Bruce also has one of the greatest and biggest catches in the history of the Super Bowl on his resume (even if he was overshadowed by how the game ended minutes later).I think a case could be made that Smith > Bruce.Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
Rice
Brown
Carter
Owens
Harrison
Moss
Bruce
Holt
Andre Johnson
Calvin Johnson
Fitzgerald
Jimmy Smith
I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.
Smith has 2 All-Pro selections, Bruce has 0. Smith has 5 pro-bowl appearances, Bruce had 4. Smith has been top 10 in receptions twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 just once. Smith was top 10 in yards 4x, leading league once. Bruce: same. smith was top 10 in receiving TD's twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 3x. Smith has 10 career post-season TD's (7 receiving), Bruce has 4. Smith has 782 career post-season receiving yards (and counting), Bruce has 759.
Bruce has more composite career stats, but he also had a 16 year career and played until he was 37. Smith is in year 13 at age 34, although it's likely he won't pass any of Bruces career numbers.
I think Witten is also a Hall of Famer, although the HoF actually hates tight ends even more than it hates receivers. It took Mike Ditka 16 years and a successful coaching career to make the Hall of Fame. Dave Casper had to wait 13 years. I think the Hall of Fame voters would be happier writing the position out of the history books entirely than electing another tight end.Receptions are by far the weakest receiving stat, as the inclusion of Witten as competition here shows. Witten isn't even a great candidate for the HOF at TE, let alone at WR. Output stats (yardage and TDs) are more important than input stats, and TDs are more important than yardage. (Certainly in an NFL sense, and it seems in HOF voting as well).Larry Fitzgerald needs 33 receptions next year to set the record through age 31. 81 receptions over the next two years will get him the record through age 32, pending what Jason Witten does.
Fitzgerald's receiving yardage and TD numbers are quite good, also, but not enough to make him a shoo-in for the first ballot at this point. And "best postseason WR in history" is a pretty rich claim for someone who's only been in six postseason games. He had a great run in 2008, up there with Rice's 1988 and 1989 but not really better than them. In 2009 he had one very good game and one OK game. When that's your entire postseason resume, you have a ways to go to speak to Mr. 151/2245/22.
To use an argument you often use elsewhere: Rice's 1988 and 1989, where in 6 games he had 40/726/11, are better by themselves than Fitzgerald's entire postseason career. Are you going to mark Rice down for "only" getting 14 receptions and 2 TDs in the Raiders' last Super Bowl run (at age 40)?
I like calling him Smiff. I forget how it started- I think it might have been a play on "smurf"- but I've been doing it for at least the better part of a decade now...Smiff?
I thought the little cutesy nickname was Smif like the rap group that once had that word in their title.
For me, I like referring to Steve Smith as
Steve Smith.
The WRs who made the pro bowl over Bruce that year were Michael Irvin (111/1603/10), Cris Carter (122/1371/17), Jerry Rice (122/1848/15), and Herman Moore (123/1686/14). Hard to call it a snub.Bruce also has one of the greatest and biggest catches in the history of the Super Bowl on his resume (even if he was overshadowed by how the game ended minutes later).I think a case could be made that Smith > Bruce.Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
Rice
Brown
Carter
Owens
Harrison
Moss
Bruce
Holt
Andre Johnson
Calvin Johnson
Fitzgerald
Jimmy Smith
I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.
Smith has 2 All-Pro selections, Bruce has 0. Smith has 5 pro-bowl appearances, Bruce had 4. Smith has been top 10 in receptions twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 just once. Smith was top 10 in yards 4x, leading league once. Bruce: same. smith was top 10 in receiving TD's twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 3x. Smith has 10 career post-season TD's (7 receiving), Bruce has 4. Smith has 782 career post-season receiving yards (and counting), Bruce has 759.
Bruce has more composite career stats, but he also had a 16 year career and played until he was 37. Smith is in year 13 at age 34, although it's likely he won't pass any of Bruces career numbers.
Also, pro bowls are meaningless, especially when you consider that Bruce was snubbed for the pro bowl in a season in which, with Chris Miller as his QB, he had 119-1,781-13, which obliterates the best season Steve Smith has ever had.
It wasn't really about "fair" or "not fair". Fair or not, a player's ranks on the all-time leaderboard are hugely important for HoF considerations, and Larry Fitzgerald is on the kind of pace that results in top-5 finishes across the board.Adam, as big a fan as I am of Fitzgerald, and I think he is definitely a guy who has always been better than his numbers indicate, it is really fair to use the "receptions at the age of whatever" standard? I mean, catches and yards are at an all-time high with WRs, so him catching more balls at the age of 23 than guys did at the same age 20 years ago doesn't mean a whole lot, no? If anything, it makes him compare favorably to peers from his own generation.
How many years do you think he has left?If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.
If we can get him into the slot 2-3 more probably.How many years do you think he has left?If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.
I don't think pro bowls are great at sorting out very fine levels of detail. If all I know is that one guy has 4 pro bowls and another at the same position has 5, I don't think that provides me enough detail where I can confidently state that one is better than the other. If one guy has 6 PBs and another has 2, though, the gap is big enough that it provides very useful information.Those are all fair points, Adam, and it's a good demonstration of why it is pointless to bring up pro bowl berths when discussing someone's HOF worthiness, or comparing them to others.
Consider, say we wanted to compare players across positions, and someone wondered who was better, Isaac Bruce or Jerome Bettis? A Bettis supporter could say, "Bettis made the pro bowl six times, while Bruce only made it four times," which ignores the fact that Bruce didn't make it when he had that 1,700-yard plus season, as well as the fact that Bettis' last pro bowl year was when he was literally the 4th or 5th AFC alternate and only made it cause so many other RBs dropped out.
And even if Bruce was only the 5th best NFC WR that year, my main point still stands, which is that it still obliterates Steve Smith's best season.
Gonzalez has more than twice as many TDs, and way more of an impact on his teams. How many years were there top WR options in KC? [None.] Witten is playing with two WRs who are better than anyone Gonzo played with prior to Atlanta.Not sure that I agree that Witten isn't a great HOF candidate. He's 30 years old and should become the second leading TE in career receiving yards by October. If he plays long enough he could surpass Gonzalez' totals.
I have to say, that "playing with better WRs" thing cuts both ways. One could argue that it was easy for Gonzo to put up huge numbers, because who else was there to throw to, while Witten's ability to consistently generate 80+ catch seasons despite sharing the field with Dez, Austin, and company is very impressive. Also, this ignores Witten's impact as a blocker.Gonzalez has more than twice as many TDs, and way more of an impact on his teams. How many years were there top WR options in KC? [None.] Witten is playing with two WRs who are better than anyone Gonzo played with prior to Atlanta.Not sure that I agree that Witten isn't a great HOF candidate. He's 30 years old and should become the second leading TE in career receiving yards by October. If he plays long enough he could surpass Gonzalez' totals.
And Witten will be swept up in the tide of other Gonzo-style WRs who are following. Gates is already way ahead in TDs and could catch him in yardage. If Witten plays 5+ more years, Vernon Davis will probably look like a stronger candidate, not to mention Gronkowski and Graham. Too pedestrian.
Considering that Sharpe, who prior to Gonzo had virtually no competition at the TE position, took several years to get in, I don't think any TE other than Gonzo is an easy HoFer. With Gonzo a first-balloter, Gates a likely selection, and at least two more coming up from the new era, it's hard to see how Witten could squeeze in. There are only 8 TEs in the HOF from the first 53 years of the modern era; will there be 5 more in the next 15?I have to say, that "playing with better WRs" thing cuts both ways. One could argue that it was easy for Gonzo to put up huge numbers, because who else was there to throw to, while Witten's ability to consistently generate 80+ catch seasons despite sharing the field with Dez, Austin, and company is very impressive. Also, this ignores Witten's impact as a blocker.Gonzalez has more than twice as many TDs, and way more of an impact on his teams. How many years were there top WR options in KC? [None.] Witten is playing with two WRs who are better than anyone Gonzo played with prior to Atlanta.Not sure that I agree that Witten isn't a great HOF candidate. He's 30 years old and should become the second leading TE in career receiving yards by October. If he plays long enough he could surpass Gonzalez' totals.
And Witten will be swept up in the tide of other Gonzo-style WRs who are following. Gates is already way ahead in TDs and could catch him in yardage. If Witten plays 5+ more years, Vernon Davis will probably look like a stronger candidate, not to mention Gronkowski and Graham. Too pedestrian.
I think Witten's a pretty easy HoFer. I do think Gates was better, but I think Gates is also an easy HoFer. I think Gronk and Graham will wind up being better, and if they do, they'll also be easy HoFers. I don't think Vernon Davis is anywhere near Witten's class as a Hall candidate.
Oh, completely agreed- the Hall of Fame voters are absolute idiots when it comes to Tight Ends. I have no other explanation for why Mike Ditka and Dave Casper had to wait a dozen years for enshrinement, and Kellen Winslow and Shannon Sharpe had to wait at all. It's just insane. That's a definite "should/would" difference.CalBear said:Considering that Sharpe, who prior to Gonzo had virtually no competition at the TE position, took several years to get in, I don't think any TE other than Gonzo is an easy HoFer. With Gonzo a first-balloter, Gates a likely selection, and at least two more coming up from the new era, it's hard to see how Witten could squeeze in. There are only 8 TEs in the HOF from the first 53 years of the modern era; will there be 5 more in the next 15?Adam Harstad said:I have to say, that "playing with better WRs" thing cuts both ways. One could argue that it was easy for Gonzo to put up huge numbers, because who else was there to throw to, while Witten's ability to consistently generate 80+ catch seasons despite sharing the field with Dez, Austin, and company is very impressive. Also, this ignores Witten's impact as a blocker.CalBear said:Gonzalez has more than twice as many TDs, and way more of an impact on his teams. How many years were there top WR options in KC? [None.] Witten is playing with two WRs who are better than anyone Gonzo played with prior to Atlanta.Anarchy99 said:Not sure that I agree that Witten isn't a great HOF candidate. He's 30 years old and should become the second leading TE in career receiving yards by October. If he plays long enough he could surpass Gonzalez' totals.
And Witten will be swept up in the tide of other Gonzo-style WRs who are following. Gates is already way ahead in TDs and could catch him in yardage. If Witten plays 5+ more years, Vernon Davis will probably look like a stronger candidate, not to mention Gronkowski and Graham. Too pedestrian.
I think Witten's a pretty easy HoFer. I do think Gates was better, but I think Gates is also an easy HoFer. I think Gronk and Graham will wind up being better, and if they do, they'll also be easy HoFers. I don't think Vernon Davis is anywhere near Witten's class as a Hall candidate.
This is off-base, cmon now.CalBear said:Witten isn't even a great candidate for the HOF at TE
I left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.Anarchy99 said:It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).
Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
Ward actually made the top 10 all-time WR list in Sports Illustrated's 2012 coffee table book "Football's Greatest."1. RiceI left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.Anarchy99 said:It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).
Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
ETA: The Hall has a pretty big quandry when it comes to Ward. A guy from his same franchise, with a fraction of the numbers Ward has (Swann) is in the Hall. It will look a little odd in 15 years as people poor through the franchise stats to see Swann in there and Ward not. If Ward does get in, a tiny bit of that will be due to that fact.
I'll also throw out there that I do not see much of a distinction between "should be" and "will be". All we can deal with are definitives, and in this case, it is likely slots that are available for a WR in their prime eligibility years. There is a reason a guy like Smith or Bruce or Holt will be on the bubble, and it is because there was a surge in stats due to the change of the game. But there are just four slots available. I actually dislike looking at stats for WRs at this point when it comes to the HOF, as 12 of the top 15 in yards (for example), all played at least one season in the 21st century (just 13 years ago).Adam Harstad said:Not an oversight.Anarchy99 said:It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).
Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
Again, a distinction must be made when discussing whether a player *WILL* be a HoFer, and whether he *SHOULD* be a HoFer. I think Ward is easily one of the 10 most likely candidates to actually make the actual HoF from his era. As it concerns desert, I do not think that Ward should be one of the 10 receivers who would most merit induction.
I feel the same way about Jerome Bettis. He probably will get into the Hall of Fame, but if it were up to me, he'd never come close.
There's a MASSIVE difference between "should be" and "will be" or "is". In no conceivable universe should Charlie Joiner be a Hall of Famer, and yet somehow he is. Floyd Little shouldn't have gotten the nod over several dozen more deserving Seniors candidates, and yet somehow he did. Jerome Bettis should never make the Hall of Fame before Terrell Davis, and yet somehow he will. Does anyone here think Tony Dungy was a significantly better coach than Bill Cowher? And yet the fact that he's a finalist in his first year of eligibility while Cowher's yet to make the cutdown says Dungy's far more likely to make the Hall. Was **** LeBeau a Hall of Famer looking strictly at his contributions as a player? He shouldn't have been, but he was (I think that's a pretty defensible choice if you add his contributions as a coordinator, but the Hall of Fame explicitly said that voters were ONLY supposed to consider his playing career.) Don Coryell should have been in the Hall of Fame two decades ago, and yet somehow he's still waiting. A player hanging around at the end of his career and adding a couple 500 yard seasons shouldn't help his HoF candidacy, yet it does.I'll also throw out there that I do not see much of a distinction between "should be" and "will be". All we can deal with are definitives, and in this case, it is likely slots that are available for a WR in their prime eligibility years. There is a reason a guy like Smith or Bruce or Holt will be on the bubble, and it is because there was a surge in stats due to the change of the game. But there are just four slots available. I actually dislike looking at stats for WRs at this point when it comes to the HOF, as 12 of the top 15 in yards (for example), all played at least one season in the 21st century (just 13 years ago).Adam Harstad said:Not an oversight.Anarchy99 said:It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).
Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
Again, a distinction must be made when discussing whether a player *WILL* be a HoFer, and whether he *SHOULD* be a HoFer. I think Ward is easily one of the 10 most likely candidates to actually make the actual HoF from his era. As it concerns desert, I do not think that Ward should be one of the 10 receivers who would most merit induction.
I feel the same way about Jerome Bettis. He probably will get into the Hall of Fame, but if it were up to me, he'd never come close.
I've said my piece a lot regarding Davis. By now, I'm sure everyone's sick of hearing it. The fact that a 3-time first team AP All Pro, 2x SB champion (as the best player on the team), 2x OPoY, 1x MVP, 1x SBMVP- without question the greatest postseason rusher in NFL history and a guy with the most productive 2-year peak the league has ever seen- has gotten eliminated from consideration before Jerome Bettis in four consecutive seasons is shameful.The Hall of Fame process is so muddled. It really stinks that numbers are used to keep obvious great players out. Sure, numbers sometimes can tell the story, but other times they can't.
Especially when eras cross and you have a guy up for election who was at the top the game 40 years ago and his numbers are being compared to a guy who played in recent history. It stinks.
Greatness is greatness. When you see it, and you know the sport well that you are watching, then you know it -even if it lasts for only 5 years. If the player made a impact in the game when he was in his prime I believe that should be looked at, as well, if not primarily.
I'll get off my soapbox now. It still stinks.
TrueI've said my piece a lot regarding Davis. By now, I'm sure everyone's sick of hearing it. The fact that a 3-time first team AP All Pro, 2x SB champion (as the best player on the team), 2x OPoY, 1x MVP, 1x SBMVP- without question the greatest postseason rusher in NFL history and a guy with the most productive 2-year peak the league has ever seen- has gotten eliminated from consideration before Jerome Bettis in four consecutive seasons is shameful.The Hall of Fame process is so muddled. It really stinks that numbers are used to keep obvious great players out. Sure, numbers sometimes can tell the story, but other times they can't.
Especially when eras cross and you have a guy up for election who was at the top the game 40 years ago and his numbers are being compared to a guy who played in recent history. It stinks.
Greatness is greatness. When you see it, and you know the sport well that you are watching, then you know it -even if it lasts for only 5 years. If the player made a impact in the game when he was in his prime I believe that should be looked at, as well, if not primarily.
I'll get off my soapbox now. It still stinks.
Ward as one of the 10 best WRs in NFL history is an absolute joke. The dude made 4 pro bowls, 3 second-team AP All Pros, and ZERO first-team AP All Pros. There was literally not a single point in Hines Ward's career where anyone thought he was one of the top WRs in the league. The guy wasn't even considered one of the four best WRs of the 2000s, yet somehow he's one of the 10 best WRs in history? Over Tim Brown, Michael Irvin, Steve Largent, Torry Holt, James Lofton, and company?Ward actually made the top 10 all-time WR list in Sports Illustrated's 2012 coffee table book "Football's Greatest."1. RiceI left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.Anarchy99 said:It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).
Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
ETA: The Hall has a pretty big quandry when it comes to Ward. A guy from his same franchise, with a fraction of the numbers Ward has (Swann) is in the Hall. It will look a little odd in 15 years as people poor through the franchise stats to see Swann in there and Ward not. If Ward does get in, a tiny bit of that will be due to that fact.
2. Hutson
3. Moss
4. Alworth
5. Berry
6. Owens
7. Warfield
8. Carter
9. Harrison
10. Ward
I will be shocked if Witten does not make the Hall of Fame.
SI's top 10 TEs-
1. Mackey
2. Winslow
3. Gonzalez
4. Ditka
5. Sharpe
6. Newsome
7. Casper
8. Gates
9. Witten
10. Christensen
Ah, "we"...makes sense now. I don't think he deserves the HoF, but it makes sense that you're pulling for a player on your faovorite team.NCCommish said:If we can get him into the slot 2-3 more probably.moleculo said:How many years do you think he has left?NCCommish said:If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.
Agreed. One of those cases where somehow a guy develops a persona that people remember. Then when uninformed people start making lists and can't think of 10 WRs, he jumps to the front of their mind.Ward as one of the 10 best WRs in NFL history is an absolute joke. The dude made 4 pro bowls, 3 second-team AP All Pros, and ZERO first-team AP All Pros. There was literally not a single point in Hines Ward's career where anyone thought he was one of the top WRs in the league. The guy wasn't even considered one of the four best WRs of the 2000s, yet somehow he's one of the 10 best WRs in history? Over Tim Brown, Michael Irvin, Steve Largent, Torry Holt, James Lofton, and company?Ward actually made the top 10 all-time WR list in Sports Illustrated's 2012 coffee table book "Football's Greatest."1. RiceI left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.Anarchy99 said:It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).
Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
ETA: The Hall has a pretty big quandry when it comes to Ward. A guy from his same franchise, with a fraction of the numbers Ward has (Swann) is in the Hall. It will look a little odd in 15 years as people poor through the franchise stats to see Swann in there and Ward not. If Ward does get in, a tiny bit of that will be due to that fact.
2. Hutson
3. Moss
4. Alworth
5. Berry
6. Owens
7. Warfield
8. Carter
9. Harrison
10. Ward
I will be shocked if Witten does not make the Hall of Fame.
SI's top 10 TEs-
1. Mackey
2. Winslow
3. Gonzalez
4. Ditka
5. Sharpe
6. Newsome
7. Casper
8. Gates
9. Witten
10. Christensen
Pretty sure Hines Ward has become a better receiver since he retired than he ever was while he was still playing. Don't know what's up with all of this revisionist history surrounding him.
Well to be clear I don't think he has the numbers right now. I think he does need a couple more productive seasons to really get consideration. It would also help if he got to make some more big plays in the playoffs over that time. I just don't think it's that out there to think he warrants consideration.Ah, "we"...makes sense now. I don't think he deserves the HoF, but it makes sense that you're pulling for a player on your faovorite team.NCCommish said:If we can get him into the slot 2-3 more probably.moleculo said:How many years do you think he has left?NCCommish said:If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.
I've already named four who played this year who have better receiving stats than Witten. Do you think all five will get in?This is off-base, cmon now.CalBear said:Witten isn't even a great candidate for the HOF at TE
TEs were not huge pass catchers in the league's early years so he's likely better than every TE before 1980.
After that, his stats compare decently with Todd and Shannon.
He's consistently been a top TE in his own era.
Probably averages 90 receptions.
A consistently good blocker
Attitude-was a payton award winner IIRC
What more could you want?
Your new obsession to discount catches- You "have to" appreciate a catch made in traffic versus a screen or other gimme type catches. Most catches by a TE in a season and in a game.
The guy holds up in current era, all-time, and you'd be pressed to find many TEs that are better than him in NFL history.
That was the most ridiculous ranking in the book. Ward would not make my top 40, let alone a top 10.Ward as one of the 10 best WRs in NFL history is an absolute joke. The dude made 4 pro bowls, 3 second-team AP All Pros, and ZERO first-team AP All Pros. There was literally not a single point in Hines Ward's career where anyone thought he was one of the top WRs in the league. The guy wasn't even considered one of the four best WRs of the 2000s, yet somehow he's one of the 10 best WRs in history? Over Tim Brown, Michael Irvin, Steve Largent, Torry Holt, James Lofton, and company?Ward actually made the top 10 all-time WR list in Sports Illustrated's 2012 coffee table book "Football's Greatest."1. RiceI left him off my list because in the day and age, and the reality of slots available to WRs, I don't think he is worthy. Honestly, if this were a thread about Andre Johnson, Steve Smith would not be on my list (or even discussed). The only reason I am discussing him is because the thread is about him.Anarchy99 said:It's been awhile since Hines Ward's name has come up, and I see many of you leaving him off your lists. There have been great debates over Ward's HOF candidacy and many think he is a lock HOFer (seemingly based on his rings, his blocking, his leadership, his lack of off field issues, and what appears to be compiler type stats).
Of the guys that left him off their list, was leaving Ward off an oversight or do you not even think he is in the top dozen of his era in terms of HOF probability?
ETA: The Hall has a pretty big quandry when it comes to Ward. A guy from his same franchise, with a fraction of the numbers Ward has (Swann) is in the Hall. It will look a little odd in 15 years as people poor through the franchise stats to see Swann in there and Ward not. If Ward does get in, a tiny bit of that will be due to that fact.
2. Hutson
3. Moss
4. Alworth
5. Berry
6. Owens
7. Warfield
8. Carter
9. Harrison
10. Ward
I will be shocked if Witten does not make the Hall of Fame.
SI's top 10 TEs-
1. Mackey
2. Winslow
3. Gonzalez
4. Ditka
5. Sharpe
6. Newsome
7. Casper
8. Gates
9. Witten
10. Christensen
Pretty sure Hines Ward has become a better receiver since he retired than he ever was while he was still playing. Don't know what's up with all of this revisionist history surrounding him.
Here's the $64,000 question. Do/will voters consider who else may be a candidate down the line and what players might become HOF candidates? Graham and Gronk could have the numbers and the longevity to be HOF worthy, but would voters NOT vote for someone to save their vote for a player at the same position to be used 5-10 years later?I've already named four who played this year who have better receiving stats than Witten. Do you think all five will get in?This is off-base, cmon now.CalBear said:Witten isn't even a great candidate for the HOF at TE
TEs were not huge pass catchers in the league's early years so he's likely better than every TE before 1980.
After that, his stats compare decently with Todd and Shannon.
He's consistently been a top TE in his own era.
Probably averages 90 receptions.
A consistently good blocker
Attitude-was a payton award winner IIRC
What more could you want?
Your new obsession to discount catches- You "have to" appreciate a catch made in traffic versus a screen or other gimme type catches. Most catches by a TE in a season and in a game.
The guy holds up in current era, all-time, and you'd be pressed to find many TEs that are better than him in NFL history.
What more could I want? Touchdowns: he scores, at best, half as many as the other four guys. Yards per reception: he's at the bottom of the pile.
I've always discounted catches. Go find an old Art Monk HOF thread.
ok. let's think about where his career numbers could end up. Let's assume 50 catches, 500 yards, 5 TD's over the next three years - not great (or even good) numbers, being very conservative here, but remembering that he will be 35-37 over this stretch.NCCommish said:If we can get him into the slot 2-3 more probably.moleculo said:How many years do you think he has left?NCCommish said:If Smitty does what he said and plays out his contract, if the Panthers are able to move him to the slot by bringing a young number one and if Cam continues his progression I think Smitty's numbers will put him in a good place as far as HOF candidacy goes. And while he had his problems the one problem he never had was showing up and playing hard. Is he in? Not without a ring and a few more years. But it is not some insane suggestion either.
Memories are short. If Witten has five more seasons as an above-average tight end (probably with no more Pro Bowls or certainly All-Pros) and retires after the 2018 season at age 36, voters will have just voted in Gonzalez, and a few years later will be looking at Gates. Maybe Gates get in first ballot, maybe not; I'd guess no. So Gates is sitting out there for some amount of time, and Witten is waiting to get eligible, which happens in 2023.Here's the $64,000 question. Do/will voters consider who else may be a candidate down the line and what players might become HOF candidates? Graham and Gronk could have the numbers and the longevity to be HOF worthy, but would voters NOT vote for someone to save their vote for a player at the same position to be used 5-10 years later?Witten could end his career in the Top 5 in receptions (decent shot) and Top 5 in career yardage (less likely but possible). Sure, in 10 years he might not be in the Top 15-20 in either category. But it still doesn't change that after Gonzalez, to this point in time, he's been one of the top handful of TEs career wise, even without a ton of TD or playoff success.
Memories are short. If Witten has five more seasons as an above-average tight end (probably with no more Pro Bowls or certainly All-Pros) and retires after the 2018 season at age 36, voters will have just voted in Gonzalez, and a few years later will be looking at Gates. Maybe Gates get in first ballot, maybe not; I'd guess no. So Gates is sitting out there for some amount of time, and Witten is waiting to get eligible, which happens in 2023.Here's the $64,000 question. Do/will voters consider who else may be a candidate down the line and what players might become HOF candidates? Graham and Gronk could have the numbers and the longevity to be HOF worthy, but would voters NOT vote for someone to save their vote for a player at the same position to be used 5-10 years later?
Witten could end his career in the Top 5 in receptions (decent shot) and Top 5 in career yardage (less likely but possible). Sure, in 10 years he might not be in the Top 15-20 in either category. But it still doesn't change that after Gonzalez, to this point in time, he's been one of the top handful of TEs career wise, even without a ton of TD or playoff success.
By 2023, Gronkowski and Graham likely will have passed him in all receiving categories. Even if he gets to 13,000 yards, currently top 10, it won't be top-10 by then, because Wayne, Johnson, Smith (hey, relevance to this thread!), Fitzgerald, and Boldin will have passed it by then, not to mention Roddy White, Welker, Megatron, and Marshall who are currently behind him. Plus 8-10 more years of Greg Jennings, Vincent Jackson, Bowe, Desean, etc. And his TD numbers won't even crack the top 50.
So if you're a HOF voter, and you just put in Gonzalez and Gates, who are both clearly better than Witten, and you have two other TEs who make his career look mediocre coming down the pipeline, are you going to vote for Witten?
My sources say no.
You present an awesome argument.Memories are short. If Witten has five more seasons as an above-average tight end (probably with no more Pro Bowls or certainly All-Pros) and retires after the 2018 season at age 36, voters will have just voted in Gonzalez, and a few years later will be looking at Gates. Maybe Gates get in first ballot, maybe not; I'd guess no. So Gates is sitting out there for some amount of time, and Witten is waiting to get eligible, which happens in 2023.Here's the $64,000 question. Do/will voters consider who else may be a candidate down the line and what players might become HOF candidates? Graham and Gronk could have the numbers and the longevity to be HOF worthy, but would voters NOT vote for someone to save their vote for a player at the same position to be used 5-10 years later?Witten could end his career in the Top 5 in receptions (decent shot) and Top 5 in career yardage (less likely but possible). Sure, in 10 years he might not be in the Top 15-20 in either category. But it still doesn't change that after Gonzalez, to this point in time, he's been one of the top handful of TEs career wise, even without a ton of TD or playoff success.
By 2023, Gronkowski and Graham likely will have passed him in all receiving categories. Even if he gets to 13,000 yards, currently top 10, it won't be top-10 by then, because Wayne, Johnson, Smith (hey, relevance to this thread!), Fitzgerald, and Boldin will have passed it by then, not to mention Roddy White, Welker, Megatron, and Marshall who are currently behind him. Plus 8-10 more years of Greg Jennings, Vincent Jackson, Bowe, Desean, etc. And his TD numbers won't even crack the top 50.
So if you're a HOF voter, and you just put in Gonzalez and Gates, who are both clearly better than Witten, and you have two other TEs who make his career look mediocre coming down the pipeline, are you going to vote for Witten?
My sources say no.
As an aside, it's tough to say the nfl wasn't a passing league back then. I assume it was an anomaly year, but those are huge numbers for 6 guys to amass all at once.The WRs who made the pro bowl over Bruce that year were Michael Irvin (111/1603/10), Cris Carter (122/1371/17), Jerry Rice (122/1848/15), and Herman Moore (123/1686/14). Hard to call it a snub.Bruce also has one of the greatest and biggest catches in the history of the Super Bowl on his resume (even if he was overshadowed by how the game ended minutes later).I think a case could be made that Smith > Bruce.Smith has 2 All-Pro selections, Bruce has 0. Smith has 5 pro-bowl appearances, Bruce had 4. Smith has been top 10 in receptions twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 just once. Smith was top 10 in yards 4x, leading league once. Bruce: same. smith was top 10 in receiving TD's twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 3x. Smith has 10 career post-season TD's (7 receiving), Bruce has 4. Smith has 782 career post-season receiving yards (and counting), Bruce has 759.Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
Rice
Brown
Carter
Owens
Harrison
Moss
Bruce
Holt
Andre Johnson
Calvin Johnson
Fitzgerald
Jimmy Smith
I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.
Bruce has more composite career stats, but he also had a 16 year career and played until he was 37. Smith is in year 13 at age 34, although it's likely he won't pass any of Bruces career numbers.
Also, pro bowls are meaningless, especially when you consider that Bruce was snubbed for the pro bowl in a season in which, with Chris Miller as his QB, he had 119-1,781-13, which obliterates the best season Steve Smith has ever had.
But your stats are wrongI think a case could be made that Smith > Bruce.Yeah, I left off Wayne, Ward, Boldin, Marshall, and whoever else because I think those guys are more debatable. I suppose maybe I should have lumped Jimmy Smith in with that group and left him off my list, since he is also perhaps debatable. But IMO none of the others on my list are debatable.Don't forget Reggie Wayne. I'd easily put him ahead of S. Smith as well.WRs who played since 2000 (i.e., in 2001 or later):if we're going to elect 6 WRs who played since 2000, I think Smiff and Andre are battling it out for that sixth selection.
Rice
Brown
Carter
Owens
Harrison
Moss
Bruce
Holt
Andre Johnson
Calvin Johnson
Fitzgerald
Jimmy Smith
I think Steve Smith is behind all of them.
Smith has 2 All-Pro selections, Bruce has 0. Smith has 5 pro-bowl appearances, Bruce had 4. Smith has been top 10 in receptions twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 just once. Smith was top 10 in yards 4x, leading league once. Bruce: same. smith was top 10 in receiving TD's twice, leading league once. Bruce: top 10 3x. Smith has 10 career post-season TD's (7 receiving), Bruce has 4. Smith has 782 career post-season receiving yards (and counting), Bruce has 759.
Bruce has more composite career stats, but he also had a 16 year career and played until he was 37. Smith is in year 13 at age 34, although it's likely he won't pass any of Bruces career numbers.
I'm cool with everyone else on that list (except Jimmy smith) being considered clearly better than Steve Smith in terms of HoF eligibility. It is a lot of WR's, but you've gotta think that in the era of exploding passing stats, the HoF would adjust and bring in more of the WR's that helped drive that change. It's possible for 10-12 of these guys to ultimately make it.