Will Jimmy Smith make the HoF

[Big Score 1]

assuming bruce just has another 500 or so yard season and then retires, i don't see how he's jumps ahead of smith in the queue.  i'd see them about even.  bruce was one of those guys who benefitted ENORMOUSLY from the system he played in, especially 1999-2002 or so.  the jags had some decent offenses for a few years there as well, but nothing like the 1999 rams.  and statistically bruce still hasn't even caught jimmy yet in receptions or yards.  i don't see how you put one guy "clearly" ahead of the other.

 

1467148[/snapback]

 

 

 

Generally I like your posts Az. But I don't think you really thought this one through.

 

Bruce has played in 49 less games than Smith.

Bruce already leads him by 10 TD's.

Bruce has almost a full yard more per reception.

Bruce is only 9 yards behind in total yardage.

 

But you see them as about even?

 

And to top it off, at only 33 years of age, I figure Bruce to have at least two more years in him...barring injury.

[Azazello1313]

Bruce has played in 49 less games than Smith.

 

umm, i'm counting 12. 179 vs. 167. and that's counting a number of "games" where jimmy was suited up and probably never got on the field, for the cowboys, eagles and his first season catching on with jax. in reality, we're looking at 11 seasons for jimmy and 12 seasons for bruce.

 

Bruce already leads him by 10 TD's.

 

wow you and swerski really seem to like that stat to the exclusion of all others. jimmy played for the jags, bruce played for the rams. not too surprising bruce has a few more TDs.

 

Bruce has almost a full yard more per reception.

 

yeah and the flip side of that is jimmy has 50 more grabs.

 

Bruce is only 9 yards behind in total yardage.

 

the key word being "behind".

 

But you see them as about even?

 

and you don't?

Edited May 14, 2006 by Azazello1313

[Big Score 1]

you see them as about even?

1467322[/snapback]

 

 

and you don't?

1467352[/snapback]

 

 

No

[CaptainHook]

Soooo, in twelve LESS games, Bruce is only 50 catches behind? But has ONLY nine less yards? And 10 MORE TD's? And a higher YPC? And played in two Super Bowls? And won one?

 

[bushwacked]

Soooo, in twelve LESS games, Bruce is only 50 catches behind?  But has ONLY nine less yards?  And 10 MORE TD's?  And a higher YPC?  And played in two Super Bowls?  And won one?

 

 

1467705[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Funny how Issac Bruce became some sort of standard for HOF status. Jimmy Smith should be a boderline appointee and the next 3-4 years will probably diminish his accomlishments a bit statistically. I'd like to see him go in.

 

I don't know which way to lean logistically because both Swerski and Az are always wrong.

[Azazello1313]

Soooo, in twelve LESS games, Bruce...

 

1467705[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

this "bruce has played 12 less games" nonsense is terribly misleading, as it's counting games smith didn't even PLAY in. in 1995 jimmy smith was just getting a chance with the jags, coming off the bench. this is the same season isaac bruce had one of the best seasons ever for a WR. going into the 1996 season, jimmy smith had a couple hundred yards under his belt, and ike bruce had a couple THOUSAND. once jimmy smith was a starter, and over the next 10 seasons, he made up that difference and then some. so if anyone has had more of a chance to accumulate stats, it's bruce.

[Big Score 1]

Funny how Issac Bruce became some sort of standard for HOF status.

1467713[/snapback]

 

 

 

He isn't.

 

What was said is;

If Jimmy Smith gets in, then Isaac Bruce is a stone cold, lead pipe lock to get in.

1466859[/snapback]

 

 

 

Pay attention

[CaptainHook]

this "bruce has played 12 less games" nonsense is terribly misleading, as it's counting games smith didn't even PLAY in.  in 1995 jimmy smith was just getting a chance with the jags, coming off the bench.  this is the same season isaac bruce had one of the best seasons ever for a WR.  going into the 1996 season, jimmy smith had a couple hundred yards under his belt, and ike bruce had a couple THOUSAND.  once jimmy smith was a starter, and over the next 10 seasons, he made up that difference and then some.  so if anyone has had more of a chance to accumulate stats, it's bruce.

 

1467723[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

But weren't the Jags a much better team from '96-'98 (Jags were 31-17 and went to the play-offs all three years and the AFC Championship once, the Rams were 15-33 and did not make the play-offs) than the Rams? That seems to be your argument against Bruce, that he was on a better team. That was not always the case. The Jags were quite a contender from 1996-1999.

 

Why should Bruce be penalized for being good enough to play for the team that drafted him right away? Smith wasn't.

 

Honestly, I see Bruce as borderline HOF right now. The next few years might get him in. Jimmy Smith is not even borderline. He won't get in.

Edited May 14, 2006 by CaptainHook

[Bill Swerski]

Funny how Issac Bruce became some sort of standard for HOF status.

 

1467713[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If you had bothered to actually read this thread, you'd find that nobody argued that Bruce was a "standard for HOF status." I've argued that he's a borderline case.

[Azazello1313]

But weren't the Jags a much better team from '96-'98  (Jags were 31-17 and went to the play-offs all three years and the AFC Championship once, the Rams were 15-33 and did not make the play-offs) than the Rams?  That seems to be your argument against Bruce, that he was on a better team. 

1467935[/snapback]

 

no, the argument is that bruce was on a better OFFENSE.

 

Why should Bruce be penalized for being good enough to play for the team that drafted him right away? Smith wasn't.

 

it obviously wasn't a question of jimmy not being "good enough". it was a matter of having a broke f'n leg, a bunch of abdominal operations, and other chit most people assumed would end his pro football career before it ever got started. he fought back from all of that and caught on with an expansion team...and since 1996, that "era of the dominant WR" everybody keeps talking about, jimmy smith had more yards and receptions than ALL of them except harrison, who's had peyton manning throwing to him.

 

personally, i put the guys who fight through adversity to BECOME a dominant player on a higher plane. guys like jimmy smith, who had the worst medical luck imaginable...or like rod smith, who was an undrafted free agent and fought his way up through the practice squad. if that adversity they overcame reults in them ending up "only" top 10 all-time in the career stat categories instead of top 5, i tend not to hold that against them.

[Chavez]

See, I'm more than willing to give points to those who faced adversity - but Smith and, um, Smith just strike me as being good enough for long enough. To an extent, you can say they were/are underrated, but when listing "Best WRs in the League" for any given season during their careers, they best mention they might get would be "oh, yeah, I almost forgot Jimmy/Rod Smith"

 

And that just makes me feel they're at best borderline for HoF status - to say nothing of Bruce, who hasn't been the top WR ON HIS TEAM, much less in the league, for the bulk of his career.

[Bill Swerski]

no, the argument is that bruce was on a better OFFENSE.

 

1468069[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Keep in mind that Bruce's best year was with Chris Miller and Mark Rypien throwing him the ball. He also put up very good numbers in offenses consisting of Tony Banks, Lawrence Phillips, Amp Lee, Eddie Kennison, and Torrence Small.

 

On the other hand, Jimmy Smith spent his most productive years playing with Mark Brunell, Fred Taylor, Keenan McCardell, and Kyle Brady.

 

personally, i put the guys who fight through adversity to BECOME a dominant player on a higher plane. guys like jimmy smith, who had the worst medical luck imaginable...

 

Bruce tore his hamstring in '98 and caught the game-winning TD in SB 34 the following year. Talk about fighting through adversity and coming out on top.

 

Sorry, but Jimmy isn't a HOFer. I'm not even sure that Bruce will get there.

[Bill Swerski]

and since 1996, that "era of the dominant WR" everybody keeps talking about, jimmy smith had more yards and receptions than ALL of them except harrison, who's had peyton manning throwing to him. 

 

1468069[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, and Harrison has been double-covered on every single play since 1999. He spent most of his career without a legitimate #2 WR on the other side of the field. Yet, that didn't stop him from catching 143 passes for 1722 yds in 2002, though.

 

On the other hand, Smith had Pro Bowler Keenan McCardell taking double coverage away from him for six freaking years.

 

Jimmy Smith can't hold Marvin's jockstrap.

Edited May 14, 2006 by Bill Swerski

[Chavez]

On the other hand, Jimmy Smith spent his most productive years playing with Mark Brunell, Fred Taylor, Keenan McCardell, and Kyle Brady.

 

 

1468137[/snapback]

 

 

 

Wow, that's a real muderer's row there.

[Big Score 1]

Mark Brunell, Fred Taylor, Keenan McCardell, and Kyle Brady.

1468137[/snapback]

 

 

 

Wow, that's a real muderer's row there. 

 

1468164[/snapback]

 

 

 

Not to stick up for Bill, but when you compare them to

Tony Banks , Lawrence Phillips , Amp Lee , Eddie Kennison, and Torrence Small .

 

1468137[/snapback]

 

 

They almost are a muderer's row

[Chavez]

Not to stick up for Bill, but when you compare them to (the Rams' skill position players)

 

They almost are a muderer's row

 

1468211[/snapback]

 

 

 

Eh, Bruce played 3 years with Banks - he had the as-good-as Brunell Chris Miller for 2 years before that, and has ridden out his career with average-to-MVP-level QB'ing from Warner, Green, and Bulger; IMO he's had decent or better QBs for most of his career. Plus, for half his career, he hasn't been the best WR on his own darn team - Torry Holt has been.

 

It's no stretch to grant that for the first half of his career, Faulk played with absolutely PUTRID RBs; but since '99, he's had Faulk lining up in the backfield. Faulk > than the at-times undependable Fred Taylor.

[Big Score 1]

He had the as-good-as Brunell Chris Miller for 2 years before that

1468225[/snapback]

 

 

 

You forget I'm a Falcons fan, Chavez.

Chrissy Miller as good as Brunell...in years 8 & 9 of his career...

[Chavez]

You forget I'm a Falcons fan, Chavez.

Chrissy Miller as good as Brunell...in years 8 & 9 of his career...

 

1468282[/snapback]

 

 

 

I always felt that Miller was FRAGILE, not bad. To be fair, Brunell probably suffered from being on Coughlin's tight leash for much of his career.

[CaptainHook]

Why should Bruce be penalized for being good enough to play for the team that drafted him right away?  Smith wasn't.

 

1467935[/snapback]

 

 

 

obviously wasn't a question of jimmy not being "good enough". it was a matter of having a broke f'n leg, a bunch of abdominal operations, and other chit most people assumed would end his pro football career before it ever got started.

 

1468069[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I was referring to the eight games his first two years he was credited as "playing" in the stats column although he did not have a reception. Not games missed due to injury. Bruce has been injured too. I just disagree with you that those games shouldn't "count" because he didn't play much.

Edited May 15, 2006 by CaptainHook

[Azazello1313]

Not to stick up for Bill, but when you compare them to

Tony Banks g-sick.gif , Lawrence Phillips g-sick.gif , Amp Lee g-sick.gif , Eddie Kennison, and Torrence Small g-sick.gif .

They almost are a muderer's row

 

1468211[/snapback]

 

 

 

what about when you compare them to marshall faulk, kurt warner, torry holt, az hakim, orlando pace, etc.

[Azazello1313]

Jimmy Smith can't hold Marvin's jockstrap.

 

1468154[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

you've got a real strawman problem, BS. i point out that jimmy has more receptions and yards since 1996 than any WR except harrison, and you reply with a post arguing that harrison is better than smith. are you f*cking wetodded?

[Bier Meister]

+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Rushing | Receiving |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1992 dal | 7 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

| 1994 phi | 1 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

| 1995 jax | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 22 288 13.1 3 |

| 1996 jax | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 83 1244 15.0 7 |

| 1997 jax | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 82 1324 16.1 4 |

| 1998 jax | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 78 1182 15.2 8 |

| 1999 jax | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 116 1636 14.1 6 |

| 2000 jax | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 91 1213 13.3 8 |

| 2001 jax | 16 | 1 -3 -3.0 0 | 112 1373 12.3 8 |

| 2002 jax | 16 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 80 1027 12.8 7 |

| 2003 jax | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 54 805 14.9 4 |

| 2004 jax | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 74 1172 15.8 6 |

| 2005 jax | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 70 1023 14.6 6 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 179 | 2 -1 -0.5 0 | 862 12287 14.3 67 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

 

 

Seasons among the league's top 10

Receptions: 1997-7, 1999-1, 2001-2

Receiving yards: 1996-5, 1997-4, 1998-5, 1999-2, 2001-4

Yards from scrimmage: 1999-7

 

 

Among the league's all-time top 50

Receptions: 7

Receiving yards: 11

Receiving TDs: 31t

Yards from scrimmage: 33

[Bier Meister]

outside of td's i think his career was/is hof worthy.

[Bill Swerski]

you've got a real strawman problem, BS.  i point out that jimmy has more receptions and yards since 1996 than any WR except harrison, and you reply with a post arguing that harrison is better than smith.  are you f*cking wetodded?

 

1468899[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You argued that Harrison's numbers are skewed because he plays on the same team as Manning. Of course, this is despite the fact that Jerome Pathon, Torrance Small, Terrance Wilkins, E.G. Green, Trevor Insley, Troy Walters, and Quadry Ismail also played with Peyton. And none of them were good enough to stay there. Despite Marvin being double-covered on every play, the Colts had a revolving door at the #2 wideout position from 1998-2003. So, no, playing with Peyton doesn't translate into instant success. Talk about ret@rded.

 

I guess that we should look at Jerry Rice's numbers with skepticism as well, because he played with Montana and Young.

 

For the last time, Jimmy Smith is not getting into Canton. His receiving numbers are on a lower tier than Rice, Brown, Carter, Reed, Harrison, etc., his TD numbers are very low for an "elite" WR, and he never won anything.

Edited May 15, 2006 by Bill Swerski

[Pope Flick]

you've got a real strawman problem, BS.  i point out that jimmy has more receptions and yards since 1996 than any WR except harrison, and you reply with a post arguing that harrison is better than smith.  are you f*cking wetodded?

 

1468899[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Well, i would say Harrison is better than Smith. Heck, I'd say he's better than anyone playing today. He's open 5-7 yards in every direction, seemingly everytime he catches the ball. It's so common as to be ridiculous. Jimmy Smith is good, very good. but he's not Marvin Harrison Ridiculous Good.