Rod Smith (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

He will likley finish his career in the top-10 in every major receiving category.

His average production level of the past 3 years is roughly 5 catches, 65 receiving yards, and 0.35 TDs per game. Let's assume he plays the last 4 games of this season along with 1 more full season at that pace. That would add 100/1300/7 to his current totals.That would project him with these totals after next season:- 875 receptions- 11874 receiving yards- 71 receiving TDsFor receptions, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 8-10 range, depending on what Jimmy Smith, McCardell, and Bruce do over that same span (all are ahead of him right now). Meanwhile, Owens will be about a season behind him and both Holt & Moss about two seasons behind him.For receiving yards, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 15-17 range, depending on what Owens, McCardell, and maybe Moss do over that same span (currently, Smith is slightly ahead of the others). Meanwhile, Holt will likely be less than two seasons behind him. With another 1000 yard season in 2008, he could move up to #12-13 or so, depending on others.For receiving TDs, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 26-28 range, depending on what Jimmy Smith & Galloway do over that same span (currently, Jimmy has 66, Rod has 64, Joey has 62). He would still need another 16 TDs or so to crack top 10. That would seem to require him to play into 2009.Smith will turn 37 prior to the 2008 season. So to justify your statement, you must believe that he will be playing productively in 2008 and possibly 2009. Is that what you believe? And you further believe that his production will not diminish during that time?Also, here is a potentially relevant example. Consider Irving Fryar. Today, Fryar is 7th in receptions, 8th in receiving yards, and tied for 13th in receiving TDs. Does anyone think he will get in the HOF? From a numbers standpoint, it is almost a virtual certainty that Smith's rankings will not be that good at the time of his retirement and especially when he becomes HOF eligible.

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

So what? Neither of these things are among the criteria for selection. While they are both a credit to Smith, you can leave them out of the discussion.

He has 2 Super Bowl rings.

This is the type of thing that will help him if he is on the bubble. He won't be, so it won't get him in.

Sure fire first ballot selection? Probably not. Is he likely in the HOF? Yes.

 

[Tau837]

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 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.

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.

That wasn't the argument.

Sorry, I bolded your own statement that I responded to. Did I misinterpret it somehow?

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.

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.

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?

If you review my original response to him, my point was that using the exception rule is a bad approach. That was my only point with respect to his original post. I then used my previous post to point out that all he did was show that he was using exceptions to justify Smith's consideration. Hence, I am back to my original statement that this is a bad approach.Players should get in on their own merits, not because of anyone else that is in the HOF.

 

[Marc Levin]

1 - Based on the last three years, Rod Smith's averages are 80 catches, 1005 yards and 5 TDs - and that includes an abberrant 2003 wher ehe had lows he hadn't seen since his second year in the league. He has at least this and next season at that pace - and then he tac ks on however much the last year he plays (assuming he has only two more years to play - he could play past the age of 40 - at a relatively high level -if he wanted to).

2 - at that pace, within two years, he will be top-10 (if not top-5) in number of receptions and knocking on the door of top-10, in receiving yards. Jimmy Smith and Ike wil be winding down when he winds down, so they will all be arounfd the same level.

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

So what? Neither of these things are among the criteria for selection. While they are both a credit to Smith, you can leave them out of the discussion.

Of course they go into the discussion - you are nuts if you think they don't. They go INTO the discussion b/c HOF voters will include them in their thought process if it is brought up.

He has 2 Super Bowl rings.

This is the type of thing that will help him if he is on the bubble. He won't be, so it won't get him in.

Sure fire first ballot selection? Probably not. Is he likely in the HOF? Yes.

Sucks you don't see it, I'm sorry for you. But RSmith is DEFINITELY at least a bubble candidate (esp. if you can talk about Ike Bruce, Jimmy Smith and Terrel Owens in this discussion)

 

[Tau837]

1 - Based on the last three years, Rod Smith's averages are 80 catches, 1005 yards and 5 TDs - and that includes an abberrant 2003 wher ehe had lows he hadn't seen since his second year in the league. He has at least this and next season at that pace - and then he tac ks on however much the last year he plays (assuming he has only two more years to play - he could play past the age of 40 - at a relatively high level -if he wanted to).

2 - at that pace, within two years, he will be top-10 (if not top-5) in number of receptions and knocking on the door of top-10, in receiving yards. Jimmy Smith and Ike wil be winding down when he winds down, so they will all be arounfd the same level.

I'm not clear on what you mean by within two years. Do you mean by the end of next season or do you mean the end of two more full seasons?You essentially just agreed with what I said. He will be just inside top 10 in receptions after next season, assuming continuing level of performance and no missed games. He will not be be particularly close to top 10 in receiving yards after next season but could be in the 12-13 range after 2008 (again, same caveats about performance and no missed games). At this point, you aren't even mentioning TDs, even though your previous post claimed "He will likley finish his career in the top-10 in every major receiving category."

I think the best way to characterize his chances at these milestones are the following:

It is likely he will finish his career in the top 10 in receptions

It is unlikely he will finish his career in the top 5 in receptions

It is unlikely he will finish his career in the top 10 in receiving yards

It is extremely unlikely he will finish his career in the top 10 in receiving TDs

pro-football-reference.com's leaderboards is a good place to see this.

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

So what? Neither of these things are among the criteria for selection. While they are both a credit to Smith, you can leave them out of the discussion.

Of course they go into the discussion - you are nuts if you think they don't. They go INTO the discussion b/c HOF voters will include them in their thought process if it is brought up.

Agree to disagree on this, I guess.Marc, since you have taken up the passionate pro-Smith side of this debate, do you care to list the other WRs will get in during the next 15 years?

Which of these guys do you think will make it?

Monk

Reed

Fryar

Ellard

Irvin

Rice

Brown

Harrison

Owens

Moss

Holt

Bruce

Jimmy Smith

McCardell

IMO there are 8-9 guys on that list who belong in the HOF before Rod Smith. They are bolded above, with Holt as a maybe. I don't think 9-10 WRs will be inducted during the next 15 years, given that only 5 WRs who played within the past 25 years have been inducted to date.

How do you feel about this? How do you think Rod Smith compares with that group?

He has 2 Super Bowl rings.

This is the type of thing that will help him if he is on the bubble. He won't be, so it won't get him in.

Sure fire first ballot selection? Probably not. Is he likely in the HOF? Yes.

Sucks you don't see it, I'm sorry for you. But RSmith is DEFINITELY at least a bubble candidate (esp. if you can talk about Ike Bruce, Jimmy Smith and Terrel Owens in this discussion)

Sucks for you too, I would have expected you to have a more informed perspective. But I'm not sorry for you. As for Bruce & Jimmy Smith, I don't think they are HOF candidates. I mentioned them only in the context of showing where Smith will rank in the various categories, since they are close to him and will likely finish ahead of him in some categories.

As for Owens, there is little doubt that his performance has merited him more consideration than Smith. His character may ultimately hurt him, both because of the games he is missing right now and because it may cost him votes. But he is clearly a superior performer on the field and will almost certainly finish his career with better numbers across the board. He is already close to doubling Smith's TD count and will pass him in receiving yards next season, barring injury (and assuming he has a job). I don't like Owens and I do like Rod Smith, but Owens is a better HOF candidate.

 

[thatguy]

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.

This is not simple logic. This is bad logic. There are a lot of players who will have one big year, be considered one of the 6 best players in that year, and then never again post numbers even close to what they posted that year. It happens all the time. We call these years career years. More often, you will see a player string together 2 or 3 really dominant years and than fade away.However, it is rare for a player to do what Smith has done for as long as he has done it. There is something to be said about longevity and consistency, and that you don't see this is unfortunate.

Go ahead and post about how you understand longevity and consistency and all that, but how I fail to see this and that and blah, blah, blah. It won't matter. The mere fact that you consider your statement above to be simple logic pretty much destroys all credibility you might otherwise have had.

 

[Jason Wood]

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.

He will likley finish his career in the top-10 in every major receiving category.

His average production level of the past 3 years is roughly 5 catches, 65 receiving yards, and 0.35 TDs per game. Let's assume he plays the last 4 games of this season along with 1 more full season at that pace. That would add 100/1300/7 to his current totals.That would project him with these totals after next season:

- 875 receptions

- 11874 receiving yards

- 71 receiving TDs

For receptions, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 8-10 range, depending on what Jimmy Smith, McCardell, and Bruce do over that same span (all are ahead of him right now). Meanwhile, Owens will be about a season behind him and both Holt & Moss about two seasons behind him.

For receiving yards, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 15-17 range, depending on what Owens, McCardell, and maybe Moss do over that same span (currently, Smith is slightly ahead of the others). Meanwhile, Holt will likely be less than two seasons behind him. With another 1000 yard season in 2008, he could move up to #12-13 or so, depending on others.

For receiving TDs, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 26-28 range, depending on what Jimmy Smith & Galloway do over that same span (currently, Jimmy has 66, Rod has 64, Joey has 62). He would still need another 16 TDs or so to crack top 10. That would seem to require him to play into 2009.

Smith will turn 37 prior to the 2008 season. So to justify your statement, you must believe that he will be playing productively in 2008 and possibly 2009. Is that what you believe? And you further believe that his production will not diminish during that time?

Also, here is a potentially relevant example. Consider Irving Fryar. Today, Fryar is 7th in receptions, 8th in receiving yards, and tied for 13th in receiving TDs. Does anyone think he will get in the HOF? From a numbers standpoint, it is almost a virtual certainty that Smith's rankings will not be that good at the time of his retirement and especially when he becomes HOF eligible.

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

So what? Neither of these things are among the criteria for selection. While they are both a credit to Smith, you can leave them out of the discussion.

He has 2 Super Bowl rings.

This is the type of thing that will help him if he is on the bubble. He won't be, so it won't get him in.

Sure fire first ballot selection? Probably not.  Is he likely in the HOF?  Yes.

Wow, I don't think Marc has ever been more misguided in an argument in all the years we've been on this board together. Marc, look at his contemporaries. JWB and I laid it out in clear as day terms...Rod Smith is only getting in if 8-10 WRs of his direct contemporaries also get inducted and since the Hall only inducts 3-6 people [including players, coaches, owners], there's little to no chance of this happening.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

I also agree that compared to Art Monk, he is clearly inferior.As long as Monk can't get in, I think Smith has no chance.

 

[BigRed]

Rod Smith in HOF =   

Bettis in HOF = 

Vinny T in HOF = 

GB stats.

Just because a player played a long time DOES NOT make him a HOFer. At some point, the player needs to have been an elite player and sustained a TOP level of performance.Bettis will probably make it (although he should be a lot more borderline). He ranked in the Top 5 in rushing attempts 3 times, rushing yards 3 times, rushing TD once, and total yards 3 times in 13 seasons. Not stellar, but he put up so many yards at a tough position for longevity that he'll probably get in.

Vinny ranked Top 5 in completions twice, passing yards once, and TD passes twice for a total of 5 Top 5 finishes in 19 seasons. He had TWO good seasons. IMO, that does not a HOFer make.

lmfaoThis is a keeper.

You're a few steps behind

 

[BigRed]

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.

LOLHe wasn't even the best DT on the Bucs when McFarland came along. Please.

 

[David Yudkin]

I made a different thread on some of this HERE.

 

[MarshallRob]

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.

I don't know how Alworth made it onto this list as he was about as dominant as a player can be. Dude's on the NFL's 75th Anniversary Team: Rice, Hutson, Berry and Alworth. Pretty good company. To me Smith's biggest problem is the number of his contemporaries who are clearly better. Smith's best career stretch was from 1997-2001. Better receivers in that same period include Harrison, Moss, T.O., and Issac Bruce. I don't think being the fifth-best guy at your position at your peak is going to get you in the HOF. I'm not going to defend the much-criticized selections of Swann and Stallworth and their career totals don't compare to Rod Smith's, but you could at least make an argument they were at or close to the top of the NFL in the mid-to-late 1970's. (I don't think you can say that for Joiner by the way).

Yes, Smith is climbing up the leaderboards in the key receiving categories, but he's also got a bunch of younger guys behind him who may eventually pass him like Moss, Holt, Keyshawn, and Moulds.

 

[Marc Levin]

Which of these guys do you think will make it?

Monk

Reed

Fryar

Ellard

Irvin

Rice

Brown

Harrison

Owens

Moss

Holt

Bruce

Jimmy Smith

McCardell

Monk should already be in.Andre Reed - maybe.

Fryar - not so sure

Ellard - not so sure

Irvin for sure.

Rice for sure.

which Brown? Tim Brown? maybe

Harrison for sure.

Terrel Owens - maybe It really depends on the end of his career - his off field problems may soutrr enough voters that it'll take a while before he garners enough votes.

Moss for sure.

Jimmy Smith - maybe

McCardell - maybe.

In short, of all the "maybe" and "not sure" guys I have up there, I only see Andre Reed, Art Monk and possibly Tim Brown and Jimmy Smith as MORE likely than Rod Smith to get in.

The rest I see as less likely - possibly as likely.

 

[Marc Levin]

Rod Smith in HOF =    

Bettis in HOF = 

Vinny T in HOF = 

GB stats.

Just because a player played a long time DOES NOT make him a HOFer. At some point, the player needs to have been an elite player and sustained a TOP level of performance.Bettis will probably make it (although he should be a lot more borderline). He ranked in the Top 5 in rushing attempts 3 times, rushing yards 3 times, rushing TD once, and total yards 3 times in 13 seasons. Not stellar, but he put up so many yards at a tough position for longevity that he'll probably get in.

Vinny ranked Top 5 in completions twice, passing yards once, and TD passes twice for a total of 5 Top 5 finishes in 19 seasons. He had TWO good seasons. IMO, that does not a HOFer make.

lmfaoThis is a keeper.

You're a few steps behind

Why? I musta missed it too (but I haven't read all the posts) What Rod Smith has over both those guys is two super bowl rings. and that counts a long way for the HOF.

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

He will likley finish his career in the top-10 in every major receiving category.

His average production level of the past 3 years is roughly 5 catches, 65 receiving yards, and 0.35 TDs per game. Let's assume he plays the last 4 games of this season along with 1 more full season at that pace. That would add 100/1300/7 to his current totals.That would project him with these totals after next season:

- 875 receptions

- 11874 receiving yards

- 71 receiving TDs

For receptions, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 8-10 range, depending on what Jimmy Smith, McCardell, and Bruce do over that same span (all are ahead of him right now). Meanwhile, Owens will be about a season behind him and both Holt & Moss about two seasons behind him.

For receiving yards, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 15-17 range, depending on what Owens, McCardell, and maybe Moss do over that same span (currently, Smith is slightly ahead of the others). Meanwhile, Holt will likely be less than two seasons behind him. With another 1000 yard season in 2008, he could move up to #12-13 or so, depending on others.

For receiving TDs, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 26-28 range, depending on what Jimmy Smith & Galloway do over that same span (currently, Jimmy has 66, Rod has 64, Joey has 62). He would still need another 16 TDs or so to crack top 10. That would seem to require him to play into 2009.

Smith will turn 37 prior to the 2008 season. So to justify your statement, you must believe that he will be playing productively in 2008 and possibly 2009. Is that what you believe? And you further believe that his production will not diminish during that time?

Also, here is a potentially relevant example. Consider Irving Fryar. Today, Fryar is 7th in receptions, 8th in receiving yards, and tied for 13th in receiving TDs. Does anyone think he will get in the HOF? From a numbers standpoint, it is almost a virtual certainty that Smith's rankings will not be that good at the time of his retirement and especially when he becomes HOF eligible.

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

So what? Neither of these things are among the criteria for selection. While they are both a credit to Smith, you can leave them out of the discussion.

He has 2 Super Bowl rings.

This is the type of thing that will help him if he is on the bubble. He won't be, so it won't get him in.

Sure fire first ballot selection? Probably not.  Is he likely in the HOF?  Yes.

Wow, I don't think Marc has ever been more misguided in an argument in all the years we've been on this board together. Marc, look at his contemporaries. JWB and I laid it out in clear as day terms...Rod Smith is only getting in if 8-10 WRs of his direct contemporaries also get inducted and since the Hall only inducts 3-6 people [including players, coaches, owners], there's little to no chance of this happening.

I never said he was a first ballot inductee.I am unclear what the "8-10" contemporaries getting in has to do with the issue.

He is going to have statistics and the resume to at least make it past the cut down from 25, and once voters get closer to thinking about it, he will get even closer to being voted in - two Super Bowl rings, two Pro Bowls, near the top in several important receiving categories - and the WRs behind him will be behind him on eligibility.

His contemporary WRs who will be considered are those leaving the game after the 2006/2007 season - Ike Bruce, Keenan McCardell, Jimmy Smith and maybe Marving Harrison and Terrel Owens. I believe Moss and Holt will play quite a bit longer, and by the time Rod is eligible (hopefully) Monk will be in, and Irvin, Rice, and Tim Brown will highly likely already have been inducted.

Ellard, Fryar, and Reed may still be on the eligible list when Rod Smith is five years removed from the league.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Rod Smith may not be a HoFer, but McCardell doesn't have a chance in hell.

 

[Uncle Pete]

Rod Smith is catching up...i hope their isn't any 'Hanging Chads'

 

[Csonka4life]

If he gets in he will have to wait a long time. Ie be in his 60's and the veterans comittee inducts him. Roger Wherli was voted on the all 70's team as a cornerback and he hasn't really been close to getting in. So does all decade player get in before a top sixish era guy?

 

[David Yudkin]

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.

He will likley finish his career in the top-10 in every major receiving category.

His average production level of the past 3 years is roughly 5 catches, 65 receiving yards, and 0.35 TDs per game. Let's assume he plays the last 4 games of this season along with 1 more full season at that pace. That would add 100/1300/7 to his current totals.That would project him with these totals after next season:

- 875 receptions

- 11874 receiving yards

- 71 receiving TDs

For receptions, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 8-10 range, depending on what Jimmy Smith, McCardell, and Bruce do over that same span (all are ahead of him right now). Meanwhile, Owens will be about a season behind him and both Holt & Moss about two seasons behind him.

For receiving yards, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 15-17 range, depending on what Owens, McCardell, and maybe Moss do over that same span (currently, Smith is slightly ahead of the others). Meanwhile, Holt will likely be less than two seasons behind him. With another 1000 yard season in 2008, he could move up to #12-13 or so, depending on others.

For receiving TDs, at that point, he would be somewhere in the 26-28 range, depending on what Jimmy Smith & Galloway do over that same span (currently, Jimmy has 66, Rod has 64, Joey has 62). He would still need another 16 TDs or so to crack top 10. That would seem to require him to play into 2009.

Smith will turn 37 prior to the 2008 season. So to justify your statement, you must believe that he will be playing productively in 2008 and possibly 2009. Is that what you believe? And you further believe that his production will not diminish during that time?

Also, here is a potentially relevant example. Consider Irving Fryar. Today, Fryar is 7th in receptions, 8th in receiving yards, and tied for 13th in receiving TDs. Does anyone think he will get in the HOF? From a numbers standpoint, it is almost a virtual certainty that Smith's rankings will not be that good at the time of his retirement and especially when he becomes HOF eligible.

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

So what? Neither of these things are among the criteria for selection. While they are both a credit to Smith, you can leave them out of the discussion.

He has 2 Super Bowl rings.

This is the type of thing that will help him if he is on the bubble. He won't be, so it won't get him in.

Sure fire first ballot selection? Probably not.  Is he likely in the HOF?  Yes.

Wow, I don't think Marc has ever been more misguided in an argument in all the years we've been on this board together. Marc, look at his contemporaries. JWB and I laid it out in clear as day terms...Rod Smith is only getting in if 8-10 WRs of his direct contemporaries also get inducted and since the Hall only inducts 3-6 people [including players, coaches, owners], there's little to no chance of this happening.

I never said he was a first ballot inductee.I am unclear what the "8-10" contemporaries getting in has to do with the issue.

He is going to have statistics and the resume to at least make it past the cut down from 25, and once voters get closer to thinking about it, he will get even closer to being voted in - two Super Bowl rings, two Pro Bowls, near the top in several important receiving categories - and the WRs behind him will be behind him on eligibility.

His contemporary WRs who will be considered are those leaving the game after the 2006/2007 season - Ike Bruce, Keenan McCardell, Jimmy Smith and maybe Marving Harrison and Terrel Owens. I believe Moss and Holt will play quite a bit longer, and by the time Rod is eligible (hopefully) Monk will be in, and Irvin, Rice, and Tim Brown will highly likely already have been inducted.

Ellard, Fryar, and Reed may still be on the eligible list when Rod Smith is five years removed from the league.

Marc -I think many people feel Smith may be deserving, but the issue is the numbers associated with WR and the HOF. In the other thread I started, I noted that there are only 19 WR in the HOF. By your own admission, there are numerous other WR that even you consider locks or with serious consideration to get in. I think there were around 10 guys on your list.

Unless the voters start altering their voting patterns, many deserving guys will not make it. For the most part, those enshrined have been limited to 3-5 players at the same position that were from the mostly the same era.

I can't see how the HOF will suddenly now take a ton of guys that were active at the same time when they have only taken 19 over the history of the game.

The only WR that played even one game post-1980 now in the HOF are: Joiner, Largent, Lofton, Stallworth, and Lynn. That's only 5 guys in 25 years.

And with the explosion of receivng totals, there will be a lot of guys rising the all time rankings in several categories . . . do they all make it?

 

[5Rings]

Smith can join Art Monk in the Hall of Pretty Good for a Long Time.

No way is he a HOF.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Those of you quoting number of Pro Bowls, stop embarassing yourself. All-Pro is the distinction that counts. If you have never been named All-Pro (NEVER had a season where you were top 2 at your position), how can you be a Hall of Famer. The Hall of Fame should be for those players that are the BEST at their position. Rod Smith was never all that close to being the best WR in the game during his era.

 

[5Rings]

Those of you quoting number of Pro Bowls, stop embarassing yourself. All-Pro is the distinction that counts. If you have never been named All-Pro (NEVER had a season where you were top 2 at your position), how can you be a Hall of Famer. The Hall of Fame should be for those players that are the BEST at their position. Rod Smith was never all that close to being the best WR in the game during his era.

Amen.

 

[Doug Drinen]

pro-football-reference.com's leaderboards is a good place to see this.

That's what they're there for.

 

[Tau837]

Which of these guys do you think will make it?

Monk

Reed

Fryar

Ellard

Irvin

Rice

Brown

Harrison

Owens

Moss

Holt

Bruce

Jimmy Smith

McCardell

Monk should already be in.Andre Reed - maybe.

Fryar - not so sure

Ellard - not so sure

Irvin for sure.

Rice for sure.

which Brown? Tim Brown? maybe

Harrison for sure.

Terrel Owens - maybe It really depends on the end of his career - his off field problems may soutrr enough voters that it'll take a while before he garners enough votes.

Moss for sure.

Jimmy Smith - maybe

McCardell - maybe.

In short, of all the "maybe" and "not sure" guys I have up there, I only see Andre Reed, Art Monk and possibly Tim Brown and Jimmy Smith as MORE likely than Rod Smith to get in.

The rest I see as less likely - possibly as likely.

I don't really understand your position here. I'm pretty sure you said earlier that you think Rod Smith will make it. And you used as one of your primary arguments that he would be highly ranked in the major receiving categories when he retires.Right now, 5 years removed from his last season, Andre Reed is 4th in receptions, 6th in receiving yards, and 10th in receiving TDs. And he was a 7-time Pro Bowler and played in 4 Super Bowls. How can he be a maybe if you think Smith is getting in?

And Tim Brown is a maybe despite being top 5 in all those categories and being a 9-time Pro Bowler.

(Yes, I know All Pro is a better measure than Pro Bowls, but Pro Bowls are right there on the pro-football-reference player pages, while All Pro is not.)

You did say you see Reed & Brown as more likely to make it. But given that they are maybes, perhaps what you're really saying is that Smith won't make it. If that's what you're saying, then we have nothing further to argue about.

 

[Uncle Pete]

Tim Brown should be in the first year he is eligible.

 

[Jason Wood]

Tim Brown shouldWILL be in the first year he is eligible.

FIXED

 

[SaintArnold]

HOF voter Peter King says Smith has a chance (link):

I LOVE ROD SMITH. From Matthew of San Francisco: "What are your thoughts on the NFL's most underrated player, Rod Smith? The undrafted, consummate pro and self-made star, quiet, workaholic. Is he a darkhorse candidate for the Hall of Fame?''Great question. In my opinion he is and he's someone I'll think long and hard about. He's productive, clutch, a great blocker ... sort of an Art Monk with significantly more explosiveness and big-play ability. The other night against Buffalo, he looked like the best player on the field, didn't he?

Another treat for Rod Smith fans: Gregg Easterbrook of NFL.com/Tuesday Morning Quarterback has named Smith Unwanted Offensive Player of the Year.

 

[The_Man]

HOF voter Peter King says Smith has a chance (link):

I LOVE ROD SMITH. From Matthew of San Francisco: "What are your thoughts on the NFL's most underrated player, Rod Smith?  The undrafted, consummate pro and self-made star, quiet, workaholic. Is he a darkhorse candidate for the Hall of Fame?''

Great question. In my opinion he is and he's someone I'll think long and hard about. He's productive, clutch, a great blocker ... sort of an Art Monk with significantly more explosiveness and big-play ability. The other night against Buffalo, he looked like the best player on the field, didn't he?

I just saw this comment and it drove me insane, leading me to submit the following letter, which I am sure will be ignored.Peter,

I am a fan of your work, but your continued intransigence on the subject of Art Monk as a Hall of Fame candidate is infuriating. The thought you put forward in your last mailbag that Rod Smith is equivalent to Art Monk has set me off again.

In all honesty, I think your role as a Giants beat reporter during the height of the Parcells-Gibbs era has warped your reason on this issue. Every year at Hall of Fame voting time, you suggest that you were privy to the Giants' thinking that Gary Clark was the true threat and they weren’t that worried about Monk.

This raises three points:

1. Frankly, the comments of a divisional rival are irrelevant when compared to a transcendent body of work. During his career, Art Monk set the NFL record for:

* Most receptions in season

* Most consecutive games with a reception

* Most career receptions

Yes, these marks have subsequently been surpassed, but these are three-quarters of the grand slam of WR records (TDs being the other) and it is incomprehensible that one player who held all these marks has not been inducted.

2. You don’t for Art Monk because of Gary Clark’s perceived status as the greater threat, but you’re not voting for Gary Clark either, are you? Consequently, you discount both individuals’ contributions. What if the Oilers of the 70s said that Lynn Swann was the real threat and they didn’t worry about John Stallworth that much? Would that make Stallworth less worthy of the Hall of Fame?

3. He is the signature player on one of his era’s great teams. He, Joe Jacoby and Russ Grimm are the only players to have been part of all four Washington Super Bowl teams. None of them is in the Hall of Fame, which is ridiculous. But who knows more than Joe Gibbs how valuable Monk was, and how his contributions transcended even his record-setting statistics.

"Here's the thing a lot of people miss on Art: They're mostly always going off catches and yards and all that," Gibbs said. "The thing you have to remember is that he actually played the inside position and a lot of his catches were right over the middle. When you're looking at the value to a team or the value of the person who's playing--he was a big strong guy who wasn't afraid to go inside and catch the ball in the middle of the field. He caught most of his stuff in the middle--I think he had the toughest yards.”

Perhaps you will never vote for Art Monk for the Hall of Fame, but please don't denigrate him with comparisons to Rod Smith.

 

[The_Man]

And I didn't even touch upon King's comment that Smith has "significantly more explosiveness" than Monk. Based on what?? -- his 13.6 ypc compared to the 13.5 that Monk had over an additional 160 receptions and 2100 yards?

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

He's definitely IN.

 

[David Yudkin]

He's definitely IN.

As I've mentioned in 101 other threads (including this one), there's only a very small fraction of a percentage of players that make the HOF--ESPECIALLY at WR.Of all the other future or non-inducted HOF candidates at WR, who would you exclude to take Rod Smith? IIRC, you can count the number of HOF WR that played in the past 25 years on one hand. WR do not get elected very often, and as already outlined, there are NUMEROUS guys that are more deserving.

 

[stevec]

Smith has about zero chance, due to him not being clearly better than a number of contemporaries. He would likely make it if the HoF took a proportional number of players at every position relative to QB's.Currently:QB: 21RB: 24WR: 19TE: 6OL: 31DL: 27LB: 16DB: 17K/P: 1Based on a fairly typical 23 man lineup, giving specialists 1 spot you'd get the following:QB - 21RB - 42WR - 42TE - 21OL - 105DL - 84 LB - 63DB - 84Specialist(Kicker/Punter, etc.) - 21Making every other year a QB free year would be a good start to fix the imbalance.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

He's definitely IN.

As I've mentioned in 101 other threads (including this one), there's only a very small fraction of a percentage of players that make the HOF--ESPECIALLY at WR.Of all the other future or non-inducted HOF candidates at WR, who would you exclude to take Rod Smith? IIRC, you can count the number of HOF WR that played in the past 25 years on one hand. WR do not get elected very often, and as already outlined, there are NUMEROUS guys that are more deserving.

Who is #1 on your WR list currently that's not in, but deserves it?

 

[David Yudkin]

He's definitely IN.

As I've mentioned in 101 other threads (including this one), there's only a very small fraction of a percentage of players that make the HOF--ESPECIALLY at WR.Of all the other future or non-inducted HOF candidates at WR, who would you exclude to take Rod Smith? IIRC, you can count the number of HOF WR that played in the past 25 years on one hand. WR do not get elected very often, and as already outlined, there are NUMEROUS guys that are more deserving.

Who is #1 on your WR list currently that's not in, but deserves it?

It's not just guys that haven't made it, but guys that are not yet eliglble or still playing.Guys that I see that are more deserving include Rice, Harrison, Carter, Moss, Owens (if he keeps playing), Holt, and Brown. That's already more guys than have been inducted in YEARS.

Others that I feel are potentially deserving but debatable include Sharpe, Rison, Reed, Monk, Irvin, both Smiths, Bruce, and a couple younger guys that really need to stay on track for a lot more years.

So IMO, RSmith is in a pack of borderline candidates when the HOF balloting has not been kind to WR. All of the guys in that second tier are going to need a lot of help getting in.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

He's definitely IN.

As I've mentioned in 101 other threads (including this one), there's only a very small fraction of a percentage of players that make the HOF--ESPECIALLY at WR.Of all the other future or non-inducted HOF candidates at WR, who would you exclude to take Rod Smith? IIRC, you can count the number of HOF WR that played in the past 25 years on one hand. WR do not get elected very often, and as already outlined, there are NUMEROUS guys that are more deserving.

Who is #1 on your WR list currently that's not in, but deserves it?

It's not just guys that haven't made it, but guys that are not yet eliglble or still playing.Guys that I see that are more deserving include Rice, Harrison, Carter, Moss, Owens (if he keeps playing), Holt, and Brown. That's already more guys than have been inducted in YEARS.

Others that I feel are potentially deserving but debatable include Sharpe, Rison, Reed, Monk, Irvin, both Smiths, Bruce, and a couple younger guys that really need to stay on track for a lot more years.

So IMO, RSmith is in a pack of borderline candidates when the HOF balloting has not been kind to WR. All of the guys in that second tier are going to need a lot of help getting in.

anyone eligible now that you see getting in before Rod?So.... it sounds like the HOF is pretty much caught up on WR's.

 

[David Yudkin]

anyone eligible now that you see getting in before Rod?So.... it sounds like the HOF is pretty much caught up on WR's.

This is a very complex question that requires a somewhat complex answer.I am a firm believer in the comparison among your peers approach to player evaluation. I.E., how did a player do each year compared to others at his poitions IN THAT YEAR. This way, a player should be head and shoulders abover his peers.However, where things have gone askew over the years is when we (collectively) start comparing players from different eras almost if those comparisons are just and true. The fact is, they are not.For example, in the 70s, there were seasons where 800 receiving yards would put you in the Top 5. But today, 800 yards might not even get you in the Top 40. So when someone today says PLAYER X had 8 straight years with 1,000 receiving yards--that's SO much better than another older guy that had 10 years of 800-900 receiving yards, I think that the older player was MUCH better amongst his peers.PLAYER Y could easily have ranked in the Top 5 many times over, while PLAYER X might not have ranked in the Top 10 even once.So to answer your question, there are older players that I would tend to think have been ignored over the years that don't even really get mentioned in these HOF debates. Guys like Bob Hayes, Otis Taylor, Harold Carmichael--guys that can only be called "OLD SCHOOL."The other dilema we are stuck with is that the HOF has guys in it that likely shouldn't be. IMO, Lynn Swann should only be allowed in Canton by buying a ticket. He played big in the post season and was part of the Steelers big run, so he made it passed on team accomplishments. If you look at Swann's stats, the numbers really don't play into his candidacy as a bonafide HOFer.I also look at the greatest scale. Smith has been a very good receiver for a very long time. I would rather see someone that was a dominant player and didn't play for 20 years than someone that was simply very good. I am sure that I am in the minority, but I would rather see Sharpe get in than some of the other compilers out there, as he put up huge numbers in his short career.It's tough comparing WR when one guy played 8-10 years while another played 15-20. Does someone become a better player just because they played twice as long?Just like the example I use for baseball. Jim Rice (up until now) has not been inducted. Had he played 5 more seasons batting .260 a year with another 75-100 HR and 300-400 RBI, he'd have been in a long time ago. Basically, he needed a bit more to pad his career stats. So voters would have wanted him to hang around and post some .260/18/70 seasons. That makes no sense to me, as his production would have been well below the league average at whatever position he was playing.So to ask who else is out there that is more deserving than Rod Smith, the question in and of itself cannot be truly answered. Smith did not play with the pool of players eligible but not inducted. Is Smith deserving based on his track record. Yes. But since the HOF voters have been so discerning as to how few WR they have voted in, he will be pretty far down the list when he becomes eligible. Who knows, maybe the voters will change their ways, but they have been VERY picky as to who they vote in.

 

[Tau837]

He's definitely IN.

As I've mentioned in 101 other threads (including this one), there's only a very small fraction of a percentage of players that make the HOF--ESPECIALLY at WR.Of all the other future or non-inducted HOF candidates at WR, who would you exclude to take Rod Smith? IIRC, you can count the number of HOF WR that played in the past 25 years on one hand. WR do not get elected very often, and as already outlined, there are NUMEROUS guys that are more deserving.

Who is #1 on your WR list currently that's not in, but deserves it?

It's not just guys that haven't made it, but guys that are not yet eliglble or still playing.Guys that I see that are more deserving include Rice, Harrison, Carter, Moss, Owens (if he keeps playing), Holt, and Brown. That's already more guys than have been inducted in YEARS.

Others that I feel are potentially deserving but debatable include Sharpe, Rison, Reed, Monk, Irvin, both Smiths, Bruce, and a couple younger guys that really need to stay on track for a lot more years.

So IMO, RSmith is in a pack of borderline candidates when the HOF balloting has not been kind to WR. All of the guys in that second tier are going to need a lot of help getting in.

anyone eligible now that you see getting in before Rod?So.... it sounds like the HOF is pretty much caught up on WR's.

1. Andre Reed will be eligible next year, and should be a lock. 5 years after he played, here are his ranks:Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 4

Receiving yards: 6

Receiving TDs: 10

Yards from scrimmage: 19

Rush/Receive TDs: 27t

Plus Reed was a 7 time Pro Bowler who played in 4 Super Bowls and added 85/1230/9 receiving during his career in the postseason.

2. Cris Carter will be eligible in 2008, and should be a lock. He was a 8 time Pro Bowler, and here are his current ranks:

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 2

Receiving yards: 4

Receiving TDs: 2

Yards from scrimmage: 17

Rush/Receive TDs: 5

3. Tim Brown will be eligible in 2010, and will be a lock. He was a 9 time Pro Bowler, and here are his current ranks:

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 3

Receiving yards: 2

Receiving TDs: 5t

Yards from scrimmage: 11

Rush/Receive TDs: 14t

4. Jerry Rice will also be eligible in 2010, and will obviously be a lock. (What a WR class in 2010!)

So that is 4 WRs likely to be inducted within the next 5 years. Plus, we could also see Irvin make it during that period. I suppose it is possible that Monk, Rison, and/or Sharpe could also gain support, but I see that as very unlikely.

Depends on how much longer Smith plays as to when he would be eligible, but it would likely be a few years later. Meanwhile, Harrison, Moss, and Owens would likely become eligible around the same time, give or take a year or two, as will a bunch of others who will not be HOFers but will look pretty similar to Rod: Bruce, Jimmy Smith, McCardell. Given that only 5 WRs that played within the past 25 years have made it, there is no way Rod Smith gets in sandwiched by so many better WRs.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

1. Andre Reed will be eligible next year, and should be a lock. 5 years after he played, here are his ranks:

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 4

Receiving yards: 6

Receiving TDs: 10

Yards from scrimmage: 19

Rush/Receive TDs: 27t

Plus Reed was a 7 time Pro Bowler who played in 4 Super Bowls and added 85/1230/9 receiving during his career in the postseason.

Rod has better numbers and a better argument for getting in than Reed. So if Reed is a lock, shouldn't Rod be?

 

[Tau837]

1. Andre Reed will be eligible next year, and should be a lock.  5 years after he played, here are his ranks:

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 4

Receiving yards: 6

Receiving TDs: 10

Yards from scrimmage: 19

Rush/Receive TDs: 27t

Plus Reed was a 7 time Pro Bowler who played in 4 Super Bowls and added 85/1230/9 receiving during his career in the postseason.

Rod has better numbers and a better argument for getting in than Reed. So if Reed is a lock, shouldn't Rod be?

I think you're having trouble with reading comprehension.Reed's ranks:

Receptions: 4

Receiving yards: 6

Receiving TDs: 10

Yards from scrimmage: 19

Rush/Receive TDs: 27t

Smith's ranks:

Receptions: 15

Receiving yards: 18

Receiving TDs: 42

Yards from scrimmage: 43

Rush/Receive TDs: [Not in top 50]

Let's pause for a moment to compare those ranks:

- Ranking 4th is better than ranking 15th.

- Ranking 6th is better than ranking 18th.

- Ranking 10th is better than ranking 42nd.

- Ranking 19th is better than ranking 43rd.

- Ranking 27th is better than ranking 51st or worse.

Postseason numbers:

Reed: 85/1230/9 (19 games, including 4 Super Bowls)

Smith: 39/703/5 (10 games, including 1 Super Bowl)

Pro Bowls:

Reed: 7

Smith: 2

Please help me understand what "better numbers" or "better argument" exist for Smith over Reed.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

Please help me understand what "better numbers" or "better argument" exist for Smith over Reed.

Rod Smith 2Andre Reed 0

And Rod is no where near done.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

Looks like Rod was just added to another pro bowl.

 

[Tau837]

Please help me understand what "better numbers" or "better argument" exist for Smith over Reed.

Rod Smith 2Andre Reed 0

And Rod is no where near done.

I'm done here.