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

[zoonation]

Is Reggie Wayne really a lock for the Hall?

The only locks at this point are Moss, T.O. and Harrison IMO.

 

[BassNBrew]

If Smith were to come back one more year I think he would make it. I don't see that happening when I'm getting to watch his kid play soccer while he's in practice 400 miles away. I think his son will be a senior next year.

 

[Hoss Style]

Isaac Bruce > Steve Smith

Torry Holt > Steve Smith

Marvin Harrison > Steve Smith

Reggie Wayne > Steve Smith

Terrell Owens > Steve Smith

Randy Moss > Steve Smith

Larry Fitzgerald > Steve Smith

Andre Johnson > Steve Smith

Calvin Johnson > Steve Smith

Brandon Marshall > Steve Smith

Demaryius Thomas > Steve Smith

Antonio Brown > Steve Smith

Dez Bryant > Steve Smith

A.J. Green > Steve Smith

Julio Jones > Steve Smith

By my count that's at least 15 WR's, not yet in the Hall of Fame, who were/are at least as good as Steve Smith was at the same point in his career(most of them, far better). Yes, some of them won't have the longevity, but many of their per season stats will far surpass Smith's.

List whatever conveniently worded/framed statistics you want, but Steve Smith is not a "really special, really really rare, generational-type talent".

He's a guy who has been good for most of 15 years, and truly great for one of them. Nothing more, nothing less.

Framing this as having watched him play, I looked at that list and asked for each one if I think Smith could have equaled or surpassed the production if he were on the same team in the same position. I answered "yes" to almost every one.

I have to think that most posting against Smith, again, didn't get to see him play in his prime. Look at the way he's playing these last few years, and imagine him with more speed, burst, intensity, endurance, etc. He attacked the ball in the air as well or better than everyone on that list. Same for route running, speed, big play ability, blocking... pretty much everything a WR does. He's at least on par with all of them in most categories.

 

[FUBAR]

Isaac Bruce > Steve Smith

Torry Holt > Steve Smith

Marvin Harrison > Steve Smith

Reggie Wayne > Steve Smith

Terrell Owens > Steve Smith

Randy Moss > Steve Smith

Larry Fitzgerald > Steve Smith

Andre Johnson > Steve Smith

Calvin Johnson > Steve Smith

Brandon Marshall > Steve Smith

Demaryius Thomas > Steve Smith

Antonio Brown > Steve Smith

Dez Bryant > Steve Smith

A.J. Green > Steve Smith

Julio Jones > Steve Smith

By my count that's at least 15 WR's, not yet in the Hall of Fame, who were/are at least as good as Steve Smith was at the same point in his career(most of them, far better). Yes, some of them won't have the longevity, but many of their per season stats will far surpass Smith's.

List whatever conveniently worded/framed statistics you want, but Steve Smith is not a "really special, really really rare, generational-type talent".

He's a guy who has been good for most of 15 years, and truly great for one of them. Nothing more, nothing less.

Framing this as having watched him play, I looked at that list and asked for each one if I think Smith could have equaled or surpassed the production if he were on the same team in the same position. I answered "yes" to almost every one.

I have to think that most posting against Smith, again, didn't get to see him play in his prime. Look at the way he's playing these last few years, and imagine him with more speed, burst, intensity, endurance, etc. He attacked the ball in the air as well or better than everyone on that list. Same for route running, speed, big play ability, blocking... pretty much everything a WR does. He's at least on par with all of them in most categories.

I like Smith, a lot. But he was not going to be better than Moss with CPep. Brady... maybe, but CPep's game was basically to throw it up for Moss to win the contest. Smith would have done other things better, but he wasn't going to outproduce Moss when Moss was motivated.

Marvin was the exact WR Peyton needed. Hard to say whether Smith would be better.

Otherwise it's fruitless to argue.

 

[Hoss Style]

Isaac Bruce > Steve Smith

Torry Holt > Steve Smith

Marvin Harrison > Steve Smith

Reggie Wayne > Steve Smith

Terrell Owens > Steve Smith

Randy Moss > Steve Smith

Larry Fitzgerald > Steve Smith

Andre Johnson > Steve Smith

Calvin Johnson > Steve Smith

Brandon Marshall > Steve Smith

Demaryius Thomas > Steve Smith

Antonio Brown > Steve Smith

Dez Bryant > Steve Smith

A.J. Green > Steve Smith

Julio Jones > Steve Smith

By my count that's at least 15 WR's, not yet in the Hall of Fame, who were/are at least as good as Steve Smith was at the same point in his career(most of them, far better). Yes, some of them won't have the longevity, but many of their per season stats will far surpass Smith's.

List whatever conveniently worded/framed statistics you want, but Steve Smith is not a "really special, really really rare, generational-type talent".

He's a guy who has been good for most of 15 years, and truly great for one of them. Nothing more, nothing less.

Framing this as having watched him play, I looked at that list and asked for each one if I think Smith could have equaled or surpassed the production if he were on the same team in the same position. I answered "yes" to almost every one.

I have to think that most posting against Smith, again, didn't get to see him play in his prime. Look at the way he's playing these last few years, and imagine him with more speed, burst, intensity, endurance, etc. He attacked the ball in the air as well or better than everyone on that list. Same for route running, speed, big play ability, blocking... pretty much everything a WR does. He's at least on par with all of them in most categories.

I like Smith, a lot. But he was not going to be better than Moss with CPep. Brady... maybe, but CPep's game was basically to throw it up for Moss to win the contest. Smith would have done other things better, but he wasn't going to outproduce Moss when Moss was motivated.

Marvin was the exact WR Peyton needed. Hard to say whether Smith would be better.

Otherwise it's fruitless to argue.

Agree with you here. I made sure to put an "almost" in "almost every one".

There are definitely some WRs on that list that are on another level.

 

[Anarchy99]

Evaluating "what could have been" production if players were on different teams is a fool's errand. All that counts is what actually happened, not what could have happened. Put any good to very good receiver paired with say Peyton Manning in a dome for 15 years and each would have HOF numbers and then some. But most guys didn't play with Peyton Manning for 15 years, and there is no make believe Hall of Fame for imaginary scenarios that never happened.

 

[kOOk]

Let's talk about blocking. Torry Holt, Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, Antonio Brown, Reggie Wayne, A.J. Green, Isaac Bruce, etc.....

Smith played harder than any of those guys when the ball wasn't going to him.

Or does that not count because it's hard to quantify?

 

[JIslander]

Evaluating "what could have been" production if players were on different teams is a fool's errand. All that counts is what actually happened, not what could have happened. Put any good to very good receiver paired with say Peyton Manning in a dome for 15 years and each would have HOF numbers and then some. But most guys didn't play with Peyton Manning for 15 years, and there is no make believe Hall of Fame for imaginary scenarios that never happened.

To me, this conflicts with your earlier statement that to be in the "Fame", one needed to be part of a high octane offense. Ala who cares about the guys who you could plug into a PFM system and crank out HOF numbers?

 

[Hoss Style]

Evaluating "what could have been" production if players were on different teams is a fool's errand. All that counts is what actually happened, not what could have happened. Put any good to very good receiver paired with say Peyton Manning in a dome for 15 years and each would have HOF numbers and then some. But most guys didn't play with Peyton Manning for 15 years, and there is no make believe Hall of Fame for imaginary scenarios that never happened.

Agreed: "could have been" makes no sense. It's what happened.

Some here, myself included, do factor in the "eye test", for lack of a better term, and when asked to compare to other players, we will factor in what we saw one player do in similar situations, and try to rectify that with different scenarios.

Obviously you disagree, and that's fine, but I believe having players with similar numbers looked at further by using situational factors is an acceptable way to compare. Not so much a "what could have been" but more of a "what would he have reasonably done with similar opportunities."

Of course, I'm not a fan of making the HOF just a numbers game, either, which I know many disagree with. I think it devalues eras and player's effect on the game in some ways. Luckily, Smith has both numbers and exceptional play if you watched him, so I think he's HOF worthy.

 

[Anarchy99]

Evaluating "what could have been" production if players were on different teams is a fool's errand. All that counts is what actually happened, not what could have happened. Put any good to very good receiver paired with say Peyton Manning in a dome for 15 years and each would have HOF numbers and then some. But most guys didn't play with Peyton Manning for 15 years, and there is no make believe Hall of Fame for imaginary scenarios that never happened.

To me, this conflicts with your earlier statement that to be in the "Fame", one needed to be part of a high octane offense. Ala who cares about the guys who you could plug into a PFM system and crank out HOF numbers?

No it doesn't. If a player put up big numbers and/or was a key contributor to a long time winning and SB team, that usually would meet the "fame" component of the HOF. Yes, Steve Smith could have put up the numbers Harrison or Wayne did in IND (and they would have had lesser totals playing for CAR). But that's not how it happened, so to say Smith would have had uber elite numbers had he played with top QB is almost an admission that he needs a boost to get in.

As far as the high octane offense goes, IMO, year to year elite performance trumps long term compiled numbers, just as winning trumps not winning. Smith had a really dominant year and a couple other HOF level years on the stat side of the equation . . . but he's played for 15 years. By extension, on the raw numbers side, that means his dozen other years, while very good, may not be at a true elite level.

Getting back to exploring what we don't know, maybe if the Panthers had passed more they would have thrown the ball to someone not named Steve Smith. Delhomme was known for tunnel vision and focusing in on one guy. Maybe if they had a decent WR2 or a different QB Smith could have seen the same number of targets, The fact is, we don't know what could have happened as it didn't happen.

To use an extreme example, the baseball HOF doesn't have a separate section for most home runs for guys that played in the Astrodome or other cavernous parks. You have to look at the players' numbers as they stand, not adjusted for other parameters. Sometimes numbers will get exaggerated and that could be held against a player (like Colorado Rockies players), but Clayton Kershaw doesn't seem to have to give back Cy Youngs for playing in a pitcher's park.

But I don't have a HOF vote in any sport, so no one has to worry.

 

[Anarchy99]

Evaluating "what could have been" production if players were on different teams is a fool's errand. All that counts is what actually happened, not what could have happened. Put any good to very good receiver paired with say Peyton Manning in a dome for 15 years and each would have HOF numbers and then some. But most guys didn't play with Peyton Manning for 15 years, and there is no make believe Hall of Fame for imaginary scenarios that never happened.

Agreed: "could have been" makes no sense. It's what happened.

Some here, myself included, do factor in the "eye test", for lack of a better term, and when asked to compare to other players, we will factor in what we saw one player do in similar situations, and try to rectify that with different scenarios.

Obviously you disagree, and that's fine, but I believe having players with similar numbers looked at further by using situational factors is an acceptable way to compare. Not so much a "what could have been" but more of a "what would he have reasonably done with similar opportunities."

Of course, I'm not a fan of making the HOF just a numbers game, either, which I know many disagree with. I think it devalues eras and player's effect on the game in some ways. Luckily, Smith has both numbers and exceptional play if you watched him, so I think he's HOF worthy.

To clarify my position, I think there are a lot of players that merit HOF consideration. It's not that I don't think Smith is a HOFer, it's that I think there are other WR ahead of him on the pecking order or in the food chain that would be more deserving. By extension, I have an aversion to just inducting everyone as it waters down the HOF. In Smith's case (and with some other contemporary WRs), I don't see the HOF inducting more than 10, maybe 12, guys that played WR across an era of roughly 15 years.

IMO, Smith, while tough and very talented, is like Hines Ward, just without the rings. Maybe it's unfair to hang the non-winning moniker on Smith, but as I see the voting going, I think he has some things going against him. That being said, I a m sure there will be some voters who will look at his total career stats and vote for him just based on that. Thus why I have said all along that IMO he is borderline.

 

[Tau837]

Let's talk about blocking. Torry Holt, Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, Antonio Brown, Reggie Wayne, A.J. Green, Isaac Bruce, etc.....

...

Or does that not count because it's hard to quantify?

It's not actually that hard to quantify generally. It is very hard to quantify exactly, since it is difficult to separate the impact of the many players who are blocking on each play from the runner's own ability. We've been through these discussions in the Hines Ward HOF thread, and I think it is fairly easy to demonstrate that the bottom line effect of Ward's blocking was marginal in the big picture. Given that Ward is known as "the best blocking WR of all time", that suggests that Smith's impact as a blocker was even less, and thus not particularly worthy of mention in this discussion.

Smith played harder than any of those guys when the ball wasn't going to him.

It is impossible to prove this statement or quantify its effect if true.

Sure, Moss loafed sometimes, but most of the guys named in this thread did not. And Moss got away with it because his natural talent blew away his peers, including Smith.

 

[FUBAR]

Let's talk about blocking. Torry Holt, Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, Antonio Brown, Reggie Wayne, A.J. Green, Isaac Bruce, etc.....

Smith played harder than any of those guys when the ball wasn't going to him.

Or does that not count because it's hard to quantify?

It's not actually that hard to quantify generally. It is very hard to quantify exactly, since it is difficult to separate the impact of the many players who are blocking on each play from the runner's own ability. We've been through these discussions in the Hines Ward HOF thread, and I think it is fairly easy to demonstrate that the bottom line effect of Ward's blocking was marginal in the big picture. Given that Ward is known as "the best blocking WR of all time", that suggests that Smith's impact as a blocker was even less, and thus not particularly worthy of mention in this discussion.

It sort of goes along with the "he motivated his teammates!" line. Ray Lewis might be the most well known leader, and that adds to his argument for HOF (not sure if anyone would argue against Ray except for the whole killing people thing) but by itself it doesn't mean more than actual production.

 

[Anarchy99]

Sure, Moss loafed sometimes, but most of the guys named in this thread did not. And Moss got away with it because his natural talent blew away his peers, including Smith.

I still believe that some of what we call "loafing" was in fact more like "resting." Since Moss was such a threat on every play, he would rarely come off the field for a breather. He ran a lot of downfield routes, so rather than take him off the field to get a quick rest, his teams would leave him on the field to draw coverage on plays that he didn't have to really do anything. Without looking at hours of game film, it is hard to really know which plays he was catching his breath and which ones he could have been loafing. I am sure Moss is not the first player to take a play off now and again.

 

[JIslander]

Evaluating "what could have been" production if players were on different teams is a fool's errand. All that counts is what actually happened, not what could have happened. Put any good to very good receiver paired with say Peyton Manning in a dome for 15 years and each would have HOF numbers and then some. But most guys didn't play with Peyton Manning for 15 years, and there is no make believe Hall of Fame for imaginary scenarios that never happened.

To me, this conflicts with your earlier statement that to be in the "Fame", one needed to be part of a high octane offense. Ala who cares about the guys who you could plug into a PFM system and crank out HOF numbers?

No it doesn't. If a player put up big numbers and/or was a key contributor to a long time winning and SB team, that usually would meet the "fame" component of the HOF. Yes, Steve Smith could have put up the numbers Harrison or Wayne did in IND (and they would have had lesser totals playing for CAR). But that's not how it happened, so to say Smith would have had uber elite numbers had he played with top QB is almost an admission that he needs a boost to get in.

As far as the high octane offense goes, IMO, year to year elite performance trumps long term compiled numbers, just as winning trumps not winning. Smith had a really dominant year and a couple other HOF level years on the stat side of the equation . . . but he's played for 15 years. By extension, on the raw numbers side, that means his dozen other years, while very good, may not be at a true elite level.

Getting back to exploring what we don't know, maybe if the Panthers had passed more they would have thrown the ball to someone not named Steve Smith. Delhomme was known for tunnel vision and focusing in on one guy. Maybe if they had a decent WR2 or a different QB Smith could have seen the same number of targets, The fact is, we don't know what could have happened as it didn't happen.

To use an extreme example, the baseball HOF doesn't have a separate section for most home runs for guys that played in the Astrodome or other cavernous parks. You have to look at the players' numbers as they stand, not adjusted for other parameters. Sometimes numbers will get exaggerated and that could be held against a player (like Colorado Rockies players), but Clayton Kershaw doesn't seem to have to give back Cy Youngs for playing in a pitcher's park.

But I don't have a HOF vote in any sport, so no one has to worry.

So how does one separate out the "just good" WR players from the elite HOFers if its a given that when put in an established high octane system with a HOF QB their play will be elevated? Basically, everybody is at least "really good" at the Pro level --if you get in the right environment, you can reach HOF status...to me, that actually supports the case for a player like Smiff.

 

[Fariq]

Group 3 - Not deserving of HOF:

Hines Ward

Anquan Boldin

Derrick Mason

Wes Welker

Rod Smith

Chad Johnson

Chad Johnson deserves more respect - he fell off a cliff but no one had more yards between 2003 and 2009.

If Chad had been drafted by the Colts instead of Wayne he would be the one going to the HOF.

If worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't be scared of them.

Well, because they don't have arms.

 

[Arodin]

there is no make believe Hall of Fame for imaginary scenarios that never happened.

What do you call my league's history page and trophy case then?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Evaluating "what could have been" production if players were on different teams is a fool's errand. All that counts is what actually happened, not what could have happened. Put any good to very good receiver paired with say Peyton Manning in a dome for 15 years and each would have HOF numbers and then some. But most guys didn't play with Peyton Manning for 15 years, and there is no make believe Hall of Fame for imaginary scenarios that never happened.

I agree that the Hall shouldn't be considering counterfactuals. But it absolutely should be considering context. If one guy averaged 1300 yards a season playing with a first-ballot Hall of Famer in a pass-first offense, and a second guy averaged 1250 yards a season playing with a rotating cast of journeymen on a run-first offense, I don't think it's at all out of line for the Hall to look at degree of difficulty and say that the second receiver was more impressive.

I'm not saying imagine what Smith's numbers could have been. I'm saying the numbers he actually had, adjusted for context, were more impressive than the numbers from Bruce or Holt and on par with, say, Larry Fitzgerald. (Fitzgerald was better younger, Smith has been better older; if Fitz is as good at 36 as Smith has been, he'll obviously pull back ahead.)

 

[BobbyLayne]

moved into the top ten all-time in yards today

may never play again after possible right achilles injury

 

[Zow]

So ####ty if his career ends on an injury.

 

[Mister CIA]

:salute:

 

[tone1oc]

It was nice to see him sneak into the top 10 yardage list on his second to lst reception. Hate to see a great competitor go out like that. I have a feeling he'll be back.

::hat tip::

 

[BobbyLayne]

Harbaugh confirmed it's a torn achilles, out for season

hope he comes back for one more but seems doubtful

 

[renesauz]

Achilles still takes 12 months to come back from at 90%, and 18 to be "right"....and that's for 26 y.o. kids.

Hard to see him coming back in 2017. He's done. Great career, lousy way for it to end.

 

[Bri]

He's half crazy to be playing this game at his height and weight and thru all the injuries he's had. Good luck predicting this one.

 

[Omniscient Deity]

Dude is a beast. Gotta respect him as a football player.

 

[Hoss Style]

It was a privilege to watch him play. The toughest WR I ever saw in my years of watching.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Achilles still takes 12 months to come back from at 90%, and 18 to be "right"....and that's for 26 y.o. kids.

Hard to see him coming back in 2017. He's done.

Um, he said he was retiring before the season and has reiterated that many times throughout the season. He was never coming back for 2016 yet 2017.

Really sucked it ended like this for him, he was still a top 20 WR even at this age. IMO he's superior to Reggie Wayne by a good margin. Smith was never in an offense like Wayne was, never played with a HOF QB, and was a lethal special teams player for most of his career.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Isaac Bruce > Steve Smith

Torry Holt > Steve Smith

Marvin Harrison > Steve Smith

Reggie Wayne > Steve Smith

Terrell Owens > Steve Smith

Randy Moss > Steve Smith

Larry Fitzgerald > Steve Smith

Andre Johnson > Steve Smith

Calvin Johnson > Steve Smith

Brandon Marshall > Steve Smith

Demaryius Thomas > Steve Smith

Antonio Brown > Steve Smith

Dez Bryant > Steve Smith

A.J. Green > Steve Smith

Julio Jones > Steve Smith

By my count that's at least 15 WR's, not yet in the Hall of Fame, who were/are at least as good as Steve Smith was at the same point in his career(most of them, far better). Yes, some of them won't have the longevity, but many of their per season stats will far surpass Smith's.

List whatever conveniently worded/framed statistics you want, but Steve Smith is not a "really special, really really rare, generational-type talent".

He's a guy who has been good for most of 15 years, and truly great for one of them. Nothing more, nothing less.

lol at this list, terrible. Moss, Harrison, and Owens are the only ones on that list that definitely were better, including the young guys still playing in their third or fourth seasons is obnoxious.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

If Smith retires after this season and we look at WR whose careers overlapped Smith's by 5 years, that leaves a data set that includes:

Marvin Harrison

Terrell Owens

Reggie Wayne

Andre Johnson

Isaac Bruce

Hines Ward

Randy Moss

Anquan Boldin

Larry Fitzgerald

Derrick Mason

Torry Holt

Wes Welker

Rod Smith

Brandon Marshall

Calvin Johnson

Antonio Brown

Demaryius Thomas

Dez Bryant

Chad Johnson

AJ Green

Julio Jones

That's a group of 20+ other players (not all HOF worthy), but guys that have enough cross over that they could almost be considered being from a similar era. How many of these guys are going to get into the HOF?

IMO:

Group 1 - Locks to make HOF:

Marvin Harrison
Terrell Owens
Reggie Wayne
Randy Moss

Group 2 - Very likely to make HOF:
Isaac Bruce
Torry Holt
Larry Fitzgerald
Calvin Johnson
Andre Johnson

Group 3 - Not deserving of HOF:
Hines Ward
Anquan Boldin
Derrick Mason
Wes Welker
Rod Smith
Chad Johnson
Devin Hester

Group 4 - Too early to tell:
Brandon Marshall
Antonio Brown
Demaryius Thomas
Dez Bryant
AJ Green
Julio Jones

Group 5 - On the HOF bubble:
Steve Smith
Reggie Wayne

I assume no one disagrees that the guys in Group 1 are locks and are more deserving than Smith.

IMO all of the guys in Group 2 are more deserving than Smith. I could see some arguments here from the pro-Smith crowd, so here we can distinguish between SHOULD and WILL. IMO all of the guys in this group will get in.

Even though I think everyone in Group 3 is undeserving, I could see Ward making it. I wouldn't vote for him, but it wouldn't shock me if the voters put him in eventually.

At least a couple guys in Group 4 will probably make it, we just can't tell who yet.

So I could see 12+ of these guys making it, meaning Smith making it would make 13+. Seems like a lot, and I think this illustrates why Smith will have a hard time getting in. IMO in order for him to make it implies that the voters will view him as part of the second tier in Group 2, but it's hard for me to see all of them making it, so it feels like Smith would have to make it at the expense of one of the others.

ETA: Added Hester and Wayne, along with Group 5.

It took five years for Chris Carter to get in the hall and you think Isaac Bruce and Torey Holt are "very likely" to get in? Really?

Harrison, Moss, and Owens are going to get in, none of the others are anything more than maybes.

 

[spider321]

Isaac Bruce > Steve Smith

Torry Holt > Steve Smith

Marvin Harrison > Steve Smith

Reggie Wayne > Steve Smith

Terrell Owens > Steve Smith

Randy Moss > Steve Smith

Larry Fitzgerald > Steve Smith

Andre Johnson > Steve Smith

Calvin Johnson > Steve Smith

Brandon Marshall > Steve Smith

Demaryius Thomas > Steve Smith

Antonio Brown > Steve Smith

Dez Bryant > Steve Smith

A.J. Green > Steve Smith

Julio Jones > Steve Smith

By my count that's at least 15 WR's, not yet in the Hall of Fame, who were/are at least as good as Steve Smith was at the same point in his career(most of them, far better). Yes, some of them won't have the longevity, but many of their per season stats will far surpass Smith's.

List whatever conveniently worded/framed statistics you want, but Steve Smith is not a "really special, really really rare, generational-type talent".

He's a guy who has been good for most of 15 years, and truly great for one of them. Nothing more, nothing less.

lol at this list, terrible. Moss, Harrison, and Owens are the only ones on that list that definitely were better, including the young guys still playing in their third or fourth seasons is obnoxious.

Your belief that anyone on the list is in their third or fourth season is also obnoxious,

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Isaac Bruce > Steve Smith

Torry Holt > Steve Smith

Marvin Harrison > Steve Smith

Reggie Wayne > Steve Smith

Terrell Owens > Steve Smith

Randy Moss > Steve Smith

Larry Fitzgerald > Steve Smith

Andre Johnson > Steve Smith

Calvin Johnson > Steve Smith

Brandon Marshall > Steve Smith

Demaryius Thomas > Steve Smith

Antonio Brown > Steve Smith

Dez Bryant > Steve Smith

A.J. Green > Steve Smith

Julio Jones > Steve Smith

By my count that's at least 15 WR's, not yet in the Hall of Fame, who were/are at least as good as Steve Smith was at the same point in his career(most of them, far better). Yes, some of them won't have the longevity, but many of their per season stats will far surpass Smith's.

List whatever conveniently worded/framed statistics you want, but Steve Smith is not a "really special, really really rare, generational-type talent".

He's a guy who has been good for most of 15 years, and truly great for one of them. Nothing more, nothing less.

lol at this list, terrible. Moss, Harrison, and Owens are the only ones on that list that definitely were better, including the young guys still playing in their third or fourth seasons is obnoxious.

Your belief that anyone on the list is in their third or fourth season is also obnoxious,

Yeah I'm sure those guys are appreciative of you putting them in the hall after four seasons. You should have your own newsletter or something.

 

[Madden Curse]

This is a tough call. If he had finished this season strong, I'd feel better about saying "yes", and while cracking the top-10 in yards helps, unfortunately I think the half season hurts a bit. HOF isn't just about records, it's about a player's legend. Going balls out in his last season and then deciding to retire on a high note would have really helped the legend - the story would have been "the only thing that could stop Steve Smith was Steve Smith". Instead an otherwise good career/season fizzle out in a fairly pedestrian way. I'd vote for him but I don't know if others would.

 

[BassNBrew]

Stick a fork in his HOF chances. This really is a young man's game.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Faust posted a link in the smiff dynasty thread. Looks like he's coming back or attempting to next year. Guess he's chasing that 1000th reception.

 

[spider321]

Isaac Bruce > Steve Smith

Torry Holt > Steve Smith

Marvin Harrison > Steve Smith

Reggie Wayne > Steve Smith

Terrell Owens > Steve Smith

Randy Moss > Steve Smith

Larry Fitzgerald > Steve Smith

Andre Johnson > Steve Smith

Calvin Johnson > Steve Smith

Brandon Marshall > Steve Smith

Demaryius Thomas > Steve Smith

Antonio Brown > Steve Smith

Dez Bryant > Steve Smith

A.J. Green > Steve Smith

Julio Jones > Steve Smith

By my count that's at least 15 WR's, not yet in the Hall of Fame, who were/are at least as good as Steve Smith was at the same point in his career(most of them, far better). Yes, some of them won't have the longevity, but many of their per season stats will far surpass Smith's.

List whatever conveniently worded/framed statistics you want, but Steve Smith is not a "really special, really really rare, generational-type talent".

He's a guy who has been good for most of 15 years, and truly great for one of them. Nothing more, nothing less.

lol at this list, terrible. Moss, Harrison, and Owens are the only ones on that list that definitely were better, including the young guys still playing in their third or fourth seasons is obnoxious.

Your belief that anyone on the list is in their third or fourth season is also obnoxious,

Yeah I'm sure those guys are appreciative of you putting them in the hall after four seasons. You should have your own newsletter or something.

I never claimed they all belong in the Hall.

I just claimed they are all better than Steve Smith.

 

[Tau837]

It took five years for Chris Carter to get in the hall and you think Isaac Bruce and Torey Holt are "very likely" to get in? Really?

Did I stutter?

 

[Smack Tripper]

No question

 

[Chaka]

It took five years for Chris Carter to get in the hall and you think Isaac Bruce and Torey Holt are "very likely" to get in? Really?

Did I stutter?

No but I disagree your analysis. Lots of question marks there and guys who don't comare favorably when factoring circumstances.

 

[Tau837]

It took five years for Chris Carter to get in the hall and you think Isaac Bruce and Torey Holt are "very likely" to get in? Really?

Did I stutter?

No but I disagree your analysis. Lots of question marks there and guys who don't comare favorably when factoring circumstances.

I just realized I accidentally had Wayne in my Group 1 as well as Group 5. IMO he belongs in Group 5, i.e., on the bubble, not a lock.

Aside from that, you disagree with what, exactly?

 

[Tau837]

People seem to take issue with Bruce and Holt. Let's consider their resumes.

Bruce:

One of the best seasons of all time, showing a strong peak -- in 1995, Bruce had 119/1781/13

All-time ranks (now): #9 receptions, #4 receiving yards, #12 receiving TDs

All-time ranks (at retirement): #5 receptions, #2 receiving yards, #9 receiving TDs

Part of all-time great Greatest Show on Turf offense

Strong playoff performer, caught game winning TD with less than 2 minutes remaining in Super Bowl

Holt:

One of the best seasons of all time, showing a strong peak -- in 2003, Holt had 117/1696/12

All-time ranks (now): #19 receptions, #14 receiving yards, #7 receiving yards per game

All-time ranks (at retirement): #10 receptions, #10 receiving yards

All players ahead of him in career receiving yards per game are active, and most are still young; Holt's average could still end up much higher

Led league in receptions 1 time, receiving yards 2 times; top 5 in receptions, receiving yards, and receiving TDs total of 10 times

NFL record 6 consecutive seasons with 90+ receptions

NFL record 6 consecutive seasons with 1300+ receiving yards

One of 3 players with 2 seasons of 1600+ receiving yards (with Calvin, Harrison)

Part of all-time great Greatest Show on Turf offense

1 1st team All Pro, 1 2nd team All Pro, 7 Pro Bowls
I think both are very likely to make the HOF, and I think both will be rightly viewed by HOF voters as being more worthy than Smith.

 

[Faust]

Faust posted a link in the smiff dynasty thread. Looks like he's coming back or attempting to next year. Guess he's chasing that 1000th reception.

Ravens' Steve Smith intends to return in 2016, schedules Achilles surgery

 

[ZWK]

It's interesting how similar Smith's career numbers are to guys like Bruce, Holt, and Wayne, given the large differences in their situations.

In career YFS (including playoffs), it's: Bruce (16107), Wayne (15599), Smith (15365), Holt (14069). TDs go in the same order (95-91-88-78), but then again so do games played (232-232-216-183).

Per game, YFS (including playoffs): Holt (76.9), Smith (71.1), Bruce (69.4), Wayne (67.2). Offensive TDs: Holt (.42), Bruce (.41), Smith (.41), Wayne (.39). But a lot of Holt's edge here comes from having an adequate rookie year instead of a mostly invisible one.

Their best season for YFS (regular season only) goes: Bruce (1798), Holt (1701), Smith (1588), Wayne (1514). For offensive TDs: Bruce (13), Smith (13), Holt (12), Wayne (12). (If we include the playoffs after that season and pro-rate down to 16 games, Smith goes up to 1651 & 14.3, Wayne goes to 1496 & 12.4, and Holt drops down to 1621 & 11.3.)

Career receiving yards per target (including playoffs): Bruce (8.63), Smith (8.62), Holt (8.54), Wayne (8.34). Receiving TDs per target: Bruce (5.13%), Smith (4.90%), Wayne (4.86%), Holt (4.75%).

Bruce is leading the group, statistically, but Smith is right in the thick of things even though he didn't have Manning or Warner throwing him the ball.

 

[kOOk]

This isn't baseball. Fantasy geeks love to point to stats. It's more than that in football. You can't blame the guy for playing on the Carolina Panthers. If he was on a team with a top QB most of his career, there wouldn't be a question.

 

[simey]

It was a privilege to watch him play. The toughest WR I ever saw in my years of watching.

I don't think there is a WR that has matched the level of intensity and fire that Steve Smith has played with over the years. He is special.

 

[Chaka]

It took five years for Chris Carter to get in the hall and you think Isaac Bruce and Torey Holt are "very likely" to get in? Really?

Did I stutter?

No but I disagree your analysis. Lots of question marks there and guys who don't comare favorably when factoring circumstances.

I just realized I accidentally had Wayne in my Group 1 as well as Group 5. IMO he belongs in Group 5, i.e., on the bubble, not a lock.

Aside from that, you disagree with what, exactly?

The parts where the guys you favor have HoF caliber supporting casts. Bruce had Holt. Holt had Bruce. Both had Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner. Ditto Wayne/Harrison/Manning (Edge/Marshall).

You talk about Bruce's 1995 career year but what about Smith's triple crown in 2005? Bruce had a bunch of down years too, both he and Smith have 8 1,000 yard seasons (same as Holt and Wayne and Marvin). And Smith played at a very high level much longer than any of those guys (Marvin, Wayne & Bruce had their last 1000 yard seasons at 34 and Holt at 31. Smith had 1000 at 35 and was well on his way to 1,200 yards at 36 until last week). The principle difference between the three is that Smith didn't have the benefit of Marshall Faulk/Holt/Bruce/Marivn/Wayne drawing defensive attention and he certainly never had a QB the caliber of Peyton Manning or Kurt Warner, heck I'm not sure he even had one close to Marc Bulger...at least not until Flacco and we see how well Smith took to that.

But for some reason Smith gets less credit for doing virtually as much as any of those guys with far less help getting it done. He was just as good, played at a higher level for longer and was one of the toughest guys to ever lace up cleats and step onto the field.

Doesn't seem right to discount him for being on lesser teams for most of his career.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Cam Newton isn't as good as Marc Bulger was?

 

[BassNBrew]

Cam Newton isn't as good as Marc Bulger was?

Not in the Smith years.

 

[Tau837]

You talk about Bruce's 1995 career year but what about Smith's triple crown in 2005?

119/1781/13 with Chris Miller (76.2 passer rating) at QB in 1995 > 103/1563/12 with Delhomme (88.1 passer rating) at QB in 2005

And Smith played at a very high level much longer than any of those guys (Marvin, Wayne & Bruce had their last 1000 yard seasons at 34 and Holt at 31.

1. I don't see Wayne as a HOFer. I think he is on the bubble with Smith, but behind Smith.

2. Disagree that Smith played at a high level longer than Bruce. Bruce had his 8 1K seasons over a 12 year span in which he posted 866/13104/77 in 171 games. Smith had his 8 1K seasons over a 12 year span in which he posted 851/12236/70 in 168 games. Sure, Bruce played with Warner for 50 of those games, but he also played with a variety of other lesser QBs.

3. Yes, Holt's case is based on playing at a consistently high level for a shorter period.

The principle difference between the three is that Smith didn't have the benefit of Marshall Faulk/Holt/Bruce/Marivn/Wayne drawing defensive attention and he certainly never had a QB the caliber of Peyton Manning or Kurt Warner, heck I'm not sure he even had one close to Marc Bulger...at least not until Flacco and we see how well Smith took to that.

Bruce and Holt both excelled without Warner/Faulk. Also, playing with Faulk cuts both ways -- he scored a lot of TDs that left fewer TD opportunities for Bruce and Holt. It is also true that playing on that all-time great offense and helping it to be an all-time great offense is a positive in the cases of Holt and Bruce, not a negative.

Also, Bulger seems to be pretty overrated in these discussions.

Doesn't seem right to discount him for being on lesser teams for most of his career.

1. Smith's teams won 111 games in 14.5 seasons, an average of 7.66 wins per season. Bruce's teams won 122 games in 16 seasons, an average of 7.63 wins per season. So Bruce did not play on better teams.

2. Smith isn't being "discounted" for being on "lesser teams." His case is obviously bolstered by playing in arguably lesser offenses than his HOF caliber peers, and that is being taken into account. Just look at this thread, it is cited repeatedly, and I am quite certain that HOF voters will take it into account. The question is a matter of degree. Those who support Smith for the HOF want to give him a greater boost for it than others. Furthermore, many who want to credit Smith for it seem to want to penalize Holt, Bruce, Wayne, et al. for playing in elite offenses, but IMO that is not how HOF voters will see it. I expect it will actually be a positive in their eyes.

 

[Chaka]

You talk about Bruce's 1995 career year but what about Smith's triple crown in 2005?

119/1781/13 with Chris Miller (76.2 passer rating) at QB in 1995 > 103/1563/12 with Delhomme (88.1 passer rating) at QB in 2005

And Smith played at a very high level much longer than any of those guys (Marvin, Wayne & Bruce had their last 1000 yard seasons at 34 and Holt at 31.

1. I don't see Wayne as a HOFer. I think he is on the bubble with Smith, but behind Smith.

2. Disagree that Smith played at a high level longer than Bruce. Bruce had his 8 1K seasons over a 12 year span in which he posted 866/13104/77 in 171 games. Smith had his 8 1K seasons over a 12 year span in which he posted 851/12236/70 in 168 games. Sure, Bruce played with Warner for 50 of those games, but he also played with a variety of other lesser QBs.

3. Yes, Holt's case is based on playing at a consistently high level for a shorter period.

The principle difference between the three is that Smith didn't have the benefit of Marshall Faulk/Holt/Bruce/Marivn/Wayne drawing defensive attention and he certainly never had a QB the caliber of Peyton Manning or Kurt Warner, heck I'm not sure he even had one close to Marc Bulger...at least not until Flacco and we see how well Smith took to that.

Bruce and Holt both excelled without Warner/Faulk. Also, playing with Faulk cuts both ways -- he scored a lot of TDs that left fewer TD opportunities for Bruce and Holt. It is also true that playing on that all-time great offense and helping it to be an all-time great offense is a positive in the cases of Holt and Bruce, not a negative.

Also, Bulger seems to be pretty overrated in these discussions.

Doesn't seem right to discount him for being on lesser teams for most of his career.

1. Smith's teams won 111 games in 14.5 seasons, an average of 7.66 wins per season. Bruce's teams won 122 games in 16 seasons, an average of 7.63 wins per season. So Bruce did not play on better teams.

2. Smith isn't being "discounted" for being on "lesser teams." His case is obviously bolstered by playing in arguably lesser offenses than his HOF caliber peers, and that is being taken into account. Just look at this thread, it is cited repeatedly, and I am quite certain that HOF voters will take it into account. The question is a matter of degree. Those who support Smith for the HOF want to give him a greater boost for it than others. Furthermore, many who want to credit Smith for it seem to want to penalize Holt, Bruce, Wayne, et al. for playing in elite offenses, but IMO that is not how HOF voters will see it. I expect it will actually be a positive in their eyes.

Smith's triple crown year he had Jake Delhomme throwing him the ball so I would call that a push with Chris Miller. Bruce didn't even lead the league in catches, yards or TDs during his 1995 season, Smith led the league in all of them. Bruce led the league in one receiving category during his entire career; yards in 1996. Smith only led the league in 4 categories (his amazing 2005 campaign) and he led the league in yards per game in 2008.

When you break down their best 12 years like you did it comes out to 5.1 catches, 76.6 yards and o.45 TDs/game for Bruce and 5.1 catches, 72.8 yards and .42 TD/game for Smith. I don't see those as groundbreaking advantages for Bruce.

50 games with Kurt Warner is fairly substantial, ask Larry Fitzgerald. Bruce followed up Warner with 60 healthy games from Marc Bulger putting up 270 yards/game, completing 64.4% of his passes with 7.7 YPA. The wheels fell off for Bulger after 2006 and they did for Bruce as well.

Without Warner or Bulger (playing at a high level) Bruce put up an average of 4.4 catches, 64.3 yards and 0.049 TD/game on his career If you just want to look at his 61 games prior to Warner arriving in StL (and not his aging years afterwards) he averaged 5.1 catches, 76.4 yards and 0.052 TD/game (that TD metric seems important for everyone).

My point wasn't just about QBs, and Bruce has a tremendous advantage over Smith in that category, it was about HoF level supporting casts. Bruce played at a high level without Warner but he he still had Holt, Faulk and Steven Jackson. Who did Smith play with for any period of time that even came close to those guys?

Again I just see Smith being punished because his supporting cast wasn't as good as some of his contemporaries. It's probably also because he was a serious ####### at times.