Isaac Bruce>Marvin Harrison (1 Viewer)

[Block]

I was looking at their stats today, side by side, and I'm convinced that Bruce is the better player. Here are their stats, to start:

Harrison: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1231

Bruce: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1294

While Bruce has been in the league two years longer than Harrison, he is actually the younger of the two.

Let's look at the quarterbacks the two have played with in the pros.

Harrison: 1996-97 Jim Harbaugh, 1998-present Peyton Manning

Bruce: 1994 Chris Miller/Chris Chandler, 1995 Chris Miller/Mark Rypien, 1996-98 Tony Banks, 1999-2001 Kurt Warner, 2002 Kurt Warner/Jamie Martin/Marc Bulger, 2003-present Marc Bulger

Marvin Harrison had three mediocre years coming out of college, and only began his string of thousand-yard seasons (8 and counting) once Peyton Manning matured. When he was catching passes from Jim Harbaugh, he was average, nothing more.

Isaac Bruce, on the other hand, has had thousand yard seasons while catching passes from four quarterbacks: Chris Miller, Tony Banks, Kurt Warner, and Marc Bulger. He's sprinkled some not so good seasons in between, but in looking at the upheaval at quarterback, can you really blame him? Also of note is that he has had five thousand-yard seasons with a mature Torry Holt as the other receiver, and three as the undisputed #1 guy.

Finally, look at their yards-per-catch. Yardagewise, these two are very close: Harrison has 13697 yards and Bruce has 13376. However, Harrison has done his amage with 1022 catches, while Bruce has only 887. That is a big difference. Harrison is at 13.4 yards per, while Bruce is at 15.1.

With a logjam at receiver in terms of HOF considerations (Cris Carter, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown coming up; Andre Reed, Art Monk still waiting), while I think both should be hall of famers, I think Bruce should get the nod first.

Of course, this depends on what they do from now until they retire.

--Block

 

[duaneok66]

I was looking at their stats today, side by side, and I'm convinced that Bruce is the better player. Here are their stats, to start:

Harrison: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1231

Bruce: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1294

While Bruce has been in the league two years longer than Harrison, he is actually the younger of the two.

Let's look at the quarterbacks the two have played with in the pros.

Harrison: 1996-97 Jim Harbaugh, 1998-present Peyton Manning

Bruce: 1994 Chris Miller/Chris Chandler, 1995 Chris Miller/Mark Rypien, 1996-98 Tony Banks, 1999-2001 Kurt Warner, 2002 Kurt Warner/Jamie Martin/Marc Bulger, 2003-present Marc Bulger

Marvin Harrison had three mediocre years coming out of college, and only began his string of thousand-yard seasons (8 and counting) once Peyton Manning matured. When he was catching passes from Jim Harbaugh, he was average, nothing more.

Isaac Bruce, on the other hand, has had thousand yard seasons while catching passes from four quarterbacks: Chris Miller, Tony Banks, Kurt Warner, and Marc Bulger. He's sprinkled some not so good seasons in between, but in looking at the upheaval at quarterback, can you really blame him? Also of note is that he has had five thousand-yard seasons with a mature Torry Holt as the other receiver, and three as the undisputed #1 guy.

Finally, look at their yards-per-catch. Yardagewise, these two are very close: Harrison has 13697 yards and Bruce has 13376. However, Harrison has done his amage with 1022 catches, while Bruce has only 887. That is a big difference. Harrison is at 13.4 yards per, while Bruce is at 15.1.

With a logjam at receiver in terms of HOF considerations (Cris Carter, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown coming up; Andre Reed, Art Monk still waiting), while I think both should be hall of famers, I think Bruce should get the nod first.

Of course, this depends on what they do from now until they retire.

--Block

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

 

[Block]

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

 

[CalBear]

I think Bruce has had a good career, and certainly deserves more consideration than Monk, for example. But his numbers against his peers are fairly pedestrian; only one top-5 fantasy finish, with four top-5 finishes in receiving yards (his best stat). Harrison has seven top-5 fantasy finishes, and eight top-4 finishes in receiving TDs (his best stat). Harrison also has 8 Pro Bowls to Bruce's 4.

Bruce didn't have Manning, but he did play for a team that has had a top-5 passing offense for the past 8 years in a row. Bruce only managed 10 TDs once in that time frame, and only managed 1300 yards once (not the same year). Harrison has had 10 TDs the last 8 seasons in a row, and has five 1300 yard seasons in that time frame.

Bruce will get some consideration, but there's no way he should be considered before Harrison.

 

[duaneok66]

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

so Harrison isn't part of the reason why Manning is successful?? How many years did it take for the Colts to find a legit #2 alongside Harrison ??

 

[Block]

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

so Harrison isn't part of the reason why Manning is successful?? How many years did it take for the Colts to find a legit #2 alongside Harrison ??

Manning was highly touted at every level he played. I'm fairly certain that, even without Harrison, he would have had some very good numbers in the NFL.Kurt Warner came out of the AFL and Bulger was a 7th round pick. Without Bruce around, I don't think either would have done much.

 

[Guzalot]

I think Bruce has had a good career, and certainly deserves more consideration than Monk, for example. But his numbers against his peers are fairly pedestrian; only one top-5 fantasy finish, with four top-5 finishes in receiving yards (his best stat). Harrison has seven top-5 fantasy finishes, and eight top-4 finishes in receiving TDs (his best stat). Harrison also has 8 Pro Bowls to Bruce's 4. Bruce didn't have Manning, but he did play for a team that has had a top-5 passing offense for the past 8 years in a row. Bruce only managed 10 TDs once in that time frame, and only managed 1300 yards once (not the same year). Harrison has had 10 TDs the last 8 seasons in a row, and has five 1300 yard seasons in that time frame. Bruce will get some consideration, but there's no way he should be considered before Harrison.

 

[-OZ-]

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

so Harrison isn't part of the reason why Manning is successful?? How many years did it take for the Colts to find a legit #2 alongside Harrison ??

Bruce has only been the #1 WR in St. Louis 3 years.Harrison has been the top WR in Indy every year of his career except one. You want to argue Harrison was helped more by his team?

 

[Block]

I think Bruce has had a good career, and certainly deserves more consideration than Monk, for example. But his numbers against his peers are fairly pedestrian; only one top-5 fantasy finish, with four top-5 finishes in receiving yards (his best stat). Harrison has seven top-5 fantasy finishes, and eight top-4 finishes in receiving TDs (his best stat). Harrison also has 8 Pro Bowls to Bruce's 4. Bruce didn't have Manning, but he did play for a team that has had a top-5 passing offense for the past 8 years in a row. Bruce only managed 10 TDs once in that time frame, and only managed 1300 yards once (not the same year). Harrison has had 10 TDs the last 8 seasons in a row, and has five 1300 yard seasons in that time frame. Bruce will get some consideration, but there's no way he should be considered before Harrison.

Don't get me started on Monk. The man was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and had to catch passes from so many different QBs (Theissmann, Shroeder, Williams, Humphries, Rypien etc). His numbers don't compare to the current crop because he played in a different era.In Monk's favor, however, is that he was one of the few Redskins who played a major role in each of their championships. The only other player about whom that can be said is Joe Jacoby, IMO, who also should be in the HOF.

 

[Block]

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

so Harrison isn't part of the reason why Manning is successful?? How many years did it take for the Colts to find a legit #2 alongside Harrison ??

Bruce has only been the #1 WR in St. Louis 3 years.Harrison has been the top WR in Indy every year of his career except one. You want to argue Harrison was helped more by his team?

3 years for Bruce?Tell me how you came to that number.

 

[Longshot88]

I was looking at their stats today, side by side, and I'm convinced that Bruce is the better player. Here are their stats, to start:

Harrison: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1231

Bruce: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1294

While Bruce has been in the league two years longer than Harrison, he is actually the younger of the two.

Let's look at the quarterbacks the two have played with in the pros.

Harrison: 1996-97 Jim Harbaugh, 1998-present Peyton Manning

Bruce: 1994 Chris Miller/Chris Chandler, 1995 Chris Miller/Mark Rypien, 1996-98 Tony Banks, 1999-2001 Kurt Warner, 2002 Kurt Warner/Jamie Martin/Marc Bulger, 2003-present Marc Bulger

Marvin Harrison had three mediocre years coming out of college, and only began his string of thousand-yard seasons (8 and counting) once Peyton Manning matured. When he was catching passes from Jim Harbaugh, he was average, nothing more.

Isaac Bruce, on the other hand, has had thousand yard seasons while catching passes from four quarterbacks: Chris Miller, Tony Banks, Kurt Warner, and Marc Bulger. He's sprinkled some not so good seasons in between, but in looking at the upheaval at quarterback, can you really blame him? Also of note is that he has had five thousand-yard seasons with a mature Torry Holt as the other receiver, and three as the undisputed #1 guy.

Finally, look at their yards-per-catch. Yardagewise, these two are very close: Harrison has 13697 yards and Bruce has 13376. However, Harrison has done his amage with 1022 catches, while Bruce has only 887. That is a big difference. Harrison is at 13.4 yards per, while Bruce is at 15.1.

With a logjam at receiver in terms of HOF considerations (Cris Carter, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown coming up; Andre Reed, Art Monk still waiting), while I think both should be hall of famers, I think Bruce should get the nod first.

Of course, this depends on what they do from now until they retire.

--Block

he joins today and posts this????This is why new guys shouldn't be allowed to post

 

[CalBear]

I think Bruce has had a good career, and certainly deserves more consideration than Monk, for example. But his numbers against his peers are fairly pedestrian; only one top-5 fantasy finish, with four top-5 finishes in receiving yards (his best stat). Harrison has seven top-5 fantasy finishes, and eight top-4 finishes in receiving TDs (his best stat). Harrison also has 8 Pro Bowls to Bruce's 4.

Bruce didn't have Manning, but he did play for a team that has had a top-5 passing offense for the past 8 years in a row. Bruce only managed 10 TDs once in that time frame, and only managed 1300 yards once (not the same year). Harrison has had 10 TDs the last 8 seasons in a row, and has five 1300 yard seasons in that time frame.

Bruce will get some consideration, but there's no way he should be considered before Harrison.

Don't get me started on Monk. The man was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and had to catch passes from so many different QBs (Theissmann, Shroeder, Williams, Humphries, Rypien etc). His numbers don't compare to the current crop because he played in a different era.In Monk's favor, however, is that he was one of the few Redskins who played a major role in each of their championships. The only other player about whom that can be said is Joe Jacoby, IMO, who also should be in the HOF.

Bruce and Monk have the same problem--for most of their careers, they weren't even the best WR on their own team. They don't compare well to their peers--other WRs playing in the same era. Monk has the additional problem that he did not play a major role in each of the Redskins championships:

1982: 447 yards, 1 TD in regular season, did not play in post-season

1987: 483 yards, 6 TD in regular season, one catch in the post-season

1991: 1049 yards, 8 TD in regular season (Clark: 1340 yards, 10 TD). 252 yards and 1 TD in the post-season.

In other words, he played virtually no role in the first two championships, and a #2WR role in the third.

 

[RC94]

 

[TheLastDispatch]

I think Bruce has had a good career, and certainly deserves more consideration than Monk, for example. But his numbers against his peers are fairly pedestrian; only one top-5 fantasy finish, with four top-5 finishes in receiving yards (his best stat). Harrison has seven top-5 fantasy finishes, and eight top-4 finishes in receiving TDs (his best stat). Harrison also has 8 Pro Bowls to Bruce's 4. Bruce didn't have Manning, but he did play for a team that has had a top-5 passing offense for the past 8 years in a row. Bruce only managed 10 TDs once in that time frame, and only managed 1300 yards once (not the same year). Harrison has had 10 TDs the last 8 seasons in a row, and has five 1300 yard seasons in that time frame. Bruce will get some consideration, but there's no way he should be considered before Harrison.

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

so Harrison isn't part of the reason why Manning is successful?? How many years did it take for the Colts to find a legit #2 alongside Harrison ??

Manning was highly touted at every level he played. I'm fairly certain that, even without Harrison, he would have had some very good numbers in the NFL.Kurt Warner came out of the AFL and Bulger was a 7th round pick. Without Bruce around, I don't think either would have done much.

So draft round determines how well a career plays out now? What round was Brady drafted in?What round was Ryan Leaf drafted in?What round Bulger was drafted in doesn't have any place in this conversation IMO.Bruce played for the greatest show on turf under Mike Martz's pass happy offensive system. That alone should tell you he should have stellar numbers as there are plenty of balls to go around and Holt starting opposite him to prevent him from drawing all the attention.Despite playing in this offense, Harrison has still averaged more yards per season, catches per season, and TDs per season. Bruce has only crossed double digits twice. Harrison has quadrupled that. And again, keep in mind Bruce has played in one the NFL's most pass happy offenses.I don't think anyone is going to argue Manning isn't better than Bruce's QBs. But even before Harrison had Manning, he still put up numbers equal to if not better than Bruce's. Similar reception numbers, less yards, more TDs.Besides, basing the whole argument on Bruce having worse QBs (who are still very good) is fairly arbitrary. It could factor in, but you can't base an entire argument on that. I could use the same logic to say Berrian is better than Rice, we just don't know it because he has to play with Grossman.Both are HOFers, but IMO Harrison is on a different level than Bruce.

 

[Block]

I think Bruce has had a good career, and certainly deserves more consideration than Monk, for example. But his numbers against his peers are fairly pedestrian; only one top-5 fantasy finish, with four top-5 finishes in receiving yards (his best stat). Harrison has seven top-5 fantasy finishes, and eight top-4 finishes in receiving TDs (his best stat). Harrison also has 8 Pro Bowls to Bruce's 4.

Bruce didn't have Manning, but he did play for a team that has had a top-5 passing offense for the past 8 years in a row. Bruce only managed 10 TDs once in that time frame, and only managed 1300 yards once (not the same year). Harrison has had 10 TDs the last 8 seasons in a row, and has five 1300 yard seasons in that time frame.

Bruce will get some consideration, but there's no way he should be considered before Harrison.

Don't get me started on Monk. The man was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and had to catch passes from so many different QBs (Theissmann, Shroeder, Williams, Humphries, Rypien etc). His numbers don't compare to the current crop because he played in a different era.In Monk's favor, however, is that he was one of the few Redskins who played a major role in each of their championships. The only other player about whom that can be said is Joe Jacoby, IMO, who also should be in the HOF.

Bruce and Monk have the same problem--for most of their careers, they weren't even the best WR on their own team. They don't compare well to their peers--other WRs playing in the same era. Monk has the additional problem that he did not play a major role in each of the Redskins championships:

1982: 447 yards, 1 TD in regular season, did not play in post-season

1987: 483 yards, 6 TD in regular season, one catch in the post-season

1991: 1049 yards, 8 TD in regular season (Clark: 1340 yards, 10 TD). 252 yards and 1 TD in the post-season.

In other words, he played virtually no role in the first two championships, and a #2WR role in the third.

You forget, the first two championships were in strike-shortened seasons. In the first he was the leading receiver during the regular season before he got injured. In the second he did play a major role; the numbers look small because of the shortened season.There's also the problem of fantasy vs. reality. While Gary Clark/Ricky Sanders might have caught the long balls, neither could have done what they did without Monk to move the chains and be what he was.

 

[kensat30]

One problem: Harrison isn't done yet.

 

[-OZ-]

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

so Harrison isn't part of the reason why Manning is successful?? How many years did it take for the Colts to find a legit #2 alongside Harrison ??

Bruce has only been the #1 WR in St. Louis 3 years.Harrison has been the top WR in Indy every year of his career except one.

You want to argue Harrison was helped more by his team?

3 years for Bruce?Tell me how you came to that number.

http://pro-football-reference.com/teams/ramindex.htm

 

[Block]

One problem: Harrison isn't done yet.

Nor is Bruce, but Harrions's numbers have been higher recently.

 

[Block]

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

so Harrison isn't part of the reason why Manning is successful?? How many years did it take for the Colts to find a legit #2 alongside Harrison ??

Bruce has only been the #1 WR in St. Louis 3 years.Harrison has been the top WR in Indy every year of his career except one.

You want to argue Harrison was helped more by his team?

3 years for Bruce?Tell me how you came to that number.

http://pro-football-reference.com/teams/ramindex.htm

In 1997 he was the top WR, and in 2000 his numbers are better than Holt's, IMO. I count 5. Point taken, though. I still think that having played with possibly the best quarterback ever did alot for Harrison, and that Bruce played for a number of mediocre guys.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

so Harrison isn't part of the reason why Manning is successful?? How many years did it take for the Colts to find a legit #2 alongside Harrison ??

Bruce has only been the #1 WR in St. Louis 3 years.Harrison has been the top WR in Indy every year of his career except one.

You want to argue Harrison was helped more by his team?

3 years for Bruce?Tell me how you came to that number.

http://pro-football-reference.com/teams/ramindex.htm

In 1997 he was the top WR, and in 2000 his numbers are better than Holt's, IMO. I count 5. Point taken, though. I still think that having played with possibly the best quarterback ever did alot for Harrison, and that Bruce played for a number of mediocre guys.

IMO, bulger is much better than mediocre, as was Warner for most of his time with the Rams. Now he is only pedestrian, or worse, but back then Warner was the man.

 

[lions327]

Bruce has had a solid career and deserves consideration for the hall of fame.

Harrison is a lock to be a first ballot hall of famer. He is arguably one of the 5 best WR's to ever play.

Stats or not, there is no comparison between the two.

 

[-OZ-]

this is a joke; Bruce has had Warner and Bulger AND operated under one of the greatest offensive sytems of all time; yet you take a shot at Harrison for having Manning as his QB . . .

The argument can be made that Bruce is part of what made those two guys successful. I'm not sure the same can be said about Harrison and Manning.

so Harrison isn't part of the reason why Manning is successful?? How many years did it take for the Colts to find a legit #2 alongside Harrison ??

Bruce has only been the #1 WR in St. Louis 3 years.Harrison has been the top WR in Indy every year of his career except one.

You want to argue Harrison was helped more by his team?

3 years for Bruce?Tell me how you came to that number.

http://pro-football-reference.com/teams/ramindex.htm

In 1997 he was the top WR, and in 2000 his numbers are better than Holt's, IMO. I count 5. Point taken, though. I still think that having played with possibly the best quarterback ever did alot for Harrison, and that Bruce played for a number of mediocre guys.

There was nothing mediocre about Warner. For those 3 years, he was among the best ever. Bulger is far above mediocre as well.

Obviously each is worse than Manning, but once you factor in how much attention Marvin got from defenses vs. what Bruce got, that makes up for some of it.

Besides, while we like to believe that Peyton is among the best ever, you can't seperate him from Marvin. MH is one of the reasons Peyton is so good. He may have helped Manning more than Manning helped him.

 

[CalBear]

You forget, the first two championships were in strike-shortened seasons. In the first he was the leading receiver during the regular season before he got injured. In the second he did play a major role; the numbers look small because of the shortened season.There's also the problem of fantasy vs. reality. While Gary Clark/Ricky Sanders might have caught the long balls, neither could have done what they did without Monk to move the chains and be what he was.

Monk played the entire regular season in 1982: Charlie Brown, in the same number of games had 690 yards and 8 TDs.In 1987 Monk got injured and only played 9 out of 12 regular-season games; still, the leading receiver on the team had more than double his yardage. That's not a major role.Monk was a contributor to those teams, but he did not play a major role, any more than John Taylor played a major role in the three Niners championships he won.

 

[OldMilwaukee]

he joins today and posts this????This is why new guys shouldn't be allowed to post

 

[Block]

You forget, the first two championships were in strike-shortened seasons. In the first he was the leading receiver during the regular season before he got injured. In the second he did play a major role; the numbers look small because of the shortened season.There's also the problem of fantasy vs. reality. While Gary Clark/Ricky Sanders might have caught the long balls, neither could have done what they did without Monk to move the chains and be what he was.

Monk played the entire regular season in 1982: Charlie Brown, in the same number of games had 690 yards and 8 TDs.In 1987 Monk got injured and only played 9 out of 12 regular-season games; still, the leading receiver on the team had more than double his yardage. That's not a major role.Monk was a contributor to those teams, but he did not play a major role, any more than John Taylor played a major role in the three Niners championships he won.

I did misremember about 1982. He still caught the most passes and was the clear-cut #2 WR, though, That's a big contributor in my book.1987 he was a big factor, but part of his problem in that season was the upheaval at QB. He always had much better numbers with Schroeder than Williams.The fact remains that only Monk and Jacoby were big contributors to the three Redskins championship teams. That should count for something. The way it looks now, only Riggins and Green will make the HOF, and that's not right.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I am a HUGE Bruce supporter and think he is vastly underrated as an NFL player. But I think Harrison is a HOF lock and Bruce may have some trouble.

I DO believe that in an alternate universe, with Bruce on the Colts and Harrison with St. Louis, both would have still been very successful and it would have been interesting to see what the stats looked like. But, we are in THIS universe, and Harrison's overall career has easily been superior.

I WOULD vote for Bruce though and not think twice about it. Having Holt/Faulk was a double-edged sword for Bruce. Maybe it made things a little easier for him in some ways, but I also think that he COULD have been a mega-star if they weren't around. Before Holt and Faulk, in his second year as a pro, Bruce put up that ungodly season of 119 catches and 1781 yards with 13 TDs, on a relatively bad team. Hate to use the cliche, but he was unstoppable. He was really the only thing going for St. Louis at the time, and no one could even slow him down.

I also think even in relatively recent years, people don't realize what Bruce brings to the Rams. Because Holt has had better stats, people always assume he's the better receiver, but I'm not so sure. I think quite often BRUCE gets the extra attention from D, freeing up Holt. He is generally recognized as one of the better route runners of all time (like Harrison and Rice).

 

[dgreen]

Bruce played for the greatest show on turf under Mike Martz's pass happy offensive system.

A little comparison...Rams' average pass attempts per season during Bruce's career: 568Rams' average pass attempts ranking: 9.3Career Pass/Run percentage: 58.5%Colts' average pass attempts per season during Harrison's career: 552Colts' average pass attempts ranking: 10Career Pass/Run percentage: 56.0%While Bruce did play in a more pass happy offense, the gap isn't as big as many may think.

 

[Lash]

Both HoFers

stone cold locks

 

[duaneok66]

Both HoFersstone cold locks

maybe; but the thread starter has to admit that the title of the thread is off . . .

 

[Giggity]

he joins today and posts this????This is why new guys shouldn't be allowed to post

And this is why after 4 years of nerding it on a FF forum, members should spend more time chasing cat then posting on FBG. Lack of female attention makes youb itchy.

 

[Block]

Both HoFersstone cold locks

I'm not sure about that. Take this list of wideouts:Jerry RiceTim BrownCris CarterArt MonkAndre ReedTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonIsaac BruceHenry EllardAll potentially deserving. Who is in and out? That's 13 guys. I'm not sure more than 6 can make it.

 

[Guzalot]

Both HoFersstone cold locks

I'm not sure about that. Take this list of wideouts:Jerry RiceTim BrownCris CarterArt MonkAndre ReedTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonIsaac BruceAll potentially deserving. Who is in and out? That's 11 guys. I'm not sure more than 6 can make it.

My six:Rice (as if there's any doubt)HarrisonBruceJimmy SmithRod SmithHolt

 

[Block]

Both HoFersstone cold locks

I'm not sure about that. Take this list of wideouts:Jerry RiceTim BrownCris CarterArt MonkAndre ReedTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonIsaac BruceHenry EllardAll potentially deserving. Who is in and out? That's 13 guys. I'm not sure more than 6 can make it.

If I have to pick 6:RiceBrownCarterHoltBruceHarrisonMonk would be #7, so I hope he gets in soon.

 

[LHUCKS]

Both are HOFers

 

[Z-Dog]

I stopped reading after this sentence:

"I was looking at their stats today, side by side, and I'm convinced that Bruce is the better player. "

Their stats? HoF may be biased towards stats, but if you want to know who the better player is between Bruce and Harrison, you won't find it by comparing their stats.

 

[CalBear]

I'm not sure about that. Take this list of wideouts:Jerry RiceTim BrownCris CarterArt MonkAndre ReedTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonIsaac BruceHenry EllardAll potentially deserving. Who is in and out? That's 13 guys. I'm not sure more than 6 can make it.

Listing who I think will make it (not necessarily the most deserving):RiceBrownC.Carter ("all he does is catch TDs" is a great Famous line. Remember, it's not the Hall of Best Players, it's the Hall of Fame. See Joe Namath.)TO (unfortunately)Holt (assuming his career totals end up respectable)HarrisonOf the others, Moss could easily wind up with a stronger case than Bruce, with only a couple of big years. I think Bruce is better than the rest of the crowd, but at best that puts him on the bubble. Harrison is a lock, his resume will be better than anyone except Rice on that list.

 

[Tau837]

Both HoFersstone cold locks

I'm not sure about that. Take this list of wideouts:Jerry RiceTim BrownCris CarterArt MonkAndre ReedTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonIsaac BruceHenry EllardAll potentially deserving. Who is in and out? That's 13 guys. I'm not sure more than 6 can make it.

I don't think this is that hard.Jerry Rice - obviously a lockCris Carter - IMO a lockMarvin Harrison - IMO a lockTim Brown - IMO a lock, though some disagreeTerrell Owens - probably will get in, but certainly made it harder on himself than it needed to beRandy Moss - same as OwensTorry Holt - too early to tell IMOAndre Reed - borderlineIsaac Bruce - borderline IMO, but could play himself inArt Monk - probably not at this point, unless via senior committeeRod Smith - clearly not worthy IMOJimmy Smith - clearly not worthy IMOHenry Ellard - clearly not worth IMO18 modern era WRs are in the HOF, counting Irvin. Modern era means the majority of their careers occurred after 1946. The first one of those players was inducted in 1968. From there, let's look at 10 year breakdowns of WR inductions:1968 to 1977 - 5 (Hirsch, Fears, Pihos, Berry, Lavelli)1978 to 1987 - 5 (Alworth, Warfield, Taylor, Mitchell, Maynard)1988 to 1997 - 3 (Belitnikoff, Largent, Joiner, )1998 to 2007 - 5 (McDonald, Swann, Stallworth, Lofton, Irvin)Pretty steady. Look at how the eligibility will happen over time.Cris Carter becomes eligible next year, and Rice and Tim Brown become eligible in 2010. I think all will make it.In 10 years or so, give or take, there will be another period of a few years that will include Harrison, Moss, and Owens.In between those two groups, the Smiths will become eligible and will correctly be judged not to measure up and thus won't make it. Those two groups will also make it very hard for either Monk or Reed to make it IMO without requiring a senior committee nomination years from now. And Ellard has no shot.I think Bruce's best shot would be to play well for a couple more seasons and retire a couple seasons ahead of that second group, and get in ahead of them. If he isn't in by the time they become eligible, it will delay him, possibly until another wave including Holt becomes eligible, which could then delay him again, to the point that he gets overlooked as Monk has been.

 

[Tau837]

Both HoFersstone cold locks

I'm not sure about that. Take this list of wideouts:Jerry RiceTim BrownCris CarterArt MonkAndre ReedTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonIsaac BruceAll potentially deserving. Who is in and out? That's 11 guys. I'm not sure more than 6 can make it.

My six:Rice (as if there's any doubt)HarrisonBruceJimmy SmithRod SmithHolt

LOL at Bruce, Jimmy Smith, Rod Smith, and Holt but not Carter.

 

[duaneok66]

Both HoFersstone cold locks

I'm not sure about that. Take this list of wideouts:Jerry RiceTim BrownCris CarterArt MonkAndre ReedTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonIsaac BruceAll potentially deserving. Who is in and out? That's 11 guys. I'm not sure more than 6 can make it.

My six:Rice (as if there's any doubt)HarrisonBruceJimmy SmithRod SmithHolt

LOL at Bruce, Jimmy Smith, Rod Smith, and Holt but not Carter.

agreed . . .

 

[Routilla]

 

[Bri]

Bruce played for the greatest show on turf under Mike Martz's pass happy offensive system.

A little comparison...Rams' average pass attempts per season during Bruce's career: 568Rams' average pass attempts ranking: 9.3Career Pass/Run percentage: 58.5%Colts' average pass attempts per season during Harrison's career: 552Colts' average pass attempts ranking: 10Career Pass/Run percentage: 56.0%While Bruce did play in a more pass happy offense, the gap isn't as big as many may think.

I agreeMoore has had similarly great success with his O's as Martz has had AND they've both coached in some capacity for the Lions with Moore having far better results.Holt shouldn't take away from Bruce. Bruce got 200 yard games 150yards + games, and an 1800 yard season etc when Holt wasn't around. Indy seemed to go thru a zillion WRs trying to find a compliment for Harrison. He doesn't have as gaudy stats when he was "lonely".IMO Bruce is more exciting or flashier. Marvin is "money". I'd be fine with either making the HOF and don't see why it's a prob that the original poster likes Bruce better. WATCH a 200 yard game by a WR and tell me that's not dominating and super impressive. There's nothing wrong with liking the guy with the most 200 yard games by a WR.

 

[Guzalot]

Both HoFersstone cold locks

I'm not sure about that. Take this list of wideouts:Jerry RiceTim BrownCris CarterArt MonkAndre ReedTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonIsaac BruceAll potentially deserving. Who is in and out? That's 11 guys. I'm not sure more than 6 can make it.

My six:Rice (as if there's any doubt)HarrisonBruceJimmy SmithRod SmithHolt

LOL at Bruce, Jimmy Smith, Rod Smith, and Holt but not Carter.

agreed . . .

It's a personal bias on my part and I'll be the first to admit it. That said, post your own six.

 

[Tau837]

Both HoFersstone cold locks

I'm not sure about that. Take this list of wideouts:Jerry RiceTim BrownCris CarterArt MonkAndre ReedTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonIsaac BruceAll potentially deserving. Who is in and out? That's 11 guys. I'm not sure more than 6 can make it.

My six:Rice (as if there's any doubt)HarrisonBruceJimmy SmithRod SmithHolt

LOL at Bruce, Jimmy Smith, Rod Smith, and Holt but not Carter.

agreed . . .

It's a personal bias on my part and I'll be the first to admit it. That said, post your own six.

I did. Rice, Carter, Brown, Harrison, Owens, Moss.

 

[5Rings]

I think Bruce has had a good career, and certainly deserves more consideration than Monk, for example. But his numbers against his peers are fairly pedestrian; only one top-5 fantasy finish, with four top-5 finishes in receiving yards (his best stat). Harrison has seven top-5 fantasy finishes, and eight top-4 finishes in receiving TDs (his best stat). Harrison also has 8 Pro Bowls to Bruce's 4.

Bruce didn't have Manning, but he did play for a team that has had a top-5 passing offense for the past 8 years in a row. Bruce only managed 10 TDs once in that time frame, and only managed 1300 yards once (not the same year). Harrison has had 10 TDs the last 8 seasons in a row, and has five 1300 yard seasons in that time frame.

Bruce will get some consideration, but there's no way he should be considered before Harrison.

Don't get me started on Monk. The man was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and had to catch passes from so many different QBs (Theissmann, Shroeder, Williams, Humphries, Rypien etc). His numbers don't compare to the current crop because he played in a different era.In Monk's favor, however, is that he was one of the few Redskins who played a major role in each of their championships. The only other player about whom that can be said is Joe Jacoby, IMO, who also should be in the HOF.

That argument is a crock. The guy led his team in receiving 4/18 years. Made All-Pro once. Top 5 at his postion once. Those are numbers comparing him to his peers...and have nothing to do with today's game.I agree with the uber NinerHater on this one.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I was looking at their stats today, side by side, and I'm convinced that Bruce is the better player. Here are their stats, to start:

Harrison: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1231

Bruce: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1294

While Bruce has been in the league two years longer than Harrison, he is actually the younger of the two.

Let's look at the quarterbacks the two have played with in the pros.

Harrison: 1996-97 Jim Harbaugh, 1998-present Peyton Manning

Bruce: 1994 Chris Miller/Chris Chandler, 1995 Chris Miller/Mark Rypien, 1996-98 Tony Banks, 1999-2001 Kurt Warner, 2002 Kurt Warner/Jamie Martin/Marc Bulger, 2003-present Marc Bulger

Marvin Harrison had three mediocre years coming out of college, and only began his string of thousand-yard seasons (8 and counting) once Peyton Manning matured. When he was catching passes from Jim Harbaugh, he was average, nothing more.

Isaac Bruce, on the other hand, has had thousand yard seasons while catching passes from four quarterbacks: Chris Miller, Tony Banks, Kurt Warner, and Marc Bulger. He's sprinkled some not so good seasons in between, but in looking at the upheaval at quarterback, can you really blame him? Also of note is that he has had five thousand-yard seasons with a mature Torry Holt as the other receiver, and three as the undisputed #1 guy.

Finally, look at their yards-per-catch. Yardagewise, these two are very close: Harrison has 13697 yards and Bruce has 13376. However, Harrison has done his amage with 1022 catches, while Bruce has only 887. That is a big difference. Harrison is at 13.4 yards per, while Bruce is at 15.1.

With a logjam at receiver in terms of HOF considerations (Cris Carter, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown coming up; Andre Reed, Art Monk still waiting), while I think both should be hall of famers, I think Bruce should get the nod first.

Of course, this depends on what they do from now until they retire.

--Block

he joins today and posts this????This is why new guys shouldn't be allowed to post

Snob. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. He gave it a shot and hod some good points. I don't agree with any of it, but your approach is something that should be censured heavily.Block - I think you are having your cake and eating it too with this Bruce creates Warner/Bulger and Manning creates Harrison arguments. It doesn't matter that Bulger was drafted in round 7, he is a good quarterback. It doens't matter that Warner never became until Trent Green went down. Isaac Bruce will be fading away soon and we will see Bulger doing just fine without him.

I think Isaac Bruce is borderline. I think Andre Reed is VERY underrated as with many of the Buffalo Bills team in the 90s. Jimmy Smith - no way.

 

[SSOG]

Don't get me started on Monk. The man was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and had to catch passes from so many different QBs (Theissmann, Shroeder, Williams, Humphries, Rypien etc). His numbers don't compare to the current crop because he played in a different era.In Monk's favor, however, is that he was one of the few Redskins who played a major role in each of their championships. The only other player about whom that can be said is Joe Jacoby, IMO, who also should be in the HOF.

I always laugh when someone talks about how the Redskins, Cowboys, Dolphins, or Steelers are somehow underrepresented in the HoF. Then I ask them if they know what franchise is the only one in the NFL that has more Superbowl appearances than losing seasons in the last 30 years... and how many HoFers that franchise has. Figure that out and then get back to me on whether the Redskins are still underrepresented in Canton.

he joins today and posts this????This is why new guys shouldn't be allowed to post

Someone takes the effort to write out a well-thought-out post (wrong, but well-thought-out) and this is the response he gets???? This is why old guys shouldn't be allowed to post.

 

[Block]

I always laugh when someone talks about how the Redskins, Cowboys, Dolphins, or Steelers are somehow underrepresented in the HoF. Then I ask them if they know what franchise is the only one in the NFL that has more Superbowl appearances than losing seasons in the last 30 years... and how many HoFers that franchise has. Figure that out and then get back to me on whether the Redskins are still underrepresented in Canton.

Well, the answer to that is the Broncos (mentioning the Steelers and Cowboys gave it away). You have John Elway in there, you'll get Shannon Sharpe. Rod Smith is borderline as many have said here. Terrell Davis would have been, but his career ended too soon. That is two HOFers for a team that won two Super Bowls. If Davis had played 2-3 more seasons, he would be a lock also.The Redskins of the 80s were a pretty dominant team. They were in it year-in and year-out. They have John Riggins in (which I don't totally agree with) right now, and that's it. He only played a role in their early teams. Darrell Green is a lock I would assume, but that only gives them two. Their most pivotal unit, The Hogs, will likely never have a representative. And their most beloved player, Monk, will likely never get in.

Contrast that with the Bears of the 80s. They were good, sure, but they only won one time. They have Singletary, Payton, and Hampton. Or the Giants of the 80s. Good, sure, but only won twice, and had some down seasons. They have Taylor and Carson. Or even look at the Raiders of the late 70s, early 80s. They won three times also, but look at who they have in: Biletnekoff, Casper, Allen, Long, Upshaw, Shell, I could go on.

The fact remains that the Redskins of the 1980s are underrepresented in the Hall. Riggins is all there is. This for a team that in a 10 year timespan won 3 Superbowls, appeared in a 4th, and had 9 winning seasons in that 10-year period. Over those 10 years, their cumulative regular season record was 107-45. I rest my case.

 

[Block]

I think Bruce has had a good career, and certainly deserves more consideration than Monk, for example. But his numbers against his peers are fairly pedestrian; only one top-5 fantasy finish, with four top-5 finishes in receiving yards (his best stat). Harrison has seven top-5 fantasy finishes, and eight top-4 finishes in receiving TDs (his best stat). Harrison also has 8 Pro Bowls to Bruce's 4.

Bruce didn't have Manning, but he did play for a team that has had a top-5 passing offense for the past 8 years in a row. Bruce only managed 10 TDs once in that time frame, and only managed 1300 yards once (not the same year). Harrison has had 10 TDs the last 8 seasons in a row, and has five 1300 yard seasons in that time frame.

Bruce will get some consideration, but there's no way he should be considered before Harrison.

Don't get me started on Monk. The man was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and had to catch passes from so many different QBs (Theissmann, Shroeder, Williams, Humphries, Rypien etc). His numbers don't compare to the current crop because he played in a different era.In Monk's favor, however, is that he was one of the few Redskins who played a major role in each of their championships. The only other player about whom that can be said is Joe Jacoby, IMO, who also should be in the HOF.

That argument is a crock. The guy led his team in receiving 4/18 years. Made All-Pro once. Top 5 at his postion once. Those are numbers comparing him to his peers...and have nothing to do with today's game.I agree with the uber NinerHater on this one.

He consistently performed well over a long time period. Ask any Redskins fan what he meant to those teams, they'll tell you.

 

[SSOG]

Well, the answer to that is the Broncos (mentioning the Steelers and Cowboys gave it away). You have John Elway in there, you'll get Shannon Sharpe. Rod Smith is borderline as many have said here. Terrell Davis would have been, but his career ended too soon. That is two HOFers for a team that won two Super Bowls. If Davis had played 2-3 more seasons, he would be a lock also.

That is two HoFers for a team that, since 1976, has 6 superbowl appearances and 4 losing seasons (three if you count Shanahan, who I think is essentially a lock at this point). Remember, Denver also made three superbowls in the '80s- but Denver also added one more in the '70s, and two more in the '90s. Rather than debating whether Washington deserves a 16th Hall of Famer, I think the better question is whether Denver deserves a third.Maybe Washington has another deserving member or two who are getting overlooked, but I hardly think that qualifies as the biggest oversight by the Hall of Fame. Randy Gradisher averaged over 14 tackles per game during his entire career (that's an *AVERAGE SEASON* of 224 tackles- for comparison's sake, Ray Lewis's best season was 183 tackles, and Zach Thomas's career high is 165), and Gradisher also had comparable per-game sack/int/fumble stats to Lewis, 7 Pro Bowls, 5 All Pros, and a Defensive Player of the Year. All in all, Hall voters have been rather generous to the Redskins. Only the Steelers, Giants, Packers, Browns, and Bears have more HoFers... and the Packers/Bears/Browns were some of the most dominant teams ever seen in the pre-merger days, while the Steelers have the most SB championships and the Jints are overrepresented because they play in New York. Denver, on the other hand, has as many HoFers as the New Orleans Saints and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, despite being around for longer than either team.

 

[SoloMatisse]

Im amongst the world's greatest Ike Bruce fans, but this comparison of career #s to Harrison is a major reach today, but in another 3 or 4 years at their current paces, it will be beyond laughable. I wont even get into the QB comparisons or direct comparisons of their skills, but the simplest of raw #s makes this case very one sided. Harrison has the all time record of 143 catches in a single season which may never be touched. He's scored double digit TDs EIGHT straight seasons....Bruce has done it twice. Harrison has caught 90 balls an unbelievable SIX times....Bruce, once. Harrison is still at the top of his game, even at this late age and has not regressed. The man is simply amazing. He's scored 49 regular season TDs in the past 4 years.....absolutely astonishing. Bruce.....17. And all things being equal, Bruce really needs to pad his personal stats another 3 or 4 years to seperate himself from some of those other HOFers waiting in the wings....and that list is LONG and WORTHY. If Harrison plays 3 or 4 more years, he'll be considered undoubtedly the 2nd greatest WR of all time and pretty darn close to Rice. Graded against their peers, Marvin has been to 8 ProBowls....Bruce, 4. Of the three major WR stat categories....catches, yards, and TDs.....Harrison has seen the league's top 10 twenty-one times....Bruce, nine. This stat comparison really makes no sense.