Steve Smith - when all is said and done, HoF? (1 Viewer)

[Eminence]

If he comes back after this injury at his age and is still the man, then yes. There is nothing more this man can do than that to prove to everyone he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

I don't know if he's done. I'm willing to give the feisty guy a chance to prove everyone wrong, one more time...

 

[travdogg]

I'd think Adrian Peterson is a lock. Also, Priest Holmes should be in the conversation too. I'd make the case he was better than all of those guys who were listed.

About the craziest thing ever is CJ might be back in the conversation.

He was amidst the top few backs this year when he got hurt and I surely did not think he had "top back" still in those legs. 800 yards in 9 starts certainly makes ya shake your head and at least not close the HOF door on him just yet.

His first 3 years or first four? five? I don't remember. His first so many years were best ever type so an uptick in year 8 is noteworthy.

David Johnson's emergence probably means he has to play elsewhere if he's going to actually be special but...I'll throw him a bone and say the door's not closed yet. He still might get in

Hall of Fame-wise, I'd say the best comp for Johnson right now might be Maurice Jones-Drew. Both had one 1AP and three Pro Bowls. MJD has played 126 games. CJ has played 122. MJD has 4.4 career yards per carry. CJ has 4.5. Jones-Drew has 11,111 yards from scrimmage and 79 touchdowns. Johnson has 11,654 yards from scrimmage and 63 touchdowns. MJD has 84 career AV. CJ has 75 career AV.

The AV pretty much jives with my opinion on the two. Very close, with a slight edge to Jones-Drew. Either way, neither is anywhere close to the Hall of Fame right now; both are well behind Terrell Davis, Tiki Barber, Edgerrin James, Shaun Alexander, Priest Holmes, Ricky Watters, Roger Craig, Warrick Dunn, Fred Taylor, Herschel Walker, Corey Dillon, Stephen Jackson, and Ricky Williams for me. I'd put them in a group with Brian Westbrook, Clinton Portis, Ahman Green, and Eddie George. (I'd put Charlie Garner in there, too, but I know I'd get a lot of pushback on that one.) Either way, that's an awwwwwwwwwfully long list of names he'd have to jump to make it to the Hall, IMO.

One of the biggest problems I have with career AV, is that it gives too much weight to longevity. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd take a few years of elite play over several of good play. Chris Johnson has one of the best seasons in NFL history, and supported it with 2 other excellent ones. Was somebody like Warrick Dunn ever one of the best RBs in the league? Was Garner? Or were they good players who hung around for a while to amass good counting stats? I feel like Davis and Holmes are certainly a cut above(for the same reasons, and the only 2 on the list I feel have to be HOFs) but why are the rest of those guys better than Johnson or MJD? It feels similar to the Smith/Bruce discussion in many ways.

 

[Chaka]

Seriously - what RB who spent most of his career between 2000 and 2010 is HoF quality? LaDanian Thompson is the only one I've got.

Epic fail.

Lol. Yup.

On the surface I want to agree but when I look at the RBs who played primarily at that time who are the HoF RBs from 2000-2010? Is Edge a lock? Ricky Williams? Jamal Lewis? Shaun Alexander? Fred Taylor? Thomas Jones? Portis? Gore? Steven Jackson?

L.T. is really the only lock that I see. Edge probably (possibly?) makes it as well, but after that...?

I'd think Adrian Peterson is a lock. Also, Priest Holmes should be in the conversation too. I'd make the case he was better than all of those guys who were listed.

Peterson is a lock HoFer but his career started in 2007 which is why I left him out of that group.

I can't see Priest making it. He had a phenomenal 3.5 year run, then Larry Johnson followed him and produced at the exact same level for two seasons. Heck Derrick Blaylock performed at near Priest/Johnson levels for 5 games in 2004 after Priest was injured. Kansas City had the best offensive lines in the game at that time.

 

[Tau837]

The QB was not a push, at least not in those seasons. Just a couple shorthand metrics show that. Miller's Rate+ was 97 in 1995, which is below league average; Delhomme's was 109 in 2005, above league average. Miller's ANY/A was 4.73; Delhomme's was 6.41. It wasn't particularly close between them.

But, even if the QB was a push, comparing the two seasons, Bruce 1995 had more receptions, more receiving yards, more yards from scrimmage, and more TDs than Smith 2005. And not just more yards, a lot more yards (1781 to 1563). Bruce had the 3rd highest single season receiving yards in NFL history that season.

Winning the "Triple Crown" is very impressive for Smith, although he actually tied for the league lead in both receptions (Fitz) and receiving TDs (Harrison). But this has a lot to do with peer performance. Jerry Rice had 1848 receiving yards in 1995 to lead the league. Does that somehow diminish Bruce's 1781 receiving yards?

Bruce's best season trumps Smith's. It's that simple.

Nah.

The 1995 Rams ranked 4th in the league in pass attempts, in large part because they ranked 29th in points allowed and had a -109 scoring differential. The Panthers finished 28th in pass attempts, in large part because they were 5th in points allowed with a +132 differential.

As a result, Bruce got 50 targets more than Smith, and he converted those 50 targets into 218 more yards and 1 more TD. St. Louis' QBs completed 60% of their passes to Bruce for 8.95 yards per attempt. Carolina's QBs completed 69% of their passes to Smith for 10.42 yards per attempt. Since both represented about a third of their teams' passing games, that's a large part of the reason for the difference in QB stats that year.

Let's also not ignore the fact that there's a very serious argument to be made that Isaac Bruce was the 5th or 6th best WR in the NFL in 1995. That year was crazy. We know it's an aberration, standing out like a giant sore thumb relative to the rest of history. We don't really know why it was that way; were #1 CBs really bad that year? Point of emphasis among officials?

But regardless of why, it has to be at least a little bit suspicious that Bruce's most prolific season just happened to come in the single most prolific WR season of all time, the same year that pretty much every WR worth his salt set his career highs. Jerry Rice never came within 60 PPR fantasy points of his 1995 total, (with an obvious asterisk for 1987). Three-time first-team AP All Pro Herman Moore never came within 80 PPR points of his 1995 total. Hall of Famer Michael Irvin never came within 30 PPR points. Hall of Famer Cris Carter never came within 60. Hall of Famer Tim Brown actually had a couple other seasons that came close in PPR, but also set a career high. Five-time pro bowler Anthony Miller actually fell 11 points of his career high... but only because he missed two games.

And Isaac Bruce? Yeah, he never again came within NINETY POINTS of his 1995 total in PPR. Again, suspicious, no?

Even if that was all there was, I'd still be amenable to claims that Bruce's 1995 was as good as Smith's 2005. But that wasn't the end of the story. Steve Smith also added 27 punt returns for 286 yards in the regular season. And he had one of the best WR postseasons in history; 96 yards and two touchdowns vs. the Giants, then 244 yards and 2 touchdowns against the #1 pass defense in the NFL, one of the greatest single-game performances a WR has ever had, postseason or otherwise. Then he got triple-covered by the Seahawks in the NFCCG, in a game where he was pretty much Carolina's only healthy offensive player, and he still impacted the game with a 59-yard punt return for a score.

It's true that Bruce didn't have a postseason in 1995 and shouldn't be punished for that. This isn't about punishing him. This is about recognizing that Smiff *did* have a postseason, and it was one of the single greatest postseasons in history, and that matters. That counts. Add in the punt returns, the first-team AP All Pro, the Triple Crown, and Steve Smith's 2005 was substantially better than Bruce's 1995.

Really, if you wanted to advocate for an Isaac Bruce season, I think you are off by a year; in 1996, Isaac Bruce became one of just two players in the 16-game era to lead the NFL in receiving on a team that ranked in the bottom 5 in pass attempts. The other? Steve Smith in 2005.

1. You ignored part of what you quoted. Delhomme was absolutely a better QB than Miller. Smith had better QB play than Bruce did in these respective seasons, and it wasn't particularly close.

2. See #1 for one reason why Smith was more productive with his targets than Bruce was.

3. As for Bruce being the 5th or 6th best WR that season... nah. Here are the contenders:

Rice 122/1848/15, Pro Bowl, 1st team All Pro

Moore 123/1686/14, Pro Bowl, 1st team All Pro

Carter 122/1371/17, Pro Bowl, 2nd team All Pro

Pickens 99/1234/17, Pro Bowl, 2nd team All Pro

Irvin 111/1603/10, Pro Bowl

Anthony Miller 59/1079/14 in 14 games, Pro Bowl

Thigpen 85/1307/5, Pro Bowl

Bruce had 117/1781/13

IMO the only season that was obviously better was Rice's, though not by a lot. Moore's is virtually identical and IMO is a toss-up. Bruce's season was clearly better than the rest IMO, despite the fact that all of them had better QBs and many played in much better offenses. So, no, he wasn't 5th or 6th best. The voters got it wrong. It happens sometimes.

4. For my part in this comparison of peak seasons, I was talking about regular season, and I maintain my view that Bruce's regular season was more impressive. I agree if the comparison includes postseason, Smith's was more impressive.

 

[Adam Harstad]

1. You ignored part of what you quoted. Delhomme was absolutely a better QB than Miller. Smith had better QB play than Bruce did in these respective seasons, and it wasn't particularly close.

2. See #1 for one reason why Smith was more productive with his targets than Bruce was.

3. As for Bruce being the 5th or 6th best WR that season... nah. Here are the contenders:

Rice 122/1848/15, Pro Bowl, 1st team All Pro

Moore 123/1686/14, Pro Bowl, 1st team All Pro

Carter 122/1371/17, Pro Bowl, 2nd team All Pro

Pickens 99/1234/17, Pro Bowl, 2nd team All Pro

Irvin 111/1603/10, Pro Bowl

Anthony Miller 59/1079/14 in 14 games, Pro Bowl

Thigpen 85/1307/5, Pro Bowl

Bruce had 117/1781/13

IMO the only season that was obviously better was Rice's, though not by a lot. Moore's is virtually identical and IMO is a toss-up. Bruce's season was clearly better than the rest IMO, despite the fact that all of them had better QBs and many played in much better offenses. So, no, he wasn't 5th or 6th best. The voters got it wrong. It happens sometimes.

4. For my part in this comparison of peak seasons, I was talking about regular season, and I maintain my view that Bruce's regular season was more impressive. I agree if the comparison includes postseason, Smith's was more impressive.

1 and 2. I didn't ignore it, I pointed out that the difference in per-target efficiency partially contributed to the gap. But no argument that Smith had better service.

3. Rice was unambiguously better than Isaac Bruce in 1995. Herman Moore's stats were superficially similar, but Moore added an extra 9 first downs and 158 yards via DPI, vs. 2/47 for Bruce. (Moore also played on one of the best offenses in the league, while Bruce played on one of the worst. Apparently you view this as some sort of negative for Moore; I view it as a positive. The fact that Minnesota had one of the greatest offenses in NFL history Randy Moss's rookie year wasn't a strike against Moss, it was a testament to his greatness.)

Irvin's stats might look slightly worse at first blush, but Irvin was playing on a team that ranked 28th in the NFL in pass attempts, (Bruce's Rams were 4th). The fact that Irvin managed to match Bruce as the only option on a conservative, run-first offense that spent the entire season nursing big leads is a testament to Irvin's quality. The fact that he was a slam-dunk Hall of Famer in his prime adds more credence to the idea that he was better; when it's close, break ties in favor of the Hall of Famer.

I'd step in and rank Bruce 4th after those three, but if someone wanted to take, say, Cris Carter... I think there's at least an argument there. (Again, I'd start with the "defer to the Hall of Famer in his prime" point.)

Regardless of whether you have Bruce 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th or wherever, the fact remains that SIX NFC receivers topped 1500 yards from scrimmage in 1995. *SIX* of them. 1995 was an insane year. There have only been four seasons in history where a WR had 1500 yards and failed to make the pro bowl, and three of them came from 1995. (The fourth was Victor Cruz's 2011 season where he wasn't even on the Pro Bowl ballot.) 1995 was a complete and total outlier the likes of which we have never seen before or since in NFL history. I'd be a lot more keen to place some sort of emphasis on Bruce's stats that year if he'd ever, you know, come within 90 PPR points of his 1995 total at any other point in his entire career.

How extreme of an outlier was Bruce's 1995 season? The only other players in history with a 1500+ yard season who never again came within 300 yards of their career best are Herman Moore, Rob Moore, David Boston, and Roy Green, which isn't exactly the sort of list that inspires much confidence. (Technically, Victor Cruz and Josh Gordon are on that list, too.)

Isaac Bruce, Terance Mathis, and Pierre Garcon are the only players with a 110-catch season who never came within 30 catches of their career high, (technically, Mathis made it within 30 catches on the nose). Like I said, it's extremely suspicious that Bruce never even came anywhere close to replicating his career year. David Boston's second best year was actually closer to his best year than Isaac Bruce's was.

(Also, I'd hesitate to say that the voters got it wrong in 1995. As I mentioned, I think an argument at least exists for all four of the guys that got taken over Bruce. The biggest problem for Bruce was one of timing; his 15/210/1 game in the regular-season finale came after most ballots had already been cast. Otherwise, he probably gets in over Carter. But if we accept "fantasy points" as a proxy for production, through 15 games the two guys were essentially tied, and ties go to the defending All Pro who set the single-season receptions record last year and leads the NFL in receiving touchdowns this year. Not the fault of the voters so much as it's the fault of the process.)

 

[Tau837]

Rice was unambiguously better than Isaac Bruce in 1995.

Rice was better by 5/67/2 over 16 games, which isn't a lot, and he was mostly catching passes from HOFer Steve Young. Still, I already agreed with this.

Herman Moore's stats were superficially similar, but Moore added an extra 9 first downs and 158 yards via DPI, vs. 2/47 for Bruce. (Moore also played on one of the best offenses in the league, while Bruce played on one of the worst. Apparently you view this as some sort of negative for Moore; I view it as a positive. The fact that Minnesota had one of the greatest offenses in NFL history Randy Moss's rookie year wasn't a strike against Moss, it was a testament to his greatness.)

Your wording here is interesting, as if their stats were superficially similar until accounting for DPI, which makes them... superficially dissimilar? Even adding the DPI yards, that means Moore had 6 more catches, 16 more yards, and 1 more TD, and he also had 22 more targets (~10% more targets... and actually we have to really bump him to 29 more targets if we are to count the penalties). (Also, Bruce had 17 yards rushing to 0 for Moore, so Moore actually had 1 fewer YFS.) This is not similar (superficially or not)?

I don't view playing in a great offense as a negative for Moore. But when comparing the performance of two players, context matters. Moore was in an obviously superior situation, with a better QB and better surrounding offensive teammates that precluded the defense from keying on Moore. Given their performances were very similar, IMO Bruce's performance was more impressive.

Irvin's stats might look slightly worse at first blush, but Irvin was playing on a team that ranked 28th in the NFL in pass attempts, (Bruce's Rams were 4th). The fact that Irvin managed to match Bruce as the only option on a conservative, run-first offense that spent the entire season nursing big leads is a testament to Irvin's quality. The fact that he was a slam-dunk Hall of Famer in his prime adds more credence to the idea that he was better; when it's close, break ties in favor of the Hall of Famer.

1. Irvin didn't match Bruce, who had 12 more catches, 178 more yards, and 3 more TDs. That is not my definition of 'matched'.

2. IMO you are misusing team pass attempts in these discussions. Bottom line, Irvin had 193 targets in 1995, compared to 199 for Bruce. That disparity is so small as to be irrelevant. IMO individual targets are clearly more relevant than team passing attempts in this discussion.

3. As with Rice, Irvin played with a HOF QB and a much better surrounding cast on offense.

4. Completely disagree with the bolded. A player makes the HOF generally due to career excellence. That doesn't mean other players never had better seasons. Plus, Bruce is going to be a HOFer himself, so your statement really doesn't make much sense. If you are referring to All Pro/Pro Bowl voters choosing between them, IMO none of them were thinking to themselves that they would choose the HOFer, since no one thought of Irvin as a lock HOFer at that point. Much more likely influences included: Irvin was an established elite performed before 1995, and Bruce wasn't; Irvin played for a playoff team in 1995, while the Rams were not good; and Irvin played in a much more popular media market and for a team that had recently won 3 Super Bowls and was on tv constantly.

I'd step in and rank Bruce 4th after those three, but if someone wanted to take, say, Cris Carter... I think there's at least an argument there. (Again, I'd start with the "defer to the Hall of Famer in his prime" point.)

Disagree. Bruce's performance was clearly better, and the HOFer vs. non-HOFer argument doesn't apply.

Also, like the others, Carter had a HOF QB who was much better than Bruce's.

Regardless of whether you have Bruce 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th or wherever, the fact remains that SIX NFC receivers topped 1500 yards from scrimmage in 1995. *SIX* of them. 1995 was an insane year. There have only been four seasons in history where a WR had 1500 yards and failed to make the pro bowl, and three of them came from 1995. (The fourth was Victor Cruz's 2011 season where he wasn't even on the Pro Bowl ballot.) 1995 was a complete and total outlier the likes of which we have never seen before or since in NFL history. I'd be a lot more keen to place some sort of emphasis on Bruce's stats that year if he'd ever, you know, come within 90 PPR points of his 1995 total at any other point in his entire career.

How extreme of an outlier was Bruce's 1995 season? The only other players in history with a 1500+ yard season who never again came within 300 yards of their career best are Herman Moore, Rob Moore, David Boston, and Roy Green, which isn't exactly the sort of list that inspires much confidence. (Technically, Victor Cruz and Josh Gordon are on that list, too.)

Isaac Bruce, Terance Mathis, and Pierre Garcon are the only players with a 110-catch season who never came within 30 catches of their career high, (technically, Mathis made it within 30 catches on the nose). Like I said, it's extremely suspicious that Bruce never even came anywhere close to replicating his career year. David Boston's second best year was actually closer to his best year than Isaac Bruce's was.

1. I feel like we are having two different conversations here. Who cares if Bruce's season was an outlier? This tangent began by comparing Bruce's 1995 season to Smith's 2005 season... the top peak season for each. What Bruce did in other seasons is irrelevant to the discussion to which you responded.

2. Sure, it was a great year for several WRs. So? Fluctuations happen, whether due to talent (e.g., at CB1), rule emphasis, or simply a convergence of great players playing in their primes with other great players. 1995 happened, and it counts.

(Also, I'd hesitate to say that the voters got it wrong in 1995. As I mentioned, I think an argument at least exists for all four of the guys that got taken over Bruce. The biggest problem for Bruce was one of timing; his 15/210/1 game in the regular-season finale came after most ballots had already been cast. Otherwise, he probably gets in over Carter. But if we accept "fantasy points" as a proxy for production, through 15 games the two guys were essentially tied, and ties go to the defending All Pro who set the single-season receptions record last year and leads the NFL in receiving touchdowns this year. Not the fault of the voters so much as it's the fault of the process.)

1. Agree submitting ballots before the regular season is over is a flaw in the process, which I have always felt, long before this conversation.

2. Through week 15 in 1995, here is where they stood: Carter 115/1292/16, Bruce 104/1571/12. I don't see that as a wash. Bruce had almost 300 more yards, despite the QB disparity already referenced.

3. I do fault the voters if their thought process was what you suggest here, i.e., well, it's close, and Carter was great last year, so let's give it to him again. I don't doubt that plenty of voters voted with that perspective, but it is wrong IMO. If anything, IMO the tie should go to the new young player over the established veteran great performer.

Now... we have thoroughly this thread...

 

[Adam Harstad]

2. IMO you are misusing team pass attempts in these discussions. Bottom line, Irvin had 193 targets in 1995, compared to 199 for Bruce. That disparity is so small as to be irrelevant. IMO individual targets are clearly more relevant than team passing attempts in this discussion.

If you'll permit a little bit of argumentum ad absurdum...

Imagine two teams. One is the most pass-heavy team in NFL history, finishing the year with 400 pass attempts vs. 100 rush attempts. The second is the most run-heavy team in NFL history, finishing the year with 100 pass attempts vs. 400 rush attempts.

The pass-heavy team features three primary receivers. The first gets 167 targets, the second gets 133 targets, the third gets 100 targets. The run-heavy team has only one receiver on the entire roster, who accounts for all 100 of the team's targets.

Let's imagine that the #3 receiver on the pass-heavy team finishes with 80/1000/10 receiving, and the #1 receiver on the run-heavy team finishes with an identical 80/1000/10 stat line. Both finished with perfectly identical statistics across the board.

I would argue that the #1 receiver was *MILES* better than the #3 receiver, though. Literally the entire defense was focusing on him on every single passing play, since he was literally the only option. The #3 guy, on the other hand, got to feast on #3 coverages as defenses paid attention first and foremost to his two more-prolific peers.

This is an extreme example, (that's kind of how reductio ad absurdum works), but the exact same forces that are in play at ridiculous extremes like these are also at play to a lesser extent across the entire spectrum of possible situations. Michael Irvin carried the Dallas Cowboys' passing game to a much greater extent than Isaac Bruce carried the St. Louis Rams' passing game, and that difference, in my mind, easily makes up for 150 extra yards for Isaac Bruce.

(This is especially true if, like me, you view the "route run" as the best measure of WR opportunity, and not the "target". Counting sacks, there were 675 times in 1995 that a St. Louis quarterback dropped back, surveyed the field, and attempted to advance the ball through the air. In those 675 plays, Isaac Bruce managed to get open enough and catch the ball enough to accumulate 1781 yards. There were 512 times in 1995 that a Dallas quarterback dropped back, surveyed the field, and attempted to advance the ball through the air. In those 512 plays, Michael Irvin managed to get open enough and catch the ball enough to accumulate 1603 yards. Had Dallas thrown the ball 163 more times, I'd venture Michael Irvin easily would have gotten another 178 yards.)

1. I feel like we are having two different conversations here. Who cares if Bruce's season was an outlier? This tangent began by comparing Bruce's 1995 season to Smith's 2005 season... the top peak season for each. What Bruce did in other seasons is irrelevant to the discussion to which you responded.

2. Sure, it was a great year for several WRs. So? Fluctuations happen, whether due to talent (e.g., at CB1), rule emphasis, or simply a convergence of great players playing in their primes with other great players. 1995 happened, and it counts.

1. The reason it matters whether 1995 was an outlier gets to establishing what 1995 tells us about Isaac Bruce as a player. If one season stands out as wildly out of line with every other year of a player's career, it's a pretty good bet that that season is not very representative of his true level of play. See also: David Boston, Germane Crowell, Patrick Jeffers, etc.

(It also raises the specter of the possibility that the season was a result of random variance above and beyond the usual amount. Victor Cruz in 2011 hit on an absurd number of deep receptions. That year really happened, and we can't take those off the board, but his "true level of play" in 2011-- and overall-- is not very well represented by his 1500 yards that year.)

2. I'm not trying to say that 1995 doesn't or shouldn't count. I'm merely saying we have to adjust for the environment. You're familiar with era-adjustment, and I don't seem to recall you having any objection to it in general. When discussing Lance Alworth, it's worth making a note of the pass-happy AFL. When discussing great WRs of the '70s, it's worth bringing up the impact of the dead ball era. And when comparing Isaac Bruce's 1995 to Steve Smith's 2005, it's important to keep in mind that 1995 was, by a *mind-blowing* margin, the single greatest season for WR production we had ever seen prior to perhaps this year.

1. Agree submitting ballots before the regular season is over is a flaw in the process, which I have always felt, long before this conversation.

2. Through week 15 in 1995, here is where they stood: Carter 115/1292/16, Bruce 104/1571/12. I don't see that as a wash. Bruce had almost 300 more yards, despite the QB disparity already referenced.

3. I do fault the voters if their thought process was what you suggest here, i.e., well, it's close, and Carter was great last year, so let's give it to him again. I don't doubt that plenty of voters voted with that perspective, but it is wrong IMO. If anything, IMO the tie should go to the new young player over the established veteran great performer.

See, I think that's just being a smart Bayesian.

Let's think about coach of the year. If New England and Jacksonville both go 14-2 next year, who is likely to be the better coach, Bill Belichick or Gus Bradley? How about QBs. If Aaron Rodgers and Andy Dalton finish a season with identical stats, who do you think was probably the "best" quarterback that year, from an objective standpoint? If Antonio Brown and Marqise Lee both finish 2016 with the same receiving yardage total, and you had to take one of them to win a game with your life at stake, which would you be taking?

Bayesian inference is all about updating our priors based on new information. If you're asking me who the best ________ in the NFL is right now, I'm absolutely taking past performance into account. Aaron Rodgers is always one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, regardless of what his numbers are right now. Bill Belichick is probably always the best coach in the NFL, regardless of what New England's record is, or of how much some other guy has outperformed expectations.

Similarly, Jerry Rice was probably always the best WR in the NFL through his entire prime, regardless of who led the league in receiving. (With a possible nod to Sterling Sharpe.) And Jim Brown wasn't a worse RB in 1962 than Jim Taylor just because Jim Taylor happened to rush for more yards that year.

Now, of course, it's tricky. I'm not saying Jim Brown should have been the 1st team AP All Pro in 1962, even though he was probably still the best RB. Taylor had nearly *50%* more rushing yards. That matters. Postseason honors should go to who performed better that year, and in 1962 it wasn't even close, Jim Taylor clearly performed better, (even if he probably wasn't the best RB in the world, overall).

But when things *are* close, I can easily see letting things like prior track record sway your opinion; moreover, I think that's a perfectly reasonable and acceptable process. And I can also see someone thinking after 15 games that Carter's 9 extra receptions and 4 extra TDs on a better team were pretty close to Bruce's 279 yards on a bad team that threw all the time.

Isaac Bruce had 39/550/3 while his team was down by 2+ scores in 1995. Cris Carter had 19/189/3. I doubt any voters thought about it specifically, but I'm sure there was a general impression that Isaac Bruce was racking up more statistics that just didn't matter, feasting on garbage time. Whether that's fair or not, we see it a lot, with players who have huge stats on terrible teams seeing their accomplishments minimized.

I've already said that I think Bruce was better than Carter in 1995. But I can see voters saying "well, Bruce had better numbers than Carter, but I still think that Carter was the better WR this year, anyway", especially after 15 games. Carter was the reigning 1st-team AP All Pro and the guy who had just set the single-season receptions record. Anecdotally, I think voters were placing a much heavier emphasis on receptions in the early '90s than they are today, simply because they'd never seen numbers like that before in the statistic.

Numbers are not a perfect reflection of performance, and they're an even more imperfect reflection of talent. If the NFL really wanted to just give all of its postseason honors to the guy who finished with the best statistics, they should rename it the Stat Line of the Year award. The statistics should be of primary performance, (especially when adjusted for context), but statistics only matter as a proxy for general performance. And like I said, when things are close, I think it's pretty reasonable to err on the side of the known quantity.

 

[Tau837]

If you'll permit a little bit of argumentum ad absurdum...

This is an extreme example, (that's kind of how reductio ad absurdum works), but the exact same forces that are in play at ridiculous extremes like these are also at play to a lesser extent across the entire spectrum of possible situations. Michael Irvin carried the Dallas Cowboys' passing game to a much greater extent than Isaac Bruce carried the St. Louis Rams' passing game, and that difference, in my mind, easily makes up for 150 extra yards for Isaac Bruce.

(This is especially true if, like me, you view the "route run" as the best measure of WR opportunity, and not the "target". Counting sacks, there were 675 times in 1995 that a St. Louis quarterback dropped back, surveyed the field, and attempted to advance the ball through the air. In those 675 plays, Isaac Bruce managed to get open enough and catch the ball enough to accumulate 1781 yards. There were 512 times in 1995 that a Dallas quarterback dropped back, surveyed the field, and attempted to advance the ball through the air. In those 512 plays, Michael Irvin managed to get open enough and catch the ball enough to accumulate 1603 yards. Had Dallas thrown the ball 163 more times, I'd venture Michael Irvin easily would have gotten another 178 yards.)

The example is too absurd and inapplicable to have merit IMO. There are multiple counterpoints:

1. Irvin played with a HOF QB who is known as one of the most accurate passers of all time. It is very likely that Irvin didn't have to get as open as Bruce did to receive targets (and quality targets at that).

2. Bruce was likely double covered more often, which prevented him from getting open more often. Irvin played with two players in 1995 -- Smith and Novacek -- who were better than any offensive player Bruce played with in 1995, so Dallas had other threats that were of more relative concern to the opposing defense.

1. The reason it matters whether 1995 was an outlier gets to establishing what 1995 tells us about Isaac Bruce as a player. If one season stands out as wildly out of line with every other year of a player's career, it's a pretty good bet that that season is not very representative of his true level of play. See also: David Boston, Germane Crowell, Patrick Jeffers, etc.

(It also raises the specter of the possibility that the season was a result of random variance above and beyond the usual amount. Victor Cruz in 2011 hit on an absurd number of deep receptions. That year really happened, and we can't take those off the board, but his "true level of play" in 2011-- and overall-- is not very well represented by his 1500 yards that year.)

The post you quoted to begin this was focused on comparing the top peak season of Bruce and Smith. It has evolved into discussion about Bruce's 1995 season compared to peers in 1995. It is perfectly plausible that Bruce could have had a better peak season than another player, yet the other player could have proven to be a better player over a longer span (multiple seasons or career).

I'm not arguing that Bruce was a better player than the other players in the discussion, or that 1995 represents his "true level of play." I'm arguing that he had a better season than all of his 1995 peers except Rice. Those are different arguments. You seem to be arguing the former, I'm arguing the latter, and it is the latter that was under discussion in the post you quoted to start this tangent.

I also think it is fairly ridiculous to compare Bruce to Boston, Crowell, and Jeffers. Bruce is going to the HOF, which illustrates that his 1995 season was not just a fluke. He sustained HOF performance for many years.

at Bruce's 1995 season being "random variance."

If you are really searching for a reason why Bruce's 1995 (and 1996, when he led the league in receiving yards) performance was so great, consider that Mike Martz was the Rams WR coach in 1995-96. By the time Martz returned to the Rams in 1999, they had more weapons, notably likely HOFer Holt and HOFer Faulk, and it was no longer necessary for him to focus on Bruce to the same extent. He had 199 targets in 1995 and never had more than 150 in any other season. IMO 1995 showed what Bruce was capable of when put in system and situation that maximized his talent AND opportunity, but he never played in a system again that gave him that level of opportunity, but that had more to do with other outstanding offensive talent around him than with any other factor.

Who knows what Bruce's stats would have looked like if he remained in a Smith-like situation for a decade rather than playing with Holt, Faulk, et al.? He would have gotten more opportunity, and he already proved he could excel when given such opportunity. When he needed to, he carried his team's passing game. But that is speculation, and it doesn't really matter. But I don't agree with what you seem to imply about his "true level of play."

2. I'm not trying to say that 1995 doesn't or shouldn't count. I'm merely saying we have to adjust for the environment. You're familiar with era-adjustment, and I don't seem to recall you having any objection to it in general. When discussing Lance Alworth, it's worth making a note of the pass-happy AFL. When discussing great WRs of the '70s, it's worth bringing up the impact of the dead ball era. And when comparing Isaac Bruce's 1995 to Steve Smith's 2005, it's important to keep in mind that 1995 was, by a *mind-blowing* margin, the single greatest season for WR production we had ever seen prior to perhaps this year.

Of course I understand and agree with era adjustment. I'm just not aware of any significant era adjustment that needs to be made between 1995 and 2005. If you have something more than OMG, several WRs had career years! I'm open to seeing it. Of course, this pertains to the original Smith-Bruce peak season comparison, but not to the 1995 peer comparison.

With regard to 1995 vs. 2005, I'm interested to know if WR1 production was up across the league, if there were any rule changes/emphasis that could explain the surge, was team passing completions, yardage, and TDs up across the league, etc. If so, by how much, and was it non-trivial? If not, or if the delta was trivial, then this could simply be several players -- mostly HOF players -- in their prime staying healthy and playing in schedules/situations that supported career years. Occam's Razor applies in the absence of any supporting evidence that would show a real era difference.

See, I think that's just being a smart Bayesian.

Let's think about coach of the year. If New England and Jacksonville both go 14-2 next year, who is likely to be the better coach, Bill Belichick or Gus Bradley? How about QBs. If Aaron Rodgers and Andy Dalton finish a season with identical stats, who do you think was probably the "best" quarterback that year, from an objective standpoint? If Antonio Brown and Marqise Lee both finish 2016 with the same receiving yardage total, and you had to take one of them to win a game with your life at stake, which would you be taking?

Bayesian inference is all about updating our priors based on new information. If you're asking me who the best ________ in the NFL is right now, I'm absolutely taking past performance into account. Aaron Rodgers is always one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, regardless of what his numbers are right now. Bill Belichick is probably always the best coach in the NFL, regardless of what New England's record is, or of how much some other guy has outperformed expectations.

Similarly, Jerry Rice was probably always the best WR in the NFL through his entire prime, regardless of who led the league in receiving. (With a possible nod to Sterling Sharpe.) And Jim Brown wasn't a worse RB in 1962 than Jim Taylor just because Jim Taylor happened to rush for more yards that year.

Now, of course, it's tricky. I'm not saying Jim Brown should have been the 1st team AP All Pro in 1962, even though he was probably still the best RB. Taylor had nearly *50%* more rushing yards. That matters. Postseason honors should go to who performed better that year, and in 1962 it wasn't even close, Jim Taylor clearly performed better, (even if he probably wasn't the best RB in the world, overall).

But when things *are* close, I can easily see letting things like prior track record sway your opinion; moreover, I think that's a perfectly reasonable and acceptable process. And I can also see someone thinking after 15 games that Carter's 9 extra receptions and 4 extra TDs on a better team were pretty close to Bruce's 279 yards on a bad team that threw all the time.

Isaac Bruce had 39/550/3 while his team was down by 2+ scores in 1995. Cris Carter had 19/189/3. I doubt any voters thought about it specifically, but I'm sure there was a general impression that Isaac Bruce was racking up more statistics that just didn't matter, feasting on garbage time. Whether that's fair or not, we see it a lot, with players who have huge stats on terrible teams seeing their accomplishments minimized.

I've already said that I think Bruce was better than Carter in 1995. But I can see voters saying "well, Bruce had better numbers than Carter, but I still think that Carter was the better WR this year, anyway", especially after 15 games. Carter was the reigning 1st-team AP All Pro and the guy who had just set the single-season receptions record. Anecdotally, I think voters were placing a much heavier emphasis on receptions in the early '90s than they are today, simply because they'd never seen numbers like that before in the statistic.

Numbers are not a perfect reflection of performance, and they're an even more imperfect reflection of talent. If the NFL really wanted to just give all of its postseason honors to the guy who finished with the best statistics, they should rename it the Stat Line of the Year award. The statistics should be of primary performance, (especially when adjusted for context), but statistics only matter as a proxy for general performance. And like I said, when things are close, I think it's pretty reasonable to err on the side of the known quantity.

Again, you are arguing something different. I'm not discussing who the best player was, but which player performed the best in the seasons under comparison. Apples and oranges.

In your latest examples here, Belichick would clearly be the better coach, but, absent any other information, it is almost certain that Bradley did a better job coaching his team in the single season in question. Ditto your other examples.

You don't need to explain reasons to me why voters do silly things like awarding someone based on past reputation, media hype, East Coast bias, etc. when someone else is deserving. It is reality, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The example is too absurd and inapplicable to have merit IMO. There are multiple counterpoints:

1. Irvin played with a HOF QB who is known as one of the most accurate passers of all time. It is very likely that Irvin didn't have to get as open as Bruce did to receive targets (and quality targets at that).

2. Bruce was likely double covered more often, which prevented him from getting open more often. Irvin played with two players in 1995 -- Smith and Novacek -- who were better than any offensive player Bruce played with in 1995, so Dallas had other threats that were of more relative concern to the opposing defense.

Yes, the example was absurd. Hence "reductio ad absurdum".

I wasn't arguing Irvin vs. Bruce with the example. I was specifically arguing that the number of passes a team throws matters when discussing a WR's numbers, even above and beyond the number of targets he received. And I illustrated that point with an extreme edge case. (Having proven the concept, I was then going to apply it to Bruce vs. Irvin.)

A player who gains X yards on a team that throws fewer passes, all else being equal, had a better season than a player who gains X yards on a team that throws more passes. Even if both players had the same number of targets.

I also think it is fairly ridiculous to compare Bruce to Boston, Crowell, and Jeffers. Bruce is going to the HOF, which illustrates that his 1995 season was not just a fluke. He sustained HOF performance for many years.

I would bet against it.

at Bruce's 1995 season being "random variance."

Not just Bruce's. Everyone's season in 1995 was the result of a particularly severe case of random variance. With the exception of Irving Fryar and Andre Rison, pretty much every decent WR in the league was either hurt, about to retire, or set career highs in 1995. Most of them never even came within shouting distance of that career high. How on earth do we explain this? Is it just the single most absurd coincidence in the 96-year history of the National Football League? Or was there some other sort of random variance at play?

Perhaps all of the good cornerbacks got hurt in 1995, or perhaps the officials had a "point of emphasis" like they did in 2004. It probably wasn't a result of rule changes- the only significant one was permitting QBs to have a communication device in their helmets, but that wouldn't explain why all the numbers came crashing down to earth again in 1996.

But again, there have only been four seasons in history where a WR had 1500 YFS and failed to make the pro bowl. One of them was 2011 Victor Cruz, who wasn't even on the ballot. (New York opted to submit Mario Manningham's name over his.) All three of the others came in 1995, when the NFC had *SIX* receivers top 1500 yards from scrimmage.

Prior to 1995, there had only been ten 1500-yard seasons from a WR in the history of the NFL and AFL... and Jerry Rice had five of them. So from 1920 to 1994, there were five receivers not named Jerry Rice to top 1500 yards. And in 1995, there were five receivers not named Jerry Rice to top 1500 yards. And Isaac Bruce was one of them. And here you are laughing at the idea that there was some crazy "random variance" at play.

If you are really searching for a reason why Bruce's 1995 (and 1996, when he led the league in receiving yards) performance was so great, consider that Mike Martz was the Rams WR coach in 1995-96. By the time Martz returned to the Rams in 1999, they had more weapons, notably likely HOFer Holt and HOFer Faulk, and it was no longer necessary for him to focus on Bruce to the same extent. He had 199 targets in 1995 and never had more than 150 in any other season. IMO 1995 showed what Bruce was capable of when put in system and situation that maximized his talent AND opportunity, but he never played in a system again that gave him that level of opportunity, but that had more to do with other outstanding offensive talent around him than with any other factor.

Who knows what Bruce's stats would have looked like if he remained in a Smith-like situation for a decade rather than playing with Holt, Faulk, et al.? He would have gotten more opportunity, and he already proved he could excel when given such opportunity. When he needed to, he carried his team's passing game. But that is speculation, and it doesn't really matter. But I don't agree with what you seem to imply about his "true level of play."

I don't need a reason to explain why Bruce's 1996 was so great. I already brought that up as, in my opinion, his best season and the one most similar to Smith's 2005. Partly because he did it on a low-volume passing offense. (As I mentioned, Bruce and Smith are the only two receivers in the 16-game era to lead the NFL in receiving on a team that ranked in the bottom 5 in pass attempts). Partly because in 1996, the entire NFL wasn't putting up super-suspicious Madden numbers, (as evidenced by the fact that Bruce was able to lead the NFL with just 1338 yards).

Also, I'm pretty sure I know what Bruce's stats would have looked like if he'd remained in a Smith-like situation. You said that Bruce never had more than 150 targets after 1995. You know who else never had more than 150 targets? Steve Smith. The idea that Bruce's one year as a super-high-volume target on an offense that ranked in the top 5 in pass attempts was the closest analogue to Steve Smith, who played his entire Carolina career on the team with the fewest pass attempts in the NFL, is a bit weird to me.

Isaac Bruce 1996 - 2004: 133.8 targets per 16 games.

Steve Smith 2003 - 2013: 138.8 targets per 16 games.

The question isn't "what could Bruce have done in a situation like Smith's?", it's "what could Smith have done in a situation like Bruce's in 1995?"

Of course I understand and agree with era adjustment. I'm just not aware of any significant era adjustment that needs to be made between 1995 and 2005. If you have something more than OMG, several WRs had career years! I'm open to seeing it. Of course, this pertains to the original Smith-Bruce peak season comparison, but not to the 1995 peer comparison.

With regard to 1995 vs. 2005, I'm interested to know if WR1 production was up across the league, if there were any rule changes/emphasis that could explain the surge, was team passing completions, yardage, and TDs up across the league, etc. If so, by how much, and was it non-trivial? If not, or if the delta was trivial, then this could simply be several players -- mostly HOF players -- in their prime staying healthy and playing in schedules/situations that supported career years. Occam's Razor applies in the absence of any supporting evidence that would show a real era difference.

It's not "OMG, several WRs had career years". It's "OMG, every WR in the NFL had a career year". Come up with a list of every halfway decent WR whose prime covered 1995, and I bet you 2/3s of them had the best season of their career in 1995. Maybe 3/4s.

I keep mentioning 1500 yard seasons. Here's a year-by-year breakdown of how many there were since the 16-game era kicked off, (up until 2011, which is when the passing game really started taking off like a rocket).

1978: 0

1979: 0

1980: 0

1981: 0

1982: 0

1983: 0

1984: 1

1985: 0

1986: 1

1987: 0

1988: 0

1989: 1

1990: 1

1991: 1

1992: 0

1993: 1

1994: 1

1995: 6

1996: 0

1997: 1

1998: 0

1999: 2

2000: 2

2001: 2

2002: 1

2003: 2

2004: 0

2005: 1

2006: 0

2007: 1

2008: 1

2009: 1

2010: 0

Here's receiving yards by the 10th-leading receiver:

1978: 852

1979: 1013
1980: 991
1981: 1098
1983: 1133
1984: 1138
1985: 1027
1986: 1070
1988: 1066
1989: 1186
1990: 1008
1991: 1053
1992: 914
1993: 995
1994: 1174
1995: 1301
1996: 1163
1997: 1164
1998: 1131
1999: 1183
2000: 1317
2001: 1199
2002: 1264
2003: 1137
2004: 1208
2005: 1146
2006: 1166
2007: 1189
2008: 1145
2009: 1167
2010: 1115

 

[BigSteelThrill]

SSOG be ssoging.

 

[CalBear]

I think there's an important point you're missing, SSOG, which is that the receiver on the 100 passes/400 rushes team isn't the only option. In fact, he's an option on only 20% of the plays. Defenses are keying to stop the run, as they did against the Emmitt Smith Dallas teams, and like Michael Irvin, the leading receiver will be the beneficiary of that focus. For the Rams offense, especially before Faulk showed up, teams were defending the pass before the rush. The Rams' leading rusher in 1995 was Jerome Bettis with 637 yards and 3 TDs.

Actually looking at the stats for that season makes Bruce's year seem even more incredible. He had two bad QBs throwing (Chris MIller and an old Mark Rypien), neither of whom cracked 60% on completions or 6.7 YPA, yet Bruce averaged 15.0 yards per reception. With no one else on the field; no rushing threat (Bettis averaged 3.5 yards per carry) and no other receiver over 500 yards. That season is at least as good by your own metrics of team contribution than anything that Steve Smith did, including 2005. Deshaun Foster rushed for 879 yards at 4.3 YPC for the Panthers that year, and Jake Delhomme made the Pro Bowl at 7.9 YPA.

 

[Tau837]

I think there's an important point you're missing, SSOG, which is that the receiver on the 100 passes/400 rushes team isn't the only option. In fact, he's an option on only 20% of the plays. Defenses are keying to stop the run, as they did against the Emmitt Smith Dallas teams, and like Michael Irvin, the leading receiver will be the beneficiary of that focus. For the Rams offense, especially before Faulk showed up, teams were defending the pass before the rush. The Rams' leading rusher in 1995 was Jerome Bettis with 637 yards and 3 TDs.

Actually looking at the stats for that season makes Bruce's year seem even more incredible. He had two bad QBs throwing (Chris MIller and an old Mark Rypien), neither of whom cracked 60% on completions or 6.7 YPA, yet Bruce averaged 15.0 yards per reception. With no one else on the field; no rushing threat (Bettis averaged 3.5 yards per carry) and no other receiver over 500 yards. That season is at least as good by your own metrics of team contribution than anything that Steve Smith did, including 2005. Deshaun Foster rushed for 879 yards at 4.3 YPC for the Panthers that year, and Jake Delhomme made the Pro Bowl at 7.9 YPA.

 

[Tau837]

I also think it is fairly ridiculous to compare Bruce to Boston, Crowell, and Jeffers. Bruce is going to the HOF, which illustrates that his 1995 season was not just a fluke. He sustained HOF performance for many years.

I would bet against it.

I assume you are saying you would bet against Bruce making the HOF. IMO he is a heavy favorite to make it, surprised you would disagree, whether or not you think Smith is more deserving.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I think there's an important point you're missing, SSOG, which is that the receiver on the 100 passes/400 rushes team isn't the only option. In fact, he's an option on only 20% of the plays. Defenses are keying to stop the run, as they did against the Emmitt Smith Dallas teams, and like Michael Irvin, the leading receiver will be the beneficiary of that focus. For the Rams offense, especially before Faulk showed up, teams were defending the pass before the rush. The Rams' leading rusher in 1995 was Jerome Bettis with 637 yards and 3 TDs.

Actually looking at the stats for that season makes Bruce's year seem even more incredible. He had two bad QBs throwing (Chris MIller and an old Mark Rypien), neither of whom cracked 60% on completions or 6.7 YPA, yet Bruce averaged 15.0 yards per reception. With no one else on the field; no rushing threat (Bettis averaged 3.5 yards per carry) and no other receiver over 500 yards. That season is at least as good by your own metrics of team contribution than anything that Steve Smith did, including 2005. Deshaun Foster rushed for 879 yards at 4.3 YPC for the Panthers that year, and Jake Delhomme made the Pro Bowl at 7.9 YPA.

I have a lot of thoughts on the "running game opens up the passing game" theory, but nothing really conclusive. For starters, I've seen a study that found that the effectiveness of play action is not dependent on the effectiveness of the run to that point of the game. Which casts shade on the idea that teams are more likely to sell out against the specific threat of an individual great RB than they would be to sell out against the threat of the run in general, regardless of talent.

Then there's a question of legitimately how many resources a defense would really devote to stopping the run. I'm sure the run-heavy team would face 8-in-the-box on every snap. They might even face 9-in-the-box most of the time. But 9-in-the-box still leaves the receiver double-covered. And a defense would be extremely unlikely to commit to 10-in-the-box; if nothing else, they'd want to keep a safety deep to guard against a run that hit the second level *as well as* the threat of a pass.

Regardless, even if the running game takes away some of the defensive coverage, (and I think that's a very plausible idea), it doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't take away as much of the defensive coverage as having other prolific receiving weapons on the field does. And I've seen studies that demonstrate that. (I'll link to one in particular later in my post). When a team's pass attempts go up from year N to year N+1, its WR's numbers tend to go up, too. That's not really a very counterintuitive finding.

As for whether Bruce's 1995 is as good by "my metrics" as anything Smith did... I'm not so sure. I don't really have "my metrics", but I do like some of Chase's metrics. One that he uses that I like is Adjusted Catch Yards per Team Pass Attempt, which is receiving yards, +20 points for every touchdown, +9 points for every first down, (not counting the touchdowns), divided by total team pass attempts.

Isaac Bruce had 1781 yards, 13 TDs, and 69 other first downs in 1995. That's good for 2662 Adjusted Catch Yards, which is a truly prodigious total. St. Louis had 632 pass attempts, which results in an ACY/TmAtt of 4.21. That's a very big total. Last year, Antonio Brown had the top mark in the league with 4.07. (This year, he's somewhere around 4.4, iirc.)

Is it at least as good as anything Steve Smith did? Well... no. In 2005, Steve Smith had 5.18 ACY/TmAtt. That wasn't even his best season, though; in 2008, Steve Smith had 5.71 ACY/TmAtt! Smith had 1421 yards, 6 touchdowns, and 52 other first downs, good for 2009 ACY. In those 14 games, however, Carolina attempted just 352 passes.

ACY/TmAtt has the advantage of being quick to calculate, (provided the receiver didn't miss any time). But it overrates receivers on low-volume offenses. Luckily, Chase has other, more in-depth metrics that help account for that.

Here's a post on Football Perspective that Chase did with Neil Paine, (now with FiveThirtyEight), about "True Receiving Yards", or TRY. TRY uses the same era-adjusting that I've been advocating for. It starts with a modified Adjusted Catch Yards (receiving yards + 20 * TDs + 5 * reception; receptions are used because we only have first down data back to the early '90s), and then re-scales it so the numbers are in line with regular receiving yards. Then it adjusts this ACY based on team pass attempts (it multiplies by the league average pass attempts and then divides by the team's pass attempts). It then, crucially, performs the era-adjustment I've been clamoring for, adjusting based on the total league-wide receiving yards per game averages.

The initial TRY just straight divided by team pass attempts, which suggests that a player who played on a team that passed twice as often should have twice as many yards. As I said, that's not the case; stats like this will overrate players on low-volume offenses, because the rate of increase is not 1:1.

But Chase and Neil researched exactly how much, historically, a receiver's numbers have gone up as his team passed more. And they found that the ratio, historically, was 50%- if a team's pass attempts increased by 10%, you should expect the receiver's numbers to go up 5%. If a team's pass attempts decline by 20%, you should expect the receiver's numbers to decline by 10%.

This led to a new-and-improved TRY that included a half-strength adjustment for team pass attempts. Under the new TRY, Steve Smith's 2005 season ranks as the 3rd-best since 1970. Isaac Bruce's 1995 ranks 19th. (Bruce also checks in as the 4th-best WR of 1995 again, behind Rice, Irvin, and Moore.) The improved TRY is the closest thing I've seen yet to a truly comprehensive, era-adjusted statistic for a WR.

It doesn't adjust for context, (Bruce's quarterback play was definitely worse than Smith's). And it also doesn't adjust for Smith's missed games in 2008, (it treats him as if he played those two extra games and just didn't record any statistics). But by and large, it's going to be the best "all-inclusive" stat out there. And it gives a formidable edge to Smith's best year.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Another stat that is favorable to Bruce: everyone talks about how terrible his teammates were, and they really were. St. Louis quarterbacks averaged 8.95 yards per target on throws to Bruce. They averaged 5.82 yards per target on throws to everyone else. That's a delta of 3.13 yards per target. Over 199 targets, it could be said that Isaac Bruce got 622.8 "extra" yards for the Rams, (vs. what his teammates would be expected to do with those 199 targets).

That does, indeed, compare favorably to anything Steve Smith ever did. Chase only ran numbers back to 1999, but Bruce's 623 yards would rank 4th over that span. In 2005, Steve Smith gained 599 "extra" yards, which ranked 6th. So this stat, at least, says the two seasons were very close with a slight edge to Bruce. (Of course, 2008 Steve Smith gained 576 "extra" yards in just 14 games, which would be on pace for 658 over a full 16 games. Which reinforces that no matter how you slice it, Smith has two years as good as Bruce's best one.)

The nice thing about this stat is it automatically adjusts for the quality of the quarterback and running game, since all of the receivers on the team are playing with the exact same quarterback against defenses that are focusing exactly the same amount on the running game. The drawback is it doesn't adjust for quality of supporting cast. A receiver who plays with great teammates is going to be hurt in this metric.

Thankfully, that's not a problem for Isaac Bruce 1995 or Steve Smith 2005 (/2008). St. Louis' next five options were Troy Drayton, Johnny Bailey, Todd Kinchen, Jessie Hester, and Alexander Wright. Carolina's next five options in 2005 were Keary Colbert, a 37-year-old Ricky Proehl, DeShaun Foster, Kris Mangum, and Brad Hoover. Smith's might have been a smidgeon better, but if anything, that hurts him in this statistic since it's harder for him to outshine them by as big of a margin.

In 2008, Carolina's next five options were Muhsin Muhammad, Jeff King, Dante Rosario, DeAngelo Williams, and D.J. Hackett. Muhammad was actually pretty good in 2008, (65/923/5 on 107 targets), which as I mentioned only makes Smith's ability to outshine his teammates that much more impressive.

Anyway, just wanted to throw that stat out there lest anyone accuse me of simply cherrypicking ones designed to make Smiff look good or Bruce look bad.

 

[ZWK]

Edit: I cross-posted with Adam's last post, and wound up posting the exact same stat. But we somehow got different numbers for it.

I think there's an important point you're missing, SSOG, which is that the receiver on the 100 passes/400 rushes team isn't the only option. In fact, he's an option on only 20% of the plays. Defenses are keying to stop the run, as they did against the Emmitt Smith Dallas teams, and like Michael Irvin, the leading receiver will be the beneficiary of that focus. For the Rams offense, especially before Faulk showed up, teams were defending the pass before the rush. The Rams' leading rusher in 1995 was Jerome Bettis with 637 yards and 3 TDs.

Actually looking at the stats for that season makes Bruce's year seem even more incredible. He had two bad QBs throwing (Chris MIller and an old Mark Rypien), neither of whom cracked 60% on completions or 6.7 YPA, yet Bruce averaged 15.0 yards per reception. With no one else on the field; no rushing threat (Bettis averaged 3.5 yards per carry) and no other receiver over 500 yards. That season is at least as good by your own metrics of team contribution than anything that Steve Smith did, including 2005. Deshaun Foster rushed for 879 yards at 4.3 YPC for the Panthers that year, and Jake Delhomme made the Pro Bowl at 7.9 YPA.

I have a lot of thoughts on the "running game opens up the passing game" theory, but nothing really conclusive. For starters, I've seen a study that found that the effectiveness of play action is not dependent on the effectiveness of the run to that point of the game. Which casts shade on the idea that teams are more likely to sell out against the specific threat of an individual great RB than they would be to sell out against the threat of the run in general, regardless of talent.

Then there's a question of legitimately how many resources a defense would really devote to stopping the run. I'm sure the run-heavy team would face 8-in-the-box on every snap. They might even face 9-in-the-box most of the time. But 9-in-the-box still leaves the receiver double-covered. And a defense would be extremely unlikely to commit to 10-in-the-box; if nothing else, they'd want to keep a safety deep to guard against a run that hit the second level *as well as* the threat of a pass.

Regardless, even if the running game takes away some of the defensive coverage, (and I think that's a very plausible idea), it doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't take away as much of the defensive coverage as having other prolific receiving weapons on the field does. And I've seen studies that demonstrate that. (I'll link to one in particular later in my post). When a team's pass attempts go up from year N to year N+1, its WR's numbers tend to go up, too. That's not really a very counterintuitive finding.

As for whether Bruce's 1995 is as good by "my metrics" as anything Smith did... I'm not so sure. I don't really have "my metrics", but I do like some of Chase's metrics. One that he uses that I like is Adjusted Catch Yards per Team Pass Attempt, which is receiving yards, +20 points for every touchdown, +9 points for every first down, (not counting the touchdowns), divided by total team pass attempts.

Isaac Bruce had 1781 yards, 13 TDs, and 69 other first downs in 1995. That's good for 2662 Adjusted Catch Yards, which is a truly prodigious total. St. Louis had 632 pass attempts, which results in an ACY/TmAtt of 4.21. That's a very big total. Last year, Antonio Brown had the top mark in the league with 4.07. (This year, he's somewhere around 4.4, iirc.)

Is it at least as good as anything Steve Smith did? Well... no. In 2005, Steve Smith had 5.18 ACY/TmAtt. That wasn't even his best season, though; in 2008, Steve Smith had 5.71 ACY/TmAtt! Smith had 1421 yards, 6 touchdowns, and 52 other first downs, good for 2009 ACY. In those 14 games, however, Carolina attempted just 352 passes.

ACY/TmAtt has the advantage of being quick to calculate, (provided the receiver didn't miss any time). But it overrates receivers on low-volume offenses. Luckily, Chase has other, more in-depth metrics that help account for that.

Here's a post on Football Perspective that Chase did with Neil Paine, (now with FiveThirtyEight), about "True Receiving Yards", or TRY. TRY uses the same era-adjusting that I've been advocating for. It starts with a modified Adjusted Catch Yards (receiving yards + 20 * TDs + 5 * reception; receptions are used because we only have first down data back to the early '90s), and then re-scales it so the numbers are in line with regular receiving yards. Then it adjusts this ACY based on team pass attempts (it multiplies by the league average pass attempts and then divides by the team's pass attempts). It then, crucially, performs the era-adjustment I've been clamoring for, adjusting based on the total league-wide receiving yards per game averages.

The initial TRY just straight divided by team pass attempts, which suggests that a player who played on a team that passed twice as often should have twice as many yards. As I said, that's not the case; stats like this will overrate players on low-volume offenses, because the rate of increase is not 1:1.

But Chase and Neil researched exactly how much, historically, a receiver's numbers have gone up as his team passed more. And they found that the ratio, historically, was 50%- if a team's pass attempts increased by 10%, you should expect the receiver's numbers to go up 5%. If a team's pass attempts decline by 20%, you should expect the receiver's numbers to decline by 10%.

This led to a new-and-improved TRY that included a half-strength adjustment for team pass attempts. Under the new TRY, Steve Smith's 2005 season ranks as the 3rd-best since 1970. Isaac Bruce's 1995 ranks 19th. (Bruce also checks in as the 4th-best WR of 1995 again, behind Rice, Irvin, and Moore.) The improved TRY is the closest thing I've seen yet to a truly comprehensive, era-adjusted statistic for a WR.

It doesn't adjust for context, (Bruce's quarterback play was definitely worse than Smith's). And it also doesn't adjust for Smith's missed games in 2008, (it treats him as if he played those two extra games and just didn't record any statistics). But by and large, it's going to be the best "all-inclusive" stat out there. And it gives a formidable edge to Smith's best year.

Chase has come up with a WR stat which does adjust for the quality of the team's passing offense (when throwing elsewhere). It's similar to the stat that I call Yards Over Team Replacement when I look at the college stats of NFL prospects. Chase's post on it is titled Yards per Target Relative to Teammates. It only goes back to 1999, and he hasn't followed up on it, but I believe Bruce's 1995 would rank fourth on that list and ahead of Smith's 2005.

In 1995, Bruce gained 1781 yards on 199 attempts and St. Louis passed for 4113 yards on 632 attempts. That means that the Rams averaged 8.95 YPA when throwing to Bruce and 5.39 YPA when throwing elsewhere, a 3.56 YPA gap. Multiply that by 199 targets to Bruce, and that is 709 yards of value that Bruce gained above what would've been expected from passes to his teammates.

The top of the leaderboard for 1999-2013:

816 Josh Gordon 2013
764 Santana Moss 2005
756 Calvin Johnson 2012

(709 Isaac Bruce 1995)
627 Calvin Johnson 2011
608 Jimmy Smith 1999
599 Steve Smith 2005

I expect that this stat goes too far in adjusting for the rest of the passing offense, but that TRY could be further improved by partially adjusting in this direction.

 

[Adam Harstad]

*snip*

Hah, check the post right before yours. I'm afraid I snuck it in while you weren't looking, GB.

For those wondering about the discrepancy in my calculations vs. ZWK's, it's just a problem with the data and unfortunately there's nothing to do for it. PFR lists St. Louis with 632 pass attempts in 1995, but when you tally all of the targets assigned to individual players, they only add up to 600. We know for sure that they passed for 2332 yards to people not named "Isaac Bruce", but the question is whether they did so on 401 attempts, (using the 600 targets figure), or on 433 attempts (using the 632 total attempts figure). The former figure gives you 5.81 yards per target for Bruce's teammates, while the latter gives you 5.39.

I think the 600-target figure is the one that should be used, honestly. We know that there are 32 targets that are unaccounted for, but we don't know where they went. Were they spikes? If so, it's unfair to hold them against Bruce's teammates and not against Bruce. Were they just errors in the play-by-play, pass attempts that didn't get assigned properly? If so, we can't know for sure if they should have been assigned to Bruce's teammates, or assigned to Bruce. (I'd venture if this was the case that roughly a third of them should belong to Bruce, proportional to his involvement in the rest of the passing game.)

PFR tells us that Bruce gained 1781 yards on 199 targets and his teammates gained 2332 yards on 401 targets, so those are the numbers I use. I choose to just ignore the unaccounted-for 32 targets, lacking a truly satisfying way to incorporate them. (Aside: other sources also disagree on target totals. Football Outsiders, for instance, has Bruce with 198 targets. Inconsistencies like these are likely a part of the reason Chase hasn't extended the data back beyond 1999.)

 

[ZWK]

*snip*

Hah, check the post right before yours. I'm afraid I snuck it in while you weren't looking, GB.

For those wondering about the discrepancy in my calculations vs. ZWK's, it's just a problem with the data and unfortunately there's nothing to do for it. PFR lists St. Louis with 632 pass attempts in 1995, but when you tally all of the targets assigned to individual players, they only add up to 600. We know for sure that they passed for 2332 yards to people not named "Isaac Bruce", but the question is whether they did so on 401 attempts, (using the 600 targets figure), or on 433 attempts (using the 632 total attempts figure). The former figure gives you 5.81 yards per target for Bruce's teammates, while the latter gives you 5.39.

I think the 600-target figure is the one that should be used, honestly. We know that there are 32 targets that are unaccounted for, but we don't know where they went. Were they spikes? If so, it's unfair to hold them against Bruce's teammates and not against Bruce. Were they just errors in the play-by-play, pass attempts that didn't get assigned properly? If so, we can't know for sure if they should have been assigned to Bruce's teammates, or assigned to Bruce. (I'd venture if this was the case that roughly a third of them should belong to Bruce, proportional to his involvement in the rest of the passing game.)

PFR tells us that Bruce gained 1781 yards on 199 targets and his teammates gained 2332 yards on 401 targets, so those are the numbers I use. I choose to just ignore the unaccounted-for 32 targets, lacking a truly satisfying way to incorporate them. (Aside: other sources also disagree on target totals. Football Outsiders, for instance, has Bruce with 198 targets. Inconsistencies like these are likely a part of the reason Chase hasn't extended the data back beyond 1999.)

Heh.

It looks like Chase used the QB number for other seasons. Cleveland 2013 has 681 QB pass attempts and only 670 receiver targets, and Chase calculates Gordon's numbers using 681 pass attempts. So the number that I gave for Bruce (709 "extra" yards) matches the method that Chase used to calculate the others.

Though the QB and receivers numbers are much closer together for Smith's 2005 and 2008, so I guess that there is also a pretty strong case that the receiver target method comes close to matching the method used to calculate Smith's numbers for those two years.

 

[Faust]

Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin: Steve Smith is a Hall of Famer

 

[moleculo]

on pace for 96 receptions and 1124 yards...at age 37.  By the end of the season, he should be 12th in career receptions and 6th in career yards.

 

[massraider]

on pace for 96 receptions and 1124 yards...at age 37.  By the end of the season, he should be 12th in career receptions and 6th in career yards.

Coming off blown Achilles.

Seriously, one of the pound for pound baddest dudes that has played.  

 

[Anarchy99]

on pace for 96 receptions and 1124 yards...at age 37.  By the end of the season, he should be 12th in career receptions and 6th in career yards.

I'm still not totally sold. His numbers this year are nice, but he's not in the Top 10 in any of those categories. 

The rankings of top receivers are going to turnover a lot in the next decade as guys start posting insane career totals. 

There will be no shortage of wide receivers with HOF resumes up for at least consideration. 

 

[shadyridr]

Not even a question in my mind that he's a hall of famer

 

[dipandglide]

Def hall of famer

 

[massraider]

I'm still not totally sold. His numbers this year are nice, but he's not in the Top 10 

What will every other WR in the league be doing when they are 37?

Not playing football.

Playing at a high level, still the alpha male on his team, he's ridiculous.

One thing I like about the Hall is that it isn't just career totals. This isn't baseball. And with the way the game is played now, all these career numbers mean less now.

 

[Chaka]

I'm still not totally sold. His numbers this year are nice, but he's not in the Top 10 in any of those categories. 

The rankings of top receivers are going to turnover a lot in the next decade as guys start posting insane career totals. 

There will be no shortage of wide receivers with HOF resumes up for at least consideration. 

I don't think that is relevant. Look at the list of HoF WRs being top 10 in any of those categories is not a prerequisite.

Exhibit A: Lynn Swann

 

[CalBear]

I don't think that is relevant. Look at the list of HoF WRs being top 10 in any of those categories is not a prerequisite.

Exhibit A: Lynn Swann

Pointing out the least-deserving WR in the Hall isn't an argument for an undeserving current WR to be in. Especially one who didn't win four Super Bowls and didn't play for PIttsburgh. Any more than pointing at Ray Guy and suggesting that all 32 current punters should be in above him (which is probably true).

But, I think Smith's got a pretty good shot. He just passed Andre Johnson for #1 in receiving yards among active WRs.

 

[Matt's Eagles]

Whats his value in dynasty right now? A 2017 mid 2nd rounder?

 

[Chaka]

Pointing out the least-deserving WR in the Hall isn't an argument for an undeserving current WR to be in. Especially one who didn't win four Super Bowls and didn't play for PIttsburgh. Any more than pointing at Ray Guy and suggesting that all 32 current punters should be in above him (which is probably true).

But, I think Smith's got a pretty good shot. He just passed Andre Johnson for #1 in receiving yards among active WRs.

So...what, Cal?  Every WR in the HoF was in the top 10 or whatever category when they were elected?

You can call Swann the least deserving out of one side of your mouth then call him (imply he is) special because by virtue of the fact he was on a 4x Super Bowl winner but does that really hold up to scrutiny?  Why isn't Steve Tasker or Don Bebee in the HoF?  They went to 4 Super Bowls?  Winners only? John Taylor and his 3 Super Bowl rings don't belong?  Alvin Harper?

You can talk about eras all you want but 37 catches, 602 yards and 5.67 TDs per year.  3 catches, 57 yards & .56 TD per game in the playoffs.  Are those HoF numbers in any era?  Hasn't Steve Smith done enough, in a team sport, in the playoffs to justify himself in that light?  7.8 catches, 91 yards, .82 TD/game in the playoffs (his regular season #s prior to this season are 64 catches, 929 yards & 5 TDs per year).  You telling me that discrepancy is purely because of era and should be entirely discounted? Look at Swann's contemporaries or those in earlier eras, do the numbers hold up?  Swann is in the HoF because of two catches (TWO!) and you're telling me that Steve Smith hasn't done enough, particularly in the playoffs (and the Super Bowl) to be worthy of that honor?   

No! Smith is a HoFer without question and a lot of other guys, beyond Swann, who are already in there don't deserve the honor in front of him.

 

[Chaka]

This really isn't about statistics, it's about the eyeball test and if Lynn Swann passes the eyeball test then Steve Smith makes your eyeballs explode if you try to look at him directly.

 

[Rodrigo Duterte]

Coming off blown Achilles.

Seriously, one of the pound for pound baddest dudes that has played.  

No ####.  Talk about a football player.  Stat hounds belong in the baseball forum.  Smith Sr. belongs in the Hall.

 

[CalBear]

So...what, Cal?  Every WR in the HoF was in the top 10 or whatever category when they were elected?

You can call Swann the least deserving out of one side of your mouth then call him (imply he is) special because by virtue of the fact he was on a 4x Super Bowl winner but does that really hold up to scrutiny?  Why isn't Steve Tasker or Don Bebee in the HoF?  They went to 4 Super Bowls?  Winners only? John Taylor and his 3 Super Bowl rings don't belong?  Alvin Harper?

You can talk about eras all you want but 37 catches, 602 yards and 5.67 TDs per year.  3 catches, 57 yards & .56 TD per game in the playoffs.  Are those HoF numbers in any era?  Hasn't Steve Smith done enough, in a team sport, in the playoffs to justify himself in that light?  7.8 catches, 91 yards, .82 TD/game in the playoffs (his regular season #s prior to this season are 64 catches, 929 yards & 5 TDs per year).  You telling me that discrepancy is purely because of era and should be entirely discounted? Look at Swann's contemporaries or those in earlier eras, do the numbers hold up?  Swann is in the HoF because of two catches (TWO!) and you're telling me that Steve Smith hasn't done enough, particularly in the playoffs (and the Super Bowl) to be worthy of that honor?   

No! Smith is a HoFer without question and a lot of other guys, beyond Swann, who are already in there don't deserve the honor in front of him.

I don't think Swann is special. I think having him in the Hall is an error. But you can't point to the biggest errors made by the Hall and say "well, Smith is better than that guy, so he should be in."

 

[Chaka]

I don't think Swann is special. I think having him in the Hall is an error. But you can't point to the biggest errors made by the Hall and say "well, Smith is better than that guy, so he should be in."

Why not?

And the larger point of where a player ranked in their positional statistics remains.  Does Smith have to be top 10 in yards-rec-tds etc to qualify for HoF consideration?

 

[CalBear]

Why not?

And the larger point of where a player ranked in their positional statistics remains.  Does Smith have to be top 10 in yards-rec-tds etc to qualify for HoF consideration?

Why not? Because the measure of the Hall isn't "who's better than the worst person in the Hall." We don't need 100 kickers in the Hall just because there are 100 kickers better than Jan Stenerud.

I don't think "career top 10" is a magical formula. Smith is hurt because he wasn't consistently excellent relative to his peers; only four top-10 receiving seasons, only two top-10 in TDs. Only one All-Pro as a receiver; only four Pro Bowls as a receiver. Only one really exceptional season; in fact, only one season with 10+ TDs. At least seven seasons with less than 1000 yards. No Super Bowl wins.

The things he has going for him are his reputation itself (which is a non-trivial factor), the fact that he performed well in the playoffs when given a chance (which wasn't that often), and the fact that he's still performing well at an advanced age. But he's pretty marginal considering the other receivers he'll be compared to. TO is still waiting. Moss will be in, Megatron goes in before him. Smith is more comparable to the Holt/Bruce/Wayne/Ward level of receiver. I'd put him in before Wayne but probably after Holt and Bruce. Among older actives, he's before A.Johnson and Boldin but after Fitzgerald. 

There's a lot of competition out there.

 

[Tau837]

Why not?

And the larger point of where a player ranked in their positional statistics remains.  Does Smith have to be top 10 in yards-rec-tds etc to qualify for HoF consideration?

Agree 100% with @CalBear. Each player worthy of HOF consideration should be judged on his own merits relative to his peers and relative to NFL history.

Using the logic that any player who is better than the worst HOF player at the same position puts the bar too low and results in compounding errors. If every WR who was more worthy than Swann was in the HOF, we'd have to double the number of WRs in the HOF. At least.

Each player worthy of HOF consideration should be judged against his peers and relative to NFL history on multiple criteria, including the following:

1. Statistics/production
   
2. Honors/awards
   
3. Winning, especially in postseason
   
4. Impact on the game (e.g., revolutionized position, inspired rule changes, etc.)
   
5. Compelling plays/moments
   

Unfortunately, some less useful criteria also typically come into play, such as:

1. Played for historically popular franchise(s)
   
2. Media popularity/coverage (e.g., East Coast bias)
   

Swann is in because he met #3 and #5 on the first list, both items on the second list, and was of good character. Smith meets #1 on the first list and #2 on the second list. Is it enough? As usual, it will come down to how he is ultimately judged against his peers, and how many of them will get in. There is a lot of competition at WR.

For reference, there are currently 25 "modern era" WRs in the HOF. Their careers span from 1946 to 2008, more than 60 years. It's not easy to get in.

 

[Tau837]

Why not? Because the measure of the Hall isn't "who's better than the worst person in the Hall." We don't need 100 kickers in the Hall just because there are 100 kickers better than Jan Stenerud.

I don't think "career top 10" is a magical formula. Smith is hurt because he wasn't consistently excellent relative to his peers; only four top-10 receiving seasons, only two top-10 in TDs. Only one All-Pro as a receiver; only four Pro Bowls as a receiver. Only one really exceptional season; in fact, only one season with 10+ TDs. At least seven seasons with less than 1000 yards. No Super Bowl wins.

The things he has going for him are his reputation itself (which is a non-trivial factor), the fact that he performed well in the playoffs when given a chance (which wasn't that often), and the fact that he's still performing well at an advanced age. But he's pretty marginal considering the other receivers he'll be compared to. TO is still waiting. Moss will be in, Megatron goes in before him. Smith is more comparable to the Holt/Bruce/Wayne/Ward level of receiver. I'd put him in before Wayne but probably after Holt and Bruce. Among older actives, he's before A.Johnson and Boldin but after Fitzgerald. 

There's a lot of competition out there.

 

[Hooper31]

I don't understand anyone vehemently arguing that Smith doesn't "deserve" HOF consideration. They're likely the same ones that will say Kenny Easley was a bad pick by the veterans committee. I'm actually considering a trip to Canton next year. Currently searching for advice about a Canton trip. 

I'm thankful that the guys that vote fully understand what "team game" means. Players that take responsibility for the entire team get special consideration. Players amount of passion for the game counts. Guys that lead are important in a team game. I can't think of another player that embodies the notion "hard as nails" more than him. Guys like Smith are always the first to get disrespected by the stat hounds. I'm talking about guys that also attribute things like wins and losses to individual players. Again, I'm thankful that the voters generally disregard the fans that are statistics biased. There is no statistic for passion and heart. The mass of voters that played the game get it. 

More specifically, CalBear mentioned "errors". You're directing that at the players in the HOF. Those guys have earned the highest levels of respect. I'm not saying they deserve it. I'm saying they've earned it. For you to call any individual player in the HOF an "error" is wrong IMO. You get to choose how you expend your time and energy. Perhaps take a moment and reflect on what you're doing here. Please be careful that you're not focused on calling a player an error. Maybe you have a problem with the voters, but I would hate to see you focus your attention on the life's work of one of these players. For example, Lynn Swann. He's lived a mountain of a life. One day when he passes the throngs of people that will line up to pay respect to a man that impacted their life will be enormous. Not just a great football player, but a great man. The level of respect that I'm hinting at has nothing to do with his statistics. If you don't appreciate that, well, you'll continue to be unhappy with the voting process. I for one and good with it. 

 

[Tau837]

I think Easley is deserving (and always was) and Smith isn't.

I think Smith has been a great player. All great players don't make it into the HOF, nor should they.

 

[CalBear]

I don't understand anyone vehemently arguing that Smith doesn't "deserve" HOF consideration. They're likely the same ones that will say Kenny Easley was a bad pick by the veterans committee. I'm actually considering a trip to Canton next year. Currently searching for advice about a Canton trip. 

I'm thankful that the guys that vote fully understand what "team game" means. Players that take responsibility for the entire team get special consideration. Players amount of passion for the game counts. Guys that lead are important in a team game. I can't think of another player that embodies the notion "hard as nails" more than him. Guys like Smith are always the first to get disrespected by the stat hounds. I'm talking about guys that also attribute things like wins and losses to individual players. Again, I'm thankful that the voters generally disregard the fans that are statistics biased. There is no statistic for passion and heart. The mass of voters that played the game get it. 

More specifically, CalBear mentioned "errors". You're directing that at the players in the HOF. Those guys have earned the highest levels of respect. I'm not saying they deserve it. I'm saying they've earned it. For you to call any individual player in the HOF an "error" is wrong IMO. You get to choose how you expend your time and energy. Perhaps take a moment and reflect on what you're doing here. Please be careful that you're not focused on calling a player an error. Maybe you have a problem with the voters, but I would hate to see you focus your attention on the life's work of one of these players. For example, Lynn Swann. He's lived a mountain of a life. One day when he passes the throngs of people that will line up to pay respect to a man that impacted their life will be enormous. Not just a great football player, but a great man. The level of respect that I'm hinting at has nothing to do with his statistics. If you don't appreciate that, well, you'll continue to be unhappy with the voting process. I for one and good with it. 

I am very specifically saying that being in the Hall of Fame doesn't necessarily mean that you've earned the highest level of respect. There are multiple people in the Hall who haven't earned it and don't deserve it, and Lynn Swann is one of them. He's in because he played for a great team, not because of his own accomplishments.

Selection to the Hall is a political process, and like all political processes, it's subject to corruption. 

 

[Hooper31]

I am very specifically saying that being in the Hall of Fame doesn't necessarily mean that you've earned the highest level of respect. There are multiple people in the Hall who haven't earned it and don't deserve it, and Lynn Swann is one of them. He's in because he played for a great team, not because of his own accomplishments.

Selection to the Hall is a political process, and like all political processes, it's subject to corruption. 

I disagree. I think you're wrong in several ways. I'm happy with the HOF as is and how they decide who gets in. I respect their process. Apparently you don't. I get that there's a line that separates who's in and who's not. We're not copies of each other so the boundary lines will necessitate disagreements. 

 

[Dedfin]

1000 receptions.  HOF?

 

[Tool]

Dude is unbelievable.  If you haven't seen the recent "A football Life" on NFL network, I definitely recommend it.

 

[Tool]

At 5'9" Steve Smith is first player in NFL History under 6'0" to get 1000 catches.

 

[Tau837]

At 5'9" Steve Smith is first player in NFL History under 6'0" to get 1000 catches.

That is a great trivia fact. 

 

[Phantom Knight]

The "little engine that could" gets my vote.

 

[Jayrod]

For sure HOF.  He was the best WR in the NFL for at least a couple of years, had a stellar returner career before that and has had a very long and productive career.  If he doesn't get in, I would be shocked.

 

[zamboni]

 If you haven't seen the recent "A football Life" on NFL network, I definitely recommend it.

Watched this over the weekend - very enjoyable. He's not the most likable guy, but you have to admire his tenacity and commitment.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

At 5'9" Steve Smith is first player in NFL History under 6'0" to get 1000 catches.

Great point, and one of the reasons why I love Smith. In the era of the rangy, huge-wingspanned, power-forward well-over-6-ft receivers, Smith was able to outhustle, outmuscle, and flat out just want the ball more than anyone else on the field.

Uphill battle for him and the Hall, but think he's worthy on heart alone.

 

[CalBear]

For sure HOF.  He was the best WR in the NFL for at least a couple of years, had a stellar returner career before that and has had a very long and productive career.  If he doesn't get in, I would be shocked.

He may have been the best WR in the NFL for one year, 2005. Other than that he's never had more than 8 TDs, never led the league in a receiving stat, and hasn't made All-Pro except as a returner (and then only once).

 

[Fariq]

Well, there are only two WR spots on the all-league team.