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

[Chaka]

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.

You're really going to compare Bruce playing 113 of 223 career games playing with The Greatest Show on Turf with anything that Smith had going on with him in Carolina?

 

[Ghost Rider]

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

Not in the Smith years.

I disagree. He is throwing for less yards than he used to and turning the ball over now at a higher rate than he ever has in his NFL career. His picks were high his rookie season, but his passing numbers overall were pretty darn good his first two seasons (aided of course by having Smith). Bulger was basically a product of the system once Warner fell off the cliff in STL.

 

[Chaka]

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

Not in the Smith years.

I disagree. He is throwing for less yards than he used to and turning the ball over now at a higher rate than he ever has in his NFL career. His picks were high his rookie season, but his passing numbers overall were pretty darn good his first two seasons (aided of course by having Smith). Bulger was basically a product of the system once Warner fell off the cliff in STL.

Cam was and is a monster. While Bulger was without question a better passer during his 60 peak games, Cam was still something special from the jump.

But as a passer Bulger was pretty clearly superior. During his peak 60 games he averaged 35.1 passes/game compared to Cam's 30.1 (with Smith on the team) and Bulger completed 64.4% for 270.6 yards/game compared to Cam's 59.8% for 235.4 yards/game.

 

[FUBAR]

I never claimed they all belong in the Hall.I just claimed they are all better Steve Smith.

FWIW, Smiff's best year was better than AJ Green's best year (to date of course). Julio's too, but JJ will probably beat those stats soon. (probably many others too, but I'm not checking everyone's)

Cam was and is a monster. While Bulger was without question a better passer during his 60 peak games, Cam was still something special from the jump.

But as a passer Bulger was pretty clearly superior. During his peak 60 games he averaged 35.1 passes/game compared to Cam's 30.1 (with Smith on the team) and Bulger completed 64.4% for 270.6 yards/game compared to Cam's 59.8% for 235.4 yards/game.

as a player, Cam is better than most QBs. As a passer, Bulger was better.

He is throwing for less yards than he used to and turning the ball over now at a higher rate than he ever has in his NFL career. His picks were high his rookie season, but his passing numbers overall were pretty darn good his first two seasons (aided of course by having Smith). Bulger was basically a product of the system once Warner fell off the cliff in STL.

That's probably true. But the system was pretty damn good and he had good protection.

 

[Chaka]

I never claimed they all belong in the Hall.I just claimed they are all better Steve Smith.

FWIW, Smiff's best year was better than AJ Green's best year (to date of course). Julio's too, but JJ will probably beat those stats soon. (probably many others too, but I'm not checking everyone's)

Cam was and is a monster. While Bulger was without question a better passer during his 60 peak games, Cam was still something special from the jump.

But as a passer Bulger was pretty clearly superior. During his peak 60 games he averaged 35.1 passes/game compared to Cam's 30.1 (with Smith on the team) and Bulger completed 64.4% for 270.6 yards/game compared to Cam's 59.8% for 235.4 yards/game.

as a player, Cam is better than most QBs. As a passer, Bulger was better.

He is throwing for less yards than he used to and turning the ball over now at a higher rate than he ever has in his NFL career. His picks were high his rookie season, but his passing numbers overall were pretty darn good his first two seasons (aided of course by having Smith). Bulger was basically a product of the system once Warner fell off the cliff in STL.

That's probably true. But the system was pretty damn good and he had good protection.

Agree on both counts. Cam is a better player and the StL system was one of the most productive in the history of the NFL.

I am confident that Smith would have played at least as well as Bruce in that system. I am also confident, although slightly less so, that Bruce would have played as well as Smith in Carolina.

 

[Tau837]

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

I agree Bruce doesn't have any "groundbreaking" advantage over Smith. When comparing potential HOFers, it often comes down to small differences. If there were large advantages, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

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?

As I said:

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.

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.

Again, Smith isn't being "punished":

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.

 

[Tau837]

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.

You're really going to compare Bruce playing 113 of 223 career games playing with The Greatest Show on Turf with anything that Smith had going on with him in Carolina?

1. If comparing careers, it is clear that Bruce's teams as a whole were not better than Smith's. It was your claim, not mine, and it is incorrect.

2. Bruce playing for the GSOT offense is a positive for his HOF legacy, not a negative.

 

[Tau837]

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

Not in the Smith years.

I disagree. He is throwing for less yards than he used to and turning the ball over now at a higher rate than he ever has in his NFL career. His picks were high his rookie season, but his passing numbers overall were pretty darn good his first two seasons (aided of course by having Smith). Bulger was basically a product of the system once Warner fell off the cliff in STL.

Cam was and is a monster. While Bulger was without question a better passer during his 60 peak games, Cam was still something special from the jump.

But as a passer Bulger was pretty clearly superior. During his peak 60 games he averaged 35.1 passes/game compared to Cam's 30.1 (with Smith on the team) and Bulger completed 64.4% for 270.6 yards/game compared to Cam's 59.8% for 235.4 yards/game.

You're looking at the wrong numbers.

Bulger's "peak 60 games" came from 2002-2006. During that time, Bruce averaged 8 targets per game. Smith played 2 seasons with Cam. During that time, he averaged 8.3 targets per game.

Bulger averaged 7.7 YPA over those 60 games, so averaging 5.0 more passing attempts per game should project to averaging 38.5 more yards per game. He averaged 35.2 more yards per game according to your numbers.

So the fact that Bulger had more passing attempts and passing yards per game is irrelevant. This is a great example of why the logic that guys like Bruce/Holt/Wayne played in stronger offenses than Smith did is not a strong argument in Smith's favor. The guys in great offenses got smaller slices of larger pies. Smith got a larger slice of a smaller pie. One does not necessarily trump the other.

 

[Hoss Style]

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

Not in the Smith years.

I disagree. He is throwing for less yards than he used to and turning the ball over now at a higher rate than he ever has in his NFL career. His picks were high his rookie season, but his passing numbers overall were pretty darn good his first two seasons (aided of course by having Smith). Bulger was basically a product of the system once Warner fell off the cliff in STL.

Cam was and is a monster. While Bulger was without question a better passer during his 60 peak games, Cam was still something special from the jump.

But as a passer Bulger was pretty clearly superior. During his peak 60 games he averaged 35.1 passes/game compared to Cam's 30.1 (with Smith on the team) and Bulger completed 64.4% for 270.6 yards/game compared to Cam's 59.8% for 235.4 yards/game.

You're looking at the wrong numbers.

Bulger's "peak 60 games" came from 2002-2006. During that time, Bruce averaged 8 targets per game. Smith played 2 seasons with Cam. During that time, he averaged 8.3 targets per game.

Bulger averaged 7.7 YPA over those 60 games, so averaging 5.0 more passing attempts per game should project to averaging 38.5 more yards per game. He averaged 35.2 more yards per game according to your numbers.

So the fact that Bulger had more passing attempts and passing yards per game is irrelevant. This is a great example of why the logic that guys like Bruce/Holt/Wayne played in stronger offenses than Smith did is not a strong argument in Smith's favor. The guys in great offenses got smaller slices of larger pies. Smith got a larger slice of a smaller pie. One does not necessarily trump the other.

"One does not necessarily trump the other"

Indeed, and that's why we watch them play. Thankfully, the HoF is a combination of stats and actual play within context of situation. While Smith was fighting double teams with a Safety over the top, he still put up comparable numbers with other players who were in offenses that spread the field and kept the defenses guessing, practically unable to double anyone at anytime. The Rams had defenses on their heels trying to figure out Martz's system, just like Smith had defenses on their heels trying to figure out... well - how to stop Smith.

 

[Tau837]

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

Not in the Smith years.

I disagree. He is throwing for less yards than he used to and turning the ball over now at a higher rate than he ever has in his NFL career. His picks were high his rookie season, but his passing numbers overall were pretty darn good his first two seasons (aided of course by having Smith). Bulger was basically a product of the system once Warner fell off the cliff in STL.

Cam was and is a monster. While Bulger was without question a better passer during his 60 peak games, Cam was still something special from the jump.

But as a passer Bulger was pretty clearly superior. During his peak 60 games he averaged 35.1 passes/game compared to Cam's 30.1 (with Smith on the team) and Bulger completed 64.4% for 270.6 yards/game compared to Cam's 59.8% for 235.4 yards/game.

You're looking at the wrong numbers.

Bulger's "peak 60 games" came from 2002-2006. During that time, Bruce averaged 8 targets per game. Smith played 2 seasons with Cam. During that time, he averaged 8.3 targets per game.

Bulger averaged 7.7 YPA over those 60 games, so averaging 5.0 more passing attempts per game should project to averaging 38.5 more yards per game. He averaged 35.2 more yards per game according to your numbers.

So the fact that Bulger had more passing attempts and passing yards per game is irrelevant. This is a great example of why the logic that guys like Bruce/Holt/Wayne played in stronger offenses than Smith did is not a strong argument in Smith's favor. The guys in great offenses got smaller slices of larger pies. Smith got a larger slice of a smaller pie. One does not necessarily trump the other.

"One does not necessarily trump the other"

Indeed, and that's why we watch them play. Thankfully, the HoF is a combination of stats and actual play within context of situation. While Smith was fighting double teams with a Safety over the top, he still put up comparable numbers with other players who were in offenses that spread the field and kept the defenses guessing, practically unable to double anyone at anytime. The Rams had defenses on their heels trying to figure out Martz's system, just like Smith had defenses on their heels trying to figure out... well - how to stop Smith.

Nothing you said really bears on the points in my post. You and others seem to want to take the position that all of Bruce's success is due to Martz and an elite surrounding cast. But Bruce excelled without any of that. The fact that he also excelled with it doesn't take that away and isn't a negative.

 

[Chaka]

Nothing you said really bears on the points in my post. You and others seem to want to take the position that all of Bruce's success is due to Martz and an elite surrounding cast. But Bruce excelled without any of that. The fact that he also excelled with it doesn't take that away and isn't a negative.

I don't think anyone is saying that at all, and using the word "all" like that turns your argument into a strawman.

As I pointed out earlier; without Warner or Bulger or Holt or Marshall etc. Bruce put up an average of 4.4 catches, 64.3 yards and 0.049 TD/game on his career. If we want to cherry pick even deeper to provide the most favorable view of Bruce and just use the 61 games he played prior to the Warner/Martz/GSOT era he averaged 5.1 catches, 76.4 yards and 0.052 TD/game. Although it doesn't seem fair to ignore his precipitous decline after the wheels fell off in StL but...whatever.

You continue to discount the notion that playing the majority of his career with some of the best talent in the league on one of the most passer friendly systems in league history provided Bruce with advantages that Steve Smith did not benefit from at any point in his career.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think it's important to remember that while Bruce was certainly a beneficiary of playing with the greatest show on turf, he was one of the main reasons why it was the greatest show on turf.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think it's important to remember that while Holt was certainly a beneficiary of playing with the greatest show on turf, he was one of the main reasons why it was the greatest show on turf.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think it's important to remember that while Faulk was certainly a beneficiary of playing with the greatest show on turf, he was one of the main reasons why it was the greatest show on turf.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think it's important to remember that while Az-Zahir Hakim

was certainly a beneficiary of playing with the greatest show on turf, he was one of the main reasons why it was the greatest show on turf.

 

[Chaka]

I think it's important to remember that while Bruce was certainly a beneficiary of playing with the greatest show on turf, he was one of the main reasons why it was the greatest show on turf.

Absolutely and it is a very good point that I should have emphasized. I am not posting here to diminish Bruce, he was phenomenal, my intent is to demonstrate that Smith was also phenomenal.

 

[Chaka]

Personally I think if Smith was part of that Rams team we would be only be discussing whether or not he was going to be a first ballot HoFer.

 

[CalBear]

I think it's important to remember that while Az-Zahir Hakim

was certainly a beneficiary of playing with the greatest show on turf, he was one of the main reasons why it was the greatest show on turf.

Please. Hakim's best season was 677 yards. Bruce, Holt, and Faulk all played at an extremely high level in that offense. My bet is they'll all make it eventually; I mean, if Art Monk and Andre Reed can get in those guys should be shoe-ins.

 

[moleculo]

I think there is room for lots of '00 era WR's. This was an era of explosive passing yards and less good RB's - the HoF should reflect that. Seriously - what RB who spent most of his career between 2000 and 2010 is HoF quality? LaDanian Thompson is the only one I've got.

Looking at the career rushing list of backs from that era, you've got Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, Frank Gore, Steven Jackson, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, Shaun Alexander, Ahman Green, Willis McGahee, Priest Holmes...none on this list are HoF quality, IMO.

Steve Smith doesn't necessarily have to beat out contemporary WR's.

 

[Anarchy99]

I think there is room for lots of '00 era WR's. This was an era of explosive passing yards and less good RB's - the HoF should reflect that. Seriously - what RB who spent most of his career between 2000 and 2010 is HoF quality? LaDanian Thompson is the only one I've got.

Looking at the career rushing list of backs from that era, you've got Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, Frank Gore, Steven Jackson, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, Shaun Alexander, Ahman Green, Willis McGahee, Priest Holmes...none on this list are HoF quality, IMO.

Steve Smith doesn't necessarily have to beat out contemporary WR's.

This logic is flawed IMO. This is the era of inflated passing numbers . . . so they should induct twice as many QBs because their numbers are really good compared to other eras? Does the HOF really need guys like Drew Bledsoe, Kerry Collins, and Vinny Testaverde (all in the Top 13 all time in passing yards . . . at least for now).

I will research how many active WRs have been inducted that played at the same time, but I do not expect the HOF to open the floodgates and let in a ton of guys who played at the same time.

We can debate the merits of the RBs in the time span you listed, but LT, Barber, Edge, Dunn, Steven Jackson, and Gore all rank in the Top 25 all time in yards from scrimmage. That alone probably doesn't merit induction, but all of them had solid career numbers.

 

[moleculo]

I think there is room for lots of '00 era WR's. This was an era of explosive passing yards and less good RB's - the HoF should reflect that. Seriously - what RB who spent most of his career between 2000 and 2010 is HoF quality? LaDanian Thompson is the only one I've got.

Looking at the career rushing list of backs from that era, you've got Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, Frank Gore, Steven Jackson, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, Shaun Alexander, Ahman Green, Willis McGahee, Priest Holmes...none on this list are HoF quality, IMO.

Steve Smith doesn't necessarily have to beat out contemporary WR's.

This logic is flawed IMO. This is the era of inflated passing numbers . . . so they should induct twice as many QBs because their numbers are really good compared to other eras? Does the HOF really need guys like Drew Bledsoe, Kerry Collins, and Vinny Testaverde (all in the Top 13 all time in passing yards . . . at least for now).

I will research how many active WRs have been inducted that played at the same time, but I do not expect the HOF to open the floodgates and let in a ton of guys who played at the same time.

We can debate the merits of the RBs in the time span you listed, but LT, Barber, Edge, Dunn, Steven Jackson, and Gore all rank in the Top 25 all time in yards from scrimmage. That alone probably doesn't merit induction, but all of them had solid career numbers.

2000-2010 QB - I'd expect Brady, Manning, Favre, Brees, Warner, and Roethlisberger. That's it. No one else strikes me as an all-time great.

I'm just sayin - the list of debatable WR's from this era is much, much bigger than RB's, IMO.

 

[Tau837]

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

Epic fail.

 

[moleculo]

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

Epic fail.

Lol. Yup.

 

[Chaka]

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

Epic fail.

Lol. Yup.

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

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

 

[Tau837]

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

Epic fail.

Lol. Yup.

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

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

My comment was about the fact that LaDainian THOMPSON is not a HOFer.

 

[Chaka]

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

Epic fail.

Lol. Yup.

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

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

My comment was about the fact that LaDainian THOMPSON is not a HOFer.

Really? Calling out typos in the day-and-age of tiny screen keyboards and auto-correct?

 

[Tau837]

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

Epic fail.

Lol. Yup.

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

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

My comment was about the fact that LaDainian THOMPSON is not a HOFer.

Really? Calling out typos in the day-and-age of tiny screen keyboards and auto-correct?

Yes, really. It was a humorous callout, which moleculo got and you did not. You are free to ignore my posts from here forward.

 

[Chaka]

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

Epic fail.

Lol. Yup.

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

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

My comment was about the fact that LaDainian THOMPSON is not a HOFer.

Really? Calling out typos in the day-and-age of tiny screen keyboards and auto-correct?

Yes, really. It was a humorous callout, which moleculo got and you did not. You are free to ignore my posts from here forward.

Don't take it so personally man. Sorry we disagree about Steve Smith and silly typos, it's not meant as a judgement (unlike calling out typos).

 

[matuski]

Steve Smith's story puts him at an advantage over his peers imo.

Starting out as a special teams player, getting going only to break his leg badly, coming back to an amazing 2005 season... to now playing at a WR1 level for what 11 years straight?

 

[zeeshan2]

He's coming back next year. Confirmed via his Twitter

 

[tangfoot]

A ten foot pole isn't long enough to keep me away from him. No, no, no, no, no.

 

[Bri]

He's coming back next year. Confirmed via his Twitter

Crazy

That saying where someone is too small and gonna get killed in the NFL if he plays-Smith epitomizes that. The injuries he's had and the ones this past year, wow is he fortunate to be in such good shape after all he's been through.

I'm shocked his family said yeah take another year of that.

He is possibly the most determined man in football. I love how he plays. The NFL is littered with bad CBs. I'd cut at least half of them off every team if I could. Every team has fans angry a guy was "right there" and did nothing but watch. The ultra determined Smith is gonna beat every single one of those lazy CBs, no doubt. It's the hits though and that second he's on the ground and ya think how old he is and....I worry about the guy

 

[cstu]

He's coming back next year. Confirmed via his Twitter

Sure he is.

 

[Bri]

He's coming back next year. Confirmed via his Twitter

Sure he is.

It's a whole graphic done up, quote about family, presser this afternoon...seems done deal

 

[cstu]

He's coming back next year. Confirmed via his Twitter

Sure he is.

It's a whole graphic done up, quote about family, presser this afternoon...seems done deal

I mean he's coming back the way Cruz came back this year.

 

[Bri]

He's coming back next year. Confirmed via his Twitter

Sure he is.

It's a whole graphic done up, quote about family, presser this afternoon...seems done deal

I mean he's coming back the way Cruz came back this year.

Oh I don't know. I have my issues with the Giants trainers and/or playing surface when the entire WR corps from years ago wrecked their knees. That's kind of oddly coincidental.

Smith was out of his boot and walking without a limp recently. A week or two ago, and then this news came out. I think it's a fine progression.

He is one driven individual. I'm not intending to dis Cruz here but Smith is the last person I'd doubt

 

[Arodin]

If Reggie Wayne could come back in 2015, I don't see why Steve Smith can't in 2016!

 

[Anarchy99]

If Reggie Wayne could come back in 2015, I don't see why Steve Smith can't in 2016!

How did Wayne do this year?

 

[Arodin]

If Reggie Wayne could come back in 2015, I don't see why Steve Smith can't in 2016!

How did Wayne do this year?

That was actually my point.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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

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

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

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

Nah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chaka]

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

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

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

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

Nah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[travdogg]

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

Epic fail.

Lol. Yup.

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

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

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

 

[cstu]

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

There would be more of a case for Priest if Larry Johnson didn't come in and play almost as well.

 

[Bri]

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

There would be more of a case for Priest if Larry Johnson didn't come in and play almost as well.

oh so true

If anything this cements some of their excellent linemen

 

[Bri]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ghost Rider]

CJ2K has no shot. No shot. Injuries or not, this year did not help his cause. Had he stayed healthy and put up a monster season, then maybe we could talk, but he didn't.

 

[travdogg]

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

There would be more of a case for Priest if Larry Johnson didn't come in and play almost as well.

oh so true

If anything this cements some of their excellent linemen

I agree to an extent, Johnson was close to as good as a runner, but Holmes was at least 3 times the overall RB.

Chris Johnson shouldn't be in the conversation, he's more in the Jamal Lewis category of elite for 1 year, and a few years of very good.

I'd say of guys who entered the league since 1996(last 20 years), my top-5 RB's would be:

1. Peterson, best runner of the era, and carried a lot of mediocre teams to decency, and beyond.

2. Tomlinson, best all around RB, but benefited from having a better supporting cast than Peterson had.

3. Holmes, great o-line helped, but Holmes' run from 01-04(pre-injury) was the best run for any RB of the era. The 00's version of Terrell Davis.

4. Charles, one of only a handful of RBs with a career YPC over 5. Also an elite pass catcher.

5. McCoy, 2 rushing titles, and an excellent receiver as well.

 

[Csonka4life]

I hate these debates mainly because there is always somebody who has no idea what the Hall of Fame is and believes it should hold only 100 players/the most obvious of the obvious (Montana, Lawrence Taylor, Unitas, etc.). That Spider guy is the one here.

It is a museum. If it is for only 100 players, there is not going to be a money-making event each summer. Oh, but you can kick a guy out, you say? Oh, that will go over real, real well with that guy's family and friends and his NFL team(s). Hey, Marcus Allen, go #### yourself, buddy. You are out!

The NFL could hire Trump to say you're fired and then push the bust off a 10 story building ala Letterman.

OJ Simpson?

 

[Adam Harstad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bri]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't mean to cause this tangent, sorry

I thought I worded it as far-fetched and now here I am defending him so...

Here is total yardage of all backs first five years

Dickerson

Tomlinson

Emmitt

Earl Campbell

Sweetness

CJ

He didn't even have a job or a team that wanted him and...how bad is the Titans run game yet they didn't want him back? I'm not CJs biggest fan and uncomfy in this spot but if after your first five years you are top six all time at your position then you are "on pace" for the HOF.

Is he a whatever for racing a cheetah and getting shot and...I am not defending the guys character or nothing

If he got 13-1400 yards which he was on pace for 10th best all time in his first seven seasons. That would have been noteworthy, and like I said, you'd have to crack the door a bit and start considering him again.

I'm curious of him in 2016. Me and every single FF owner that had him, is going to draft him again in round 18-20 like we did in 2015 if he's there. You "can't" turn down "one of top RBs thru 10 weeks" that late in the draft. All I am is curious though. My expectation is still a backup with a few games where he is off to the races with some nice stats because of the long runs.

You needed CJ to have two bad years to be able to compare him to 20ish players with maybe 100 pro bowls combined- a solid group. His first six, I posted the "company" he was in above. That is elite. You didn't account for his big fall-two years without even 1000 yards and one where he only got 6 starts. To reiterate- he was elite and crashed majorly. His character, persona, attitude etc has made many NFL fans become not his fan but...those numbers thru the first five years are undeniable.

I am in no way saying he will be in the HOF and have a great 2016. This got twisted some, so I'm trying to clarify is all.