Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Rod Smith (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Uncle Pete
- Start date
Gradishar is ahead of Lewis in almost every relevant per game stat for LBs, & he didn't get credited for tackles by looking mean at someone from 10 yds away after the guy is on the ground, like Lewis does. Gradishar was also one of the best ever on the goal line.Of course, Gradishar didn't stand around and bark like some kind of moron yowling at the moon after every other play - maybe that's your criteria for getting into the HoF - not actual play, but how much attention a player can bring to themselves while on the field.I respectfully offer that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
Last edited by a moderator:
MyAwesomePrizeAlias
Footballguy
I'll admit that Smith won't get in... but the HOF is more of a popularity contest now anyway. It's like the probowl. The best players do not necessarily get in. The ones who danced around and did a lot of interviews get in before the really solid players anyway.Rod has two rings and an outstanding career in the NFL. I'm sure he'd rather have those than win some popularity contest.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
I'll offer myself as yet another Bronco fan who voted no.Rod may be my favorite player in Broncos' history, but he's simply didn't have the talent.He's an incredible story, and if it were a Hall of Surpassed Expectations, he might be one of the first in. But that's not what it is.
MyAwesomePrizeAlias
Footballguy
Sorry he didn't play for the pass happy 49ers.Stats shouldn't be the only consideration...
MyAwesomePrizeAlias
Footballguy
I'll ask this:Who was the better NFL player:Rod Smith or Warren Sapp?Who is more likely to be a HOFer?This question proves what a joke the HOF is....
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Are you being serious?I've written about Sapp and his HOF worthiness in great detail in the past. Frankly, history has been unkind to defensive lineman, tackles especially, in the last 20 years of induction so no DT should be considered a shoo-in. That said, aside from John Randle, there isn't a DT that's not been inducted that was more dominant in this era. Simply put...Sapp was THE best defensive tackle for a good portion of his career and inarguably one of the top two or three of his era.
Again, Rod Smith has never been one of the best two or three WRs at any point in his career. This is just silly talk.
Winning IS Everything
Footballguy
Agreed. If Art Monk is not in and Andre Reed is a longshot, Smith is not in either. And I am a longtime Rod Smith owner.
BTW, as much as I admire Smith and for as much as he has done for DEN, I don't think Smith makes the HoF, and for good reason. He was & is an integral cog in the Bronco machine, but he wasn't & isn't a game-changer, a dominant player. He deserves accolades - all he did was take himself through sheer strength of will from an undrafted player to one of the most complete & reliable WRs in the game today, but HoF consideration? I just don't see it.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I don't disagree that stats aren't the only consideration, but the fact remains that so few WR get into the HOF and there is a logjam of other likely more qualified candidates that it's hard to see Smith getting in. Very good player maybe even great at times, but one of the all time elite? That's a tough one.Using the stats don't matter argument, then Troy Brown would get in for playing offense, defense, and special teams and being the consumate team player. But does anyone remotely think Brown should be a HOFer?
Jason Wood
Zoo York
David is spot on here. Stats shouldn't be the only thing that matters and they're NOT, which is what makes the PFHOF better than other HOFs, in my opinion. The Pro Football Hall of Fame clearly weighs many factors. But the one overwhelming constant in the voters consideration is whether a player was ever one of the very best at his position in his OWN era. Rod Smith, as good as he's been, simply doesn't come close to fitting that overriding criteria.I don't disagree that stats aren't the only consideration, but the fact remains that so few WR get into the HOF and there is a logjam of other likely more qualified candidates that it's hard to see Smith getting in. Very good player maybe even great at times, but one of the all time elite? That's a tough one.Using the stats don't matter argument, then Troy Brown would get in for playing offense, defense, and special teams and being the consumate team player. But does anyone remotely think Brown should be a HOFer?
MyAwesomePrizeAlias
Footballguy
I think this might be your own overwhelming criteria. I like the confidence you state it with as if it is fact, but I have some serious doubts that this is the "overwhelming constant in voters consideration."I'll give you a few names. You can tell me if they were the dominant players at their position in their respective eras.
Charlie Joiner - good, consistent player; played a long time and accumlated a lot of stats, but not a dominant player in his era. Zero super bowl wins. Only 3 pro bowls.
John Riggins - good player who played a long time. 3 great seasons with a lot of average ones... one pro bowl. Not the best at his position in his era.
John Stallworth
Lance Alworth
Jimi Kelly (NOT DOMINANT) 4 probowls in 11 seasons ... he was not one of the best at his position in his own era.
Again, I think that might be part of the consideration, but it certainly is not the overwhelming criteria. And if the above guys are in, I'd say R. Smith gets some consideration.
Csonka4life
Footballguy
Yeah if Stallworth and Swann are in he does have a chance. Neither really had the stats for the hall(by the modern standards).
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Gap in production? He had more catches and touchdowns than Boston. Boston had more yards, but I am guessing a lot of that had to do with Boston accumulating a lot of garbage yards in blowouts losses suffered by Arizona.As for Boston making the All-Pro team ahead of Smith (or Harrison) that year, that was a joke. That was Boston's breakout year and since he was always projected to possibly be a great player, he was rewarded with making the All-Pro team instead of guys like Harrison or Smith, who are sometimes overlooked because of their consistency.
I disagree with (a). Myself and other Broncos fans in this thread have already said he probably isn't a Hall of Famer, so to accuse us of homerism is unfair. I said in my initial post in this thread that Smith isn't a HoFer, but I simply do not like seeing some of the arguments being made against him, so just because I disagree with them doesn't then mean I think he IS a HoFer.
Baloney. He was one of the top 3 WR's in the NFL in 2001, along with Harrison and Owens. See my reasons above for why he was better than Boston.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cal Ripken won 2 MVPs and went to something like 19 All Star Games(I'll admit that All Star Games become popularity contests after a player establishes himself, but Cal deserved at VERY LEAST 10 of those All Star appearances). Please show me 2 years where Rod was not only the best WR, but the best player in all of football. Please show me 10 years where Rod was the best at his position in the entire AFC and started a pro bowl.
Edited to add: I see quite a few people beat me to this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I agree that the Ripken comparison was dumb, but don't even try telling me he was the best player in baseball those two years. He may have been the MOST VALUABLE in the AL those years, but that doesn't mean he was the best PLAYER in ALL of MLB.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
You are kidding yourself if you don't think there is an East Coast bias. It happens everywhere in sports.Ah the old coastal bias.
Uncle Pete
Footballguy
I think he certainly has a claim to be the best player in baseball those two years. First off, keep in mind that he was a shortstop, which before 6-8 years ago, wasn't an offensive position.The only comparison I can think of is a tight end putting up top 5 receiving numbers- wouldn't that be more impressive than a WR also putting up those same numbers? Well, if that TE is just a glorified WR in that he doesn't really ever block(the main duty of most TEs) then you may say "no, not really more impressive." But Ripken did "block"- he was a great defender, which was the primary duty of a SS.
So here is the best comparison: Imagine a TE who is the best blocking TE in his conference who also puts up top 5 receiving stats. Would you not consider this guy to be a true MVP candidate?
Cal Ripken won the MVP in 1983 and 1991.
In 1983 Ripken ranked in the top 5 in the following in the AL:
Batting avg: 5th
Slugging %: 5th
OPS: 5th
Runs: 1st
Hits: 1st
Total Bases: 2nd
Extra Base Hits: 1st
Note: The O's won the WS this year
In 1991 Ripken ranked in the top 5 in the following in the AL:
Slugging: 2nd
OPS: 3rd
Hits: 2nd
Total Bases: 1st
Home Runs: 3rd
RBI: 4th
Extra Base Hits: 1st
Note: Ripken set the all time record for fielding % by a SS this year
Now as you're viewing those numbers, keep in mind that he was a shortstop at a time when a HALL OF FAME Shortstop could hit .262 with less than one home run per season(Ozzie Smith). I don't have the stats, but I'd guess that the average shortstop hit around .240 with 50 RBI and 3 or 4 HRs in those years. Ripken was ridiculously far ahead of his peers.
Men-in-Cleats
Footballguy
You don't get into the Hall of Fame for being the best WR on your team. You have to be one of the best at your position during your career. He's really only had a few seasons during he career when he was even in the top 5 WR's in the league. The guy was just never the dominant WR that many of his contemporaries were.This isn't a popularity contest.No doubt, Rod should be in there. He has been the best WR on a dynasty team for the last 10 years.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I never said Ripken wasn't a true MVP candidate those years or definitely not the best player in baseball the years he won the MVP. I simply said it is rather presumptuous to make the statement that him winning the MVP award automatically means he was the BEST player in all of MLB, like you implied earlier. Comparing what Ripken did compared to other shortstops is different than a TE putting up WR numbers. In most cases, a TE is not going to get as many chances or balls thrown to him as the average wide receiver. Also, he might be held in to block on passing plays, so he isn't given as many chances. Therefore, if a TE did what you said, that WOULD be extremely impressive. Ripken didn't get any more chances than any other shortstop wouldn't have gotten offensively (not factoring in Ripken playing every game and batting higher in the lineup than other shortstops), so it really isn't a good comparison.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that these 15 players performed better in 2001 than R Smith(in no particular order):Marshall Faulk
Kurt Warner
Ray Lewis
Peyton Manning
Terrell Owens
Priest Holmes
Michael Strahan
David Boston
Ahman Green
Orlando Pace
Warren Sapp
Tom Brady
Walter Jones
Derrick Brooks
Curtis Martin
WRs, as a group, have much better stats today, so wouldn't that diminish his stats today? If he put up those stats in the 70s, he would've been the best WR of his generation.I respectfully offer that you have no idea what true leadership is about if that is all you think Lewis' actions after every play mean. Go ask anyone thats ever played with him(and yes, I have talked to 4 different people in person who have played with him on different levels of football).
I really hate arguments like this. Its like when someone claims that Marino wasn't as good as Montana because of not winning a super bowl and then some idiot comes along and says "Yeah, well I guess Trent Dilfer is better than Marino then."Just like in that case, a great super bowl performance is ONE criteria out of many which we use to judge a player, and it can be the difference between players who are very even otherwise.
Fair enough...I'll agree with that bolded part.As for the comparison, I was just trying to show how dominant Cal was- not saying its a perfect comparison. I just wanted to put things in perspective a bit. I'm a homer, but I think that if you compare his against the players of his position in his era, he is one of the 10 best players of all time. He hit 30+ HRs whereas the average for his position was probably 5. That'd be like a first baseman hitting 100 home runs in today's game!
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Ripken only hit 30 or more home runs once, when he hit 34 in 1991. In his 19 other seasons (not counting 1981), he hit in the 20's 11 times and in the 10's 8 times. I do not think the average for his position matters as much as others seem to. Everyone is given the same chance at the plate (at-bats), so it is not like a wide receiver, who is dependent on the QB throwing him the ball or playing on a team with a passing or running attack, etc.
One of the 10 best players of all time? No way. Ripken wasn't even the best shortstop of his generation. Ozzie Smith was. Smith was far better as a fielder (he was by far the best defensive PLAYER of the 80's) and while Ripken was a better hitter, I can go as far as to say that Ozzie changed as many games with his glove as Ripken did with his bat, if not more. I guess it all comes down to whether or not you value defense as much as you do offense.
Oh, and Ripken's career average is only .014 points higher than Ozzie's (.276 to .262).
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
he'll get in purely for the historical record of the highest numbers for an undrafted WR and for the fact he has two Super Bowl wins.He may not be first ballot, but he is definitely in.And he's not done yet - in the next two years his receiving numbers will pass quite a few current HOFers in some important categories.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I would like to point out, too, that if Smith has two more seasons similar to the ones he has had the last few years, he will enter top 5 all-time in catches and the top 10 in receiving yards. To make a comparison to another recent discussion, if Jerome Bettis is going to get in for being a 'compiler', then so should Smith.
Tau837
Footballguy
Fine. Though Boston overcame the "east coast bias" and was voted onto the All NFL team by all three voting organizations (AP, PFWA, TSN), let's just throw him out. I think my post clearly shows that Smith still wasn't one of the top 6 players in football in 2001, which was the point of the post.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Okay, but when did '6' become the magic number for saying a player has to be one of the best 6 players in a given season to be HoF-worthy? And how do you compare a WR to a defensive end? Or a safety? Or a quarterback?
Also, check out Smith's 2000 season, too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
A few points.1. Ripken changed the nature of his position. There is a reasonable chance that players like ARod, Jeter, Nomar, Tejada would not have played shortstop if Ripken hadn't changed the perception of who could play shortstop. Very few players have made that type of impact.
2. To compare Smith to Ripken offensively is silly. Batting average is not particularly important. Compare OPS: Ripken .788, Smith .666.
3. You said Ozzie "changed as many games with his glove as Ripken did with his bat, if not more". I assume you are implying that the value of Ozzie's excellence on defense was equal to or better than Ripken's combined excellence as a hitter and fielder. This is incorrect. There are plenty of studies out there that show the value of defense compared to offense in baseball.
Bill James showed over 20 years ago that the difference between the best and worst fielding shortstops couldn't be more than 25 runs a season. And, while Ozzie may well have been the best fielding shortstop ever, Ripken was also quite good. So the difference between them must be somewhere in the 5-10 runs per season area.
There is absolutely no doubt that Ripken contributed far more than 10 extra runs per season offensively than Ozzie.
Tau837
Footballguy
It's not really a magic number. But no more than 6 players coaches, and contributors are added to the HOF each year. In order for Smith to get in, he will have to be considered one of the 6 best eligible candidates in that particular year (and don't forget that "old timers" are also in the mix, so it isn't just his peers).If he was never, not once in any season, considered to be a top 6 NFL player, there would seem to be zero chance of him making the HOF, since the implication is that there will always be at least 6 more worthy players ahead of him in any given year. Simple logic.
And, by the way, they don't take 6 players every year. They have taken as few as 3 in one year.
This is one reason why so few WRs (or so few players at many positions for that matter) make the NFL HOF. Many people seem to think of it as a position comparison, but it is much harder than that.
And, as others have pointed out, there are a number of other WRs ahead of him, both from his peer group and from previous generations (e.g., Monk, Reed) who will almost certainly claim the few spots available to WRs.
I know you already said you don't think he is a HOFer, I was just trying to use your original response that he was a top 6 player in 2001 to show exactly how hard it is for any player to make it.
Tau837
Footballguy
This is a terrible argument. Unfortunately, this type of thinking is one reason why baseball's HOF contains a lot of merely good players. Whether or not there are players in the NFL HOF that shouldn't be there has zero bearing on whether or not Rod Smith or any other player should make it in the future.
MyAwesomePrizeAlias
Footballguy
That wasn't the argument.
MyAwesomePrizeAlias
Footballguy
Yes. You took one small point and bolded it while ignoring the main argument.My post was in fact directed at Mr. Wood's claim that "the one overwhelming constant in the voters consideration is whether a player was ever one of the very best at his position in his OWN era." My statement showed this not to be an overwhelming contstant.
Thanks.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
and RSmith doesn't suffer east coast bias in pro bowl voting?
Tau837
Footballguy
Someone made the point earlier that he does. My point here was that somehow that didn't keep Boston from being voted to the All NFL team by three separate voting organizations. And Harrison, a media darling who outperformed Smith, didn't even make it. So I think that refutes the east coast bias theory at least a bit.EDIT TO ADD: If anyone would like the challenge Rod Smith's lack of Pro Bowl selections on the east coast bias theory, feel free to post the years he deserved to make it over someone who did. I'd be interested to see that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
okie dokie - still doesn't prove diddly or squat for why he WILL get in - He will likley finish his career in the top-10 in every major receiving category.He will have the most production for any undrafted WR - maybe more than any undrafted player ever (Priest included).He did that BY HIS TALENT - after Elway, he consistently put up those numbers with Bubby Brister, Brian Griese, Danny Weurfell and Jake Plummer throwing him passes - Elway didn't make R Smith, RSmith made RSmithHe has 2 Super Bowl rings.Sure fire first ballot selection? Probably not. Is he likely in the HOF? Yes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Hmm. There are 229 players in the NFL HOF. You named 5 (2.2%) who you suggest did not dominate their eras and use that as evidence to refute what the overwhelming constant is in the voting. I don't know about you, but if the other 97.8% dominated their eras, I think what you are really saying is that these players (if your contention that they did not dominate is true) are exceptions, which I addressed in my original response to your post.So you're going to need a LOT more names of non-dominant players to refute Woodrow's claims.Yes. You took one small point and bolded it while ignoring the main argument.My post was in fact directed at Mr. Wood's claim that "the one overwhelming constant in the voters consideration is whether a player was ever one of the very best at his position in his OWN era." My statement showed this not to be an overwhelming contstant.
Thanks.
moleculo
Footballguy
Bad logic. All the OP needed to show is that there is one player in the HOF who did not dominate his era to prove that another player who did not dominate his era has a chance.You are assuming that 224 players dominated their eras. How many eras were there?Hmm. There are 229 players in the NFL HOF. You named 5 (2.2%) who you suggest did not dominate their eras and use that as evidence to refute what the overwhelming constant is in the voting. I don't know about you, but if the other 97.8% dominated their eras, I think what you are really saying is that these players (if your contention that they did not dominate is true) are exceptions, which I addressed in my original response to your post.So you're going to need a LOT more names of non-dominant players to refute Woodrow's claims.Yes. You took one small point and bolded it while ignoring the main argument.My post was in fact directed at Mr. Wood's claim that "the one overwhelming constant in the voters consideration is whether a player was ever one of the very best at his position in his OWN era." My statement showed this not to be an overwhelming contstant.
Thanks.
