This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I agree he's getting in, I just said don't be surprised if it takes him awhile. To my mind he's absolutely a Hall of Famer, as is Cris Carter.But you misspoke, Harrison isn't an 8-time All Pro, he's a 3-time All Pro. Pro Bowls and All Pros are VERY different as it relates to a player's place in history. But Harrison had as dominant an 8-year run during his prime as we'll see for a long time. He belongs.
I view Simeon Rice as the Jimmy Smith of DEs. I think some advanced statistics warrant Rice's induction into the HOF, but playing in a crappy market + the lack of great counting stats is going to keep him out. To me, Rice is a HOFer.That said, he's not the player Strahan was because he was more one-dimensional. But compares to everyone else, he had a dominant prime: three times from ’99 to ’04 he ranked 2nd in the league in sacks. From ’98 to ’05, he was the only player to record 100 sacks. But here is why Rice is underrated: the teams he faced never really passed the ball. From ’01 to ’06, the Bucs ranked in the bottom 8 in pass attempts faced each season. During his Cardinals days, Arizona ranked in the bottom five in pass attempts faced three different times. His incredible sack production during his prime on a per-attempt basis was elite, and was long enough to be HOF-worthy, IMO. Had his opponents passed more, or he had a bunch of meaningless six sack seasons, he would have had loftier career totals, but wouldn't have been a better player.
That's a tough question. I'd say Rice's sack numbers are quite a bit better because of the things I mentioned above and the fact that Rice played in a tougher era for sacks. But you have to factor in more than just a lineman's sack prowess when talking about "better player." My memory is that O'Neal was a better player against the run than Rice, and probably a more versatile complete player, but again, I'd say it was pretty close.When it comes to things like the HOF, I think the Super Bowl helps Rice quite a bit, rightly or wrongly.
I always thought he was a bigger first-ballot lock than Sapp. I think he gets in fairly easily.
Yes. Add in the fact that he was always cordial to the media and it would be a huge surprise if he's not a 1st-ballot guy.
I agree. Also, there have only been Five LB to have at least 5 AP 1st Team All Pro Selections since 1990Lewis- 7 1st/3 2ndSeau- 6 1st/3 2nd Brooks- 5 1st/4 2nd Z. Thomas- 5 1st/2 2nd Willis- 5 1st/1 2nd DeMarcus Ware also has 7 total Selections (4 1st & 3 2nd)Who would have ever thought that Zach Thomas had 7 All Pro Selections and no one is even mentioning him for HOF consideration.
Leslie O'Neal has better sack numbers than Simeon Rice. 1.Bruce Smith+ 200.0 1985-2003 2TM 2.Reggie White+ 198.0 1985-2000 3TM 3.Kevin Greene160.0 1985-1999 4TM 4.Chris Doleman+ 150.5 1985-1999 3TM 5.Michael Strahan141.5 1993-2007 nyg 6.Jason Taylor139.5 1997-2011 3TM 7.Richard Dent+ 137.5 1983-1997 4TM John Randle+ 137.5 1990-2003 2TM 9.Lawrence Taylor+ 132.5 1981-1993 nyg Leslie O'Neal132.5 1986-1999 3TM 11.Rickey Jackson+ 128.0 1981-1995 2TM 12.Derrick Thomas+ 126.5 1989-1999 kan 13.Simeon Rice122.0 1996-2007'Chase Stuart said:
I think Rice had better sack numbers than Leslie O'Neal, just like I think Terrell Davis had better rushing numbers than Eddie George.
There are so many over looked seniors nominees. Kramer and Gradishar are up there. I think Winston Hill could be too. There are quite a few players on the 60's and 50's all decade teams who aren't in the hall too. It seems like once a player as passed through the normal voting process the can get lost in the shuffle.
MoP wasn't saying he should be in because of the color of his skin. He was saying the color of his skin was a factor. It's not like the HoF is going around saying "hey, let's elect some black people at random", but when someone is the first to achieve a milestone or break down some barrier, that works in their favor. I guarantee you if Fritz Pollard were white he never would have made the HoF. With that said, the "barrier" Dungy broke down was not a barrier at all. There might be road blocks in a coach's way to earning a HC job, but once there, there are no more barriers between him and the Super Bowl than there would be for a white coach. Being the first black coach is a huge deal, because the hiring practices are so biased that you'd need to be MORE qualified than your white competition. Being the first black coach to win the Super Bowl is nothing more than a footnote. It's not like Indy kicked off the game with a 10 point deficit because their coach was black. Dungy was a great coach, but he wasn't ever one of the top 3 coaches in the league. If you're going to take away a hall slot from a player, it'll have to be for a coach far more compelling than Tony Dungy.
In Bruce's defense, he did have probably the greatest season in NFL history by a player who failed to make the pro bowl (with all due respect to Richard Sherman). Still, I don't think he makes it. He's clearly behind Brown, Holt, Moss, Owens, and Harrison in my mind. I'd also put Jimmy Smith in over him. I'd take Bruce before Reed, but I don't think either of them are HoFers.
I hope Reed doesn't make it. Not because I don't like him, but because he's so much less deserving than all the other finalists every year, and I'd hate to see one of them kept out (possibly forever) because the Hall decided to go with Reed instead. I wouldn't be upset (like I would if Bettis got in- that prospect gets me really irked), but I just think there have to be so many people in line ahead of him.
It's crazy that Gradishar's not in yet. He played 10 years without missing a game, had a boatload of awards, and put up tackle stats the likes of which the league has never seen. Over his career, he averaged over 200 tackles per 16 games. The standard argument is that the home scorer inflated his tackle totals, but half his games came on the road, still. I'm surprised no one has bothered to look through the game books and calculate how many tackles per game he averaged at home and on the road. I've heard before that the real reason why Denver had 6 SB appearances and 0 HoFers was because the Denver sportswriter in charge of making a case for the players, Woody Paige, was a total jackass who did a piss-poor job. If true, that would explain a lot. I'd have to think Gradishar would have been the first Bronco elected by a decade and a half if he'd had a halfway-competent advocate.
How many DEs have historically been elected per generation? I only ask because Rice is clearly at best the 3rd best of the post-White/Smith crop, behind Jason Taylor and Michael Strahan. And there are a couple of other guys who could probably also make a claim for that spot (Jared Allen, Neil Smith, etc). It looks to me like one of those cases where I don't have an objection to a guy in theory, but in practice given the ridiculous restrictions on number of players who can get in, I just don't know how I'd ever find room for him. One of these days I'm going to start my own damn HoF so I can rectify some of the egregious oversights in the NFL hall. For instance, I'll allow more than 5 players a year, I won't have contributors compete head-to-head against players, and I won't elect Charlie Joiner.
I've heard this same argument used against Ray Lewis who, I guess, played all of his games in Baltimore and sat out the road contests
Can you unpack this for me, please? Cause I don't see any way that Jimmy Smith is more HOF-worthy than Isaac Bruce.
A lot of reasons, really, starting with the fact that I just think he was a better receiver who got overlooked because he played for the most invisible franchise in the league. If you were hoping for a more objective argument, I can do that, too. Jimmy Smith leads Bruce in pro bowls, yards per season, yards per game, 100 yard games, 1000 yard seasons, 1100 yard seasons, and 1200 yard seasons, despite playing for a much shorter timeframe (discounting sub-400 yard seasons at the beginning and end of each player's career, Smith basically had 10 productive years to 14 for Bruce) and in a much less potent offense. Isaac Bruce earned his starting job much younger, which is a point in his favor, but once Smith secured the starting job, he was better at almost every age. He gained more yards at age 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, and 36 (Bruce had more at 28 and 34). Bruce had that unreal 119/1781/13 year, but Smith went for 116/1636/6 in his best year, which isn't far behind, and his team attempted 100 fewer passes. Plus, Jimmy Smith had the greatest game any WR has ever played- a disgusting 15/291/3 game against the 2000 Baltimore Ravens defense.
Steve Smith didn't even need a better offense. If he'd had 160 games with Jake Delhomme instead of just 90 (and, in this counterfactual, had Delhomme not fallen off the cliff), he'd be a slam-dunk HoFer, IMO.
Thank you for making his case. Jimmy Smith us the most underrated receiver I've ever seen play. An absolute stud. I wish my Cowboys never gave up on him. (He did almost die). Could you imagine adding Jimmy Smith to the already potent Cowboys offense?A lot of reasons, really, starting with the fact that I just think he was a better receiver who got overlooked because he played for the most invisible franchise in the league. If you were hoping for a more objective argument, I can do that, too. Jimmy Smith leads Bruce in pro bowls, yards per season, yards per game, 100 yard games, 1000 yard seasons, 1100 yard seasons, and 1200 yard seasons, despite playing for a much shorter timeframe (discounting sub-400 yard seasons at the beginning and end of each player's career, Smith basically had 10 productive years to 14 for Bruce) and in a much less potent offense. Isaac Bruce earned his starting job much younger, which is a point in his favor, but once Smith secured the starting job, he was better at almost every age. He gained more yards at age 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, and 36 (Bruce had more at 28 and 34). Bruce had that unreal 119/1781/13 year, but Smith went for 116/1636/6 in his best year, which isn't far behind, and his team attempted 100 fewer passes. Plus, Jimmy Smith had the greatest game any WR has ever played- a disgusting 15/291/3 game against the 2000 Baltimore Ravens defense.
Also, here's where Smith's offenses ranked in terms of pass attempts: 27, 9, 21, 27, 17, 15, 14, 30, 17, 19, 20. Avg = 19.6
And Bruce: 17, 4, 26, 17, 5, 19, 3, 12, 1, 2, 5, 4, 3, 9, 18, 21. Avg = 10.4
Smith only once played in an offense that passed more often than the average Bruce offense. Bruce only twice played in an offense that passed less often than the average Smith offense. Smith got all his yards from Mark Brunell, Byron Leftwich, and David Garrard, while Bruce got the majority of his stats from Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger. Also, for whatever it's worth, Chase's formula rated Smith as the 10th best and Bruce as the 19th best WRs of all time.
Anyway, like I said, most of that is just window dressing. I just honestly believe that Smith was a better receiver, even if Bruce has better cumulative stats because his prime was 14 years while Smith's was 10.
Interesting. You make some compelling arguments, but I will counter with this: First off, saying, "Smith got all his yards from Mark Brunell, Byron Leftwich, and David Garrard, while Bruce got the majority of his stats from Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger," while true, ignores the fact that Smith had Brunell for 7 of his 10 years (Brunell was no Hall of Famer, but he was really solid for most of his career), while Bruce only had Kurt Warner for 3+ years (50 starts) out of his 14 years, so it's not like Smith always had scrubs, while Bruce always had a HoFer throwing to him (Bulger was good, but not great). Plus, Bruce's best season was with Chris Miller, so he proved he could produce at a very high level no matter who he had at QB. And it is worth pointing out that Bruce's two full seasons with Warner (1999 and 2001) were his 5th and 6th best seasons from a receiving yards standpoint. One beef I always had with Jimmy Smith was that he didn't score a lot. He never scored double digits touchdowns, and never scored more than 8 in a season. Granted, Bruce only did it twice (scoring 13 in '95 and 12 in '99), but two is greater than zero. Smith's career TD total of 67 is pretty weak. Hell, even in his monster season of 1999 when he had 116 catches and 1,636 yards, he still only scored 6 touchdowns. If Smith having the greatest game a WR has ever played is a credit for him, then Bruce making arguably the greatest play ever by a WR in the Super Bowl (catching an underthrown ball in a tie game with under two minutes left, and then weaving his way through the defense for the game-winning 73-yard score) is a credit for him, right? Also, I would argue that Bruce was one of the reasons the offenses he played in were always so potent. It's not like he was some huge benefactor of everyone around him making him better. It was often the other way around. Hell, as awesome as Marshall Faulk was, he was a much better RB in St. Louis than he was in Indy, and the presence of Bruce and Holt, not to mention the offense Martz ran, were large reasons why. Basically, the greatest show on turf was the perfect system featuring the perfect players for it. Warner, Faulk, Bruce and Holt were all awesome, and the presence of all of them made all of them better. But we can agree to disagree. I agree that Smith was underrated, but better than Bruce? I didn't see it then, and I don't see it that way now.
So, Warner is better than anyone Smith played with, but Brunell is better than the QBs Bruce had for 76% of his yardage.
The full list. Note that these are approximations based on the game logs. I assigned X% of each WR's receiving yards in each game to the quarterback with X% of his team's passing yards.
Yards QB % G QB4475 29% 63.1 Marc Bulger3624 24% 46.4 Kurt Warner2260 15% 26.1 Tony Banks1347 9% 17.1 Chris Miller635 4% 12.7 Shaun Hill617 4% 6.1 Mark Rypien538 4% 6.2 Trent Green507 3% 10.3 Jamie Martin371 2% 6.4 J.T. O'Sullivan198 1% 3.5 Ryan Fitzpatrick182 1% 2.1 Steve Walsh153 1% 6.1 Chris Chandler109 1% 2.3 Gus Frerotte93 1% 3.8 Alex Smith24 0% 0.3 Paul Justin21 0% 0.1 Az-Zahir Hakim18 0% 0.1 Dave Barr15 0% 0.3 Isaac Bruce14 0% 0.9 Tommy Maddox4 0% 0.0 Dane Looker2 0% 0.0 Steve Bono1 0% 0.0 Scott CovingtonYards QB % G QB7994 65% 103.5 Mark Brunell2420 20% 35.3 Byron Leftwich625 5% 10.1 David Garrard303 2% 2.6 Jay Fiedler282 2% 4.4 Jonathan Quinn279 2% 3.0 Jamie Martin125 1% 1.1 Steve Matthews116 1% 1.3 Rob Johnson108 1% 5.2 Steve Beuerlein20 0% 0.4 Quinn Gray11 0% 0.1 Bryan Barker4 0% 0.0 Matt JonesI was never trying to convince you, you just asked why I'd put Smith in over Bruce. Like I said, he was noticeably more productive in a much lower-volume passing offense. My point is not that Isaac Bruce's offenses were more successful passing the ball- as you said, Bruce himself gets some of the credit for that. My point is that they attempted so many more passes, and he therefore had so many more chances to put up statistics. It's the Calvin Johnson vs. Brandon Marshall argument- yes, Calvin just set the yardage record, but he did it on a squad that absolutely shattered the record for most pass attempts in a single season, so he had a lot of chances to put up his yards. Everyone watching the team over the last half of the season saw that all they were doing was forcing the ball to Calvin. Getting him his stats was all they had left to play for. Calvin had an amazing year, but it's a lot easier to put up stats in an offense that throws every down. Anyway, Bruce played with arguably the most pass-wacky coach in history slinging the ball on every snap, with a HoF-caliber receiver drawing the opposing team's top coverages, the best receiving RB in NFL history wreaking havoc in the middle of the field, and for much of the time, a HoF QB under center. Jimmy Smith played in a conservative, run-first offense with no other credible receivers anywhere to be found. He shouldered a much bigger load- drew all the tough coverages and pretty much was Jacksonville's entire passing offense- and he was more productive to boot.
Keenan McCardell wasn't a credible WR for the Jaguars from 1996-2001? I'd say that averaging 83-1,066-5, while not elite, makes someone a pretty damn good number 2, so saying that Smith produced all on his own without having anyone else good around is simply untrue. Bruce and Holt both drew top coverage, not just Holt all the time. And still saying that Bruce had a HOF QB for "much of the time" is, again, not correct. I will repeat it: In his 14 seasons as an NFL WR, Bruce had Warner throwing him the ball for 50+ starts, which is a little over 3 seasons. A little over 3 seasons out of 14 is not "much of the time."'SSOG said:
I was a big fan of Simeon, but pass rushers have a hard time getting in unless they're really special. Look at Kevin Greene. Great numbers, no one breaking the door at the Hall down trying to get him in. Brooks definitely makes it in, likely first try. Simeon may get in eventually, but the longer it goes, the less likely it is.
A quarter of his career is "much of the time". 50 out of 202 starts. 24% of his passing yardage. That's a very substantial portion of his career. Not the majority, but a substantial proportion. It'd be like if I said that much of the time, John Elway made the Super Bowl. No, he didn't make it every year, or even every other year, but I'm sure you'd agree that "much of the time" would be appropriate in this case. And more importantly than what percentage of his career was spent with Warner, what percentage of his career was spent with Martz?As for McCardell... He was a decent WR, but he wasn't anything to write home about. He made the pro bowl once in Jacksonville- and ironically, the year he made the PB, Smith missed despite unambiguously better stats, since Smith closed out the season strong (after PB votes had already been mailed). That season, McCardell had three TDs and three 100 yard games (including a 232 yard game where he compiled 21% of his yardage for the season). If Smith had made the PB over McCardell like he deserved, then he could claim that the only time in his career he'd ever shared the field with another pro bowl pass catcher was at the pro bowl. Who do you think saw more top coverage in his prime, Smith or Bruce? Who do you think faced more double teams? Who do you think was a bigger focus of opposing teams' game plans?Look, you're never going to change my mind. Not ever. I think both were great WRs, but I think that Bruce generally wasn't dominant (1995 notwithstanding), and I was more impressed with the way that Smith was substantially more productive despite having to shoulder a much greater offensive burden. I already pointed out how Smith was better at pretty much every age than Bruce. Jimmy Smith averaged 84/1200 receiving over a 10 year span. That's sick in any circumstances, but doubly so on a run-first expansion franchise with a conservative head coach. I think the case for Bruce over Smith rests heavily on three factors. There was his 1995 season, which was amazing, but not quite as amazing when taken in context of the offensive environment in which it was achieved- remember, Bruce didn't even make the pro bowl that year (granted, owing partly to the fact that he played in the more WR-heavy conference, but still- a lot of WRs did so many insane things that year that you have to wonder if there wasn't something up with the officiating or something). There are his career totals, which are lofty (4th most yards in history), but they're also padded by Bruce hanging on and adding several mediocre seasons at the end of his career. Smith could have done the same- he had just put up the best age 36 season of anyone not named Rice- but decided to go out on his own terms, instead. Finally, Bruce has the TDs, which were again padded- Bruce averaged 0.41 TDs per game for his career, Smith averaged 0.38, a difference which is easily accounted for by the relative quality of their respective offenses. You think Bruce was a better or more deserving WR. That's fine. I don't think that's an outlandish position to take, and I wouldn't convince you otherwise even if I did. I think Smith was both better and more deserving, and I don't think that's a particularly outlandish position, either. I'm not trying to start an argument or change any minds but, well... you asked.
24% isn't "much of the time" - not even close. A QB with a completion % of 24% doesn't complete his passes "much of the time". The Elway comparison doesn't really hold since a SB appearance is a rare event - an NFL game with a starting QB is not.
Having less talent around you usually increases the stats of a good WR due to the increase in targets. Jimmy Smith actually averaged more targets per game and per start from 1996-2005 than Bruce did from 1995-2006 (with Smith posting a lower catch percentage). Just because the Rams threw the ball more or the Jags less doesn't mean much because a throw doesn't go to all players. I have no doubt that Smith saw better coverage on average than Bruce (once Holt and Faulk were brought into the mix) but that doesn't matter much if you are the #1 option on the vast majority of pass plays.I judge WRs pretty heavily on their ability to score TDs. I think that is the most telling stat for a WR to compile because they either need to be a defense deep (on a long TD) or separate in confined space (in the case of a short TD). Smith, despite all his targets, was never good at scoring. It wasn't like he had a down year now and then - his best year was 8 TDs.
McCardell made two Pro Bowls, anyway. He was a good #2 receiver. Heck, he's in the top 30 all-time in receiving yardage, top-15 in receptions.
). IMO, that season and Bruce's postseason heroics in 1999 give him a huge edge over Smith, everything else being equal.
Would you say Warner played much of his career with Bruce, then? Because that was only 40% of his career, by the numbers. Where's the cutoff? At 33% can I call it "much of his career"? 40%? Do I have to hit an even 50% first? Or is there a raw number breakpoint? Bruce's 50 games with Warner are a lot- about as many as Fitz had with him. Did Fitz play much of his career with Warner? Right now Fitz's time with Warner represents about 40% of his career. If I said Fitz played much of his career with Warner, would that statement be true today and false three years from now?And on an unrelated note, when did it become cool to bash Marc Bulger, a guy who through his first five years (four of them with Martz) held the NFL record for passing yards per game, topped 8 YPA three times, made 2 pro bowls, and probably would have made 2-3 more if he'd played all 16 games in the other years? You all think playing with Bulger was some sort of hardship for Bruce, or that his production suffered as a result of shoddy QB play?
Out of curiosity, where did you get the old target numbers? FBGs' numbers only go back to 2002. Second off, you're treating a target like a bad thing. Chase lays out the problems with this in his most recent post on football perspective. PFF uses yards per route run, a metric which sounded dumb at first but to which I have really warmed as a good measure of efficiency with opportunities. The obvious problem is there's no way to get that data for Smith or Bruce. Third off, the problem with judging WRs on TDs is that the sample is tiny, and it's so heavily dependent on the rest of the offense. An offense that sets records for the number of TDs scored is obviously going to have a lot of scores to go around. A bad offense is not. And despite all that, as I pointed out, the difference in TDs per game between Smith and Bruce is 0.03.
It's laughable to say Smith's numbers suffered without McCardell. By the time McCardell left, Smith was 33 and past his prime. Over the next 4 years, Smith put up the 7th best, 20th best, 5th best, and 2nd best season ever by a WR his age (measured in fantasy points). He was better than Bruce at three of those four ages, gaining about 30% more yards and TDs over that span.Also, by Bruce's "postseason heroics", I'm assuming you're talking about one single play. It was a great one, sure, but it was one play. Both Smith and Bruce conveniently played in 9 postseason games, so comparisons are easy. Bruce had 44/759/4 for his career. Smith had 40/647/7. Looking at entire resumes, I fail to see how Bruce has much of an advantage.Yep, McCardell was a very good WR for a long time. Not a Hall of Famer, but very good and a damn good number 2. It seems crazy to me to dismiss him as a player that wasn't credible, especially when he was a huge part of the Jacksonville offense, and when you consider that Smith's numbers tailed off once McCardell left Jacksonville. In other words, Smith never put up a monster season without the benefit of a very good number 2 WR along side him. Meanwhile, Isaac Bruce, in 1995, put up 119-1,781-13 with no other player on the Rams having more than 458 yards (Troy Drayton
I never argued that I thought Smith was deserving of the HoF. I argued that I thought he was more deserving than Bruce, but since I wouldn't put Bruce in the HoF, there's plenty of room for Smith to have a better résumé than Bruce but still have an insufficient résumé overall. If I were running the hall, I wouldn't elect either of them.
I am not arguing anything one way or the other in regards to Bulger. I am just saying that 24% isn't "much".
Football Outsiders.
No, I am not treating it as a bad thing (I am aware of Chase's opinion on the subject). Really, there is much more involved like - what was the play called? You may be wide open but if you are 3rd on the progression you likely don't get a target. The point was that it doesn't matter how often a team passes - the play call and the coverage matters more than anything else. I can argue that Smith, getting a higher percentage of his teams targets mean he is better. I could also argue that Bruce receiving so many targets when he is competing against Faulk and Holt means he is better since McCardell is the only other player taking away targets. The point is, it isn't clear cut and until we know the actual play call there is really no way to determine how good a WR based on receptions/yardage/targets. Which is why I put much more value in a WR's TD production.
When you list the WRs that are the best of the best they all score TDs. The sample size may be considered tiny for a single season. Over the course of a career it is a trend. That said, I don't think the two are that different. Bruce has the longevity and the better top seasons Smith has the more consistent run. I think Bruce is borderline HOF only because of his longevity. I don't think Smith gets in because they are basically the same player but Smith played less.
No it's not; it's the truth. Smith was past his prime? Oh, so he was past his prime coming off of a 112-1,373-8 season? Absolutely not. Even though it was a drop-off, him putting up 80-1,027-7 in 2002 despite the Jags having no legit number 2 WR was impressive; a guy past his prime wouldn't have done that, even with the aid of Fred Taylor's monster season in the backfield.
Fantasy points is not a good measure, especially since they tend to put too much emphasis nowadays on catches. I'd rather look at straight yards and touchdowns, which to me are always two of the three most important WR stats (along with YPC, which both Smith and Bruce excelled at, although Bruce had a higher career YPC
). Plus, it is not always as simple as looking at fantasy numbers and saying Player A was better than Player B cause he scored more FF pts. Using that analogy, Larry Fitzgerald is no longer a top 30 NFL WR.I am not talking a single play; I am talking about the entire postseason. Bruce caught a 73-yard TD on the first Rams offensive play of the postseason, and he caught a 73-yard TD on the last Rams offensive play of the postseason, the latter being the Super Bowl-winning catch. Things like that should not be so easily dismissed as being one or two plays or anomalies or anything like that. Big plays like that, and the players that make them, are what define the NFL playoffs and the Super Bowl. Jimmy Smith put up good postseason numbers, but does anyone remember any of his plays as being significant ones? Ya know, ones that the average NFL fan would remember and say, "Oh yeah, that was an all-time great play"? I doubt it.To me, the only advantage Smith has over Bruce is that he was more durable, but despite that, Bruce still has better overall numbers, more memorable postseason heroics, and better great seasons (Bruce at his best was better than Smith at his best).
When I discuss fantasy points, I refer to standard FBGs scoring, which is yards/10 + 6*tds. It places no emphasis on catches. Also, I never said that Smith was the 2nd best WR at age 36 (although honestly, it's either him or Galloway), I said he had the second best season as measured by fantasy points. Fitzgerald is one of the best receivers in the league, but no one would claim he had one of the best seasons last year.Fantasy points is not a good measure, especially since they tend to put too much emphasis nowadays on catches. I'd rather look at straight yards and touchdowns, which to me are always two of the three most important WR stats (along with YPC, which both Smith and Bruce excelled at, although Bruce had a higher career YPC
So, Bruce had 146/2 on his first and last plays, and 171/0 in the 160 minutes in between? Great, we're talking about 2 plays instead of 1. Look, the only reason we remember these plays is because St. Louis won the SB. If Smith had been on the Rams, he'd have a lot more memorable postseason moments. Had Bruce been on Jacksonville, he'd have a lot fewer. This wouldn't change who they were. All they could control is how they were in the playoffs, and to be honest, how they were was pretty damn close. I don't get the durability thing, either. Bruce had seven 16 game seasons, two 15 game seasons, and a 14 game season. Bruce played 223 games to Smith's 178. He had 202 starts to Smith's 150. Smith was the guy who was better per game, and Bruce is the guy who hung around and padded his stats. Also, Bruce had 1781 yards on a team with 632 attempts. Smith had 1636 yards on a team with 535 attempts. Like I said, Smith's best season compares well with Bruce's.
Ummm... You realize that Jimmy Smith's per-game numbers include 7 games from Dallas where he was active but never recorded a catch, right?Per game numbers shouldn't include Isaac Bruce's rookie season (272 yards in 12 games, no starts). I'd also argue that his last season was hardly representative, as you pointed out. Ditching both seasons loses 22 games and 536 yards, bringing his per-game averages up to 73.0 yards per game. Being even more generous, Bruce's first season over 60 ypg was 1995 and his last was 2006. Using just that timeframe, Bruce had 76.6 ypg. Either figure is far more representative of Bruce's true performance level, I'm sure you'll agree. Of course, if we do it for Bruce, we have to do it for Smith, too. Ditch his Dallas season (7 games, 0 yards) and his first year in Jacksonville (16 games, 288 yards). That leaves us with 1996 to 2005, and during that timeframe, Smith averaged... 77.4 yards per game. As far as playoffs go, I'm not being dismissive of Bruce, I'm just pointing out that maybe, just maybe, Jimmy Smith might have some "signature moments" if he played for the Greatest Show on Turf instead of an expansion franchise in the most invisible market in the entire NFL. Sure, the Rams might not win the SB without Bruce (but then again, they might- they won their first playoff game by 12, and Bruce's SB play came on 1st and 10 of a tied game). Then again, maybe Jacksonville doesn't shock #1 seeded Denver and make the AFCCG in just their second year if not for Smith (he caught the TD that gave them a 2-score lead after Denver had closed the gap in the 4th). It's not his fault his role in the greatest playoff beat down in history (he had half of Jacksonville's passing production in their epic 62-7 send off of Dan Marino) is all but forgotten because Jacksonville couldn't seal the deal with a SB win. Smith had as many big playoff moments as Bruce, they were just relegated to a smaller stage and quickly forgotten because his team wasn't as good and his franchise was an absolute afterthought.
