Isaac Bruce - HoFer? (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

Tough call.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BrucIs00.htm

Right now, he is:

-12th all-time in receiving yards

-14th all-time in receptions

-20th all-time in touchdown receptions

-15.1 career YPC

-Finished in the top 3 in receiving yards three times

-Has the Super Bowl winning catch to his credit.

Also, with another good season or two, Bruce will likely enter the top 6 all-time in receiving yards. He will likely fall a bit by the time he is eligible for the Hall.

 

[Jackal King]

Yes.

For any long suffering Rams fan....that TD catch on the Rams last drive is still etched clearly in our memories. There has never been a bigger Rams play before or since.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

There's just too many high quality WRs that will be up in the coming years...

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yes.

For any long suffering Rams fan....that TD catch on the Rams last drive is still etched clearly in our memories. There has never been a bigger Rams play before or since.

I agree. The tackle by Jones on Dyson is long remembered as the defining play of that game, but Bruce's TD catch was probably one of the best individual plays in Super Bowl history when you consider that the ball was underthrown (because Warner was getting drilled as he threw it), and Bruce had to make the adjustment, did so, caught the ball, and still managed to elude the defense and go in for the score.

 

[Jackal King]

Yes.

For any long suffering Rams fan....that TD catch on the Rams last drive is still etched clearly in our memories. There has never been a bigger Rams play before or since.

I agree. The tackle by Jones on Dyson is long remembered as the defining play of that game, but Bruce's TD catch was probably one of the best individual plays in Super Bowl history when you consider that the ball was underthrown (because Warner was getting drilled as he threw it), and Bruce had to make the adjustment, did so, caught the ball, and still managed to elude the defense and go in for the score.

Stop...I'm getting all misty eyed. I'm going to go watch my VCR copy.

 

[David Yudkin]

Check out the 87 other threads I've posted in regarding HOF WR candidates. Unless he plays to the point where he is undeniable high in the key categories, I would say no.

There are so few WR that have been inducted over the years that unless they start taking 12 guys that were active at the same time, many guys will miss out.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

there also seems to be a name recognition factor, & i think it also helps if you are on multiple super bowl winning teams (there are of course exceptions)...

so even though, imo, bruce WAS one of the best WRs of his era, i'm not sure if he was widely thought of that way... he is the last legacy from LA rams, and was on some not so great teams before '99 & after '01...

i think when he is done he will arguably deserve to get in, but am pessimistic that he will... tough for WRs (see art monk)...

* in few years, jerry rice will have to be inducted... don't think cris carter has been away long enough to qualify (he will be a shoo in)... michael irvin would i think get in before bruce (three super bowl wins)... when harrison retires, he would be one of next in line...

 

[Doug Drinen]

HoF or not?

Do you mean will he be? Or should he be? Those are two totally different questions.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Did you know that Bruce is now SECOND all-time in receiving yards?

5th in receptions, 2nd in receiving yards, and 9th in touchdown catches. When you factor in his Super Bowl-winning catch and his status as one of the two stud WRs on one of the greatest offenses the league has ever seen (one so great, it had a nickname), Bruce is looking like a likely candidate for the Hall.

 

[thehornet]

Yes

 

[Zoomanji]

Probably should be in.

But most like won't get in until the "old-timers" committee gets to him

 

[zed2283]

Not a chance.

 

[jon_mx]

Kurt Warner - Yes

Marshall Faulk - Maybe

I. Bruce - No

 

[Sweet Love]

Probably should be in. But most like won't get in until the "old-timers" committee gets to him

Nail, meet head. I think this is because, he was always, always, very good, but never great. I think he gets passed up in the short run, but put in 20+ years later.

 

[dgreen]

Kurt Warner - YesMarshall Faulk - MaybeI. Bruce - No

 

[zed2283]

Nail, meet head. I think this is because, he was always, always, very good, but never great. I think he gets passed up in the short run, but put in 20+ years later.

Don't talk like that around here. The "voters" in this forum think that's what "Fame" means.

 

[Zoomanji]

Kurt Warner - Yes No

Marshall Faulk - Maybe Yes

I. Bruce - No Maybe

 

[Ghost Rider]

Not a chance.

Seriously? I could understand a "no" response, but to suggest that he has no chance whatsoever? That is just crazy talk.

 

[travdogg]

Its kinda weird, I think Bruce is/was probably better than 20% of the WR's currently in the HOF, but I'm not sure he's a lock to make it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Its kinda weird, I think Bruce is/was probably better than 20% of the WR's currently in the HOF, but I'm not sure he's a lock to make it.

Why is that weird? I think that's how the HOF should be.

 

[GloryDaze]

He's going to be the new Art Monk.

Actually, now that I think of it, I'm going to go ahead and say no. I don't think he ever gets in.

 

[Aardvarks]

Isaac Bruce is a mortal lock for the HOF.

He's got the numbers, the character, and the jewelry.

5th all-time receptions with 1013

2nd all-time receiving yds with 15,091 (repeat that to yourself out loud)

caught the game-winning TD in SB XXXIV

and again, Character......

Owens & Moss will catch him in yds but it looks like Bruce will remain Top-5 All-Time in rec yds for a long, long time.

Book it.

 

[travdogg]

Its kinda weird, I think Bruce is/was probably better than 20% of the WR's currently in the HOF, but I'm not sure he's a lock to make it.

Why is that weird? I think that's how the HOF should be.

You think a guy who was better than 1/5th of the players at his position that are in the HOF shouldn't necessarily make the HOF?

 

[TommyGilmore]

Owens & Moss will catch him in yds but it looks like Bruce will remain Top-5 All-Time in rec yds for a long, long time.

I wouldn't be so certain that Owens will catch Bruce in yards. Bruce has an 871-yard lead and is having a better year than Owens this year. Owens might not be able to make up that gap in the ~2 seasons he has left in the tank.

 

[GloryDaze]

I wouldn't be so certain that Owens will catch Bruce in yards. Bruce has an 871-yard lead and is having a better year than Owens this year. Owens might not be able to make up that gap in the ~2 seasons he has left in the tank.

I just don't think they're going to make the James Lofton mistake twice.

 

[CalBear]

He's going to be the new Art Monk.

Isaac Bruce >> Art Monk.Among other things, Bruce is #2 in receiving yards and #9 in TDs, and will still be top 5 and top 10 in those categories when he's eligible for the Hall. He only has 4 Pro Bowls, but he has another season where he went for 119/1781/13--better than any season in Art Monk's career--and was undeservedly shut out of the Pro Bowl. He also has a game-winning Super Bowl catch, rather than a history of watching Super Bowls from the sidelines, injured. Monk shouldn't have gotten in, but Bruce's resume is a lot stronger than Monk's was.

 

[nashua55]

He's going to be the new Art Monk.

Isaac Bruce >> Art Monk.Among other things, Bruce is #2 in receiving yards and #9 in TDs, and will still be top 5 and top 10 in those categories when he's eligible for the Hall. He only has 4 Pro Bowls, but he has another season where he went for 119/1781/13--better than any season in Art Monk's career--and was undeservedly shut out of the Pro Bowl. He also has a Super Bowl MVP, rather than a history of watching Super Bowls from the sidelines, injured. Monk shouldn't have gotten in, but Bruce's resume is a lot stronger than Monk's was.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Its kinda weird, I think Bruce is/was probably better than 20% of the WR's currently in the HOF, but I'm not sure he's a lock to make it.

Why is that weird? I think that's how the HOF should be.

You think a guy who was better than 1/5th of the players at his position that are in the HOF shouldn't necessarily make the HOF?

Yes. If you're not better than at least 1/3 of the players at your position in the HOF, I don't think I would argue for your induction. Otherwise you're just watering down the HOF (of course, because of the cap on the # of players that can be inducted, you're also preventing players who were better than 1/2 of the players at their position from entering the HOF).

 

[GloryDaze]

Monk shouldn't have gotten in, but Bruce's resume is a lot stronger than Monk's was.

Agree on part 1. Disagree on part 2. You can't reasonably compare the passing statistics of the 80s with the 00s. Hey, I could make a case for Vinny Testaverde having a 'better' resume than Dan Fouts if that is the case.

 

[CalBear]

Monk shouldn't have gotten in, but Bruce's resume is a lot stronger than Monk's was.

Agree on part 1. Disagree on part 2. You can't reasonably compare the passing statistics of the 80s with the 00s. Hey, I could make a case for Vinny Testaverde having a 'better' resume than Dan Fouts if that is the case.

Bruce finished top 5 in receiving yards 4 times (including #1 once); Art Monk was top-5 twice (best was #3). Bruce finished top 6 in receiving yards 3 times; Monk never finished better than 8th. Bruce also still holds the #2 season yardage mark of all time, with the misfortune of having set that record the same year as Rice's #1.Relative to his peers, Bruce was better than Monk.

 

[TommyGilmore]

He's going to be the new Art Monk.

Isaac Bruce >> Art Monk.Among other things, Bruce is #2 in receiving yards and #9 in TDs, and will still be top 5 and top 10 in those categories when he's eligible for the Hall. He only has 4 Pro Bowls, but he has another season where he went for 119/1781/13--better than any season in Art Monk's career--and was undeservedly shut out of the Pro Bowl. He also has a game-winning Super Bowl catch, rather than a history of watching Super Bowls from the sidelines, injured.

Monk played in more playoff games than Bruce, caught more passes, more TDs, and had more yards in the playoffs than Bruce, and has more Super Bowl rings than Bruce.......yet all you can muster is that Monk has a "history of watching Super Bowls from the sidelines, injured" -- even though Monk played in more Super Bowls than Bruce ever did??Oh, and where was Bruce during the 2005 playoff game against Atlanta? That's right -- watching from the sidelines, injured.

 

[GloryDaze]

Relative to his peers, Bruce was better than Monk.

If he was that much better relative to his peers, why does Bruce only have 4 Pro Bowl appearances, and zero first team All-Pro seasons? Monk has 3 and 1. Very comparable to me. But hey, I think 4 ~ 4. Very wacky I know.

 

[zed2283]

He's going to be the new Art Monk.

Isaac Bruce >> Art Monk.Among other things, Bruce is #2 in receiving yards and #9 in TDs, and will still be top 5 and top 10 in those categories when he's eligible for the Hall. He only has 4 Pro Bowls, but he has another season where he went for 119/1781/13--better than any season in Art Monk's career--and was undeservedly shut out of the Pro Bowl. He also has a game-winning Super Bowl catch, rather than a history of watching Super Bowls from the sidelines, injured.

Monk played in more playoff games than Bruce, caught more passes, more TDs, and had more yards in the playoffs than Bruce, and has more Super Bowl rings than Bruce.......yet all you can muster is that Monk has a "history of watching Super Bowls from the sidelines, injured" -- even though Monk played in more Super Bowls than Bruce ever did??Oh, and where was Bruce during the 2005 playoff game against Atlanta? That's right -- watching from the sidelines, injured.

And I believe Monk retired with the record for receptions in a season.

 

[GloryDaze]

And I believe Monk retired with the record for receptions in a season.

Yeah, poor Monk and Largent. None of their records lasted very long.

 

[The Jerk]

It's interesting to me that some of the same people who trashed Hines Ward as having no chance for the HoF are suggesting Bruce has a strong chance when you consider:

Regular Season

Bruce: 4.69 receptions per game, 70.5 total yards from scrimmage per game, 0.422 TDs per game

Ward: 4.73 receptions per game, 60.4 total yards from scrimmage per game, 0.416 TDs per game

Postseason

Bruce: 4.89 receptions per game, 84.4 total yards from scrimmage per game, 0.444 TDs per game (9 games)

Ward: 5.43 receptions per game, 78.2 total yards from scrimmage per game, 0.571 TDs per game (14 games)

One more stat: Hines Ward has four pro bowls and zero first team All-Pro -- the exact same totals as Isaac Bruce.

Part of this is explained by Bruce's longevity and decline that comes with it. Few would argue that Bruce at his peak had more elite numbers than Ward. However, it's closer than most people would expect.

Personally, I give Bruce a slightly better chance than Ward, but I would vote no on both.

 

[Insomniac]

It's interesting to me that some of the same people who trashed Hines Ward as having no chance for the HoF are suggesting Bruce has a strong chance when you consider:Regular SeasonBruce: 4.69 receptions per game, 70.5 total yards from scrimmage per game, 0.422 TDs per gameWard: 4.73 receptions per game, 60.4 total yards from scrimmage per game, 0.416 TDs per gamePostseasonBruce: 4.89 receptions per game, 84.4 total yards from scrimmage per game, 0.444 TDs per game (9 games)Ward: 5.43 receptions per game, 78.2 total yards from scrimmage per game, 0.571 TDs per game (14 games)One more stat: Hines Ward has four pro bowls and zero first team All-Pro -- the exact same totals as Isaac Bruce.Part of this is explained by Bruce's longevity and decline that comes with it. Few would argue that Bruce at his peak had more elite numbers than Ward. However, it's closer than most people would expect.Personally, I give Bruce a slightly better chance than Ward, but I would vote no on both.

10 yards a game from scrimmage is a lot. If you look at receiving yards per game Bruce ranks 15th while Ward ranks 61st.

 

[ninerfanatic492000]

nobody has mentioned 2major tidbits about Bruce's early years.

1) he played with complete #### at QB and put up phenomenal numbers. i believe he had chris miller/Tony Banks before Trent Green/Warner/Bulger

2) he also had major major problems with his hamstrings ala Fred Taylor early in his career. enuff where many thought it would jeopardize/end his young career.

its hard to fathom what his numbers could have been with better QB play and better health in his early years.

Rice had Montana/Young/Garcia/Gannon/Hass(?)..................what would Bruce's numbers look like if he played with that QB talent for his entire career? and i'm saying this as a diehard 49er fan(so by design i hate the rams) who watched Bruce for years. Bruce was THE REAL DEAL

as much as i hated it those Warner lead Rams teams were fun to watch. i haven't seen 2Wr's as gifted/intelligient/smooth in their primes like Holt/Bruce since..............well Rice/John Taylor

 

[The Jerk]

10 yards a game from scrimmage is a lot. If you look at receiving yards per game Bruce ranks 15th while Ward ranks 61st.

No doubt. I was expecting the differences to be even more significant, and I also expected to see a larger difference in TDs. Combining all games (regular and postseason), Ward actually scores slightly more frequently than Bruce. Maybe everyone else already knew that the difference between these two was only in yardage per game. I didn't.

 

[CalBear]

Relative to his peers, Bruce was better than Monk.

If he was that much better relative to his peers, why does Bruce only have 4 Pro Bowl appearances, and zero first team All-Pro seasons? Monk has 3 and 1. Very comparable to me. But hey, I think 4 ~ 4. Very wacky I know.

Bruce lacks an All-Pro season because the year he put up the second-biggest WR season of all time, Jerry Rice put up the biggest WR season of all time. Monk's best season is 73rd on the all-time receiving yardage list, and not in the top 10 even if you limit it to the 80s. Bruce is still #2 of all time.

 

[Ghost Rider]

And to demonstrate how meaningless Pro Bowls are when it comes to discussing Hall of Fame credentials, Isaac Bruce put up 119-1,781-13 in 1995...and didn't make the Pro Bowl. Think about that for a minute. Bruce put up the 2nd highest receiving yardage for a single season EVER and didn't make the Pro Bowl.

 

[The Jerk]

Relative to his peers, Bruce was better than Monk.

If he was that much better relative to his peers, why does Bruce only have 4 Pro Bowl appearances, and zero first team All-Pro seasons? Monk has 3 and 1. Very comparable to me. But hey, I think 4 ~ 4. Very wacky I know.

Bruce lacks an All-Pro season because the year he put up the second-biggest WR season of all time, Jerry Rice put up the biggest WR season of all time. Monk's best season is 73rd on the all-time receiving yardage list, and not in the top 10 even if you limit it to the 80s. Bruce is still #2 of all time.

There are two spots on the All-Pro first team, so another player was also considered to have a better season, not just Rice.

 

[CalBear]

Relative to his peers, Bruce was better than Monk.

If he was that much better relative to his peers, why does Bruce only have 4 Pro Bowl appearances, and zero first team All-Pro seasons? Monk has 3 and 1. Very comparable to me. But hey, I think 4 ~ 4. Very wacky I know.

Bruce lacks an All-Pro season because the year he put up the second-biggest WR season of all time, Jerry Rice put up the biggest WR season of all time. Monk's best season is 73rd on the all-time receiving yardage list, and not in the top 10 even if you limit it to the 80s. Bruce is still #2 of all time.

There are two spots on the All-Pro first team, so another player was also considered to have a better season, not just Rice.

Herman Moore went for 123/1686/14 that year vs. Bruce's 119/1781/13. Detroit was 10-6, the Rams were 7-9.

 

[The Jerk]

Relative to his peers, Bruce was better than Monk.

If he was that much better relative to his peers, why does Bruce only have 4 Pro Bowl appearances, and zero first team All-Pro seasons? Monk has 3 and 1. Very comparable to me. But hey, I think 4 ~ 4. Very wacky I know.

Bruce lacks an All-Pro season because the year he put up the second-biggest WR season of all time, Jerry Rice put up the biggest WR season of all time. Monk's best season is 73rd on the all-time receiving yardage list, and not in the top 10 even if you limit it to the 80s. Bruce is still #2 of all time.

There are two spots on the All-Pro first team, so another player was also considered to have a better season, not just Rice.

Herman Moore went for 123/1686/14 that year vs. Bruce's 119/1781/13. Detroit was 10-6, the Rams were 7-9.

Here's the 1995 All-Pro team according to Wikipedia. 1995 All-Pro TeamBruce didn't even make 2nd team all-Pro that year. His only second team all-Pro (Associated Press) was in 1999.

 

[CalBear]

Bruce didn't even make 2nd team all-Pro that year. His only second team all-Pro (Associated Press) was in 1999.

Which just points out how flawed looking at Pro Bowls and All Pros can be. Bruce's 1995 was far better than any season Monk put up. Monk's All-Pro season was 106/1372/7--he wasn't even top 5 in fantasy terms. Mark Clayton had 73/1389/18 that year and wasn't an All-Pro; Stallworth had 80/1395/11 and also was left out.

 

[Fantasy Bum]

Kurt Warner - Yes No

Marshall Faulk - Maybe Yes

I. Bruce - No Maybe

 

[GloryDaze]

Bruce didn't even make 2nd team all-Pro that year. His only second team all-Pro (Associated Press) was in 1999.

Which just points out how flawed looking at Pro Bowls and All Pros can be. Bruce's 1995 was far better than any season Monk put up. Monk's All-Pro season was 106/1372/7--he wasn't even top 5 in fantasy terms. Mark Clayton had 73/1389/18 that year and wasn't an All-Pro; Stallworth had 80/1395/11 and also was left out.

Why would that be flawed if we're comparing them to their peers? You keep trying to compare their stats to each other, which is a recipe for failure.In Monk's big season he caught 106 balls. Then next closest WR had 78. It was a completely unheard of accomplishment at the time to do what he did.In Bruce's big season, there were 6 WRs with over 106 catches and 4 of them over 1600 yards.Relative to his peers....advantage Monk.And even then he shouldn't be in the HoF and neither should Bruce.

 

[CalBear]

Bruce didn't even make 2nd team all-Pro that year. His only second team all-Pro (Associated Press) was in 1999.

Which just points out how flawed looking at Pro Bowls and All Pros can be. Bruce's 1995 was far better than any season Monk put up. Monk's All-Pro season was 106/1372/7--he wasn't even top 5 in fantasy terms. Mark Clayton had 73/1389/18 that year and wasn't an All-Pro; Stallworth had 80/1395/11 and also was left out.

Why would that be flawed if we're comparing them to their peers? You keep trying to compare their stats to each other, which is a recipe for failure.In Monk's big season he caught 106 balls. Then next closest WR had 78. It was a completely unheard of accomplishment at the time to do what he did.In Bruce's big season, there were 6 WRs with over 106 catches and 4 of them over 1600 yards.Relative to his peers....advantage Monk.And even then he shouldn't be in the HoF and neither should Bruce.

Catching 106 balls, it turns out, wasn't a particularly notable accomplishment, since 25 other WRs have done better since then (including Bruce). Clayton's 18 TDs, which still stands as #3 of all time, was a much more impressive accomplishment. Monk didn't deserve the All-Pro.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Why is being better than Art Monk the standard for the HOF?

 

[Popinski]

I think Bruce is borderline.

As for the stats, it's not just which QB is throwing to him; it's also how many times he is throwing it. In 1995, the Rams had 632 pass attempts, or 40 per game.

 

[GloryDaze]

Catching 106 balls, it turns out, wasn't a particularly notable accomplishment, since 25 other WRs have done better since then (including Bruce). Clayton's 18 TDs, which still stands as #3 of all time, was a much more impressive accomplishment. Monk didn't deserve the All-Pro.

Ok, so now Nostradamus must assign all pros, because current season players must live up to future generation stats or they're worthless. Great argument. Let's remove Johnny Unitas from the hall of fame while we're at it. None of his records stood the test of time.And Chase I was just comparing the two as above average WRs who played for a long time. Neither is deserving IMO.