Jimmy Smith Retired - HOF Bound?

[Abe Sargent]

Jimmy Smith annoucned his retirement today. Should he go to the HOF? Discuss.

[WSUCougar]

He'll go into my personal fantasy football HOF, right next to Rodney Hampton.

[cartman]

He's got the stats to warrant a Canton invite.

[bhlloy]

Wow... this is a lot closer than I thought. Originally I would have said no way, but looking at the stats he might be there or thereabouts. Five time pro-bowler, 7th all time in receptions and 11th in receiving yards. He's got better numbers than Michael Irvin, but without the SB rings. I think he probably makes it after a couple of ballots.

[John Galt]

How long before this turns into another Art Monk in the HOF debate?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by John Galt

How long before this turns into another Art Monk in the HOF debate?

One of the major complaints of Art Monk is that he never led the league in any major receiving stat. Jimmy Smith did.


-Anxiety

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by John Galt

How long before this turns into another Art Monk in the HOF debate?

5 posts.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

One of the major complaints of Art Monk is that he never led the league in any major receiving stat. Jimmy Smith did.


-Anxiety

I completely agree. Smith never had a full season where he caught less than 70 balls and had 1000 yards. I don't think the comparison to Monk is a particularly good one.

One knock against Jimmy is going to be his low TD numbers. Never caught more than 8 in a season - probably not HOF numbers. I still think he makes it though.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by John Galt

How long before this turns into another Art Monk in the HOF debate?

"Look at that monkey run"

What an embarrassing moment for Howard.

Jimmy should get in. Might take awhile but I appreciate his career moreso than some other receivers in the hall.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

One of the major complaints of Art Monk is that he never led the league in any major receiving stat. Jimmy Smith did.


-Anxiety

I may have started it myself. Oh well.

The best argument for Monk, IMO, is that when he retired he held the all-time record in receptions.

Compared to Smith, he has the rings and has a much better off-the-field reputation (for all the good it has done him). Smith has a better peak value. Smith has the edge in Pro Bowls (5 to 3), but I think Pro Bowl voting is so bad that it really shouldn't count much. Neither player does well on the list of questions columnists often ask (ie - did you ever think he was one of the top players at his position when he played?). The stats breakdown as:

Monk 940 Receptions, 12,721 yards, and 68 TD's. He also had 69 post-season receptions, 1,062 yards, and 6 TD's. He played in an era with substantially less receiving stats.

Smith 862 Receptions, 12,287 yards, and 67 TD's. Post-season 40 receptions, 647 yards, and 7 TD's.

So, Smith did his damage in a lot less time than Monk, but Monk has the rings and played in a different era. Given the off-the-field stuff and Monk's status as a record holder when he left (for career and season receptions), I see Monk as the better candidate, so his failure probably means no luck for Smith, IMO.

edit: One other thing I forgot to mention was contrary to Anxiety's statement, Monk did lead the league in one category one year - receptions in 1984 when he set the record with 106.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

"Look at that monkey run"

What an embarrassing moment for Howard.

I believe Howard was referring to Alvin "Smurf" Garrett.

[dixieflatline]

How many WR from this era are going in then? You have to put Isaac Bruce in then what about Rod Smith? His numbers look pretty comperable to me. Torry Holt looks better, Hines Ward might be close numbers wise in a few years. Harrison is obvious. Derrick Mason doesn't look all that different if he puts up a few more solid years. Cris Carter has good numbers. Randy Moss will pass Smith in yardage in a few years and already has a much better average and more touchdowns. I vote no on Smith.

edit: Chris, Cris whatever.

[Daimyo]

I think a good case can be made for Smith as he was likely a top 3 WR for a couple seasons and a very good one every other season he was healthy. I'm not sure his case will still be so good in 10 seasons though with guys like Harrison, Moss, and Owens eligible. He played in the era when 100 catch seasons were pretty commonplace.

[cartman]

Smith has, I believe, two rings, but he wasn't a core member of those Cowboys teams. He was a compliment to Irvin and Harper.

[John Galt]

One other thing - Smith did his damage over 14 years (I count the year he was out of the league against him). Monk played for 16 (and his last one really didn't add anything - 3 games with a total of 6 receptions). So, the longevity argument doesn't cut against Monk as much as I thought. They seem to be fairly similar players statistically.

[Raiders Army]

Jimmy Smith deserves to get in.

[stevew]

He actually never recorded any stats with the Cowboys. Good player, I never knew he was that old.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by cartman

Smith has, I believe, two rings, but he wasn't a core member of those Cowboys teams. He was a compliment to Irvin and Harper.

Jimmy was a Cowboy only in '92 and never caught a pass in the Silver and Blue (and he got injured as well, I believe).

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/SmitJi00.htm

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by cartman

Smith has, I believe, two rings, but he wasn't a core member of those Cowboys teams. He was a compliment to Irvin and Harper.

I can't tell from his stat sheet - At most I think he has 1 since he didn't play with the team the following year. He didn't even play in any post-season games for the Cowboys so I wonder if he even got a ring (given the reasons why he wasn't playing).

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I believe Howard was referring to Alvin "Smurf" Garrett.

Are you sure? I always thought it was in reference to Art. I was watching that game but I can't remember who it was.

If that's the case, then Art SHOULD be in the hall!

[bhlloy]

John - good argument but I think you have missed the point a bit. Other than a couple of years in the mid 80's, Monk was never a great reciever. He was a solid possession reciever and played for a hell of a long time - probably longer than he should have. The rings are, as usual, a product of playing on some good teams. Monk never caught a touchdown pass in a Superbowl and Smith has the better postseason numbers.

Jimmy Smith was clearly in the top 5 or so recievers in the league consistently from 96 to 99, and even after that his play never dropped off too badly. His last, most ineffective season was 70 catches for 1023 yards and 6 TD's.

If Jimmy plays the extra three seasons when he's clearly past his prime like Monk did, he has better numbers and maybe picks up a Superbowl ring. I think Jimmy is clearly the better HOF candidate.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

How many WR from this era are going in then? You have to put Isaac Bruce in then what about Rod Smith? His numbers look pretty comperable to me. Torry Holt looks better, Hines Ward might be close numbers wise in a few years. Harrison is obvious. Derrick Mason doesn't look all that different if he puts up a few more solid years. Cris Carter has good numbers. Randy Moss will pass Smith in yardage in a few years and already has a much better average and more touchdowns. I vote no on Smith.

edit: Chris, Cris whatever.

DOLA - this is a good point. I hadn't thought of it in these terms. Bruce is in, Rod Smith is in, Harrison obviously. Cris Carter is probably in. Definitely no on Mason. Randy Moss, Hines Ward and Torry Holt are all on pace.

I would argue Jimmy still belongs (top 10 all time in receptions and yards and didn't pad his stats to get there) but if he comes up against too many of those guys year after year he's probably going to get overlooked.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

John - good argument but I think you have missed the point a bit. Other than a couple of years in the mid 80's, Monk was never a great reciever. He was a solid possession reciever and played for a hell of a long time - probably longer than he should have. The rings are, as usual, a product of playing on some good teams. Monk never caught a touchdown pass in a Superbowl and Smith has the better postseason numbers.

Jimmy Smith was clearly in the top 5 or so recievers in the league consistently from 96 to 99, and even after that his play never dropped off too badly. His last, most ineffective season was 70 catches for 1023 yards and 6 TD's.

If Jimmy plays the extra three seasons when he's clearly past his prime like Monk did, he has better numbers and maybe picks up a Superbowl ring. I think Jimmy is clearly the better HOF candidate.

Yet, at the end of the day, Monk played 2 more years than Smith (since I think excusing Smith's 3 wasted years on his personal failings is a mistake) and put up pretty similar stats (with any real differences favoring Monk - I'm not sure how you are saying Smith had better post-season numbers unless you only mean on a per game basis). Monk may not have caught a pass in a Super Bowl, but he had a great game against Buffalo (7 rec., 113 yds.). Given the era Monk played in versus the one we have now, I think that has to count significantly in Monk's favor. I think Monk had 4 great years (his 3 pro bowl years plus 1989). When he retired, he held the record for most receptions in a career and a season. That to me, makes him a better candidate than Smith.

edit: one other thing to add just for accuracy's sake, when Monk retired he was 38 (I agree he should have retired at 37). Smith is 36.

[Warhammer]

As someone mentioned before, Bruce should definitely go in the Hall. Had he not had Holt opposite him for the last 7 years his numbers would be undoubtedly higher.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

How many WR from this era are going in then? You have to put Isaac Bruce in then what about Rod Smith? His numbers look pretty comperable to me. Torry Holt looks better, Hines Ward might be close numbers wise in a few years. Harrison is obvious. Derrick Mason doesn't look all that different if he puts up a few more solid years. Cris Carter has good numbers. Randy Moss will pass Smith in yardage in a few years and already has a much better average and more touchdowns. I vote no on Smith.

edit: Chris, Cris whatever.

Chad Johnson and TO will also find their way in too, i think.

[John Galt]

And yet another post that shows the difference in eras.

Number of times player was in top 10 in receptions:

Smith (3 - 1st, 2nd, 7th)
Monk (4 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th)

Number of times player was in top 10 in receiving yards:

Smith (5 - 2nd, 4th twice, 5th twice)
Monk (3 - 3rd, 4th, 10th)

Number of times player was in top 10 in yards from scrimmage:

Smith (1 - 7th)
Monk (0)

Number of times player was in top 10 in receiving TD's:

Smith (0)
Monk (1 - 9th)

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Jimmy Smith was clearly in the top 5 or so recievers in the league consistently from 96 to 99, and even after that his play never dropped off too badly. His last, most ineffective season was 70 catches for 1023 yards and 6 TD's.

I just don't know about this. Let me throw some more names out and you tell me around that time period who you would put Smith in front of:
Marvin Harrision
Jerry Rice
Tim Brown
Isaac Bruce
Micheal Irvin
Cris Carter
Andre Reed

That isn't even counting guys like Bruce and Moss who are going to blow away Smith's numbers and Moss already has way more TD catches. I don't like Randy either but it is hard to argue with his production. Smith is/was a good player. Actually a very good player. But I don't think he is HOF material and looking at the list I am going to say that I am 95% sure that he won't get in because that is just too many WR for the voters to vote for.

[Swaggs]

How many pro bowls?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

How many pro bowls?

From my post above, 5.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

I just don't know about this. Let me throw some more names out and you tell me around that time period who you would put Smith in front of:
Marvin Harrision
Jerry Rice
Tim Brown
Isaac Bruce
Micheal Irvin
Cris Carter
Andre Reed

That isn't even counting guys like Bruce and Moss who are going to blow away Smith's numbers and Moss already has way more TD catches. I don't like Randy either but it is hard to argue with his production. Smith is/was a good player. Actually a very good player. But I don't think he is HOF material and looking at the list I am going to say that I am 95% sure that he won't get in because that is just too many WR for the voters to vote for.

Well in the three years I'm talking about he's clearly got better numbers than all of those guys except Cris Carter and Tim Brown. I haven't claimed anywhere that he's a better receiver than any of those guys over a whole career or he deserves to be in the Hall more than any of those guys. Based on his career numbers, and some of the recievers who are in the Hall already he should be in.

I agree that given how many other great WR's are up for induction around this time he may not make it, and I think that is a shame. And I still think he has a better case than Art Monk

[Franklinnoble]

John Galt advocating Art Monk for the HOF makes him my new best friend.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

John Galt advocating Art Monk for the HOF makes him my new best friend.

Hey, I haven't said he deserves to be in yet - I've just said he has a better argument than Jimmy Smith.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by John Galt

edit: One other thing I forgot to mention was contrary to Anxiety's statement, Monk did lead the league in one category one year - receptions in 1984 when he set the record with 106.

Then I stand corrected, in as umch as I quoted and referred to what others have said and didn't look anything up myself. To be fair, I think Monk belongs in the HOF myself, so it doesn't matter one way or the other to me


-Anxiety

[albionmoonlight]

One thing that will work against Smith is that the voters know that with the new rules in place receivers will be retiring in 10 years who have cartoon-like numbers. It's just not as impressive to be in the top 10 all time anymore.

[Glengoyne]

I read this thread and thought Who? Jimmy Smith? I thought maybe Steve Smith might be retiring.

I think Jimmy Smith has essentially a zero percent chance of reaching the hall.

Edit: to add that he can always buy a ticket.

[Joe]

no no no NO

[Abe Sargent]

I think if, in say, ten years, no Jag is in the HOF and it doesn't look like any current Jag on the horizon will be, they'll take a look at Boselli/Smith/Taylor and throw one of them in the HOF.


-Anxiety

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

He'll go into my personal fantasy football HOF, right next to Rodney Hampton.

Wow, me too, on both counts.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Hey, I haven't said he deserves to be in yet - I've just said he has a better argument than Jimmy Smith.

Hey, it's OK... if you don't wanna be friends, just say so. No need to go abandoning the Monkster or anything.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

On a side note, I was listening to the radio today and a reporter from Jacksonville says he thinks Smith's retirement was a little strange it that until very recently Smith was gung-ho about the upcoming season. He was speculating that Smith may have flunked a drug test and was going to be likely suspended for the season anyways.

Now, the guy did admit he had no information to base it on other than what a surprise it was and the fact he had flunked prior tests (and of course there was that whole cocaine affair a couple of years ago).

Anyone else hearing this, or is that reporter likely carrying a grudge or something?

[Abe Sargent]

Jimmy Smith accidentally let it slip months ago that he was considering retiring in the press conference right after the loss to New England in the playoffs. This was no surprise.


-Anxiety

[Darkiller]

I'm ready to bet the house that he will never make it...not in the next 15 years or so.

There are other WR out there with gaudy numbers that are currently off of the Hall of Fame (Art Monk and Michael Irvin come to mind), and these guys have SuperBowl rings and played on "big" teams (Redskins, Cowboys), while Jimmy Smith has no ring, didn't play in a SuperBowl but on a rather low-market instead (Jacksonville).

It took more than a dozen of ballots for SuperBowl heroes Lynn Swann and John Stallworth to make it to the Hall of Fame so I just don't see how Jimmy Smith has even a remote chance.

Also, let's not forget that in the next 3-5 years, some other WR greats will also retire (Terrell Owens, Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce) and these guys have a better shot at making the Hall.

[Butter]

He's a Jag... not gonna happen.

[oykib]

I think he's much closer to Hall worthy than Monk. Look at his prime seasons:

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

bold = All-Pro

Those are impact seasons.

| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1980 was |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    58    797  13.7    3 |
| 1981 was |  16 |     1     -5   -5.0    0 |    56    894  16.0    6 |
| 1982 was |   9 |     7     21    3.0    0 |    35    447  12.8    1 |
| 1983 was |  12 |     3    -19   -6.3    0 |    47    746  15.9    5 |
| 1984 was |  16 |     2     18    9.0    0 |   106   1372  12.9    7 |
| 1985 was |  15 |     7     51    7.3    0 |    91   1226  13.5    2 |
| 1986 was |  16 |     4     27    6.8    0 |    73   1068  14.6    4 |
| 1987 was |   9 |     6     63   10.5    0 |    38    483  12.7    6 |
| 1988 was |  16 |     7     46    6.6    0 |    72    946  13.1    5 |
| 1989 was |  16 |     3      8    2.7    0 |    86   1186  13.8    8 |
| 1990 was |  16 |     7     59    8.4    0 |    68    770  11.3    5 |
| 1991 was |  16 |     9     19    2.1    0 |    71   1049  14.8    8 |

Monk's numbers weren't really close. We're talking a comparison of Jimmy Smith's 9 impact seasons (1000 yard seasons with 13 ypr), to Monk's 5 (1984-6, 1989, and 1991).

I want my top reciever to break the game open. If your average is less than 13 ypr, then you're catching a lot of dinks and dunks and not breaking them for more. And if you don't manage even 1000 yds., then you aren't impacting the game enough.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by oykib

I think he's much closer to Hall worthy than Monk. Look at his prime seasons:

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

bold = All-Pro

Those are impact seasons.

| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1980 was |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    58    797  13.7    3 |
| 1981 was |  16 |     1     -5   -5.0    0 |    56    894  16.0    6 |
| 1982 was |   9 |     7     21    3.0    0 |    35    447  12.8    1 |
| 1983 was |  12 |     3    -19   -6.3    0 |    47    746  15.9    5 |
| 1984 was |  16 |     2     18    9.0    0 |   106   1372  12.9    7 |
| 1985 was |  15 |     7     51    7.3    0 |    91   1226  13.5    2 |
| 1986 was |  16 |     4     27    6.8    0 |    73   1068  14.6    4 |
| 1987 was |   9 |     6     63   10.5    0 |    38    483  12.7    6 |
| 1988 was |  16 |     7     46    6.6    0 |    72    946  13.1    5 |
| 1989 was |  16 |     3      8    2.7    0 |    86   1186  13.8    8 |
| 1990 was |  16 |     7     59    8.4    0 |    68    770  11.3    5 |
| 1991 was |  16 |     9     19    2.1    0 |    71   1049  14.8    8 |

Monk's numbers weren't really close. We're talking a comparison of Jimmy Smith's 9 impact seasons (1000 yard seasons with 13 ypr), to Monk's 5 (1984-6, 1989, and 1991).

I want my top reciever to break the game open. If your average is less than 13 ypr, then you're catching a lot of dinks and dunks and not breaking them for more. And if you don't manage even 1000 yds., then you aren't impacting the game enough.

Apples and Oranges. oykib, I know you are better at adjusting for era differences among baseball players. Monk played in an era when only SF wide receivers put up big numbers on a regular basis. Look at the league rankings of Smith and Monk I posted above. Monk played in a different time, but compared to his peers, he was the Smith of his day (with 2 super bowl rings to boot). Monk was definitely a little more possession oriented, but the TD numbers favor Monk (again based on era differences). Smith didn't break games wide open because he never once ranked in the top 10 in receiving TD's.

Some say Don Hutson was the greatest receiver ever. His stats were:

1935 gnb | 9 | 6 22 3.7 0 | 18 420 23.3 6 |
| 1936 gnb | 12 | 1 -3 -3.0 0 | 34 536 15.8 8 |
| 1937 gnb | 11 | 14 26 1.9 0 | 41 552 13.5 7 |
| 1938 gnb | 10 | 3 -1 -0.3 0 | 32 548 17.1 9 |
| 1939 gnb | 11 | 5 26 5.2 0 | 34 846 24.9 6 |
| 1940 gnb | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 45 664 14.8 7 |
| 1941 gnb | 11 | 4 22 5.5 2 | 58 738 12.7 10 |
| 1942 gnb | 11 | 3 4 1.3 0 | 74 1211 16.4 17 |
| 1943 gnb | 10 | 6 41 6.8 0 | 47 776 16.5 11 |
| 1944 gnb | 10 | 12 87 7.2 0 | 58 866 14.9 9 |
| 1945 gnb | 10 | 8 60 7.5 1 | 47 834 17.7 9 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 116 | 62 284 4.6 3 | 488 7991 16.4 99

With the exception of TD's, Hutson just doesn't measure up to any modern WR. It looks like 1942 was his only good year. Monk's era was a lot different than Hutson's, but it was also pretty different than the last few years. There was a reason when he retired he held the season and career records for receptions. When Smith is retiring, he isn't in the top 10 in either of those categories.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Apples and Oranges. oykib, I know you are better at adjusting for era differences among baseball players. Monk played in an era when only SF wide receivers put up big numbers on a regular basis. Look at the league rankings of Smith and Monk I posted above. Monk played in a different time, but compared to his peers, he was the Smith of his day (with 2 super bowl rings to boot). Monk was definitely a little more possession oriented, but the TD numbers favor Monk (again based on era differences). Smith didn't break games wide open because he never once ranked in the top 10 in receiving TD's.

Some say Don Hutson was the greatest receiver ever. His stats were:

1935 gnb | 9 | 6 22 3.7 0 | 18 420 23.3 6 |
| 1936 gnb | 12 | 1 -3 -3.0 0 | 34 536 15.8 8 |
| 1937 gnb | 11 | 14 26 1.9 0 | 41 552 13.5 7 |
| 1938 gnb | 10 | 3 -1 -0.3 0 | 32 548 17.1 9 |
| 1939 gnb | 11 | 5 26 5.2 0 | 34 846 24.9 6 |
| 1940 gnb | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 45 664 14.8 7 |
| 1941 gnb | 11 | 4 22 5.5 2 | 58 738 12.7 10 |
| 1942 gnb | 11 | 3 4 1.3 0 | 74 1211 16.4 17 |
| 1943 gnb | 10 | 6 41 6.8 0 | 47 776 16.5 11 |
| 1944 gnb | 10 | 12 87 7.2 0 | 58 866 14.9 9 |
| 1945 gnb | 10 | 8 60 7.5 1 | 47 834 17.7 9 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 116 | 62 284 4.6 3 | 488 7991 16.4 99

With the exception of TD's, Hutson just doesn't measure up to any modern WR. It looks like 1942 was his only good year. Monk's era was a lot different than Hutson's, but it was also pretty different than the last few years. There was a reason when he retired he held the season and career records for receptions. When Smith is retiring, he isn't in the top 10 in either of those categories.

What was Hutson, playing 10 games a year? He was also playing in an era where DBs could manhandle you all the way down the field.

Monk, for the most part, played his whole career under the same rules as Smith-- 16 game seasons and no contact beyond five yards. The philosophy may not have caught up to the changes at the beginning of Monk's career. But by his prime, the rules had been in effect for five years.

Also, how does that explain the fact that Smith edges him in All-Pros 5 to 3? It's already been stated that Monk played on bigger teams and was well liked around the league. So, we can assume that if there's any benefit it would be for Monk as compared to Smith.

[Subby]

Hall of very good.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by oykib

What was Hutson, playing 10 games a year? He was also playing in an era where DBs could manhandle you all the way down the field.

Monk, for the most part, played his whole career under the same rules as Smith-- 16 game seasons and no contact beyond five yards. The philosophy may not have caught up to the changes at the beginning of Monk's career. But by his prime, the rules had been in effect for five years.

Also, how does that explain the fact that Smith edges him in All-Pros 5 to 3? It's already been stated that Monk played on bigger teams and was well liked around the league. So, we can assume that if there's any benefit it would be for Monk as compared to Smith.

Monk certainly played with same rules, but not with the same results. There are many fewer "great" receivers during Monk's era. When he caught 106 balls in a year that was unbelievable. Now 100 receptions is nothing. 1,000 seasons were much rarer and so many WR (Brian Blades, Mark Carrier, the rest of the Redskins receivers, etc.) would flame out after one or two good years. Monk was very unusual in many respects for his time. His statistical ranks versus his peers is pretty analogous to Smith.

Monk's All-Pro's definitely count against him in most people's minds. For me, it is less so because I think All-Pro voting is largely a joke (especially for Monk because most of the best WR's in any given year were in the NFC). But I can understand that argument. Monk's likability is what I think actually hurt him in All-Pro voting. It is not that he was well liked around the league, it was that he was liked locally for his charitable involvement in the community. He was an incredibly shy and humble guy. Maybe if he acted more like Keyshawn or Irvin, he would have drawn more attention to himself. Instead, he quietly went about his business and poored money back into the community. Smith, on the other hand, had tons of off-the-field problems, but I don't think any of them hurt his All-Pro voting. Then again, I only think Monk should have picked up 1 more Pro Bowl (1989) - injuries in 3 of his peak years definitely hurt his All Pro chances.

At the end of the day, Smith had a better peak (which I have conceeded all along), but his career wasn't that much shorter than Monk's to trail in the counting stats the way he does. And when you adjust for eras and add in the Super Bowl rings, I think Monk has the edge. What Smith did in this era is very good. What Monk did in his era was record-breaking. That is a big difference in my mind. That Monk's records didn't stand the test of time may count against him, but I think you have to give him more credit for the time he played.

[MIJB#19]

Something to concider: Keenan McCardell had pretty good stats at Smith's buddy wide receiver in the 1996-2001 period. How is that going to work with or against Smith's HOF chances? McCardell also won a Super Bowl, although unlike Smith as a starter for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. I bolded his Jacksonville stats.

| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1992 cle |   2 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     1      8   8.0    0 |
| 1993 cle |   4 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    13    234  18.0    4 |
| 1994 cle |  14 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    10    182  18.2    0 |
| 1995 cle |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    56    709  12.7    4 |
| 1996 jax |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    85   1129  13.3    3 |
| 1997 jax |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    85   1164  13.7    5 |
| 1998 jax |  15 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    64    892  13.9    6 |
| 1999 jax |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    78    891  11.4    5 |
| 2000 jax |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    94   1207  12.8    5 |
| 2001 jax |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    93   1110  11.9    6 |
| 2002 tam |  14 |     1      3    3.0    0 |    61    670  11.0    6 |
| 2003 tam |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    84   1174  14.0    8 |
| 2004 sdg |   7 |     1      3    3.0    0 |    31    393  12.7    1 |
| 2005 sdg |  16 |     3      2    0.7    0 |    70    917  13.1    9 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
|  TOTAL   | 184 |     5      8    1.6    0 |   825  10680  12.9   62 |

[oykib]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Monk certainly played with same rules, but not with the same results. There are many fewer "great" receivers during Monk's era. When he caught 106 balls in a year that was unbelievable. Now 100 receptions is nothing. 1,000 seasons were much rarer and so many WR (Brian Blades, Mark Carrier, the rest of the Redskins receivers, etc.) would flame out after one or two good years. Monk was very unusual in many respects for his time. His statistical ranks versus his peers is pretty analogous to Smith.

Monk's All-Pro's definitely count against him in most people's minds. For me, it is less so because I think All-Pro voting is largely a joke (especially for Monk because most of the best WR's in any given year were in the NFC). But I can understand that argument. Monk's likability is what I think actually hurt him in All-Pro voting. It is not that he was well liked around the league, it was that he was liked locally for his charitable involvement in the community. He was an incredibly shy and humble guy. Maybe if he acted more like Keyshawn or Irvin, he would have drawn more attention to himself. Instead, he quietly went about his business and poored money back into the community. Smith, on the other hand, had tons of off-the-field problems, but I don't think any of them hurt his All-Pro voting. Then again, I only think Monk should have picked up 1 more Pro Bowl (1989) - injuries in 3 of his peak years definitely hurt his All Pro chances.

At the end of the day, Smith had a better peak (which I have conceeded all along), but his career wasn't that much shorter than Monk's to trail in the counting stats the way he does. And when you adjust for eras and add in the Super Bowl rings, I think Monk has the edge. What Smith did in this era is very good. What Monk did in his era was record-breaking. That is a big difference in my mind. That Monk's records didn't stand the test of time may count against him, but I think you have to give him more credit for the time he played.

I disagree with almost all of your points here. Let's start with 1989. We get what, four wideouts in the NFC?

Monk 86-1,186-8

1. Jerry Rice 82-1,483-17

2. Sterling Sharpe 90-1423-12

3. Gary Clark 79-1,229-9

4. Mark Carrier 86-1,422-9

The best argument you have is Clark. Monk has seven more receptions, but Clark still had more yards andone more TD.

And how much of a record was 106, anyway? He averaged leess than 13 ypr, if only by a little, that year and only had 7 TDs. It was a good year. But it wasn't a great year.

My first question with the Hall is how great was the player? Monk was very good some years and good in others. He only got 1200 yards twice, though.

Smith got 1200 five times.



You can count the number of years to measure how long they were in the league. But that's a silly way to compare Monk and Smith in this case. I give Smith no credit for the three years that he didn't contribute. But I don't take any away either. Smith was a starter for 11 years, 9 of them were impact seasons, 5 were All-Pro seasons. Monk was a starter for 15 years - a slight benefit to him over Smith, 5 were impact seasons, 3 were Pro Bowl seasons.

And let's get into the other season Monk missed the Pro Bowl. 1991 was the only other year where Monk had 1000 recieving yards, where he didn't make the Pro Bowl.

Art Monk 71-1049-8

1. Jerry Rice 80-1,206-14

2. Michael Irvin 93-1,523-8

3. Gary Clark 70-1,340-10

4. Andre Rison 81-976-12

You've got a very good argument that Monk was better than Rison in '91. I'd agree with you here. But the guy who really got jobbed was Rison's teammate:

Michael Haynes 50-1,122-11 (a 22.4 average)