Jimmy Smith Retires - HOFer?

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:10 pm

Well, Jimmy Smith from the Jacksonville Jags retired. I was reading an article that said he wouldn't be strongly considered for the HOF. I was a bit incredulous, so I thought I'd throw this out there and see what others think.

I think he's virtually a shoo-in for the HOF.

1. I think he'd be the first Jacksonville Jaguar player in the HOF. They tend not to like having a team missing.

2. His stats are borderline great. 862 receptions, 12,287 yards, 67tds. These are all better than Michael Irvin's stats.

So is he a lock for the HOF?

Steron · Post by **Steron** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:12 pm

I think he'll get in. Maybe not on the first ballot, but he'll get in. The problem is, he never won a Super Bowl. Unfortunately, to a lot of people, that's all that matters and that's how they judge greatness.

On a side note, I refuse to let anyone else in Canton until Derrick Thomas gets in.

***EDIT*** I agree that he'll probably have to wait until Monk gets in. Good call Debris.

Debris · Post by **Debris** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:19 pm

He could be, but he'll have to wait for Art Monk to make it in first.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:20 pm

Debris wrote:He could be, but he'll have to wait for Art Monk to make it in first.

+1

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:21 pm

He's not a lock, but he's definitely worthy of consideration.

Smith is 7th in receptions, 11th in receiving yards, 32nd in receiving TDs. 10 productive seasons.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:22 pm

My intitial reaction is "no"... that he wasn't dominant enough... but I have a hard time thinking of anybody who has had a better career for the past 15 years than him except Marvin Harrison... but I dunno. He was incredibly underrated... criminaly so... but still, I dunno.

But maybe I'm just showing media bias... he certainly gave the Ravens fits back in the day when they were in the same division.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:25 pm

Lots of people get into the hall that I don't think should, see the Irvin thing, but Jimmy Smith never struck me as a hall of famer. Even with the numbers he put up I don't ever remember thinking that he could change any game at any time. Hall of Famers should have given me that feeling IMO. Elway made me nervous everytime he stepped on the field against my team. Barry had me on the edge with every carry. Swann had me reencting every throw to him in my yard after the game. HOFers should bring a new level to every game not just a few.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:38 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:My intitial reaction is "no"... that he wasn't dominant enough... but I have a hard time thinking of anybody who has had a better career for the past 15 years than him except Marvin Harrison... but I dunno. He was incredibly underrated... criminaly so... but still, I dunno.

But maybe I'm just showing media bias... he certainly gave the Ravens fits back in the day when they were in the same division.

uh, I'll take the portion of Jerry Rice's career that fell into those years.

FWIW, I vote 'no' too. He definitely comes after Monk. Tim Brown also has a better chance. Harrison is probably in, as is Moss, TO is going to be interesting, but probably unlikely. Comparing to Swann/Stallworth is definitely out of the question too - it was a different era with different rules.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon May 15, 2006 5:03 pm

Irvin and Smith are comperable, but they played in changing eras.

Smith had top ten seasons in receptions (3 times), yards (5 times) and yards from scrimmage (once).

Irvin was top 10 in receptions (4 times), yards (6 times), receiving td's (5 times), and yards from scrimmage (4 times).

And that receiving td's number is the big difference. When Irvin was in his prime, pro bowl receivers were scoring 8-10 td's per year. In Smith's prime, it is 10-15 (note: I discovered this is incorrect)

And like it or not, 3 super bowl rings when you're a major factor will get you in.

And just to be really anal ....
The average pro-bowl reciever during Irvin's pro-bowl seasons was 86 receptions, 1227 yards, and 9.5 TDs. For Smith's, 89 receptions, 1323 yards and 8 TDs. Irvin averaged more catches (4), a lot more yards (200), and fewer TD's (2, though emmitt might have had something to do with that

) than his pro-bowl peers. Smith averaged more catches (6), the same yards, and fewer TD's (1.5) compared to his probowl peers.

FWIW.

Psychotrain · Post by **Psychotrain** » Mon May 15, 2006 10:09 pm

I just wish Drew Pearson and Bullet Bob Hayes would have made it in (yeah, I'm a Cowboys fan). I mean they changed the way defense played when Hayes came into the league....

McBa1n · Post by **McBa1n** » Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 pm

I've thought about this a lot...
I'd say yes, however, he's maybe 3rd or 4th in line for receivers that deserve to get in.

He's the model for consistency, talent, skill that makes him arguable.

2 guys that really deserve to get in before him are definitly Andre Reed and Art Monk. I would rate Irvin just below him -because I believe their talent is very similar, and Irvin's unfortunate shorter career have to make him less desireable (although I believe he should've been a first ballot guy - the hall is for dominant or consistently excellent over a period of time IMO - Irvin was dominant).

I don't have the stats in front of me - but what Jimmy did at his age is unreal. Also, his impact, IMO was greater than the previously mentioned wideouts relative to his team's success... Jimmy ALWAYS got the key yards in big spots. He didn't always get the TD, but his catches were generally big.

Eightball · Post by **Eightball** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:37 am

geezer wrote:
Debris wrote:He could be, but he'll have to wait for Art Monk to make it in first.
+1

Glad someone else said it so people wouldn't scream that I'm just a homer.

Suitably Ironic Moniker · Tue May 16, 2006 1:40 am

I'd love to see Monk get in, but I've read some columns (Peter King's among them) that claim that a good portion of the voters are against him. Yet, Irvin will probably get in. Perhaps Monk should have snorted coke off of a hooker's chest.

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Tue May 16, 2006 2:12 am

Suitably Ironic Moniker wrote:Perhaps Monk should have snorted coke off of a hooker's chest.

It's all about style baby.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue May 16, 2006 6:44 am

McBa1n wrote:He's the model for consistency, talent, skill that makes him arguable.

That pretty sums it up. I say no. He was good, consistent, but not great. Can anyone remember details of him dominating the league during his career? If we don't remember that now, how is posterity supposed to remember it?

The HoF shouldn't be for the merely good, but for the truly great. I agree with others who place him behind Art Monk - Smith didn't make his team great like Monk (and Irvin) did.

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Tue May 16, 2006 8:58 am

I like Art Monk, but I think he's as borderline as Smith. Having lived in Washington DC during virtually his entire career, he was a model of professionalism and consistency. But he was rarely, if ever, dominant - witnessed by only getting 3 Pro Bowl selections in his 16 seasons. If you look at their career statistics, they're very close - and Monk took 3-5 more seasons (depending on how you look at it) to compile his. His biggest claim to fame is his longevity and durability.

Jeff V's point cracks me up. "He was good, consistent, but not great. Can anyone remember details of him dominating the league during his career? If we don't remember that now, how is posterity supposed to remember it?" That sums up Monk's career perfectly.

With all of that said, I think he deserved to get in before Lynn Swann and I'm a Steelers fan. But not John Stallworth, who was a far better WR.

I think Monk will get in probably in the next 3 years or so. He, Derrick Thomas and Thurman Thomas all deserve to be there. I hope Irvin never gets in...look at Irvin vs. Andre Rison and tell me Irvin deserves to be there....

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue May 16, 2006 9:13 am

I wasn't saying the Art Monk definitely deserves to be there either, but I would put him in before Jimmy Smith. Having lived in neither Washington DC nor Jacksonville, I can still remember some highlights from Monk's career, but nothing really from Jimmy Smith -- small market, plain name; his fame didn't carry very well.

The other day, one of local radio sports talk shows brought this up. While they admitted he was a good receiver, they pretty much decided they didn't care enough about him to consider his retirement news.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue May 16, 2006 9:27 am

Blackadar wrote:I think Monk will get in probably in the next 3 years or so. He, Derrick Thomas and Thurman Thomas all deserve to be there. I hope Irvin never gets in...look at Irvin vs. Andre Rison and tell me Irvin deserves to be there....

That's easy.

Irvin - 3 Super Bowl wins. 7 playoff appearances (by year). career playoff average 5.5 receptions, 82 yards, 8 touchdowns.
Rison - 1 Super Bowl Appearances. 4 playoff appearances, career playoff average 3.75 receptions, 52 yards, 3 total TDs.

Irvin had more receptions and more yards in the regular season. Couple that with playoff performances and Rison's just not as good.

Irvin is in the same position that Aikman is. Neither are clear cut hall of famers. However, they won 3 superbowls. Yes, the line was great, yes the defense was great, yes emmitt was great. But they did it, and they were major factors.

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Tue May 16, 2006 9:37 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Blackadar wrote:I think Monk will get in probably in the next 3 years or so. He, Derrick Thomas and Thurman Thomas all deserve to be there. I hope Irvin never gets in...look at Irvin vs. Andre Rison and tell me Irvin deserves to be there....
That's easy.

Irvin - 3 Super Bowl wins. 7 playoff appearances (by year). career playoff average 5.5 receptions, 82 yards, 8 touchdowns.
Rison - 1 Super Bowl Appearances. 4 playoff appearances, career playoff average 3.75 receptions, 52 yards, 3 total TDs.

Irvin had more receptions and more yards in the regular season. Couple that with playoff performances and Rison's just not as good.

Irvin is in the same position that Aikman is. Neither are clear cut hall of famers. However, they won 3 superbowls. Yes, the line was great, yes the defense was great, yes emmitt was great. But they did it, and they were major factors.

So Rison is to blame because he got stuck on a crappy team while Irvin had the good fortune to be part of the Dallas dynasty?

(using the same argument that was used against Lynn Swann, who I don't think should have been in the HOF)

Actually, Irvin is only about the 6th or 7th best WR of his era. Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Andre Reed, Chris Carter, Irving Fryar are all clearly better (pure statistics) with James Lofton likely better. I'm not sure the #6 or #7 WR of that era deserves to be in the HOF.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue May 16, 2006 9:56 am

Blackadar wrote: So Rison is to blame because he got stuck on a crappy team while Irvin had the good fortune to be part of the Dallas dynasty?

No. Rison didn't acheive enough. And he's not clearly better than Irvin. Irvin had more receptions and more yards.

(using the same argument that was used against Lynn Swann, who I don't think should have been in the HOF)

I couldn't compare 70's football to 90's football if I tried.

Actually, Irvin is only about the 6th or 7th best WR of his era. Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Andre Reed, Chris Carter, Irving Fryar are all clearly better (pure statistics) with James Lofton likely better. I'm not sure the #6 or #7 WR of that era deserves to be in the HOF.

Irving Fryar? 9 seasons under 50 receptions? None over 100? Career bests were 88 receptions, 1316 yards, and 11 TDs.

Andre Reed? Only 3 seasons with more than 80 receptions? Career bests were 90 receptions, 1312 yards, and 10 TD's.

Lofton? Bests of 71 receptions, 1361 yards, and 8 TD's.

Irvin: Bests 111 receptions , 1603 yds, 10 TD's. His second bests were 93, 1523, and 9. Third best was 88, 1396, and 8.

Rice, Brown, and Carter were better. But so what? We're looking at nearly a 20 year period when discussing these guys.

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:12 am

In the Irvin vs. Rison discussion, Rison has almost 20 more TDs than Irvin. So a few catches and a few yards don't mean much when Rison has 25% more TDs. To be perfectly blunt, I think Irvin was a better WR, but it's closer than Dallas fans think. They're rather comperable.

As for the rest of them...

Fryar: More catches, yards, TDs, same number of Pro Bowl games.
Reed: More catches, yards, TDs, 2 more Pro Bowl games.
Lofton: More catches, yards, TDs, 3 more Pro Bowl games.

The only one that's even arguable in the least is Fryar - longer career, but his star didn't shine as bright. Reed and Lofton had clearly superior careers across the board - they were better WRs in virtually every way. It's not even a point for reasonable discussion.

I'm looking at guys who made the Pro Bowl in the same seasons as Irvin, to compare career peaks. Only Lofton's career was winding down during this time.

To apply the same criteria to Jimmy Smith (guys who made the Pro Bowl game during his Pro Bowl seasons) these guys may be better:

Carter, Brown, Moss, Harrison, TO and Rice. That's it. Moss and TO don't have Smith's career stats, but their careers aren't done yet. At worst, there will be 6 WRs ahead of Smith. At best, 4. Smith falls right into the same category as Irvin, only he didn't have the good fortune to be on the same team as Aikman and Smith.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:18 am

No.

It's the Hall Of Fame, not the Hall Of Consistent, or the Hall Of Pretty Good, or the Hall Of Stats.

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:21 am

Oh, using career highs is rather inaccurate.

Anyone think Herman Moore is a HOFer? Yet his best 3 seasons torch Irvin's best 3 in receptions. Moore also gets the edge in TDs, while Irvin gets the edge in yards.

Irvin: Bests 111 receptions , 1603 yds, 10 TD's. His second bests were 93, 1523, and 9. Third best was 88, 1396, and 8.

Moore: Bests 123 receptions, 1686 yards, 14 TDs. His second bests were 106, 1296 and 9. Third best was 104, 1293 and 8.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:44 am

Blackadar wrote:Oh, using career highs is rather inaccurate.

Anyone think Herman Moore is a HOFer? Yet his best 3 seasons torch Irvin's best 3 in receptions. Moore also gets the edge in TDs, while Irvin gets the edge in yards.

Irvin: Bests 111 receptions , 1603 yds, 10 TD's. His second bests were 93, 1523, and 9. Third best was 88, 1396, and 8.

Moore: Bests 123 receptions, 1686 yards, 14 TDs. His second bests were 106, 1296 and 9. Third best was 104, 1293 and 8.

Notice that Moore's second best isn't as good as Irvin's best. Irvin's third best was better than all those other guys peaks.

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:58 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Blackadar wrote:Oh, using career highs is rather inaccurate.

Anyone think Herman Moore is a HOFer? Yet his best 3 seasons torch Irvin's best 3 in receptions. Moore also gets the edge in TDs, while Irvin gets the edge in yards.

Irvin: Bests 111 receptions , 1603 yds, 10 TD's. His second bests were 93, 1523, and 9. Third best was 88, 1396, and 8.

Moore: Bests 123 receptions, 1686 yards, 14 TDs. His second bests were 106, 1296 and 9. Third best was 104, 1293 and 8.
Notice that Moore's second best isn't as good as Irvin's best. Irvin's third best was better than all those other guys peaks.

Decent point. But I could use the same exact discussion to compare Terrell Davis to Jerome Bettis, Thurman Thomas and Curtis Martin. Yet which 3 of those are going to be in the HOF and which one is a fringe candidate?

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue May 16, 2006 11:42 am

Blackadar wrote:Decent point. But I could use the same exact discussion to compare Terrell Davis to Jerome Bettis, Thurman Thomas and Curtis Martin. Yet which 3 of those are going to be in the HOF and which one is a fringe candidate?

Uh. They're all debatable candidates (with the possible exception of Thomas).

But don't you see the difference between Davis having 9200 total yards, compared to Bettis (17000 total), Thomas (15,000 total), and Martin (17500 total), and Irvin (12000), compared to Fryar (13000), Lofton (14000), and Reed (13700)?

In Davis's case you're looking at 61% of the nearest comparison, while with Irvin you're looking at 85% of the largest comparison.

Except in extreme cases, negatives shouldn't keep you out of the Hall. You get credit for achievement whether it be peaks or career. It's not that having bad peaks keeps Loften (et al) out, it's that their peaks weren't big enough to get them in (IMHO of course).

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:00 pm

Blackadar wrote:In the Irvin vs. Rison discussion, Rison has almost 20 more TDs than Irvin. So a few catches and a few yards don't mean much when Rison has 25% more TDs. To be perfectly blunt, I think Irvin was a better WR, but it's closer than Dallas fans think. They're rather comperable.

Of course they are. But you're right. I don't think anyone is arguing that Irvin is a sure fire lock. If he was, then Jimmy Smith would be a sure fire lock. (after further review, maybe not

)

As for the rest of them...

Fryar: More catches, yards, TDs, same number of Pro Bowl games.
Reed: More catches, yards, TDs, 2 more Pro Bowl games.
Lofton: More catches, yards, TDs, 3 more Pro Bowl games.

The only one that's even arguable in the least is Fryar - longer career, but his star didn't shine as bright. Reed and Lofton had clearly superior careers across the board - they were better WRs in virtually every way. It's not even a point for reasonable discussion.

I think you're crazy

. None of them had peaks as high as Irvin. Reed was the only one with the post season success of Irvin. But Reed has a good shot at the Hall too. The difference is that Irvin won three Super Bowls while Reed lost 4.

Carter, Brown, Moss, Harrison, TO and Rice. That's it. Moss and TO don't have Smith's career stats, but their careers aren't done yet. At worst, there will be 6 WRs ahead of Smith. At best, 4. Smith falls right into the same category as Irvin, only he didn't have the good fortune to be on the same team as Aikman and Smith.

All those guys are far superior to Smith. They have signficantly better careers and significantly high peaks.
Smith (862 Receptions, 12287 yds, 67 TD, 5 PB)
Carter (1101 Receptions, 13899 yds, 130 TD, 8 PB)
Brown (1094 R, 14934 yds, 100 TD, 9 PB)
Moss (634 Receptions, 10147 yds, 98 TD, 5 PB) and he's 29.
Harrison (927 R, 12331 yds, 110 TD, 7 PB) still playing
Owens (716 R, 10535 yds, 101 TD, 5 PB) still playing
Rice (1549 R, 22895 yds, 197 TD, 13 PB)

While Irvin is the 4th best receiver of his era, Smith is no better than 7th. (and I'd likely include Isaac Bruce, Joe Horn, Rod Smith, and Hines Ward which would make him 11th)

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:03 pm

Um, James Lofton is already in the HOF.

I threw out Bettis, Martin and Thomas just to show the difference between peaks vs. career performance. I could have used any number of players. And there's little question that Bettis, Martin and Thomas will be in the HOF.

Actually, there's one other WR in Irvin's time that is (arguably) better than Irvin - Sterling Sharpe. There's little doubt that if not for his neck injury, his stats would have far surpassed Irvin's. His per season averages are amazing - 85 receptions, 1162 yards and 9tds in his 7 year career (Irvin was 62, 992 and 5.)

Irvin's a funny case. He doesn't have the longevity of many of his peers, so his career stats pale in comparision. Yet he doesn't have the truly dominant seasons over his peers (look at seasons from Rice, Moore, Carter, Sharpe and Issac Bruce) in that same era. He's a tweener.

So if you look at per-season averages, he's not a top 5 WR from his era. If you look at career statistics, he's not a top 5 WR from his era. But he's top 7 in both areas - something that only a couple of other WRs can claim (Rice, Carter, Brown). Is it enough?

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:17 pm

Blackadar wrote: Actually, there's one other WR in Irvin's time that is (arguably) better than Irvin - Sterling Sharpe. There's little doubt that if not for his neck injury, his stats would have far surpassed Irvin's. His per season averages are amazing - 85 receptions, 1162 yards and 9tds in his 7 year career (Irvin was 62, 992 and 5.)

Yep. But he did have a neck injury. Discussion over.

Irvin's a funny case. He doesn't have the longevity of many of his peers, so his career stats pale in comparision. Yet he doesn't have the truly dominant seasons over his peers (look at seasons from Rice, Moore, Carter, Sharpe and Issac Bruce) in that same era. He's a tweener.

Where do you get this "pales in comparison?" He's top 20 all-time in receptions and yards.

I don't know that I'd put Bruce in his era.

So if you look at per-season averages, he's not a top 5 WR from his era. If you look at career statistics, he's not a top 5 WR from his era. But he's top 7 in both areas - something that only a couple of other WRs can claim (Rice, Carter, Brown). Is it enough?

I'm guessing it's more likely than not.

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:18 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Blackadar wrote:In the Irvin vs. Rison discussion, Rison has almost 20 more TDs than Irvin. So a few catches and a few yards don't mean much when Rison has 25% more TDs. To be perfectly blunt, I think Irvin was a better WR, but it's closer than Dallas fans think. They're rather comperable.
Of course they are. But you're right. I don't think anyone is arguing that Irvin is a sure fire lock. If he was, then Jimmy Smith would be a sure fire lock. (after further review, maybe not )

As for the rest of them...

Fryar: More catches, yards, TDs, same number of Pro Bowl games.
Reed: More catches, yards, TDs, 2 more Pro Bowl games.
Lofton: More catches, yards, TDs, 3 more Pro Bowl games.

The only one that's even arguable in the least is Fryar - longer career, but his star didn't shine as bright. Reed and Lofton had clearly superior careers across the board - they were better WRs in virtually every way. It's not even a point for reasonable discussion.
I think you're crazy . None of them had peaks as high as Irvin. Reed was the only one with the post season success of Irvin. But Reed has a good shot at the Hall too. The difference is that Irvin won three Super Bowls while Reed lost 4.

Carter, Brown, Moss, Harrison, TO and Rice. That's it. Moss and TO don't have Smith's career stats, but their careers aren't done yet. At worst, there will be 6 WRs ahead of Smith. At best, 4. Smith falls right into the same category as Irvin, only he didn't have the good fortune to be on the same team as Aikman and Smith.
All those guys are far superior to Smith. They have signficantly better careers and significantly high peaks.
Smith (862 Receptions, 12287 yds, 67 TD, 5 PB)
Carter (1101 Receptions, 13899 yds, 130 TD, 8 PB)
Brown (1094 R, 14934 yds, 100 TD, 9 PB)
Moss (634 Receptions, 10147 yds, 98 TD, 5 PB) and he's 29.
Harrison (927 R, 12331 yds, 110 TD, 7 PB) still playing
Owens (716 R, 10535 yds, 101 TD, 5 PB) still playing
Rice (1549 R, 22895 yds, 197 TD, 13 PB)

While Irvin is the 4th best receiver of his era, Smith is no better than 7th. (and I'd likely include Isaac Bruce, Joe Horn, Rod Smith, and Hines Ward which would make him 11th)

I've already shown that Irvin isn't likely in the top 5, even if you're comparing career peaks. If you're comparing career stats, Irvin is lucky to be in the top 10.

As for Jimmy Smith, Issac Bruce being better is very arguable. Ward isn't even close and I'm a Steelers homer and I love Ward. Horn? You're out of your mind. Rod Smith's career doesn't compare well to Jimmy Smith's, either in peak or career stats.

Jimmy Smith's peak? 116 catches, 1636 yards, 8tds. Guess what? It beats Irvin's peak in catches and yards. His #2 season? 112, 1373, 8tds, which compares favorably to Irvin's #2 (19 more catches, 150 fewer yards). And the guy had Mark Brunell throwing to him, not Troy Aikman, John Elway, Peyton Manning Brett Farve or 2-time MVP Kurt Warner (starting to see a pattern here?).

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:21 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Blackadar wrote: Actually, there's one other WR in Irvin's time that is (arguably) better than Irvin - Sterling Sharpe. There's little doubt that if not for his neck injury, his stats would have far surpassed Irvin's. His per season averages are amazing - 85 receptions, 1162 yards and 9tds in his 7 year career (Irvin was 62, 992 and 5.)
Yep. But he did have a neck injury. Discussion over.

If you're going to compare peaks, be consistent. Discussion over.

Where do you get this "pales in comparison?" He's top 20 all-time in receptions and yards.

I don't know that I'd put Bruce in his era.

And behind about 10 of his contempories.

Fair enough about Bruce, who's first Pro Bowl was 1 year after Irvin's last.

So if you look at per-season averages, he's not a top 5 WR from his era. If you look at career statistics, he's not a top 5 WR from his era. But he's top 7 in both areas - something that only a couple of other WRs can claim (Rice, Carter, Brown). Is it enough?

I'm guessing it's more likely than not.

We'll see. He should be in the back of the line, though.

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:35 pm

Of course, my own gut opinion on Irvin was he was grossly overrated. Playing on Emmit Smith's team, opponents often had 8 guys in the box to defend the run. To stop Dallas, you had to stop Smith. Emmit and Johnson got a lot of attention out of the backfield as well, with Smith having 7 season right in the prime of Irvin's career with 40 or more receptions. He faced a lot of single coverage on the outside with Novacek taking up space in the middle of the field. I don't think it's coincidence that Novacek's last season was also the last season Irvin was a Pro Bowler.

Between the run game and the short and mid passing game Dallas could put on the field and with Aikman throwing the ball, I think any decent WR would have compiled impressive statistics. Even with just an aging Aikman and Smith left from that Dynasty, even Rocket Ismail had couple of good seasons.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue May 16, 2006 2:51 pm

Blackadar wrote: I've already shown that Irvin isn't likely in the top 5, even if you're comparing career peaks. If you're comparing career stats, Irvin is lucky to be in the top 10.

And you're still wrong. It's not about comparing peaks OR comparing careers. It's about comparing peaks AND comparing careers. 3 of Irvin's peers had better peaks AND careers: Rice, Brown, and Carter. Reed is very comperable, and the number of people that would pick Fryer's career over Irvins is very small.

As for Jimmy Smith, Issac Bruce being better is very arguable. Ward isn't even close and I'm a Steelers homer and I love Ward. Horn? You're out of your mind. Rod Smith's career doesn't compare well to Jimmy Smith's, either in peak or career stats.

Issac Bruce has only 50 less receptions, 9 less yards, 10 more touchdowns and is still playing. And he played next to Tory Holt and along side Marshall Faulk. Not as many footballs to go around.

Ward already has 4 probowls and he's not out of his prime. He's had 3 seasons of 10+ TDs and during the last five years his lowest productivity was 975 yards. He's only 29. Projecting health is always a tricky thing, but Ward has only missed one game in his career.

Horn's value will be discovered this year. Either he returns to being an elite player or he's done. The 2000-2004 Horn was better than Smith. But I think anyone from New Orleans deserves a mulligan for last year.

Rod Smith only needs 63 catches, 1400 yards, and 2 TD's to pass Jimmy. He had 85, 1105, and 6 last year.

Jimmy Smith's peak? 116 catches, 1636 yards, 8tds. Guess what? It beats Irvin's peak in catches and yards. His #2 season? 112, 1373, 8tds, which compares favorably to Irvin's #2 (19 more catches, 150 fewer yards). And the guy had Mark Brunell throwing to him, not Troy Aikman, John Elway, Peyton Manning Brett Farve or 2-time MVP Kurt Warner (starting to see a pattern here?).

What's wrong with 3 time pro-bowler Mark Brunell?

And yet, Jimmy's pro bowl seasons were average for pro-bowl WR for that time, while Irvin's were better. Different eras. And if you want to argue that Aikman is overrated, I've got no problem with that. He was accurate and made good decisions. But he had a crapload of weapons to go with an offensive line.

If you're going to compare peaks, be consistent. Discussion over.

You're getting your ANDs and ORs confused.

And behind about 10 of his contempories.

10? Brown, Rice, Lofton, Carter, Reed, Fryar.

Of course, my own gut opinion on Irvin was he was grossly overrated.

Probably (though not grossly). But being an integral part of 3 Super Bowl Championship teams will do that to you.