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

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Panthers GM Dave Gettleman says Steve Smith is part of the team's offseason "evaluation process," adding "no one plays forever."

They're eyebrow-raising comments, but Smith almost certainly remains in the Panthers' 2014 plans. Carolina can't afford to be shedding bodies at wideout, and cutting Smiff would free up just $2 million in cap space. Going on 35, 89 has lost a step each of the past two seasons, but the Panthers need him.


Source: Ian Rapoport on Twitter

 

[NCCommish]

Rotoworld:

Panthers GM Dave Gettleman says Steve Smith is part of the team's offseason "evaluation process," adding "no one plays forever."

They're eyebrow-raising comments, but Smith almost certainly remains in the Panthers' 2014 plans. Carolina can't afford to be shedding bodies at wideout, and cutting Smiff would free up just $2 million in cap space. Going on 35, 89 has lost a step each of the past two seasons, but the Panthers need him.


Source: Ian Rapoport on Twitter

Smith is playing this year. Who else they got? My guess is that statement is a bit out of context.

 

[Jeremy]

2 of the questions I've heard can be used as a gauge of a players HOF credentials are:

1. Is the player in the discussion as being the best of his era at his position (at least in the team picture)?

2. Can the story of the NFL be told without this player?

He doesn't pass either test, IMO.

 

[Anarchy99]

2 of the questions I've heard can be used as a gauge of a players HOF credentials are:

1. Is the player in the discussion as being the best of his era at his position (at least in the team picture)?

2. Can the story of the NFL be told without this player?

He doesn't pass either test, IMO.

Look at some of the recent inductees and tell me if they meet your criteria. Andre Reed? Ray Guy? Curtis Martin? Floyd Little? Art Monk?

I don't disagree that those two criteria should be used, but it doesn't really seem like that they get applied with regularity.

And before people jump all over me, the guys I mentioned were all good players but certainly a case could be made that they are not the first tier of elite talents or performers like many other HOFers. If the NFL wants to have a bigger HOF with a lot of very good inductees and not trust the truly elite, so be it.

All that being said, there are a number of current or recent receivers (call them peers to Smith) that are likely more deserving of HOF consideration. So it depends where they draw the line. Will they induct three of them? Five of them? Ten of them? It really becomes a question of how many guys that played the same position at the same time will they ultimately induct.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Anarchy, list all the guys that have a better resume than Smith.

 

[Anarchy99]

Anarchy, list all the guys that have a better resume than Smith.

Better resume that ***I*** would pick or better resume that ***VOTERS*** would pick?

Here are players that I think could garner more HOF consideration than Smith that played at least one year in the league with Smith. If people want to say they are not really the same era, so be it.

Terrell Owens

Randy Moss

Isaac Bruce

Tim Brown

Marvin Harrison

Reggie Wayne

Torry Holt

Reggie Wayne

Hines Ward

Larry Fitzgerald

Calvin Johnson

That's 11 guys at least in serious discussion. And that does not include guys that I would say are too soon to tell on Andre Johnson, Wes Welker, and Brandon Marshall.

Which gets me back to my original statement. How many guys are they going to induct that played in roughly the same era (or close to it).

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Yeah, I more or less agree with you. Right now, Steve Smith's career numbers are nearly identical to Jimmy Smith, who I consider to be on top of the just missed HOF group, but since he's been eligible in 2010. he hasn't even been a semi-finalist. Now he'll never make it in because the PFHOF isn't going to induct a dude that is in prison. It's only going to get more difficult for WRs, so if Jimmy Smith wasn't going to make it, Steve Smith for sure isn't, unless he puts up some sweet numbers in the next few years.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Just slightly better than Donald Driver.

 

[Catbird]

Anarchy, list all the guys that have a better resume than Smith.

Better resume that ***I*** would pick or better resume that ***VOTERS*** would pick?

Here are players that I think could garner more HOF consideration than Smith that played at least one year in the league with Smith. If people want to say they are not really the same era, so be it.

Terrell Owens

Randy Moss

Isaac Bruce

Tim Brown

Marvin Harrison

Reggie Wayne

Torry Holt

Reggie Wayne

Hines Ward

Larry Fitzgerald

Calvin Johnson

That's 11 guys at least in serious discussion. And that does not include guys that I would say are too soon to tell on Andre Johnson, Wes Welker, and Brandon Marshall.

Which gets me back to my original statement. How many guys are they going to induct that played in roughly the same era (or close to it).

Virtually all these guys played in SuperBowls and are far better known by less serious fans.. None except Calvin was as large a piece of his team's total production as Smyff, or as dominant without QB talent to help. Owens was greatly enhanced by Young, Wayne and Harrison by Peyton, Moss by Brady, Holt, Bruce and Fitz by Warner. Before Cam, who isn't nearly in that class as yet, Smith had a decade of marginal QBs or worse in largely run-first offenses. I think his talent was better or equal to at least Bruce, Brown, Harrison, Wayne and Ward on your list. The fact that he was so small will help his cause as well, people loving David against Goliath..

You name 11 guys retiring from 2004 through Calvin in 2020 or later.If they all make it, that's about 2 WRs every 3 years going into the hall. I think when guys look back at what he had to work with, stature and team, SS is very likely to make it.

 

[Anarchy99]

Problem is that the HOF has only inducted 6 WR in the past 11 years, so I am not sure that 12 guys from the recent decade are all going to make it in. I suspect that playing in Carolina will hurt his chances, as they are not a huge national brand and they were never really looked at as a perennial contender or great team. Guys like Harrison and Wayne, IMO, will get added attention playing with Peyton and winning 12+ games for a zillion years in a row. Bottom line is, I suspect WR with strong QBs get more love than WR with weak QBs throwing them the ball.

 

[Anarchy99]

Smith ranks 11th on the most receiving yards through age 34 list. Not sure if that is good, bad, or indifferent. However, Fitz and Boldin will likely pass Smith on the 34 year old list after this upcoming season.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Coach Ron Rivera hinted that Steve Smith could have a smaller role next season.

Smith will turn 35 in May and is coming off a disappointing 64/745/4 season. Ideally, the Panthers will completely overhaul their wideout corps in free agency and the draft, leaving Smitty as a complementary target -- not go-to guy. "We're going through our process, and Steve is a part of what we're doing going forward," Rivera said. "How big of an impact he's going to have for us, that's going to be determined as we go through the draft process and through free agency." Brandon LaFell, Ted Ginn and Domenik Hixon are all free agents.


Source: panthers.com

 

[NCCommish]

Rotoworld:

Coach Ron Rivera hinted that Steve Smith could have a smaller role next season.

Smith will turn 35 in May and is coming off a disappointing 64/745/4 season. Ideally, the Panthers will completely overhaul their wideout corps in free agency and the draft, leaving Smitty as a complementary target -- not go-to guy. "We're going through our process, and Steve is a part of what we're doing going forward," Rivera said. "How big of an impact he's going to have for us, that's going to be determined as we go through the draft process and through free agency." Brandon LaFell, Ted Ginn and Domenik Hixon are all free agents.


Source: panthers.com

Smith has been begging to move to the slot for a while so that isn't news. News would be having someone else on the team so he can. I doubt Lafell will be back unless he is dirt cheap because he isn't a number 2 WR. Hixon didn't show all that much either. Ginn is the only one of those 3 I am really expecting back.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If there is one player, besides say a Calvin Johnson or Adrian Peterson type, who has been drafted in the last 20 years or so whom I wish could have been drafted by the Saints it would be Smith. It's too bad he has been in so many run oriented offenses over the years in Carolina (not to mention playing for them and against the Saints in the first place), and I do believe he is one of the greats of this generation though the HOF may never recognize him as such. He is such a difference maker.

 

[Sinrman]

Yeah. Surprised this even got a page 3. Not even close. Had some great years, but definitely not enough for HoF.

 

[stratocatter]

As a Panthers and Steve Smith fan, it's a shame because he is hof level talent in my opinion. Had some years with terrible qb play, no other weapons around him, conservative philosophy, and piss poor OC. Jeff Davidson anyone?

 

[Sweet Love]

He needs a "hiccup" year if he wants to make it to the HOF, ala Curtis Martin. If he can get a 1400-9 type year, that would open him up for discussion again. I am the biggest Martin fan there is, but if he does not get that 1600+ year in his 31st year, I am not sure he gets into the Hall...that is how razor-thin the margins are for these guys who are on the doorstep.

 

[msommer]

Interesting that the Panthers are off to reboot their starting receivers. Can Smith pull off a couple of Welker/Edelman 2013 seasons? That would improve his chances but even then don't really see it.

 

[Hoss Style]

2 of the questions I've heard can be used as a gauge of a players HOF credentials are:

1. Is the player in the discussion as being the best of his era at his position (at least in the team picture)?

2. Can the story of the NFL be told without this player?

He doesn't pass either test, IMO.

Look at some of the recent inductees and tell me if they meet your criteria. Andre Reed? Ray Guy? Curtis Martin? Floyd Little? Art Monk?

Wait - Art Monk? As in - you don't know if he meets the criteria set forth? ...

Art Monk set the single season record for catches at one point in his career. No one had caught more passes in a season ever up to that point.

When Monk left the Redskins he held the all-time record for catches - no one had caught more in their career up to that point. It was broken a few years later by Jerry Rice.

Maybe I'm showing my age here, but Monk was routinely talked about as one of the greatest of all time near the end of his playing days with the Skins. In his era, he was one of the best - and he set records along the way.

You can't compare eras - you judge a player in the time that he played. Monk was one of the best in the era he played in.

 

[Anarchy99]

2 of the questions I've heard can be used as a gauge of a players HOF credentials are:

1. Is the player in the discussion as being the best of his era at his position (at least in the team picture)?

2. Can the story of the NFL be told without this player?

He doesn't pass either test, IMO.

Look at some of the recent inductees and tell me if they meet your criteria. Andre Reed? Ray Guy? Curtis Martin? Floyd Little? Art Monk?

Wait - Art Monk? As in - you don't know if he meets the criteria set forth? ...

Art Monk set the single season record for catches at one point in his career. No one had caught more passes in a season ever up to that point.

When Monk left the Redskins he held the all-time record for catches - no one had caught more in their career up to that point. It was broken a few years later by Jerry Rice.

Maybe I'm showing my age here, but Monk was routinely talked about as one of the greatest of all time near the end of his playing days with the Skins. In his era, he was one of the best - and he set records along the way.

You can't compare eras - you judge a player in the time that he played. Monk was one of the best in the era he played in.

As was debated for years in other threads, Monk was essentially the first true compiler. He was very good for a long time, but there were times when he wasn't even the best performing receiver on his own team. He ranked in the Top 5 in receptions 3 times, receiving yards twice, and never ranked in the Top 5 in receiving TD. He went to 3 Pro Bowls and was named first team All Pro once . . . in 15 seasons.

I am not comparing him to receivers in other eras. I am comparing him to his immediate peers. IMO, if you are not consistently one of the Top 5 at your position in the years you played, you really are not a HOFer. He rarely produced as a Top 5 performer. Most years, he likely was not even in the Top 10 receivers. He had 1,000 receiving yards 5 times out of 15 seasons and never scored more than 8 times in a season.

IMO, he is far from the definition of a text book HOFer. I don't think he was an elite or dominating performer. Playing on three SB winning teams and having some lofty career numbers (based largely on playing longer than his predecessors) is what got him in . . . not because of his out of this world individual season totals.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Steve Smith said it's "discouraging" that he had to hear about GM Dave Gettleman and coach Ron Rivera's comments at last week's Combine second-hand.
"I would have wished that I would have been afforded the opportunity been given a heads up by our GM and coach Rivera when I did my exit meeting," Smith said. "No one spoke to me about it, in that manner. The unfortunate part of it was I had to hear it second-hand; I didn’t get to hear it behind closed doors or face-to-face. I heard it through third party or through the internet." The Panthers would probably like for Smith to accept a pay cut from his scheduled $7 million in salary an bonuses, but we can't see them outright releasing him.

Source: Charlotte Observer

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

A source tells ProFootballTalk that Steve Smith hasn't been asked to take a pay cut yet.
The emotional Smith is rightfully upset that GM Dave Gettleman and coach Ron Rivera have gone public about "evaluating" the best player in franchise history's role without talking to him. As PFT notes, they're running the risk "of alienating him and creating future issues if they want to try to keep him around for another year or two." Smith is owed $7 million in total 2014 salary -- a large number for declining 34-year-old no longer capable of being a No. 1. He admitted Wednesday he has "no idea what my future holds."

Source: Profootballtalk on NBCSports.com

 

[Despyzer]

Look at some of the recent inductees and tell me if they meet your criteria. Andre Reed? Ray Guy? Curtis Martin? Floyd Little? Art Monk?

Wait - Art Monk? As in - you don't know if he meets the criteria set forth? ...

Art Monk set the single season record for catches at one point in his career. No one had caught more passes in a season ever up to that point.

When Monk left the Redskins he held the all-time record for catches - no one had caught more in their career up to that point. It was broken a few years later by Jerry Rice.

Maybe I'm showing my age here, but Monk was routinely talked about as one of the greatest of all time near the end of his playing days with the Skins. In his era, he was one of the best - and he set records along the way.

You can't compare eras - you judge a player in the time that he played. Monk was one of the best in the era he played in.

As was debated for years in other threads, Monk was essentially the first true compiler. He was very good for a long time, but there were times when he wasn't even the best performing receiver on his own team. He ranked in the Top 5 in receptions 3 times, receiving yards twice, and never ranked in the Top 5 in receiving TD. He went to 3 Pro Bowls and was named first team All Pro once . . . in 15 seasons.

I am not comparing him to receivers in other eras. I am comparing him to his immediate peers. IMO, if you are not consistently one of the Top 5 at your position in the years you played, you really are not a HOFer. He rarely produced as a Top 5 performer. Most years, he likely was not even in the Top 10 receivers. He had 1,000 receiving yards 5 times out of 15 seasons and never scored more than 8 times in a season.

IMO, he is far from the definition of a text book HOFer. I don't think he was an elite or dominating performer. Playing on three SB winning teams and having some lofty career numbers (based largely on playing longer than his predecessors) is what got him in . . . not because of his out of this world individual season totals.

Monk was also routinely asked to do things that most other receivers of his era (or even on his own team) were not asked to do: block as if he was a tight end. Another reason he was not always the most productive receiver on his team was, even though the other team knew that he would be called on to block on some passing downs, he still was getting double and triple teamed. There are some players whose careers can be tidily broken down according to their stats. Others you can't. Whether Monk finished in the top five or not, everyone watching football at that time knew Monk was one of the best.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Look at some of the recent inductees and tell me if they meet your criteria. Andre Reed? Ray Guy? Curtis Martin? Floyd Little? Art Monk?

Wait - Art Monk? As in - you don't know if he meets the criteria set forth? ...

Art Monk set the single season record for catches at one point in his career. No one had caught more passes in a season ever up to that point.

When Monk left the Redskins he held the all-time record for catches - no one had caught more in their career up to that point. It was broken a few years later by Jerry Rice.

Maybe I'm showing my age here, but Monk was routinely talked about as one of the greatest of all time near the end of his playing days with the Skins. In his era, he was one of the best - and he set records along the way.

You can't compare eras - you judge a player in the time that he played. Monk was one of the best in the era he played in.

As was debated for years in other threads, Monk was essentially the first true compiler. He was very good for a long time, but there were times when he wasn't even the best performing receiver on his own team. He ranked in the Top 5 in receptions 3 times, receiving yards twice, and never ranked in the Top 5 in receiving TD. He went to 3 Pro Bowls and was named first team All Pro once . . . in 15 seasons.

I am not comparing him to receivers in other eras. I am comparing him to his immediate peers. IMO, if you are not consistently one of the Top 5 at your position in the years you played, you really are not a HOFer. He rarely produced as a Top 5 performer. Most years, he likely was not even in the Top 10 receivers. He had 1,000 receiving yards 5 times out of 15 seasons and never scored more than 8 times in a season.

IMO, he is far from the definition of a text book HOFer. I don't think he was an elite or dominating performer. Playing on three SB winning teams and having some lofty career numbers (based largely on playing longer than his predecessors) is what got him in . . . not because of his out of this world individual season totals.

Monk was also routinely asked to do things that most other receivers of his era (or even on his own team) were not asked to do: block as if he was a tight end. Another reason he was not always the most productive receiver on his team was, even though the other team knew that he would be called on to block on some passing downs, he still was getting double and triple teamed. There are some players whose careers can be tidily broken down according to their stats. Others you can't. Whether Monk finished in the top five or not, everyone watching football at that time knew Monk was one of the best.

Apparently everyone who watched football at the time with the exception of pro bowl and All Pro voters. Because when they had a chance to declare that Art Monk was one of the best receivers in the league- or even one of the best receivers in his conference- they almost always declined. Although Art Monk did get a whopping two votes to the 1980s All-Decade team...

 

[JayJay328]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

 

[Adam Harstad]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

While we're at it, let's elect Vinny Testeverde (9th in passing yards), Kerry Collins (12th), Dave Krieg (15th), Warrick Dunn (19th in rushing yards), and Irving Fryar (15th in receiving yards), too.

 

[JayJay328]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

While we're at it, let's elect Vinny Testeverde (9th in passing yards), Kerry Collins (12th), Dave Krieg (15th), Warrick Dunn (19th in rushing yards), and Irving Fryar (15th in receiving yards), too.

It's not 1 stat though. How many WRs can say they caught 830+ passes for 12 000 yards and scored 65 TDs? You seem to think longevity is a negative. You discount players who could play for so long why?

 

[Anarchy99]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

While we're at it, let's elect Vinny Testeverde (9th in passing yards), Kerry Collins (12th), Dave Krieg (15th), Warrick Dunn (19th in rushing yards), and Irving Fryar (15th in receiving yards), too.

It's not 1 stat though. How many WRs can say they caught 830+ passes for 12 000 yards and scored 65 TDs? You seem to think longevity is a negative. You discount players who could play for so long why?

Here's the problem. There are 17 players that have posted 830-12000-65. And 13 of them are not in the HOF. Which also means they are all peers of Steve Smith. By the time Smith is done playing and eligible for induction, it's pretty likely there will be other guys on the list. So again I ask, how many players from the same era of football that played receiver will make it in. 5? 10? 20?

 

[JayJay328]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

While we're at it, let's elect Vinny Testeverde (9th in passing yards), Kerry Collins (12th), Dave Krieg (15th), Warrick Dunn (19th in rushing yards), and Irving Fryar (15th in receiving yards), too.

It's not 1 stat though. How many WRs can say they caught 830+ passes for 12 000 yards and scored 65 TDs? You seem to think longevity is a negative. You discount players who could play for so long why?

Here's the problem. There are 17 players that have posted 830-12000-65. And 13 of them are not in the HOF yet. Which also means they are all peers of Steve Smith. By the time Smith is done playing and eligible for induction, it's pretty likely there will be other guys on the list. So again I ask, how many players from the same era of football that played receiver will make it in. 5? 10? 20?

I think you left out a key word. I'm not arguing he should be first ballot or anything but like Andre Reed he should eventually be enshrined. T.O. and Moss are automatic to me and Tony G is the greatest TE to ever lace up cleats. In fact I think all or at least most of the players on that list belong in.

 

[Anarchy99]

Smith has already plated through his age 34 season. He has totaled 836-12197-67. Here are guys that were not on the 830-12000-65 list, how far there are behind (or ahead) in those categories, and their ages.

Andre Johnson (32) +91 . . . +464 . . . -6

Anquan Boldin (33) +21 . . . -853 . . . -2

Larry Fitzgerald (30) +10 . . . -830 . . . +20

Roddy White (31) -151 . . . -2761 . . . -12

Wes Welker (32) +5 . . . -2839 . . . -19

Calvin Johnson (28) -265 . . . -2869 . . . -1

Brandon Marshall (29) -124 . . . -3137 . . . -10

Those are all guys that are also in the mix and could (might? should?) end up with totals greater then Steve Smith. So as I was saying, do they induct 20 receivers that played at or around the same time? 25?

 

[JayJay328]

Smith has already plated through his age 34 season. He has totaled 836-12197-67. Here are guys that were not on the 830-12000-65 list, how far there are behind (or ahead) in those categories, and their ages.

Andre Johnson (32) +91 . . . +464 . . . -6

Anquan Boldin (33) +21 . . . -853 . . . -2

Larry Fitzgerald (30) +10 . . . -830 . . . +20

Roddy White (31) -151 . . . -2761 . . . -12

Wes Welker (32) +5 . . . -2839 . . . -19

Calvin Johnson (28) -265 . . . -2869 . . . -1

Brandon Marshall (29) -124 . . . -3137 . . . -10

Those are all guys that are also in the mix and could (might? should?) end up with totals greater then Steve Smith. So as I was saying, do they induct 20 receivers that played at or around the same time? 25?

Why does there have to be a cap? If the 6, 8 or even 12 greatest QBs of all time had played during the same era and you put the cap from any given era at 3 what happens to the others? Uhh sorry guys you may be some of the greatest ever at your position but there are 3 guys better who played while you did so you don't get in. Why not celebrate that era?

As I said up thread, most of these players(Moss, T.O. andTony G should be in quickly) will have to wait to get in. They will have to see if their numbers hold up for 10 or 15 years like Andre Reed did but when/if they do hold up as top 20/25 receiving numbers of all time then they should be enshrined IMO.

 

[Anarchy99]

So let me get this straight. We happen to be in the era with 25 of the greatest receivers of all time that are all HOF worthy?

Let's look at this differently. There are currently 23 HOF players listed as receivers in the modern era of football. That's defined as 1946 or later. So there have been 23 players inducted from 68 years of football. Now we are to expect that that many current players at WR will make it in (or guys from the last decade)?

I don't see it. Maybe if they have a HOF with 1,000 players in it.

Since you brought up QBs, are Vinny Testaverde, Drew Bledsoe, Kerry Collins, Dave Krieg, Boomer Esiason, Donovan McNabb, Jim Everett, Jim Hart, Matt Hasselbeck, Steve DeBerg, and Carson Palmer HOFers? Cause they all rank in the all-time Top 25 in passing yards. Should we not celebrate the passing era by inducting them all?

 

[JayJay328]

So let me get this straight. We happen to be in the era with 25 of the greatest receivers of all time that are all HOF worthy?

Let's look at this differently. There are currently 23 HOF players listed as receivers in the modern era of football. That's defined as 1946 or later. So there have been 23 players inducted from 68 years of football. Now we are to expect that that many current players at WR will make it in (or guys from the last decade)?

I don't see it. Maybe if they have a HOF with 1,000 players in it.

Since you brought up QBs, are Vinny Testaverde, Drew Bledsoe, Kerry Collins, Dave Krieg, Boomer Esiason, Donovan McNabb, Jim Everett, Jim Hart, Matt Hasselbeck, Steve DeBerg, and Carson Palmer HOFers? Cause they all rank in the all-time Top 25 in passing yards. Should we not celebrate the passing era by inducting them all?

Go ahead and change what I'm saying. I said IF those players are those are the 20/25 best WRs ever, then yes they deserve to be in. It shouldn't matter how many from one era get in or not.

Those QBs stack up in one category.

 

[Adam Harstad]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

While we're at it, let's elect Vinny Testeverde (9th in passing yards), Kerry Collins (12th), Dave Krieg (15th), Warrick Dunn (19th in rushing yards), and Irving Fryar (15th in receiving yards), too.

It's not 1 stat though. How many WRs can say they caught 830+ passes for 12 000 yards and scored 65 TDs? You seem to think longevity is a negative. You discount players who could play for so long why?

Longevity is not a negative, but unless it's above-baseline production, it's not a positive, either. If a guy gives me 10 years of way-above-average production, that's awesome. If a guy gives me 30 years of undrafted-free-agent-production, then who cares? The second guy will probably have better career numbers than the first, since he played three times as long, but the first was way more valuable.

There are 12 guys in NFL history to top 3400 completions, 40,000 yards, and 200 TDs. Three of them are Vinny Testeverde, Kerry Collins, and Drew Bledsoe. Should those three guys be in the Hall of Fame? Did you ever watch them play and think to yourself "wow, I'm watching one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game of football"?

Now, I happen to think that Smiff should be in the Hall of Fame, but it's not simply because he ranks in the top 20 in career numbers. Lots of guys make the top 20 career charts who don't deserve enshrinement. It's because Steve Smith managed to crack the top 20 career chart on a team with mediocre QB play that ranked dead last in the NFL in pass attempts over his career by a pretty decent margin. Since Steve Smith entered the league, all 31 other teams have thrown at least TWO HUNDRED attempts more than the Panthers. The league average team has thrown an extra 650 pass attempts since 2001. That's a huge, huge margin. In NFL history, only four other receivers have been a bigger part of their team's passing offense in their prime than Steve Smith- Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, Lance Alworth, and Michael Irvin. That's the complete list.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Steve Smith had a "clear-the-air meeting" with Panthers GM Dave Gettleman on Tuesday.
Smith was unhappy after Gettleman and coach Ron Rivera both publicly stated that his role could be reduced in 2014 without first talking to Smith. It's a valid gripe for a veteran wideout who's one of the best players in franchise history. At some point, "clearing the air" is going to require talking about the $7 million Smith is due between salary and bonuses in 2014.

Source: Joseph Person on Twitter

 

[Tau837]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

While we're at it, let's elect Vinny Testeverde (9th in passing yards), Kerry Collins (12th), Dave Krieg (15th), Warrick Dunn (19th in rushing yards), and Irving Fryar (15th in receiving yards), too.

It's not 1 stat though. How many WRs can say they caught 830+ passes for 12 000 yards and scored 65 TDs? You seem to think longevity is a negative. You discount players who could play for so long why?

Longevity is not a negative, but unless it's above-baseline production, it's not a positive, either. If a guy gives me 10 years of way-above-average production, that's awesome. If a guy gives me 30 years of undrafted-free-agent-production, then who cares? The second guy will probably have better career numbers than the first, since he played three times as long, but the first was way more valuable.

There are 12 guys in NFL history to top 3400 completions, 40,000 yards, and 200 TDs. Three of them are Vinny Testeverde, Kerry Collins, and Drew Bledsoe. Should those three guys be in the Hall of Fame? Did you ever watch them play and think to yourself "wow, I'm watching one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game of football"?

Now, I happen to think that Smiff should be in the Hall of Fame, but it's not simply because he ranks in the top 20 in career numbers. Lots of guys make the top 20 career charts who don't deserve enshrinement. It's because Steve Smith managed to crack the top 20 career chart on a team with mediocre QB play that ranked dead last in the NFL in pass attempts over his career by a pretty decent margin. Since Steve Smith entered the league, all 31 other teams have thrown at least TWO HUNDRED attempts more than the Panthers. The league average team has thrown an extra 650 pass attempts since 2001. That's a huge, huge margin. In NFL history, only four other receivers have been a bigger part of their team's passing offense in their prime than Steve Smith- Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, Lance Alworth, and Michael Irvin. That's the complete list.

So the league average team has thrown 650 more pass attempts across a 13 year period? That is in the neighborhood of about an extra season's worth of production. What would that be, another 1000 yards and 7 TDs? Do you think that makes the difference in his worthiness? I don't.

Aside from that, whether right or wrong, I'm generally of the opinion that players are judged on what they did, not on what they might have done in a different situation. And IMO that is appropriate.

I very seriously doubt the HOF voters will give Smith more than non-trivial credit for his situation. And I don't think they should.

 

[Adam Harstad]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

While we're at it, let's elect Vinny Testeverde (9th in passing yards), Kerry Collins (12th), Dave Krieg (15th), Warrick Dunn (19th in rushing yards), and Irving Fryar (15th in receiving yards), too.

It's not 1 stat though. How many WRs can say they caught 830+ passes for 12 000 yards and scored 65 TDs? You seem to think longevity is a negative. You discount players who could play for so long why?

Longevity is not a negative, but unless it's above-baseline production, it's not a positive, either. If a guy gives me 10 years of way-above-average production, that's awesome. If a guy gives me 30 years of undrafted-free-agent-production, then who cares? The second guy will probably have better career numbers than the first, since he played three times as long, but the first was way more valuable.

There are 12 guys in NFL history to top 3400 completions, 40,000 yards, and 200 TDs. Three of them are Vinny Testeverde, Kerry Collins, and Drew Bledsoe. Should those three guys be in the Hall of Fame? Did you ever watch them play and think to yourself "wow, I'm watching one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game of football"?

Now, I happen to think that Smiff should be in the Hall of Fame, but it's not simply because he ranks in the top 20 in career numbers. Lots of guys make the top 20 career charts who don't deserve enshrinement. It's because Steve Smith managed to crack the top 20 career chart on a team with mediocre QB play that ranked dead last in the NFL in pass attempts over his career by a pretty decent margin. Since Steve Smith entered the league, all 31 other teams have thrown at least TWO HUNDRED attempts more than the Panthers. The league average team has thrown an extra 650 pass attempts since 2001. That's a huge, huge margin. In NFL history, only four other receivers have been a bigger part of their team's passing offense in their prime than Steve Smith- Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, Lance Alworth, and Michael Irvin. That's the complete list.

So the league average team has thrown 650 more pass attempts across a 13 year period? That is in the neighborhood of about an extra season's worth of production. What would that be, another 1000 yards and 7 TDs? Do you think that makes the difference in his worthiness? I don't.

Aside from that, whether right or wrong, I'm generally of the opinion that players are judged on what they did, not on what they might have done in a different situation. And IMO that is appropriate.

I very seriously doubt the HOF voters will give Smith more than non-trivial credit for his situation. And I don't think they should.

Over his 6-year peak, Steve Smith averaged 2.76 yards per team pass attempt, so 650 more pass attempts would be 1794 yards. 1794 yards would be enough to bump Smiff up to 9th all-time, between Carter and Lofton and with a chance to add to that total. If you don't think 1794 yards is fair, an extra 1,000 yards leaves Smiff essentially tied with Andre Reed at 13th all-time. 1370 yards moves him up ahead of Reggie Wayne (at a year younger and with 14 fewer games played, to boot). Steve Smith has a comparable resume of postseason awards (pro bowls and All Pros) to those two, and added extra value as a returner, too. Reed just made the Hall of Fame, while Wayne has a decent shot. We can argue "ought" vs. "is", but I don't think there's any question that those extra yards would have DRAMATICALLY impacted his Hall of Fame chances. Even completely ignoring the fact that an extra 100-200 yards a year probably would have resulted in a few more Pro Bowl and All Pro selections. In 2008, Steve Smith was 3rd in receiving yards despite playing just 14 games for the team that threw the least pass attempts in the NFL. An extra 100-150 receiving yards might get him another 1st team AP All Pro award, and then how much different does his candidacy look?

I agree that players should be judged for what they did on the field, but to me, "what they did on the field" isn't just their total yardage numbers. Getting 1200 yards with Jake Delhomme is doing more on the field than getting 1300 yards with Peyton Manning. Getting 1200 yards on a team that's bottom 5 in pass attempts is doing more on the field than getting 1400 yards on a team that's top 5. Getting 1200 yards as the only option in the passing game- against double and sometimes even triple coverage- is doing more on the field than getting 1350 yards as the second option in a record-setting passing attack. These adjustments (adjusting for passing attempts, adjusting for quality of quarterback play) are not an attempt to create some sort of counterfactual about where Smiff's numbers SHOULD HAVE been. They're about trying to properly value what his numbers ACTUALLY WERE. Steve Smith did a ton on the field, it just didn't show up in as many counting stats because his quarterbacks were atrocious, he had a habit of missing 1-2 games a year, he missed a season in his prime, and his team never threw the ball. Nonetheless, Steve Smith was a much better receiver than Isaac Bruce or Reggie Wayne, and he did more with less.

Honestly, I think Michael Irvin is a great comp. Irvin's numbers were worse than Bruce, Reed, Carter, and Brown... but Irvin was a dominant WR whose numbers were artificially suppressed because his team rarely passed the ball. The Hall of Fame rightly recognized he was the better receiver, so he got in right away while those guys had to wait, although I'm sure the rings and the announcing gig helped his cause. I think Smith is as dominant as Irvin was, and I don't think he should be punished because he was playing with Jake Delhomme and Stephen Davis instead of Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith, so he didn't get those shiny rings.

 

[Tau837]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

While we're at it, let's elect Vinny Testeverde (9th in passing yards), Kerry Collins (12th), Dave Krieg (15th), Warrick Dunn (19th in rushing yards), and Irving Fryar (15th in receiving yards), too.

It's not 1 stat though. How many WRs can say they caught 830+ passes for 12 000 yards and scored 65 TDs? You seem to think longevity is a negative. You discount players who could play for so long why?

Longevity is not a negative, but unless it's above-baseline production, it's not a positive, either. If a guy gives me 10 years of way-above-average production, that's awesome. If a guy gives me 30 years of undrafted-free-agent-production, then who cares? The second guy will probably have better career numbers than the first, since he played three times as long, but the first was way more valuable.

There are 12 guys in NFL history to top 3400 completions, 40,000 yards, and 200 TDs. Three of them are Vinny Testeverde, Kerry Collins, and Drew Bledsoe. Should those three guys be in the Hall of Fame? Did you ever watch them play and think to yourself "wow, I'm watching one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game of football"?

Now, I happen to think that Smiff should be in the Hall of Fame, but it's not simply because he ranks in the top 20 in career numbers. Lots of guys make the top 20 career charts who don't deserve enshrinement. It's because Steve Smith managed to crack the top 20 career chart on a team with mediocre QB play that ranked dead last in the NFL in pass attempts over his career by a pretty decent margin. Since Steve Smith entered the league, all 31 other teams have thrown at least TWO HUNDRED attempts more than the Panthers. The league average team has thrown an extra 650 pass attempts since 2001. That's a huge, huge margin. In NFL history, only four other receivers have been a bigger part of their team's passing offense in their prime than Steve Smith- Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, Lance Alworth, and Michael Irvin. That's the complete list.

So the league average team has thrown 650 more pass attempts across a 13 year period? That is in the neighborhood of about an extra season's worth of production. What would that be, another 1000 yards and 7 TDs? Do you think that makes the difference in his worthiness? I don't.

Aside from that, whether right or wrong, I'm generally of the opinion that players are judged on what they did, not on what they might have done in a different situation. And IMO that is appropriate.

I very seriously doubt the HOF voters will give Smith more than non-trivial credit for his situation. And I don't think they should.

Over his 6-year peak, Steve Smith averaged 2.76 yards per team pass attempt, so 650 more pass attempts would be 1794 yards. 1794 yards would be enough to bump Smiff up to 9th all-time, between Carter and Lofton and with a chance to add to that total. If you don't think 1794 yards is fair, an extra 1,000 yards leaves Smiff essentially tied with Andre Reed at 13th all-time. 1370 yards moves him up ahead of Reggie Wayne (at a year younger and with 14 fewer games played, to boot). Steve Smith has a comparable resume of postseason awards (pro bowls and All Pros) to those two, and added extra value as a returner, too. Reed just made the Hall of Fame, while Wayne has a decent shot. We can argue "ought" vs. "is", but I don't think there's any question that those extra yards would have DRAMATICALLY impacted his Hall of Fame chances. Even completely ignoring the fact that an extra 100-200 yards a year probably would have resulted in a few more Pro Bowl and All Pro selections. In 2008, Steve Smith was 3rd in receiving yards despite playing just 14 games for the team that threw the least pass attempts in the NFL. An extra 100-150 receiving yards might get him another 1st team AP All Pro award, and then how much different does his candidacy look?

I agree that players should be judged for what they did on the field, but to me, "what they did on the field" isn't just their total yardage numbers. Getting 1200 yards with Jake Delhomme is doing more on the field than getting 1300 yards with Peyton Manning. Getting 1200 yards on a team that's bottom 5 in pass attempts is doing more on the field than getting 1400 yards on a team that's top 5. Getting 1200 yards as the only option in the passing game- against double and sometimes even triple coverage- is doing more on the field than getting 1350 yards as the second option in a record-setting passing attack. These adjustments (adjusting for passing attempts, adjusting for quality of quarterback play) are not an attempt to create some sort of counterfactual about where Smiff's numbers SHOULD HAVE been. They're about trying to properly value what his numbers ACTUALLY WERE. Steve Smith did a ton on the field, it just didn't show up in as many counting stats because his quarterbacks were atrocious, he had a habit of missing 1-2 games a year, he missed a season in his prime, and his team never threw the ball. Nonetheless, Steve Smith was a much better receiver than Isaac Bruce or Reggie Wayne, and he did more with less.

Honestly, I think Michael Irvin is a great comp. Irvin's numbers were worse than Bruce, Reed, Carter, and Brown... but Irvin was a dominant WR whose numbers were artificially suppressed because his team rarely passed the ball. The Hall of Fame rightly recognized he was the better receiver, so he got in right away while those guys had to wait, although I'm sure the rings and the announcing gig helped his cause. I think Smith is as dominant as Irvin was, and I don't think he should be punished because he was playing with Jake Delhomme and Stephen Davis instead of Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith, so he didn't get those shiny rings.

Irvin is a poor comparison IMO. He is in the HOF because:

1. He had an incredible 5 year stretch during which he averaged over 1400 receiving yards per season while averaging nearly 16 ypc.

2. His team, on which he was a clear leader, won 3 Super Bowls during that span.

Smith cannot match that, and doesn't come particularly close to doing so. Regardless of any mitigating factors (passing attempts, strength of team, etc.), there is no debating these facts.

And, no, it is not appropriate to cite Smith's 6 year peak when projecting his numbers based on pass attempts you cited over a 13 year period.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Steve Smith was vague when asked about his Panthers future on Thursday.
"I am working out and doing all the things as I am a Carolina Panther," Smith said. "That’s where I am. And I’ll continue to move forward until I am told otherwise. ... It’s a business and I understand that, and ultimately decisions aren’t up to me." Smith reportedly "cleared the air" with GM Dave Gettleman on Tuesday, but it certainly doesn't sound like he received assurance that he'll be back in 2014, let alone at his $7 million salary. Considering his veteran status, we doubt the Panthers let Smith twist in the wind much longer.

Source: ESPN.com

 

[Adam Harstad]

When your career stats can be matched by less than 20 players ever, you belong in the H.O.F. 100%. Reed, Monk and Smith all belong.

While we're at it, let's elect Vinny Testeverde (9th in passing yards), Kerry Collins (12th), Dave Krieg (15th), Warrick Dunn (19th in rushing yards), and Irving Fryar (15th in receiving yards), too.

It's not 1 stat though. How many WRs can say they caught 830+ passes for 12 000 yards and scored 65 TDs? You seem to think longevity is a negative. You discount players who could play for so long why?

Longevity is not a negative, but unless it's above-baseline production, it's not a positive, either. If a guy gives me 10 years of way-above-average production, that's awesome. If a guy gives me 30 years of undrafted-free-agent-production, then who cares? The second guy will probably have better career numbers than the first, since he played three times as long, but the first was way more valuable.

There are 12 guys in NFL history to top 3400 completions, 40,000 yards, and 200 TDs. Three of them are Vinny Testeverde, Kerry Collins, and Drew Bledsoe. Should those three guys be in the Hall of Fame? Did you ever watch them play and think to yourself "wow, I'm watching one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game of football"?

Now, I happen to think that Smiff should be in the Hall of Fame, but it's not simply because he ranks in the top 20 in career numbers. Lots of guys make the top 20 career charts who don't deserve enshrinement. It's because Steve Smith managed to crack the top 20 career chart on a team with mediocre QB play that ranked dead last in the NFL in pass attempts over his career by a pretty decent margin. Since Steve Smith entered the league, all 31 other teams have thrown at least TWO HUNDRED attempts more than the Panthers. The league average team has thrown an extra 650 pass attempts since 2001. That's a huge, huge margin. In NFL history, only four other receivers have been a bigger part of their team's passing offense in their prime than Steve Smith- Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, Lance Alworth, and Michael Irvin. That's the complete list.

So the league average team has thrown 650 more pass attempts across a 13 year period? That is in the neighborhood of about an extra season's worth of production. What would that be, another 1000 yards and 7 TDs? Do you think that makes the difference in his worthiness? I don't.

Aside from that, whether right or wrong, I'm generally of the opinion that players are judged on what they did, not on what they might have done in a different situation. And IMO that is appropriate.

I very seriously doubt the HOF voters will give Smith more than non-trivial credit for his situation. And I don't think they should.

Over his 6-year peak, Steve Smith averaged 2.76 yards per team pass attempt, so 650 more pass attempts would be 1794 yards. 1794 yards would be enough to bump Smiff up to 9th all-time, between Carter and Lofton and with a chance to add to that total. If you don't think 1794 yards is fair, an extra 1,000 yards leaves Smiff essentially tied with Andre Reed at 13th all-time. 1370 yards moves him up ahead of Reggie Wayne (at a year younger and with 14 fewer games played, to boot). Steve Smith has a comparable resume of postseason awards (pro bowls and All Pros) to those two, and added extra value as a returner, too. Reed just made the Hall of Fame, while Wayne has a decent shot. We can argue "ought" vs. "is", but I don't think there's any question that those extra yards would have DRAMATICALLY impacted his Hall of Fame chances. Even completely ignoring the fact that an extra 100-200 yards a year probably would have resulted in a few more Pro Bowl and All Pro selections. In 2008, Steve Smith was 3rd in receiving yards despite playing just 14 games for the team that threw the least pass attempts in the NFL. An extra 100-150 receiving yards might get him another 1st team AP All Pro award, and then how much different does his candidacy look?

I agree that players should be judged for what they did on the field, but to me, "what they did on the field" isn't just their total yardage numbers. Getting 1200 yards with Jake Delhomme is doing more on the field than getting 1300 yards with Peyton Manning. Getting 1200 yards on a team that's bottom 5 in pass attempts is doing more on the field than getting 1400 yards on a team that's top 5. Getting 1200 yards as the only option in the passing game- against double and sometimes even triple coverage- is doing more on the field than getting 1350 yards as the second option in a record-setting passing attack. These adjustments (adjusting for passing attempts, adjusting for quality of quarterback play) are not an attempt to create some sort of counterfactual about where Smiff's numbers SHOULD HAVE been. They're about trying to properly value what his numbers ACTUALLY WERE. Steve Smith did a ton on the field, it just didn't show up in as many counting stats because his quarterbacks were atrocious, he had a habit of missing 1-2 games a year, he missed a season in his prime, and his team never threw the ball. Nonetheless, Steve Smith was a much better receiver than Isaac Bruce or Reggie Wayne, and he did more with less.

Honestly, I think Michael Irvin is a great comp. Irvin's numbers were worse than Bruce, Reed, Carter, and Brown... but Irvin was a dominant WR whose numbers were artificially suppressed because his team rarely passed the ball. The Hall of Fame rightly recognized he was the better receiver, so he got in right away while those guys had to wait, although I'm sure the rings and the announcing gig helped his cause. I think Smith is as dominant as Irvin was, and I don't think he should be punished because he was playing with Jake Delhomme and Stephen Davis instead of Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith, so he didn't get those shiny rings.

Irvin is a poor comparison IMO. He is in the HOF because:

1. He had an incredible 5 year stretch during which he averaged over 1400 receiving yards per season while averaging nearly 16 ypc.

2. His team, on which he was a clear leader, won 3 Super Bowls during that span.

Smith cannot match that, and doesn't come particularly close to doing so. Regardless of any mitigating factors (passing attempts, strength of team, etc.), there is no debating these facts.

And, no, it is not appropriate to cite Smith's 6 year peak when projecting his numbers based on pass attempts you cited over a 13 year period.

Smith only played 12 of those 13 seasons (the season he missed was one of two years where Carolina was above-average in passing attempts, meaning the difference between Carolina and league average just in the 12 years Smith played was around 675), and I was mostly quoting his peak numbers to give a ceiling. I agree that an extra 650 attempts would almost certainly translate to fewer than 1800 yards, but I think your 1000 yards estimate was also too low. That's why I gave where he'd rank if he had an extra 1000 (tied with Reed for 13th), 1800 (between Carter and Lofton at 9th), and if we split the difference and gave him 1400 (just ahead of Reggie Wayne at 11th). Figure he gets another pro bowl or two and that extra 1AP if Carolina threw the ball more. If Steve Smith was in the top 10 all time in receiving yards with 7 pro bowls and 3 first team AP All Pros, is there any question whether he'd be in the Hall of Fame or not?

As I mentioned, there are five receivers in history who averaged more yards per team pass attempt at their peak. Three of them are the "Mount Rushmore" receivers (Rice, Alworth, and Hutson- and yes, there are only three receivers on my WR "Mount Rushmore"). One of them is Mac Speedie, whose stats are padded by his AAFC years. The fifth is Michael Irvin (hence the comparison). There are only five receivers in history who averaged a bigger percentage of their team's total passing yards at their peak- three guys from the 30s-50s (Hutson, Jim Benton, Hugh Taylor), plus Alworth and Irvin. Few receivers in the long and storied history of the National Football League have ever carried a passing offense as thoroughly and as effectively as Steve Smith and the Carolina Panthers. He has as many 1st team AP All Pro awards as Tim Brown, Andre Reed, Reggie Wayne, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, and Hines Ward... COMBINED. Just to name six receivers who are all considered better bets to make the Hall of Fame. And, as I mentioned, Smith easily could (should) have had a third. He's one of the most prolific postseason receivers in NFL history, with 856 yards and 8 TDs in 9 games (pro-rates to 1522/14 over 16 games). In 2006, facing the #1 passing defense in the NFL, Smith put up the 5th highest single-game yardage total in NFL history. The next week, against Seattle, Smith became one of two receivers I have ever seen face consistent triple-teams during the entire course of a game (the other is Calvin Johnson).

In my mind, it's a real shame that people can't see past his (impressive enough!) counting numbers to reward these facts. If it were me, I would enshrine Brown, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Calvin, Fitzgerald, Smith, and Andre from this generation. I know that that's a lot by historical standards, but the Hall has historically neglected receivers, and we're in one of the most pass-heavy eras in history, so the Hall should reflect that. I would leave out Holt, Bruce, Ward, et al. Also, I'd unenshrine Andre Reed while I was at it. He was a very good receiver, but nowhere near as good as these other guys.

 

[travdogg]

Anarchy, list all the guys that have a better resume than Smith.

Better resume that ***I*** would pick or better resume that ***VOTERS*** would pick?

Here are players that I think could garner more HOF consideration than Smith that played at least one year in the league with Smith. If people want to say they are not really the same era, so be it.

Terrell Owens

Randy Moss

Isaac Bruce

Tim Brown

Marvin Harrison

Reggie Wayne

Torry Holt

Reggie Wayne

Hines Ward

Larry Fitzgerald

Calvin Johnson

That's 11 guys at least in serious discussion. And that does not include guys that I would say are too soon to tell on Andre Johnson, Wes Welker, and Brandon Marshall.

Which gets me back to my original statement. How many guys are they going to induct that played in roughly the same era (or close to it).

I like Smith over several of those guys, but I don't think Smith is a HOF WR. It is a joke if Ward makes it. Owens, Moss and Harrison are the only locks, and probably Calvin assuming he doesn't fall off the map one way or another.

While we are on the topic of WR's and the HOF, I'd like to point out 3 guys who I think should also make it over most of this list.

1. Cliff Branch(my personal opinion is Branch was the best WR in the 70's, its crazy how little respect he gets.)

2. Sterling Sharpe(kind of the Terrell Davis of WR's. He was dominant for about 5 years)

3. Herman Moore(his numbers and Calvin's numbers are eerily similar and Moore played in a less pass heavy era with the best RB in recent history.)

 

[Anarchy99]

I like Smith over several of those guys, but I don't think Smith is a HOF WR. It is a joke if Ward makes it. Owens, Moss and Harrison are the only locks, and probably Calvin assuming he doesn't fall off the map one way or another.

While we are on the topic of WR's and the HOF, I'd like to point out 3 guys who I think should also make it over most of this list.

1. Cliff Branch(my personal opinion is Branch was the best WR in the 70's, its crazy how little respect he gets.)

2. Sterling Sharpe(kind of the Terrell Davis of WR's. He was dominant for about 5 years)

3. Herman Moore(his numbers and Calvin's numbers are eerily similar and Moore played in a less pass heavy era with the best RB in recent history.)

The problem for Smith is he doesn't have consistently eye popping individual season numbers and his teams haven't done much. He's had 3 or 4 HOF worthy seasons IMO. Which is similar to Herman Moore. Moore had a 3-4 year stretch where he was really, really impressive. But he played 8 other seasons where he was decent or well below average. For either guy, does 4 great years = HOF? I agree Sharpe was a HOF talent that injury robbed him of the rest of his career. Branch was one of the great receivers in an era of running the football, but now he could only get in by the veterans vote (which he still could at some point).

 

[matuski]

Anarchy, list all the guys that have a better resume than Smith.

Better resume that ***I*** would pick or better resume that ***VOTERS*** would pick?

Here are players that I think could garner more HOF consideration than Smith that played at least one year in the league with Smith. If people want to say they are not really the same era, so be it.

Terrell Owens

Randy Moss

Isaac Bruce

Tim Brown

Marvin Harrison

Reggie Wayne

Torry Holt

Reggie Wayne

Hines Ward

Larry Fitzgerald

Calvin Johnson

That's 11 guys at least in serious discussion. And that does not include guys that I would say are too soon to tell on Andre Johnson, Wes Welker, and Brandon Marshall.

Which gets me back to my original statement. How many guys are they going to induct that played in roughly the same era (or close to it).

I like Smith over several of those guys, but I don't think Smith is a HOF WR. It is a joke if Ward makes it. Owens, Moss and Harrison are the only locks, and probably Calvin assuming he doesn't fall off the map one way or another.

While we are on the topic of WR's and the HOF, I'd like to point out 3 guys who I think should also make it over most of this list.

1. Cliff Branch(my personal opinion is Branch was the best WR in the 70's, its crazy how little respect he gets.)

2. Sterling Sharpe(kind of the Terrell Davis of WR's. He was dominant for about 5 years)

3. Herman Moore(his numbers and Calvin's numbers are eerily similar and Moore played in a less pass heavy era with the best RB in recent history.)

Great list.

 

[travdogg]

I like Smith over several of those guys, but I don't think Smith is a HOF WR. It is a joke if Ward makes it. Owens, Moss and Harrison are the only locks, and probably Calvin assuming he doesn't fall off the map one way or another.

While we are on the topic of WR's and the HOF, I'd like to point out 3 guys who I think should also make it over most of this list.

1. Cliff Branch(my personal opinion is Branch was the best WR in the 70's, its crazy how little respect he gets.)

2. Sterling Sharpe(kind of the Terrell Davis of WR's. He was dominant for about 5 years)

3. Herman Moore(his numbers and Calvin's numbers are eerily similar and Moore played in a less pass heavy era with the best RB in recent history.)

The problem for Smith is he doesn't have consistently eye popping individual season numbers and his teams haven't done much. He's had 3 or 4 HOF worthy seasons IMO. Which is similar to Herman Moore. Moore had a 3-4 year stretch where he was really, really impressive. But he played 8 other seasons where he was decent or well below average. For either guy, does 4 great years = HOF? I agree Sharpe was a HOF talent that injury robbed him of the rest of his career. Branch was one of the great receivers in an era of running the football, but now he could only get in by the veterans vote (which he still could at some point).

I think 4-5 years as one of the best 2-3 players at your position is hall of fame worthy. I mean, if I were an NFL team, I'd rather have that elite guy for 4-5 years, than a very good player for a decade. Which is why I'd take Steve Smith or Chad Johnson over guys like Isaac Bruce or Tim Brown.

On another note, I also kind of hate how being on a great team helps a player get in the hall of fame so much. I mean, Swann and Stallworth are both in the HOF, and I would very much argue that neither of them were anything better than good players that happened to be part of in my opinion the best team in NFL history.

 

[Anarchy99]

Using number of times WRs have ranked in the Top 5 in either receptions, receiving yardage, or receiving TD and adding up each of those for all WR with 8,000+ career receiving yards, here is the updated list through this past season (only including guys from the 70s or later).

J Rice	        31R Moss	        17M Harrison	17C Carter	16T Owens	        13S Sharpe	12S Largent	11A Rison	        11T Holt	        10L Fitzgerald	10Cal Johnson	10T Brown	         8A Johnson	 8B Marshall	 8H Carmichael	 8H Ellard	 7R Wayne	         7J Smith	         7M Irvin	         7R Smith	         7C Johnson	 7H Jackson	 7W Welker	 7H Moore	         7J Stallworth	 7C Branch	 7I Bruce	         6J Lofton	 6H Ward	         6G Clark	         6M Clayton	 6A Reed	         5A Monk	         5S Smith	         5C Joiner	 5D Mason	         5A Boldin	 5R White	         5W Chandler	 5M Muhammad	 4S Morgan	 4D Hill	         4R Green	         4T Mathis	 4J Horn	         4W Walker	 4I Fryer	         3S Moss	         3D Driver	 3E Moulds	 3M Duper	         3P Burress	 3J Galloway	 2R Moore	         2A Miller	 2M Carrier	 2E Givins	 2K Johnson	 1A Toomer	 1T Martin	 1E Martin	 1K McCardell	 0R Proehl	 0T Glenn	         0J Morton	 0L Coles	         0E Kennison	 0M Colston	 0C Conway	 0J Graham	 0W Slaughter	 0H Moses  	 0B Brooks	 0

 

[Tau837]

I like Smith over several of those guys, but I don't think Smith is a HOF WR. It is a joke if Ward makes it. Owens, Moss and Harrison are the only locks, and probably Calvin assuming he doesn't fall off the map one way or another.

While we are on the topic of WR's and the HOF, I'd like to point out 3 guys who I think should also make it over most of this list.

1. Cliff Branch(my personal opinion is Branch was the best WR in the 70's, its crazy how little respect he gets.)

2. Sterling Sharpe(kind of the Terrell Davis of WR's. He was dominant for about 5 years)

3. Herman Moore(his numbers and Calvin's numbers are eerily similar and Moore played in a less pass heavy era with the best RB in recent history.)

The problem for Smith is he doesn't have consistently eye popping individual season numbers and his teams haven't done much. He's had 3 or 4 HOF worthy seasons IMO. Which is similar to Herman Moore. Moore had a 3-4 year stretch where he was really, really impressive. But he played 8 other seasons where he was decent or well below average. For either guy, does 4 great years = HOF? I agree Sharpe was a HOF talent that injury robbed him of the rest of his career. Branch was one of the great receivers in an era of running the football, but now he could only get in by the veterans vote (which he still could at some point).

I think 4-5 years as one of the best 2-3 players at your position is hall of fame worthy. I mean, if I were an NFL team, I'd rather have that elite guy for 4-5 years, than a very good player for a decade. Which is why I'd take Steve Smith or Chad Johnson over guys like Isaac Bruce or Tim Brown.On another note, I also kind of hate how being on a great team helps a player get in the hall of fame so much. I mean, Swann and Stallworth are both in the HOF, and I would very much argue that neither of them were anything better than good players that happened to be part of in my opinion the best team in NFL history.

In what 4-5 year periods were Chad Johnson and Steve Smith among the top 2-3 WRs?

 

[Adam Harstad]

I like Smith over several of those guys, but I don't think Smith is a HOF WR. It is a joke if Ward makes it. Owens, Moss and Harrison are the only locks, and probably Calvin assuming he doesn't fall off the map one way or another.

While we are on the topic of WR's and the HOF, I'd like to point out 3 guys who I think should also make it over most of this list.

1. Cliff Branch(my personal opinion is Branch was the best WR in the 70's, its crazy how little respect he gets.)

2. Sterling Sharpe(kind of the Terrell Davis of WR's. He was dominant for about 5 years)

3. Herman Moore(his numbers and Calvin's numbers are eerily similar and Moore played in a less pass heavy era with the best RB in recent history.)

The problem for Smith is he doesn't have consistently eye popping individual season numbers and his teams haven't done much. He's had 3 or 4 HOF worthy seasons IMO. Which is similar to Herman Moore. Moore had a 3-4 year stretch where he was really, really impressive. But he played 8 other seasons where he was decent or well below average. For either guy, does 4 great years = HOF? I agree Sharpe was a HOF talent that injury robbed him of the rest of his career. Branch was one of the great receivers in an era of running the football, but now he could only get in by the veterans vote (which he still could at some point).

I think 4-5 years as one of the best 2-3 players at your position is hall of fame worthy. I mean, if I were an NFL team, I'd rather have that elite guy for 4-5 years, than a very good player for a decade. Which is why I'd take Steve Smith or Chad Johnson over guys like Isaac Bruce or Tim Brown.On another note, I also kind of hate how being on a great team helps a player get in the hall of fame so much. I mean, Swann and Stallworth are both in the HOF, and I would very much argue that neither of them were anything better than good players that happened to be part of in my opinion the best team in NFL history.

In what 4-5 year periods were Chad Johnson and Steve Smith among the top 2-3 WRs?

I would say that Steve Smith was one of the 2-3 best WRs in the NFL from 2005-2008. 2005 is the easiest case to make, as Smiff was one of the few WRs in history to capture the triple crown. 2008 is another easy case to make, as Smith ranked 3rd in receiving yardage despite missing two games and playing on a team that was last in the NFL in pass attempts. In 2006, Smith was 3rd in yards per game and made the pro bowl, though he missed a pair of games. In 2007, Smith had 271 yards and 4 TDs in the first two weeks before Delhomme went down with injury in week 3, leaving Smith playing with David Carr, rookie Matt Moore, and a 44-year-old Vinny Testeverde. Over those four years, in games Delhomme played, Smith averaged 96.1 yards and 0.65 TDs per game (1544/10 per 16 games). With Jake Delhomme, on a team that passed less than any other.

Even with Delhomme and the missed time, only Larry Fitzgerald had more receiving yards from 2005-2008 (by a whopping 37), and only Fitzgerald, Moss, and Owens had more touchdowns. I think the only guys in consideration for "best WR" over that span are Fitzgerald, Smith, early-Dallas Terrell Owens, and late-St. Louis Torry Holt. Randy Moss only had one big year over that stretch (his ridiculous 2007), and Andre Johnson hadn't quite emerged yet, putting up just 1.5 elite seasons over that stretch.

The case for Ochocinco is tougher, since his prime overlapped more with Minnesota Moss, Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, and younger Terrell Owens. Still, five straight pro bowls, five straight top-6 finishes in receiving yards (four of them top 4), two first team AP All Pros. Personally, I don't think he was quite as dominant as Smith (and definitely not as dominant as the "big 3" of Moss/Owens/Harrison), but I think a strong comparison could be made between Ochocinco and Torry Holt.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reports the Panthers are "attempting to trade" Steve Smith.
In other words, Smith will likely be cut if a trade partner can't be found. Considering that Smith turns 35 in May and is due $7 million in 2014, the Panthers aren't going to find a taker. In theory, it's surprising that it would come to this with one of the greatest players in Panthers history, but Smith appeared to have lost multiple steps last season. Excusing his rookie year and injury-ruined 2004, Smith's 745 yards were the second fewest of his career. With or without Smith, the Panthers have a desperate need at wideout.

Source: Ian Rapoport on Twitter

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

League sources tell the Baltimore Sun the Ravens are expected to emerge as a "strong potential landing spot" if/when Steve Smith is released.
A source also believes the Bucs would "make a lot of sense" for Smith. The language suggests the source is simply spitballing, but Baltimore could certainly use Smiff's strong hands opposite Torrey Smith. Smith is just a chain mover at this point in his career, but even that is something the Ravens lacked in 2013.

Related: Ravens, Buccaneers

Source: Baltimore Sun

 

[Ghost Rider]

In my mind, it's a real shame that people can't see past his (impressive enough!) counting numbers to reward these facts. If it were me, I would enshrine Brown, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Calvin, Fitzgerald, Smith, and Andre from this generation. I know that that's a lot by historical standards, but the Hall has historically neglected receivers, and we're in one of the most pass-heavy eras in history, so the Hall should reflect that. I would leave out Holt, Bruce, Ward, et al. Also, I'd unenshrine Andre Reed while I was at it. He was a very good receiver, but nowhere near as good as these other guys.

I am sorry, but there is no way that Steve Smith is more HOF-worthy than Bruce or Holt.