Steve Smith - when all is said and done, HoF? (2 Viewers)

[Anarchy99]

Not sure that I agree that Witten isn't a great HOF candidate. He's 30 years old and should become the second leading TE in career receiving yards by October. If he plays long enough he could surpass Gonzalez' totals.

 

[Fariq]

Smiff?

I thought the little cutesy nickname was Smif like the rap group that once had that word in their title.

For me, I like referring to Steve Smith as

Steve Smith.

 

[Ghost Rider]

if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.

WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.

Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.

Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.

I think a case could be made that Smith > Bruce.

Smith has 2 All-Pro selections, Bruce has 0. Smith has 5 pro-bowl appearances, Bruce had 4. Smith has been top 10 in receptions twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 just once. Smith was top 10 in yards 4x, leading league once. Bruce: same. smith was top 10 in receiving TD's twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 3x. Smith has 10 career post-season TD's (7 receiving), Bruce has 4. Smith has 782 career post-season receiving yards (and counting), Bruce has 759.

Bruce has more composite career stats, but he also had a 16 year career and played until he was 37. Smith is in year 13 at age 34, although it's likely he won't pass any of Bruces career numbers.

Bruce also has one of the greatest and biggest catches in the history of the Super Bowl on his resume (even if he was overshadowed by how the game ended minutes later).

Also, pro bowls are meaningless, especially when you consider that Bruce was snubbed for the pro bowl in a season in which, with Chris Miller as his QB, he had 119-1,781-13, which obliterates the best season Steve Smith has ever had.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Larry Fitzgerald needs 33 receptions next year to set the record through age 31. 81 receptions over the next two years will get him the record through age 32, pending what Jason Witten does.

Receptions are by far the weakest receiving stat, as the inclusion of Witten as competition here shows. Witten isn't even a great candidate for the HOF at TE, let alone at WR. Output stats (yardage and TDs) are more important than input stats, and TDs are more important than yardage. (Certainly in an NFL sense, and it seems in HOF voting as well).

Fitzgerald's receiving yardage and TD numbers are quite good, also, but not enough to make him a shoo-in for the first ballot at this point. And "best postseason WR in history" is a pretty rich claim for someone who's only been in six postseason games. He had a great run in 2008, up there with Rice's 1988 and 1989 but not really better than them. In 2009 he had one very good game and one OK game. When that's your entire postseason resume, you have a ways to go to speak to Mr. 151/2245/22.

To use an argument you often use elsewhere: Rice's 1988 and 1989, where in 6 games he had 40/726/11, are better by themselves than Fitzgerald's entire postseason career. Are you going to mark Rice down for "only" getting 14 receptions and 2 TDs in the Raiders' last Super Bowl run (at age 40)?

I think Witten is also a Hall of Famer, although the HoF actually hates tight ends even more than it hates receivers. It took Mike Ditka 16 years and a successful coaching career to make the Hall of Fame. Dave Casper had to wait 13 years. I think the Hall of Fame voters would be happier writing the position out of the history books entirely than electing another tight end.

If you prefer "output stats", we can go with those. Switching from receptions to yards drops Larry Fitzgerald from the #1 player at every age from 22 to 30, ahead of Randy Moss to... the #2 player at every age from 24 to 30, behind Randy Moss (he's also #3 through age 23 behind David Boston, and #3 through age 22 behind Josh Gordon). Fitzgerald needs just 497 yards next year to remain #2 in receiving yards through age 31. With 551 receiving yards a year over the next 5 years, Fitzgerald will rank 3rd in yards through age 35, behind Moss and Rice (785 a year will get him past Moss into #2 all time, but he'll need over 1000 yards a year to stay ahead of Rice).

Switching to receiving TDs, Fitzgerald shows up in the top 3 in receiving touchdowns almost every year of his career through age 30, behind Moss and Gronkowski early and behind Moss and Rice late. Basically, you can fill in any of the three major receiver statistics and any age from 22 to 30 into the following sentence, and it'll be true about 90% of the time: "Larry Fitzgerald ranks in the top 3 in NFL history in ____________s through age __."

Great points on Jerry Rice. I had forgotten just how absurd he was at his peak during the '88 and '89 postseasons. So like everything else WR-related, make a "non Jerry Rice division", and Fitzgerald deserves his place at or near the top of the heap. The next time Larry Fitzgerald has fewer than 6 receptions or 75 yards in a postseason game will be the first. The next time he's held out of the end zone will be the second. Yeah, the sample is microscopic, but isn't that what playoff mythology is all about? Huge conclusions drawn from microscopic samples? Unless you're Jerry Rice or Emmitt Smith, if you are a skill position player, odds are you don't have double-digit playoff games to your name.

If Larry Fitzgerald died tomorrow, I think he'd make the Hall of Fame eventually, but not on the first ballot. Give Larry Fitzgerald even 3-4 more disappointing seasons and I think he's a lock. That's not fair, that's not how the Hall of Fame SHOULD work, but it's how it does work.

Hell, Fitzgerald's already 12th all time in receiving TDs, and 4 more will get him into the top 10 (pending Antonio Gates making a bigger move). Even a few years worth of replacement-level production will go a long way towards padding Fitzgerald's standings on the all-time rankings.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Smiff?

I thought the little cutesy nickname was Smif like the rap group that once had that word in their title.

For me, I like referring to Steve Smith as

Steve Smith.

I like calling him Smiff. I forget how it started- I think it might have been a play on "smurf"- but I've been doing it for at least the better part of a decade now...

 

[spider321]

No. ...and I'm a Panthers fan.

 

[Tool]

Tough call at this point. I'd say it's an equally tough call as whether he gets inducted into the boxing hall of fame.

 

[JohnnyU]

Should he? No

Will he? No

Not enough in his body of work IMO and I never viewed him as a top tier WR compared to his peers. Plus, I've never liked him since he sucker punched his own teammate when his back was turned.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Adam, as big a fan as I am of Fitzgerald, and I think he is definitely a guy who has always been better than his numbers indicate, it is really fair to use the "receptions at the age of whatever" standard? I mean, catches and yards are at an all-time high with WRs, so him catching more balls at the age of 23 than guys did at the same age 20 years ago doesn't mean a whole lot, no? If anything, it makes him compare favorably to peers from his own generation.

 

[Alkahsu]

No one can celebrate a 6 yard catch for a 1st down like Steve Smith, I'll give him that.

 

[Adam Harstad]

if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.

WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.

Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.

Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.

I think a case could be made that Smith > Bruce.

Smith has 2 All-Pro selections, Bruce has 0. Smith has 5 pro-bowl appearances, Bruce had 4. Smith has been top 10 in receptions twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 just once. Smith was top 10 in yards 4x, leading league once. Bruce: same. smith was top 10 in receiving TD's twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 3x. Smith has 10 career post-season TD's (7 receiving), Bruce has 4. Smith has 782 career post-season receiving yards (and counting), Bruce has 759.

Bruce has more composite career stats, but he also had a 16 year career and played until he was 37. Smith is in year 13 at age 34, although it's likely he won't pass any of Bruces career numbers.

Bruce also has one of the greatest and biggest catches in the history of the Super Bowl on his resume (even if he was overshadowed by how the game ended minutes later).

Also, pro bowls are meaningless, especially when you consider that Bruce was snubbed for the pro bowl in a season in which, with Chris Miller as his QB, he had 119-1,781-13, which obliterates the best season Steve Smith has ever had.

The WRs who made the pro bowl over Bruce that year were Michael Irvin (111/1603/10), Cris Carter (122/1371/17), Jerry Rice (122/1848/15), and Herman Moore (123/1686/14). Hard to call it a snub.

Jerry Rice topped Bruce in all three stats, so clearly he deserved his spot. Moore had 100 fewer yards, but 4 more receptions and 1 more TD, so it was pretty close to a wash, and I'm sure Moore setting the new single-season receptions record weighed heavily in his favor. Irvin's stats weren't too far behind, but Irvin played for a 12-4 team that passed the ball 494 times (28th out of 30 teams), while Bruce played for a 7-9 team that threw the ball 632 times (4th in the league). With context, I think Irvin's season was clearly more impressive. As for Carter... Bruce was probably more deserving, but you have to remember the context of the day. In 1990, Jerry Rice and Hayward Jeffries had the 4th and 5th 100-reception seasons in NFL history. In 1992, Sterling Sharpe set a new receptions record with 108. In 1993, he broke it with 112. Then, in 1994, Carter smashed it with 122, a total he matched again in 1995 (though Moore would break it by 1 that year). Add in the fact that he led the league in TDs, and I can see why someone might have taken Carter over Bruce.

You also have to add in the fact that 15 of Bruce's receptions and 210 of his yards came in a meaningless-for-StL loss to Miami in week 17, which was after the pro bowl had already been decided. Carter, on the other hand, was ABSURD from weeks 10-14, posting 43/605/8 during that 5-week span, with four straight 2-TD games over the stretch, which is right when pro bowl ballots were being shipped out and cast.

So no, when you add it up, Isaac Bruce wasn't really a pro bowl "snub" in 1995, even if he did have one of the most ridiculous seasons of anyone to not make the pro bowl. Just like how LaDainian Tomlinson wasn't really a pro bowl "snub" in 2003 when he led the league in yards from scrimmage, caught 100 passes, and scored 17 TDs. It was just a brutally good season for players at his position in his conference that year- Priest Holmes set the TD record, Jamaal Lewis rushed for 2000 yards, and Clinton Portis matched him stat-for-stat (absent a late-season injury) for a much better team.

As an aside, I do think it's telling that Bruce never really came close to replicating his best season, despite playing for another 14 years. I also think it's telling that Bruce's best season just so happened to come in a year when every other WR in the NFL was putting up Madden numbers, just like Matt Stafford's 5,000 yard year just so happened to come in a year that saw 4 of the top 6 single-season passing yardage totals in NFL history. In other words, I don't really think it was a coincidence that Isaac Bruce's crazy season also happened to coincide with everyone else's crazy season, too.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Adam, as big a fan as I am of Fitzgerald, and I think he is definitely a guy who has always been better than his numbers indicate, it is really fair to use the "receptions at the age of whatever" standard? I mean, catches and yards are at an all-time high with WRs, so him catching more balls at the age of 23 than guys did at the same age 20 years ago doesn't mean a whole lot, no? If anything, it makes him compare favorably to peers from his own generation.

It wasn't really about "fair" or "not fair". Fair or not, a player's ranks on the all-time leaderboard are hugely important for HoF considerations, and Larry Fitzgerald is on the kind of pace that results in top-5 finishes across the board.

Personally, I think Fitzgerald's greatness has absolutely nothing to do with how many touchdowns John Jefferson scored through age 24 (36), or how many yards David Boston had through age 23 (3227). I just wanted to illustrate how ridiculous Larry Fitzgerald's production has been, even with his recent down years. I think Fitzgerald is going to sail into the Hall of Fame whenever he becomes eligible.

 

[NCCommish]

If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Those are all fair points, Adam, and it's a good demonstration of why it is pointless to bring up pro bowl berths when discussing someone's HOF worthiness, or comparing them to others.

Consider, say we wanted to compare players across positions, and someone wondered who was better, Isaac Bruce or Jerome Bettis? A Bettis supporter could say, "Bettis made the pro bowl six times, while Bruce only made it four times," which ignores the fact that Bruce didn't make it when he had that 1,700-yard plus season, as well as the fact that Bettis' last pro bowl year was when he was literally the 4th or 5th AFC alternate and only made it cause so many other RBs dropped out.

And even if Bruce was only the 5th best NFC WR that year, my main point still stands, which is that it still obliterates Steve Smith's best season.

 

[moleculo]

If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.

How many years do you think he has left?

 

[NCCommish]

If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.

How many years do you think he has left?

If we can get him into the slot 2-3 more probably.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Those are all fair points, Adam, and it's a good demonstration of why it is pointless to bring up pro bowl berths when discussing someone's HOF worthiness, or comparing them to others.

Consider, say we wanted to compare players across positions, and someone wondered who was better, Isaac Bruce or Jerome Bettis? A Bettis supporter could say, "Bettis made the pro bowl six times, while Bruce only made it four times," which ignores the fact that Bruce didn't make it when he had that 1,700-yard plus season, as well as the fact that Bettis' last pro bowl year was when he was literally the 4th or 5th AFC alternate and only made it cause so many other RBs dropped out.

And even if Bruce was only the 5th best NFC WR that year, my main point still stands, which is that it still obliterates Steve Smith's best season.

I don't think pro bowls are great at sorting out very fine levels of detail. If all I know is that one guy has 4 pro bowls and another at the same position has 5, I don't think that provides me enough detail where I can confidently state that one is better than the other. If one guy has 6 PBs and another has 2, though, the gap is big enough that it provides very useful information.

Also, PB berths can't and shouldn't be compared across different positions. Something that is a huge total at one position might be paltry at another.

Finally, I'd take Smiff's 2005 over Bruce's 1995 any day of the week, without question. You're completely ignoring the team pass attempts, which in my mind are a HUGE part of the equation. In 2005, Carolina was 28th in the NFL in pass attempts, with 449. If Carolina had thrown the ball 183 more times that year, what do you think the odds are that Smiff would have gotten 16 more receptions, 218 more yards, or 0 more touchdowns? Personally, I think they'd be pretty dang high.

In 1995, Isaac Bruce got 43.3% of St. Louis' passing yards. In 2005, Smiff got 44.8% of Carolina's passing yards. And while St. Louis threw the ball a ton, they weren't a very good passing offense- they ranked just 21st in NY/A. Carolina barely threw it, but when they did, they ranked 6th in NY/A. Steve Smith was a bigger part of a better passing game, even ignoring the wacky-numbers questions surrounding receivers in 1995 (again, see my Matt Stafford comparison- would you say that Matt Stafford's best season obliterates Brett Favre's?)

Edit: I wonder how many times the NFL's leading receiver has come from a team that was bottom 5 in pass attempts. I'd think that would be an incredibly rare accomplishment.

 

[CalBear]

Not sure that I agree that Witten isn't a great HOF candidate. He's 30 years old and should become the second leading TE in career receiving yards by October. If he plays long enough he could surpass Gonzalez' totals.

Gonzalez has more than twice as many TDs, and way more of an impact on his teams. How many years were there top WR options in KC? [None.] Witten is playing with two WRs who are better than anyone Gonzo played with prior to Atlanta.

And Witten will be swept up in the tide of other Gonzo-style WRs who are following. Gates is already way ahead in TDs and could catch him in yardage. If Witten plays 5+ more years, Vernon Davis will probably look like a stronger candidate, not to mention Gronkowski and Graham. Too pedestrian.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Not sure that I agree that Witten isn't a great HOF candidate. He's 30 years old and should become the second leading TE in career receiving yards by October. If he plays long enough he could surpass Gonzalez' totals.

Gonzalez has more than twice as many TDs, and way more of an impact on his teams. How many years were there top WR options in KC? [None.] Witten is playing with two WRs who are better than anyone Gonzo played with prior to Atlanta.

And Witten will be swept up in the tide of other Gonzo-style WRs who are following. Gates is already way ahead in TDs and could catch him in yardage. If Witten plays 5+ more years, Vernon Davis will probably look like a stronger candidate, not to mention Gronkowski and Graham. Too pedestrian.

I have to say, that "playing with better WRs" thing cuts both ways. One could argue that it was easy for Gonzo to put up huge numbers, because who else was there to throw to, while Witten's ability to consistently generate 80+ catch seasons despite sharing the field with Dez, Austin, and company is very impressive. Also, this ignores Witten's impact as a blocker.

I think Witten's a pretty easy HoFer. I do think Gates was better, but I think Gates is also an easy HoFer. I think Gronk and Graham will wind up being better, and if they do, they'll also be easy HoFers. I don't think Vernon Davis is anywhere near Witten's class as a Hall candidate.

 

[CalBear]

Not sure that I agree that Witten isn't a great HOF candidate. He's 30 years old and should become the second leading TE in career receiving yards by October. If he plays long enough he could surpass Gonzalez' totals.

Gonzalez has more than twice as many TDs, and way more of an impact on his teams. How many years were there top WR options in KC? [None.] Witten is playing with two WRs who are better than anyone Gonzo played with prior to Atlanta.

And Witten will be swept up in the tide of other Gonzo-style WRs who are following. Gates is already way ahead in TDs and could catch him in yardage. If Witten plays 5+ more years, Vernon Davis will probably look like a stronger candidate, not to mention Gronkowski and Graham. Too pedestrian.

I have to say, that "playing with better WRs" thing cuts both ways. One could argue that it was easy for Gonzo to put up huge numbers, because who else was there to throw to, while Witten's ability to consistently generate 80+ catch seasons despite sharing the field with Dez, Austin, and company is very impressive. Also, this ignores Witten's impact as a blocker.

I think Witten's a pretty easy HoFer. I do think Gates was better, but I think Gates is also an easy HoFer. I think Gronk and Graham will wind up being better, and if they do, they'll also be easy HoFers. I don't think Vernon Davis is anywhere near Witten's class as a Hall candidate.

Considering that Sharpe, who prior to Gonzo had virtually no competition at the TE position, took several years to get in, I don't think any TE other than Gonzo is an easy HoFer. With Gonzo a first-balloter, Gates a likely selection, and at least two more coming up from the new era, it's hard to see how Witten could squeeze in. There are only 8 TEs in the HOF from the first 53 years of the modern era; will there be 5 more in the next 15?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Not sure that I agree that Witten isn't a great HOF candidate. He's 30 years old and should become the second leading TE in career receiving yards by October. If he plays long enough he could surpass Gonzalez' totals.

Gonzalez has more than twice as many TDs, and way more of an impact on his teams. How many years were there top WR options in KC? [None.] Witten is playing with two WRs who are better than anyone Gonzo played with prior to Atlanta.

And Witten will be swept up in the tide of other Gonzo-style WRs who are following. Gates is already way ahead in TDs and could catch him in yardage. If Witten plays 5+ more years, Vernon Davis will probably look like a stronger candidate, not to mention Gronkowski and Graham. Too pedestrian.

I have to say, that "playing with better WRs" thing cuts both ways. One could argue that it was easy for Gonzo to put up huge numbers, because who else was there to throw to, while Witten's ability to consistently generate 80+ catch seasons despite sharing the field with Dez, Austin, and company is very impressive. Also, this ignores Witten's impact as a blocker.

I think Witten's a pretty easy HoFer. I do think Gates was better, but I think Gates is also an easy HoFer. I think Gronk and Graham will wind up being better, and if they do, they'll also be easy HoFers. I don't think Vernon Davis is anywhere near Witten's class as a Hall candidate.

Considering that Sharpe, who prior to Gonzo had virtually no competition at the TE position, took several years to get in, I don't think any TE other than Gonzo is an easy HoFer. With Gonzo a first-balloter, Gates a likely selection, and at least two more coming up from the new era, it's hard to see how Witten could squeeze in. There are only 8 TEs in the HOF from the first 53 years of the modern era; will there be 5 more in the next 15?

Oh, completely agreed- the Hall of Fame voters are absolute idiots when it comes to Tight Ends. I have no other explanation for why Mike Ditka and Dave Casper had to wait a dozen years for enshrinement, and Kellen Winslow and Shannon Sharpe had to wait at all. It's just insane. That's a definite "should/would" difference.

Let me rephrase then- Witten SHOULD be an easy Hall of Famer. Will he be? I have no freaking clue. I'm not even going to try to guess what the HoF is going to do when it comes to qualified tight ends.

 

[Hoss Style]

The Hall of Fame process is so muddled. It really stinks that numbers are used to keep obvious great players out. Sure, numbers sometimes can tell the story, but other times they can't.

Especially when eras cross and you have a guy up for election who was at the top the game 40 years ago and his numbers are being compared to a guy who played in recent history. It stinks.

Greatness is greatness. When you see it, and you know the sport well that you are watching, then you know it -even if it lasts for only 5 years. If the player made a impact in the game when he was in his prime I believe that should be looked at, as well, if not primarily.

I'll get off my soapbox now. It still stinks.

 

[Bri]

Witten isn't even a great candidate for the HOF at TE

This is off-base, cmon now.

TEs were not huge pass catchers in the league's early years so he's likely better than every TE before 1980.

After that, his stats compare decently with Todd and Shannon.

He's consistently been a top TE in his own era.

Probably averages 90 receptions.

A consistently good blocker

Attitude-was a payton award winner IIRC

What more could you want?

Your new obsession to discount catches- You "have to" appreciate a catch made in traffic versus a screen or other gimme type catches. Most catches by a TE in a season and in a game.

The guy holds up in current era, all-time, and you'd be pressed to find many TEs that are better than him in NFL history.

 

[Sweet Love]

It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?

I left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.

ETA: The Hall has a pretty big quandry when it comes to Ward. A guy from his same franchise, with a fraction of the numbers Ward has (Swann) is in the Hall. It will look a little odd in 15 years as people poor through the franchise stats to see Swann in there and Ward not. If Ward does get in, a tiny bit of that will be due to that fact.

 

[Fariq]

It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?

I left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.

ETA: The Hall has a pretty big quandry when it comes to Ward. A guy from his same franchise, with a fraction of the numbers Ward has (Swann) is in the Hall. It will look a little odd in 15 years as people poor through the franchise stats to see Swann in there and Ward not. If Ward does get in, a tiny bit of that will be due to that fact.

Ward actually made the top 10 all-time WR list in Sports Illustrated's 2012 coffee table book "Football's Greatest."1. Rice

2. Hutson

3. Moss

4. Alworth

5. Berry

6. Owens

7. Warfield

8. Carter

9. Harrison

10. Ward

I will be shocked if Witten does not make the Hall of Fame.

SI's top 10 TEs-

1. Mackey

2. Winslow

3. Gonzalez

4. Ditka

5. Sharpe

6. Newsome

7. Casper

8. Gates

9. Witten

10. Christensen

 

[Sweet Love]

It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?

Not an oversight.

Again, a distinction must be made when discussing whether a player *WILL* be a HoFer, and whether he *SHOULD* be a HoFer. I think Ward is easily one of the 10 most likely candidates to actually make the actual HoF from his era. As it concerns desert, I do not think that Ward should be one of the 10 receivers who would most merit induction.

I feel the same way about Jerome Bettis. He probably will get into the Hall of Fame, but if it were up to me, he'd never come close.

I'll also throw out there that I do not see much of a distinction between "should be" and "will be". All we can deal with are definitives, and in this case, it is likely slots that are available for a WR in their prime eligibility years. There is a reason a guy like Smith or Bruce or Holt will be on the bubble, and it is because there was a surge in stats due to the change of the game. But there are just four slots available. I actually dislike looking at stats for WRs at this point when it comes to the HOF, as 12 of the top 15 in yards (for example), all played at least one season in the 21st century (just 13 years ago).

 

[JaxBill]

Wait, are we talking Steve Smith (836/12197/67) or Jimmy Smith (862/12287/67)?

Either way, they're not getting a sniff. Well, unless Jimmy gets himself in trouble again.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?

Not an oversight.

Again, a distinction must be made when discussing whether a player *WILL* be a HoFer, and whether he *SHOULD* be a HoFer. I think Ward is easily one of the 10 most likely candidates to actually make the actual HoF from his era. As it concerns desert, I do not think that Ward should be one of the 10 receivers who would most merit induction.

I feel the same way about Jerome Bettis. He probably will get into the Hall of Fame, but if it were up to me, he'd never come close.

I'll also throw out there that I do not see much of a distinction between "should be" and "will be". All we can deal with are definitives, and in this case, it is likely slots that are available for a WR in their prime eligibility years. There is a reason a guy like Smith or Bruce or Holt will be on the bubble, and it is because there was a surge in stats due to the change of the game. But there are just four slots available. I actually dislike looking at stats for WRs at this point when it comes to the HOF, as 12 of the top 15 in yards (for example), all played at least one season in the 21st century (just 13 years ago).

There's a MASSIVE difference between "should be" and "will be" or "is". In no conceivable universe should Charlie Joiner be a Hall of Famer, and yet somehow he is. Floyd Little shouldn't have gotten the nod over several dozen more deserving Seniors candidates, and yet somehow he did. Jerome Bettis should never make the Hall of Fame before Terrell Davis, and yet somehow he will. Does anyone here think Tony Dungy was a significantly better coach than Bill Cowher? And yet the fact that he's a finalist in his first year of eligibility while Cowher's yet to make the cutdown says Dungy's far more likely to make the Hall. Was **** LeBeau a Hall of Famer looking strictly at his contributions as a player? He shouldn't have been, but he was (I think that's a pretty defensible choice if you add his contributions as a coordinator, but the Hall of Fame explicitly said that voters were ONLY supposed to consider his playing career.) Don Coryell should have been in the Hall of Fame two decades ago, and yet somehow he's still waiting. A player hanging around at the end of his career and adding a couple 500 yard seasons shouldn't help his HoF candidacy, yet it does.

Honestly, I think the distinction between the way things are and the way things should be is probably the most significant distinction to make in Hall of Fame discussions.

Edit: It looks like John Lynch is at the top of the current safety backlog. He shouldn't be, but he is. Shannon Sharpe and Michael Strahan should have been easy first-ballot guys, but they weren't. There are a ton of Should/Will distinctions to be made regarding the Hall of Fame.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The Hall of Fame process is so muddled. It really stinks that numbers are used to keep obvious great players out. Sure, numbers sometimes can tell the story, but other times they can't.

Especially when eras cross and you have a guy up for election who was at the top the game 40 years ago and his numbers are being compared to a guy who played in recent history. It stinks.

Greatness is greatness. When you see it, and you know the sport well that you are watching, then you know it -even if it lasts for only 5 years. If the player made a impact in the game when he was in his prime I believe that should be looked at, as well, if not primarily.

I'll get off my soapbox now. It still stinks.

I've said my piece a lot regarding Davis. By now, I'm sure everyone's sick of hearing it. The fact that a 3-time first team AP All Pro, 2x SB champion (as the best player on the team), 2x OPoY, 1x MVP, 1x SBMVP- without question the greatest postseason rusher in NFL history and a guy with the most productive 2-year peak the league has ever seen- has gotten eliminated from consideration before Jerome Bettis in four consecutive seasons is shameful.

 

[NCCommish]

The Hall of Fame process is so muddled. It really stinks that numbers are used to keep obvious great players out. Sure, numbers sometimes can tell the story, but other times they can't.

Especially when eras cross and you have a guy up for election who was at the top the game 40 years ago and his numbers are being compared to a guy who played in recent history. It stinks.

Greatness is greatness. When you see it, and you know the sport well that you are watching, then you know it -even if it lasts for only 5 years. If the player made a impact in the game when he was in his prime I believe that should be looked at, as well, if not primarily.

I'll get off my soapbox now. It still stinks.

I've said my piece a lot regarding Davis. By now, I'm sure everyone's sick of hearing it. The fact that a 3-time first team AP All Pro, 2x SB champion (as the best player on the team), 2x OPoY, 1x MVP, 1x SBMVP- without question the greatest postseason rusher in NFL history and a guy with the most productive 2-year peak the league has ever seen- has gotten eliminated from consideration before Jerome Bettis in four consecutive seasons is shameful.

True

 

[Adam Harstad]

It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?

I left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.

ETA: The Hall has a pretty big quandry when it comes to Ward. A guy from his same franchise, with a fraction of the numbers Ward has (Swann) is in the Hall. It will look a little odd in 15 years as people poor through the franchise stats to see Swann in there and Ward not. If Ward does get in, a tiny bit of that will be due to that fact.

Ward actually made the top 10 all-time WR list in Sports Illustrated's 2012 coffee table book "Football's Greatest."1. Rice

2. Hutson

3. Moss

4. Alworth

5. Berry

6. Owens

7. Warfield

8. Carter

9. Harrison

10. Ward

I will be shocked if Witten does not make the Hall of Fame.

SI's top 10 TEs-

1. Mackey

2. Winslow

3. Gonzalez

4. Ditka

5. Sharpe

6. Newsome

7. Casper

8. Gates

9. Witten

10. Christensen

Ward as one of the 10 best WRs in NFL history is an absolute joke. The dude made 4 pro bowls, 3 second-team AP All Pros, and ZERO first-team AP All Pros. There was literally not a single point in Hines Ward's career where anyone thought he was one of the top WRs in the league. The guy wasn't even considered one of the four best WRs of the 2000s, yet somehow he's one of the 10 best WRs in history? Over Tim Brown, Michael Irvin, Steve Largent, Torry Holt, James Lofton, and company?

Pretty sure Hines Ward has become a better receiver since he retired than he ever was while he was still playing. Don't know what's up with all of this revisionist history surrounding him.

 

[Warrior]

If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.

How many years do you think he has left?

If we can get him into the slot 2-3 more probably.

Ah, "we"...makes sense now. I don't think he deserves the HoF, but it makes sense that you're pulling for a player on your faovorite team.

 

[Warrior]

It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?

I left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.

ETA: The Hall has a pretty big quandry when it comes to Ward. A guy from his same franchise, with a fraction of the numbers Ward has (Swann) is in the Hall. It will look a little odd in 15 years as people poor through the franchise stats to see Swann in there and Ward not. If Ward does get in, a tiny bit of that will be due to that fact.

Ward actually made the top 10 all-time WR list in Sports Illustrated's 2012 coffee table book "Football's Greatest."1. Rice

2. Hutson

3. Moss

4. Alworth

5. Berry

6. Owens

7. Warfield

8. Carter

9. Harrison

10. Ward

I will be shocked if Witten does not make the Hall of Fame.

SI's top 10 TEs-

1. Mackey

2. Winslow

3. Gonzalez

4. Ditka

5. Sharpe

6. Newsome

7. Casper

8. Gates

9. Witten

10. Christensen

Ward as one of the 10 best WRs in NFL history is an absolute joke. The dude made 4 pro bowls, 3 second-team AP All Pros, and ZERO first-team AP All Pros. There was literally not a single point in Hines Ward's career where anyone thought he was one of the top WRs in the league. The guy wasn't even considered one of the four best WRs of the 2000s, yet somehow he's one of the 10 best WRs in history? Over Tim Brown, Michael Irvin, Steve Largent, Torry Holt, James Lofton, and company?

Pretty sure Hines Ward has become a better receiver since he retired than he ever was while he was still playing. Don't know what's up with all of this revisionist history surrounding him.

Agreed. One of those cases where somehow a guy develops a persona that people remember. Then when uninformed people start making lists and can't think of 10 WRs, he jumps to the front of their mind.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Getting back to Steve Smith...

Steve Smith, at his 6-year peak, had the 6th highest percentage of his team's receiving yards in NFL history.

Steve Smith, at his 6-year peak, averaged the 6th most receiving yards per team pass attempt in NFL history.

That second list is particularly illuminating. The five guys above Smith are Rice, Hutson, and Alworth- the top 3 receivers in NFL history on pretty much any list- plus Michael Irvin (another dominant Hall of Famer whose numbers were elite despite playing on a run first, run second, and run always offense), and Mac Speedie (a speedster for the Otto Graham Browns whose numbers are inflated because the NFL counts his AAFC stats). Discounting Speedie because of the AAFC issue... if a metric produces a top 5 list of Rice, Hutson, Alworth, Michael Irvin, and some other guy, you have to think that other guy was pretty freaking great. Just behind Steve Smith on the list are Randy Moss, Bob Hayes, and Marvin Harrison.

Smith is a wildly underrated receiver. He was a legitimate 1-man passing game for the best part of a decade, and the only thing that could hold his numbers down were his team's offensive philosophy, a season lost to injury, and historically inept quarterback play. He wound up checking in at 9th when Chase ran the numbers for his most recent Greatest WR in History series. People are sleeping on just how good he really was because he played for a team nobody cared about that rarely passed the ball. In fact, since 2003 (as far back as the Data Dominator goes), no team has thrown fewer pass attempts than the Carolina Panthers. Since Smith became a starter in 2002, there have only been two years where Carolina did not rank in the bottom 10 in pass attempts. One was 2006, when Carolina finished 10th in passing attempts, but Steve Smith and Jake Delhomme only played 11 games together (Smith missed two games and played 3 more with Chris Weinke). Smith's numbers in those 11 games together would pro-rate out to 106/1517/12 (with another ~100 yards and a TD rushing), which would have easily led the league in receptions and receiving yards. The second time since 2002 when Carolina finished outside of the bottom 10 in passing attempts was... 2004, when Carolina finished 11th in pass attempts and Steve Smith missed the entire season due to injury. Again, Smith has done what he's done despite playing for a team that simply does not throw the football.

 

[NCCommish]

If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.

How many years do you think he has left?

If we can get him into the slot 2-3 more probably.

Ah, "we"...makes sense now. I don't think he deserves the HoF, but it makes sense that you're pulling for a player on your faovorite team.

Well to be clear I don't think he has the numbers right now. I think he does need a couple more productive seasons to really get consideration. It would also help if he got to make some more big plays in the playoffs over that time. I just don't think it's that out there to think he warrants consideration.

 

[CalBear]

Witten isn't even a great candidate for the HOF at TE

This is off-base, cmon now.

TEs were not huge pass catchers in the league's early years so he's likely better than every TE before 1980.

After that, his stats compare decently with Todd and Shannon.

He's consistently been a top TE in his own era.

Probably averages 90 receptions.

A consistently good blocker

Attitude-was a payton award winner IIRC

What more could you want?

Your new obsession to discount catches- You "have to" appreciate a catch made in traffic versus a screen or other gimme type catches. Most catches by a TE in a season and in a game.

The guy holds up in current era, all-time, and you'd be pressed to find many TEs that are better than him in NFL history.

I've already named four who played this year who have better receiving stats than Witten. Do you think all five will get in?

What more could I want? Touchdowns: he scores, at best, half as many as the other four guys. Yards per reception: he's at the bottom of the pile.

I've always discounted catches. Go find an old Art Monk HOF thread.

 

[Fariq]

It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).

Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?

I left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.

ETA: The Hall has a pretty big quandry when it comes to Ward. A guy from his same franchise, with a fraction of the numbers Ward has (Swann) is in the Hall. It will look a little odd in 15 years as people poor through the franchise stats to see Swann in there and Ward not. If Ward does get in, a tiny bit of that will be due to that fact.

Ward actually made the top 10 all-time WR list in Sports Illustrated's 2012 coffee table book "Football's Greatest."1. Rice

2. Hutson

3. Moss

4. Alworth

5. Berry

6. Owens

7. Warfield

8. Carter

9. Harrison

10. Ward

I will be shocked if Witten does not make the Hall of Fame.

SI's top 10 TEs-

1. Mackey

2. Winslow

3. Gonzalez

4. Ditka

5. Sharpe

6. Newsome

7. Casper

8. Gates

9. Witten

10. Christensen

Ward as one of the 10 best WRs in NFL history is an absolute joke. The dude made 4 pro bowls, 3 second-team AP All Pros, and ZERO first-team AP All Pros. There was literally not a single point in Hines Ward's career where anyone thought he was one of the top WRs in the league. The guy wasn't even considered one of the four best WRs of the 2000s, yet somehow he's one of the 10 best WRs in history? Over Tim Brown, Michael Irvin, Steve Largent, Torry Holt, James Lofton, and company?

Pretty sure Hines Ward has become a better receiver since he retired than he ever was while he was still playing. Don't know what's up with all of this revisionist history surrounding him.

That was the most ridiculous ranking in the book. Ward would not make my top 40, let alone a top 10.

 

[Anarchy99]

Witten isn't even a great candidate for the HOF at TE

This is off-base, cmon now.

TEs were not huge pass catchers in the league's early years so he's likely better than every TE before 1980.

After that, his stats compare decently with Todd and Shannon.

He's consistently been a top TE in his own era.

Probably averages 90 receptions.

A consistently good blocker

Attitude-was a payton award winner IIRC

What more could you want?

Your new obsession to discount catches- You "have to" appreciate a catch made in traffic versus a screen or other gimme type catches. Most catches by a TE in a season and in a game.

The guy holds up in current era, all-time, and you'd be pressed to find many TEs that are better than him in NFL history.

I've already named four who played this year who have better receiving stats than Witten. Do you think all five will get in?

What more could I want? Touchdowns: he scores, at best, half as many as the other four guys. Yards per reception: he's at the bottom of the pile.

I've always discounted catches. Go find an old Art Monk HOF thread.

Here's the $64,000 question. Do/will voters consider who else may be a candidate down the line and what players might become HOF candidates? Graham and Gronk could have the numbers and the longevity to be HOF worthy, but would voters NOT vote for someone to save their vote for a player at the same position to be used 5-10 years later?

Witten could end his career in the Top 5 in receptions (decent shot) and Top 5 in career yardage (less likely but possible). Sure, in 10 years he might not be in the Top 15-20 in either category. But it still doesn't change that after Gonzalez, to this point in time, he's been one of the top handful of TEs career wise, even without a ton of TD or playoff success.

 

[moleculo]

If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.

How many years do you think he has left?

If we can get him into the slot 2-3 more probably.

ok. let's think about where his career numbers could end up. Let's assume 50 catches, 500 yards, 5 TD's over the next three years - not great (or even good) numbers, being very conservative here, but remembering that he will be 35-37 over this stretch.

career receptions: 986, good for 10th all time in todays numbers but likely to be behind AJ, Boldin, Fitzgerald, Witten, and Welker so call him 15th all time on the reception list when he retires.

Career yards: 13967, good for 9th all time, but likely to be behind Wayne and AJ, so 11th all time.

career TD's: 82, good for 22nd all time but likely to be behind Wayne and Calvin Johnson, so 24th all time.

It's not great and I don't think you can make a case for his HoF eligibility purely by looking at the numbers, but at the same time these stats aren't so poor that he should not be included in discussions.

ETA: the guys with career receiving yards more than Smith (per my projections):

Rice

Owens

Moss

Bruce

Gonzalez

Brown

Harrison

Lofton

Wayne

Andre Johnson

He would finish ahead of Torry Holt, and Andre Reed and be well ahead of Jimmy Smith, Hines Ward, Derrick Mason, Mushin Muhammed, Rod Smith, Chad Johnson, etc., just to look at other prolific WR's of the 2000's.

 

[CalBear]

Here's the $64,000 question. Do/will voters consider who else may be a candidate down the line and what players might become HOF candidates? Graham and Gronk could have the numbers and the longevity to be HOF worthy, but would voters NOT vote for someone to save their vote for a player at the same position to be used 5-10 years later?Witten could end his career in the Top 5 in receptions (decent shot) and Top 5 in career yardage (less likely but possible). Sure, in 10 years he might not be in the Top 15-20 in either category. But it still doesn't change that after Gonzalez, to this point in time, he's been one of the top handful of TEs career wise, even without a ton of TD or playoff success.

Memories are short. If Witten has five more seasons as an above-average tight end (probably with no more Pro Bowls or certainly All-Pros) and retires after the 2018 season at age 36, voters will have just voted in Gonzalez, and a few years later will be looking at Gates. Maybe Gates get in first ballot, maybe not; I'd guess no. So Gates is sitting out there for some amount of time, and Witten is waiting to get eligible, which happens in 2023.

By 2023, Gronkowski and Graham likely will have passed him in all receiving categories. Even if he gets to 13,000 yards, currently top 10, it won't be top-10 by then, because Wayne, Johnson, Smith (hey, relevance to this thread!), Fitzgerald, and Boldin will have passed it by then, not to mention Roddy White, Welker, Megatron, and Marshall who are currently behind him. Plus 8-10 more years of Greg Jennings, Vincent Jackson, Bowe, Desean, etc. And his TD numbers won't even crack the top 50.

So if you're a HOF voter, and you just put in Gonzalez and Gates, who are both clearly better than Witten, and you have two other TEs who make his career look mediocre coming down the pipeline, are you going to vote for Witten?

My sources say no.

 

[Tau837]

Here's the $64,000 question. Do/will voters consider who else may be a candidate down the line and what players might become HOF candidates? Graham and Gronk could have the numbers and the longevity to be HOF worthy, but would voters NOT vote for someone to save their vote for a player at the same position to be used 5-10 years later?

Witten could end his career in the Top 5 in receptions (decent shot) and Top 5 in career yardage (less likely but possible). Sure, in 10 years he might not be in the Top 15-20 in either category. But it still doesn't change that after Gonzalez, to this point in time, he's been one of the top handful of TEs career wise, even without a ton of TD or playoff success.

Memories are short. If Witten has five more seasons as an above-average tight end (probably with no more Pro Bowls or certainly All-Pros) and retires after the 2018 season at age 36, voters will have just voted in Gonzalez, and a few years later will be looking at Gates. Maybe Gates get in first ballot, maybe not; I'd guess no. So Gates is sitting out there for some amount of time, and Witten is waiting to get eligible, which happens in 2023.

By 2023, Gronkowski and Graham likely will have passed him in all receiving categories. Even if he gets to 13,000 yards, currently top 10, it won't be top-10 by then, because Wayne, Johnson, Smith (hey, relevance to this thread!), Fitzgerald, and Boldin will have passed it by then, not to mention Roddy White, Welker, Megatron, and Marshall who are currently behind him. Plus 8-10 more years of Greg Jennings, Vincent Jackson, Bowe, Desean, etc. And his TD numbers won't even crack the top 50.

So if you're a HOF voter, and you just put in Gonzalez and Gates, who are both clearly better than Witten, and you have two other TEs who make his career look mediocre coming down the pipeline, are you going to vote for Witten?

My sources say no.

 

[Anarchy99]

There's no question Gates has been a bigger scoring and red zone threat than Witten, which is clearly important. But it's not like his other numbers dwarf Witten's. Witten is 2 years younger and in another two years of similar production to his recent seasons could end up having 250 more receptions and 2,500 more receiving yards at the same age as Gates has now. TDs are hard to predict, but if Witten scored 15 times in the next two seasons (probably on the high side), then he'll have only THREE touchdowns than Gates has now through the same age. In the main, Gates does seem to have a better shine to him as an impact player, but statistically he may not end up having much (if any) advantage over Witten. And so far Gates has not done a ton in the postseason (not that Witten has), so it doesn't appear that Gates' post season resume will help his HOF enshrinement case at all.

 

[Anarchy99]

As far as Steve Smith and the OP goes, he may have earned HOF consideration and discussion but the waiting list at WR for induction is REALLY long. Sort of like having ticket #30 at the deli when there are only 10 slices of cheese to be passed out. Bottom line, he deserves to get in AFTER all the other receivers mentioned here get in, and it's highly unlikely they will induct that many receivers from the same era or similar generation.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, I am not convinced Gates is this no-brainer lock either. Granted, he probably should be, but given how tough it is for TEs to make it, as pointed out already, he might have a tough time getting in. I mean, if Shannon Sharpe, a far better player, had to wait years to get in, Gates could be waiting a lot longer.

 

[Bri]

Here's the $64,000 question. Do/will voters consider who else may be a candidate down the line and what players might become HOF candidates? Graham and Gronk could have the numbers and the longevity to be HOF worthy, but would voters NOT vote for someone to save their vote for a player at the same position to be used 5-10 years later?Witten could end his career in the Top 5 in receptions (decent shot) and Top 5 in career yardage (less likely but possible). Sure, in 10 years he might not be in the Top 15-20 in either category. But it still doesn't change that after Gonzalez, to this point in time, he's been one of the top handful of TEs career wise, even without a ton of TD or playoff success.

Memories are short. If Witten has five more seasons as an above-average tight end (probably with no more Pro Bowls or certainly All-Pros) and retires after the 2018 season at age 36, voters will have just voted in Gonzalez, and a few years later will be looking at Gates. Maybe Gates get in first ballot, maybe not; I'd guess no. So Gates is sitting out there for some amount of time, and Witten is waiting to get eligible, which happens in 2023.

By 2023, Gronkowski and Graham likely will have passed him in all receiving categories. Even if he gets to 13,000 yards, currently top 10, it won't be top-10 by then, because Wayne, Johnson, Smith (hey, relevance to this thread!), Fitzgerald, and Boldin will have passed it by then, not to mention Roddy White, Welker, Megatron, and Marshall who are currently behind him. Plus 8-10 more years of Greg Jennings, Vincent Jackson, Bowe, Desean, etc. And his TD numbers won't even crack the top 50.

So if you're a HOF voter, and you just put in Gonzalez and Gates, who are both clearly better than Witten, and you have two other TEs who make his career look mediocre coming down the pipeline, are you going to vote for Witten?

My sources say no.

You present an awesome argument.

I disagree completely.

For many years the TE was not an athletically gifted person like we have today-it was more of an extra lineman that could catch.

Because I have fantastic memories of him and am totally bias-I would guess til Bavaro inspired younger players and NFL GMs and coaches.

Wasn't Todd the 2nd or 3rd TE voted into the hall?

The game evolved, the position evolved.

Witten is 1000 times better than most every TE in the 50s, 60's 70s, and maybe the 80s too. It's a very unique scenario that I imagine the voters all have to digest in their own way.

When former TEs talk about Witten they praise him on radio shows and TV. Because of this, I'm sure he has some supporters.

Most catches in a season and most in a game-as part of a long career with many accolades- has to hold some weight. I mean even you that discount catches have to see that 18 in a game is a wow type stat.

I don't think gronk will last much longer or I'm concerned; his body is clearly showing signs of concern.

I think Graham has a chance to be the best TE ever. In no way would that stop me from voting for Witten, Gonzalez, or Gates. The latter two seemed like their team's only receiving options way too often and yet they still got it done. I also think it's odd that Ogden, Jones, Pace, and Roaf played at the same time and were all awesome, but I'd vote all of them in. I think they'd be great in any era and have no issue at all with four Ts going in from one era. I don't think it's fair to say four Ts make it and then set a limit on TEs to weed out Witten.

Tackles are not listed as right and left in voting but instead we oh so often vote a left tackle to play the right side on this fictitious team. I think that if we didn't do this, we would have a similar discussion about Ts as you are about TEs here. Voters are not pressed to pick the best left Tackle. We just appreciate their awesomeness and I think Witten deserves that too.

 

[dickey moe]

No

 

[Steed]

if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.

WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.

Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.

Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.

I think a case could be made that Smith > Bruce.Smith has 2 All-Pro selections, Bruce has 0. Smith has 5 pro-bowl appearances, Bruce had 4. Smith has been top 10 in receptions twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 just once. Smith was top 10 in yards 4x, leading league once. Bruce: same. smith was top 10 in receiving TD's twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 3x. Smith has 10 career post-season TD's (7 receiving), Bruce has 4. Smith has 782 career post-season receiving yards (and counting), Bruce has 759.

Bruce has more composite career stats, but he also had a 16 year career and played until he was 37. Smith is in year 13 at age 34, although it's likely he won't pass any of Bruces career numbers.

Bruce also has one of the greatest and biggest catches in the history of the Super Bowl on his resume (even if he was overshadowed by how the game ended minutes later).

Also, pro bowls are meaningless, especially when you consider that Bruce was snubbed for the pro bowl in a season in which, with Chris Miller as his QB, he had 119-1,781-13, which obliterates the best season Steve Smith has ever had.

The WRs who made the pro bowl over Bruce that year were Michael Irvin (111/1603/10), Cris Carter (122/1371/17), Jerry Rice (122/1848/15), and Herman Moore (123/1686/14). Hard to call it a snub.

As an aside, it's tough to say the nfl wasn't a passing league back then. I assume it was an anomaly year, but those are huge numbers for 6 guys to amass all at once.

 

[fantasycurse42]

No chance... Def a solid good player you want on your team over the years, but hasn't been at the HOF level.

 

[Bri]

if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.

WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):

Rice

Brown

Carter

Owens

Harrison

Moss

Bruce

Holt

Andre Johnson

Calvin Johnson

Fitzgerald

Jimmy Smith

I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.

Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.

Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.

I think a case could be made that Smith > Bruce.

Smith has 2 All-Pro selections, Bruce has 0. Smith has 5 pro-bowl appearances, Bruce had 4. Smith has been top 10 in receptions twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 just once. Smith was top 10 in yards 4x, leading league once. Bruce: same. smith was top 10 in receiving TD's twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 3x. Smith has 10 career post-season TD's (7 receiving), Bruce has 4. Smith has 782 career post-season receiving yards (and counting), Bruce has 759.

Bruce has more composite career stats, but he also had a 16 year career and played until he was 37. Smith is in year 13 at age 34, although it's likely he won't pass any of Bruces career numbers.

I'm cool with everyone else on that list (except Jimmy smith) being considered clearly better than Steve Smith in terms of HoF eligibility. It is a lot of WR's, but you've gotta think that in the era of exploding passing stats, the HoF would adjust and bring in more of the WR's that helped drive that change. It's possible for 10-12 of these guys to ultimately make it.

But your stats are wrong

 

[Despyzer]

My opinion seems to be reflected in a lot of the posts in this thread. His numbers make a very good argument. He was frequently one of a small handful of the best receivers of his era. But the backlog to get into the Hall at his position is going to make it so difficult for him to gain entry that it almost isn't even worth mentioning.