours ago, CalBear said:

Palmer: Passer rating 87.8, YPA 7.3, TD% 4.7

Delhomme: Passer rating 81.3, YPA 7.2 TD% 4.3

The main difference is that Palmer throws more passes (35 att/gm vs. 30), and Warner even more. But Smith also has more targets/attempt; Smith got about as many targets/game as Fitzgerald during his prime.

Palmer: Completion% 62.6, INT% 3.0

Delhomme: Completion% 59.4, INT% 3.4

In virtually every metric Palmer>>>Delhomme.  If a couple of those leaned towards Delhomme then maybe I would see an argument for being qualitatively similar to Palmer but the reality is that Palmer was better in every way.

Although, to be fair, Delhomme was a much better QB in the playoffs (by every measure) than Palmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chaka said:

 

Palmer: Completion% 62.6, INT% 3.0

Delhomme: Completion% 59.4, INT% 3.4

In virtually every metric Palmer>>>Delhomme.  If a couple of those leaned towards Delhomme then maybe I would see an argument for being qualitatively similar to Palmer but the reality is that Palmer was better in every way.

Although, to be fair, Delhomme was a much better QB in the playoffs (by every measure) than Palmer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly fantasy scoring is not a metric that has anything to do with HOF voting, but here are all the WR that A) played in at least 150 career games, B) played at some point in their careers within the past 10 years, and C) averaged at least 7.0 fantasy ppg in 0 ppr leagues:

Marvin Harrison	11.73
Terrell Owens	11.66
Randy Moss	11.41
Brandon Marshall	10.42
Larry Fitzgerald	10.36
Torry Holt	10.33
Andre Johnson	9.55
Anquan Boldin	9.47
Isaac Bruce	9.34
Steve Smith	9.21
Chad Johnson	9.19
Reggie Wayne	9.13
Keyshawn Johnson	8.74
Rod Smith	8.70
Roddy White	8.57
Vincent Jackson	8.22
Wes Welker	8.17
Hines Ward	8.14
Joey Galloway	8.06
Laveranues Coles	7.75
Muhsin Muhammad	7.54
Joe Horn	7.49
Santana Moss	7.41
Keenan McCardell	7.33
Chris Chambers	7.30
Eric Moulds	7.04

As has been mentioned by several people, the HOF is not the Hall of Statistics, but the list at least shows a decent cross section of how players stack up against each other from guys in roughly the same era (or one generation removed from each other).

If the number of games played is scaled down from 150 games to 135 games, this would be the list . . .

Calvin Johnson	12.46
Marvin Harrison	11.73
Terrell Owens	11.66
Randy Moss	11.41
Brandon Marshall	10.42
Larry Fitzgerald	10.36
Torry Holt	10.33
Marques Colston	9.65
Andre Johnson	9.55
Anquan Boldin	9.47
Isaac Bruce	9.34
Steve Smith	9.21
Chad Johnson	9.19
Reggie Wayne	9.13
Keyshawn Johnson	8.74
Rod Smith	8.70
Roddy White	8.57
Greg Jennings	8.49
Terry Glenn	8.45
Plaxico Burress	8.45
Vincent Jackson	8.22
Wes Welker	8.17
Hines Ward	8.14
Joey Galloway	8.06
Laveranues Coles	7.75
Muhsin Muhammad	7.54
Joe Horn	7.49
Santana Moss	7.41
Keenan McCardell	7.33
Chris Chambers	7.30
Eric Moulds	7.04

You guys can debate who on those lists are legit HOF contenders and how many WR the voters will induct from roughly the same time frame (based on whatever numbers, rings, awards, or other criteria).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Admittedly fantasy scoring is not a metric that has anything to do with HOF voting, but here are all the WR that A) played in at least 150 career games, B) played at some point in their careers within the past 10 years, and C) averaged at least 7.0 fantasy ppg in 0 ppr leagues:


Marvin Harrison	11.73
Terrell Owens	11.66
Randy Moss	11.41
Brandon Marshall	10.42
Larry Fitzgerald	10.36
Torry Holt	10.33
Andre Johnson	9.55
Anquan Boldin	9.47
Isaac Bruce	9.34
Steve Smith	9.21
Chad Johnson	9.19
Reggie Wayne	9.13
Keyshawn Johnson	8.74
Rod Smith	8.70
Roddy White	8.57
Vincent Jackson	8.22
Wes Welker	8.17
Hines Ward	8.14
Joey Galloway	8.06
Laveranues Coles	7.75
Muhsin Muhammad	7.54
Joe Horn	7.49
Santana Moss	7.41
Keenan McCardell	7.33
Chris Chambers	7.30
Eric Moulds	7.04

As has been mentioned by several people, the HOF is not the Hall of Statistics, but the list at least shows a decent cross section of how players stack up against each other from guys in roughly the same era (or one generation removed from each other).

If the number of games played is scaled down from 150 games to 135 games, this would be the list . . .


Calvin Johnson	12.46
Marvin Harrison	11.73
Terrell Owens	11.66
Randy Moss	11.41
Brandon Marshall	10.42
Larry Fitzgerald	10.36
Torry Holt	10.33
Marques Colston	9.65
Andre Johnson	9.55
Anquan Boldin	9.47
Isaac Bruce	9.34
Steve Smith	9.21
Chad Johnson	9.19
Reggie Wayne	9.13
Keyshawn Johnson	8.74
Rod Smith	8.70
Roddy White	8.57
Greg Jennings	8.49
Terry Glenn	8.45
Plaxico Burress	8.45
Vincent Jackson	8.22
Wes Welker	8.17
Hines Ward	8.14
Joey Galloway	8.06
Laveranues Coles	7.75
Muhsin Muhammad	7.54
Joe Horn	7.49
Santana Moss	7.41
Keenan McCardell	7.33
Chris Chambers	7.30
Eric Moulds	7.04

You guys can debate who on those lists are legit HOF contenders and how many WR the voters will induct from roughly the same time frame (based on whatever numbers, rings, awards, or other criteria).

Are these career averages? It seems like it would be better to leave out seasons like Andre Johnson's 2016. Sticking around for an extra half-year as a mildly useful rotational receiver shouldn't downgrade our opinion of him.

One way to do the cutoff is to only include seasons where the WR averaged 7+ ppg. Another way is to look at only a player's best N seasons in terms of ppg, where N is chosen for each player to get them to just reach the 150 game (or 135 game) cutoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, those are career averages.

I certainly can list numbers in any number of ways. But if a player averaged 100 yards a game for 5 years and 40 yards a game for 5 years (thus averaging 60 yards per game), is that better than someone that averaged 60 yards a game without the highs or the lows?

There really is no "good way" to compare players. Which is better, the player that averaged 90 yards receiving in 11 games or the one that averaged 80 in 16?

I personally prefer to look at only HOF worthy seasons. I consider Top 5 seasons and sometimes Top 10 seasons. Those are the bread an butter years. I agree that years as a green rookie that doesn't do much or a guy just hanging on for a paycheck really should be looked at. But I also think the years of 50 catches, 650 yards, and 4 TD should not get any credit either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.