This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Haha... um, better stats than Michael Irvin.... some superbowl rings. I think he has a shot...Nice career. Won't sniff Canton, but was a good dude.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Interesting comparison.Irvin: 5 Pro Bowls, 3 Super Bowls, 750 catches, 11904 yards, 65 TDs (159 games)Smith: 3 Pro Bowls, 2 Super Bowls, 849 catches, 11389 yards, 68 TDs (183 games)Haha... um, better stats than Michael Irvin.... some superbowl rings. I think he has a shot...Nice career. Won't sniff Canton, but was a good dude.
Undrafted.
No shot. This has been covered in several threads over the past couple of years. But a very good career for a consummate professional.Haha... um, better stats than Michael Irvin.... some superbowl rings. I think he has a shot...Nice career. Won't sniff Canton, but was a good dude.
Sharpe will get in, but 3 Pro Bowls and just 2 top-5 yardage and TD seasons are not enough to get Smith in. By the time he's eligible, he won't even be in the top 20 in any major category. He didn't even catch Art Monk, who has a similar but marginally more impressive resume and doesn't deserve to get in. He's about to be caught in yardage by Keenan McCardell, for heaven's sake. Great career, but he's unlikely to even make it to the finalist list.
He actually owns all the league receiving records for an undrafted player, except for receiving TDs. That record is owned by Don Hutson, who was undrafted only on a technicality- he played football before the draft existed.
I agree that they'll get at least three in (actually, I'd say at least 4). Elway and Sharpe are locks, and I think Zimmerman pretty much HAS to be in the HoF (since the HoF selectors, you know, made him one of only a handful of players to ever make two different all-decade teams). After that, they'll get at least one out of the Tom Nalen / Terrell Davis / Steve Atwater trio (personally, I don't think Atwater has a chance at all, but I think both Nalen and Davis deserve to be in). Rod Smith is probably the 7th most deserving Bronco on that list. I love the guy, and he was a hell of a player, but just because he plays at a flasher position than Nalen/Zimmerman/Atwater doesn't mean he was a better player than Nalen/Zimmerman/Atwater.
You're right. Rod Smith not making the HoF will have nothing to do with the stats. It will have to do with the fact that he was never one of the top 3 players at his position at any point during his entire career. I love Rod Smith, but he has three pro bowl appearances. Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, and Torry Holt are all clearly better WRs than he was. They didn't just put up better stats, they were BETTER WRs. Even when you get past them, you have guys like Troy Brown, Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, and the like to compete with.montanagold said:Yeah.... I haven't gone back to look at the stats. But, just because we've seen a couple players like Harrison,Moss, TO's.. in the WR class put up lofty numbers, does not mean he won't get in. The league always goes through seasons of change as far as offensive philosophies go. It was much more of a running league when he started out. I'd suggest the west coast kind of got some maturation and continuity of recognition from that Denver team.. not to mention, some astronomical running game to balance out offensive production.It's not always all about the stats.
It's not a question of lofty numbers from Harrison and Moss. It's a question of being passed by Keenan McCardell, Joey Galloway, and possibly Eric Moulds and Mushin Muhammad before he's HOF-eligible. Those are contemporaries from the same era, and no one would confuse any of them with Hall of Famers.montanagold said:Yeah.... I haven't gone back to look at the stats. But, just because we've seen a couple players like Harrison,Moss, TO's.. in the WR class put up lofty numbers, does not mean he won't get in. The league always goes through seasons of change as far as offensive philosophies go. It was much more of a running league when he started out. I'd suggest the west coast kind of got some maturation and continuity of recognition from that Denver team.. not to mention, some astronomical running game to balance out offensive production.It's not always all about the stats.
Ok, I agree about those players being better. Now.. your second list. The only one I look at... with some serious admiration, minus some blemishes such as missing time for breaking the leagues drug policies is Jimmy Smith. Because they were both difference makers for their teams... and seriously steady. Again, those players were part of offenses that produced much more passing. I've seen Rod Smith make some unbelievable catches and bring something I can't describe. As a QB, if I was picking who I wanted to throw to.... probably would go: Harrison, Holt, RSmith, JSmith, Owens or Moss. But, I never liked players who quit or cried their way to getting the football thrown at them. There's something to be said for blocking when you need to block, being a decoy when the team needs one, and being the unspoken captain of a football team.How is it... honestly that Irvin got in.. and Smith can't?You're right. Rod Smith not making the HoF will have nothing to do with the stats. It will have to do with the fact that he was never one of the top 3 players at his position at any point during his entire career. I love Rod Smith, but he has three pro bowl appearances. Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, and Torry Holt are all clearly better WRs than he was. They didn't just put up better stats, they were BETTER WRs. Even when you get past them, you have guys like Troy Brown, Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, and the like to compete with.montanagold said:Yeah.... I haven't gone back to look at the stats. But, just because we've seen a couple players like Harrison,Moss, TO's.. in the WR class put up lofty numbers, does not mean he won't get in. The league always goes through seasons of change as far as offensive philosophies go. It was much more of a running league when he started out. I'd suggest the west coast kind of got some maturation and continuity of recognition from that Denver team.. not to mention, some astronomical running game to balance out offensive production.It's not always all about the stats.
There are 18 WRs in the Hall of Fame. Of those 18 WRs, a grand total of ONE had his career start in the 1980s or later (Michael Irving). Now, we all know that Jerry Rice and Cris Carter are getting in the Hall of Fame. I mean, we can agree that that's an absolute, positive lock, right? And can we agree that Troy Brown is more likely in than not (or, at least, that he's CERTAINLY in before Rod Smith)? Because if so, that's three more WRs from this generation that get in before Rod. Then you acknowledge that Harrison, Holt, Owens, and Moss are all unquestionably better than Rod Smith, and were throughout their entire careers. That means that, at the very best, Rod Smith is looking at being the 8th-best unelected WR out there (and this isn't even counting guys like Art Monk who have a good argument to get into the Hall, too). This is *AT BEST*. And there are only 18 guys in the entire Hall of Fame at the position, only one from the current generation. Very, very, very few WRs make it into the Hall, and there are so many more deserving players in front of Rod right now that he's pretty much got a zero chance unless he makes a miraculous recovery and has a few more All Pro years left in him.Ok, I agree about those players being better. Now.. your second list. The only one I look at... with some serious admiration, minus some blemishes such as missing time for breaking the leagues drug policies is Jimmy Smith. Because they were both difference makers for their teams... and seriously steady. Again, those players were part of offenses that produced much more passing. I've seen Rod Smith make some unbelievable catches and bring something I can't describe. As a QB, if I was picking who I wanted to throw to.... probably would go: Harrison, Holt, RSmith, JSmith, Owens or Moss. But, I never liked players who quit or cried their way to getting the football thrown at them. There's something to be said for blocking when you need to block, being a decoy when the team needs one, and being the unspoken captain of a football team.How is it... honestly that Irvin got in.. and Smith can't?You're right. Rod Smith not making the HoF will have nothing to do with the stats. It will have to do with the fact that he was never one of the top 3 players at his position at any point during his entire career. I love Rod Smith, but he has three pro bowl appearances. Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, and Torry Holt are all clearly better WRs than he was. They didn't just put up better stats, they were BETTER WRs. Even when you get past them, you have guys like Troy Brown, Isaac Bruce, Jimmy Smith, and the like to compete with.montanagold said:Yeah.... I haven't gone back to look at the stats. But, just because we've seen a couple players like Harrison,Moss, TO's.. in the WR class put up lofty numbers, does not mean he won't get in. The league always goes through seasons of change as far as offensive philosophies go. It was much more of a running league when he started out. I'd suggest the west coast kind of got some maturation and continuity of recognition from that Denver team.. not to mention, some astronomical running game to balance out offensive production.It's not always all about the stats.
Nope. And while it's an important part of the game, I can't argue too much with the logic. Being the best blocking WR in the league is very useful, but in terms of HoF credentials, it'll get you about as much as being the best tackling punter, the best passing RB, or the QB with the best hands. Which is to say, not much at all.If Smith is to have any shot at all, he's going to have to really play up the whole "best undrafted receiver in history" angle.
Tim Brown is #2 all time in receiving yards and will still be top-5 when he's up for inclusion. He also has 100 TDs to Smith's 68, #6 all time and likely to stay there for quite a while. Tim Brown is a first ballot HoFer.The Raiders have 13 "primary Raider" Hall of Famers; #2 among AFL/AFC teams (Pittsburgh).
I don't disagreeInteresting parallel drawn inadvertently with Troy Brown though as each are beloved by their team and will be in their team hall of fame or jersey retired or somesuch. Great Bronco, not among the greatest NFL players. He, Easy Ed, and Sharpe were one of the better receiving trio's ever. Just...
Tim Brown actually has 105 TDs. People forget that he was once an all-pro punt returner and actually had a couple seasons where he spent more time on special teams than in the regular lineup.
I would love to see him get in but I doubt he does.
Correction... Irvin was inducted this past year. And James Lofton got in... so, what the hell man? Oh well... who knows.
Yes, I knew that about Irvin and should have worded my comment differently.Don't understand your point about Lofton. Consider:Lofton is #3 all time in receiving yards; Smith is #19.Lofton is #21 all time in receptions; Smith is #12.Lofton is #24 all time in receiving TDs; Smith is tied for #31.Lofton made 8 Pro Bowls; Smith made 3.Lofton was All Pro 4 times; Smith was never All Pro.Lofton was on the 1980s All Decade Team; Smith has no comparable honors.I'm starting to think you're justmontanagold said:
He had at least 4 years better than Smith - the 4 he was named All Pro. I'm sure you know that means he was judged one of the two best WRs in the NFL 4 times. So he excelled in comparison to his peers, something that Smith clearly did not do.
Mark Clayton was top 5 in receiving yards once in his career. Monk, twice. Rison, 3 times. Lofton, 5 times. Lofton was better relative to his contemporaries than the other names you mention. That's why he's in the Hall and they're not, and why Rod Smith will not be going in. Excellent player. Not a Hall of Famer.
I understand the relative to his contemporaries argument.. I'm just arguing that his contemporaries weren't very good!
Nice career. Won't sniff Canton, but was a good dude.
