Hall of Fame Finalists 2019?

[TENINCH]

6 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Just out ofcuriosity, how old were you in 1999?  Not trying to be offensive, but it definitely seems like you are speaking from a place of ignorance  (meaning dont have the first hand knowledge).  There was a time when Bruce was better, there was a time when Holt was better.  Theres a lot of perspective involved here.

19 years old

[TecmoSuperJoe]

6 hours ago, TENINCH said:

Wayne had Marvin Harrison playing across from him. I wouldn't consider Reed or Lofton HOF'ers but the writers put them there. Holt put up the 1700 yards. Not Bruce.

"The writers put them there". Well who else would?

I guess you didn't watch Bruce before 1999. Looks at the 1995 Rams leading receiver. 

EDIT: I see you were already educated. 

[Kiwibrown]

Holt is a hof to me, his peak was outstanding. Holt may have been considered a top 2 wr at his peak

Bruce is also a hof in my books, he is more of an accumulator. Never the same domonave as holt. 

[NFLExpert49]

Holt is a favorite of the stat nerds who don't judge players by how impressive they actually are on the field.

Anyway, the HOF voters should've circled back around to Sterling Sharpe by now. I do think he gets in as a seniors candidate some day. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

8 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I didn't feel like getting into a debate about this so I was just going to let it go. I keep seeing people say how I'm wrong and Bruce was better than Holt but yet nobody has stated why they think that. All I have read is .....he was better.

So you're basically saying you think Bruce was better because he played longer??? I wonder where you would rank Calvin Johnson then...

Let's not forget Holt damn near matched Bruce's '95 season in 2003 while playing alongside a broken down 30 year old Faulk and an off-year by Bulger (22INT) enroute to his 2nd 1600+ yard season -- something Bruce did only one time. He fell short of Bruce by just 2 catches, 85 yards and 1 TD and did so with a higher catch rate (64%) and 1 less fumble. He did so during a year where Bruce had less than only 981 yards, 5 TD's and just 58% catch rate.

Not too mention Holt in 2005 still put up 1300+ yards, 10TD with a 64% catch rate with Ryan Fitzpatrick and Jamie Martin at QB for 8 games during a season in which Bruce played just 11 games and had a measly 500 yards, 3TDs and a 51% catch rate.

Bruce has the longevity and both of them deserve to be in the hall eventually.  But no matter how you choose to compare them, Holt's prime was superior and far more consistent. 

 

 

Comparing Holt's 2003 season, and Bruce's 1995 season just based on numbers alone, you really need to take into account the circumstances. 

Holt was playing under Martz in a system on a offense that was already accustomed to playing quality offense. Marc Bugler was in his first year as a starter, and did have his struggles. He threw 22 interceptions, but he also threw 22 touchdowns. He was a decent passer that season. Even made the Pro Bowl. Holt had Bruce as help, as he did most of his career. Faulk was 30, but he wasn't broke down yet. Had over 1100 yards in 11 games with 11 touchdowns. Holt had a great year, but he was a in a good situation. 

The 1995 Rams team overall was pretty bad. They started out strong, but fell apart the last 2/3 of the season after a blowout against the 49ers in St.Louis. Bruce was really the only bright spot on the team. A young Jerome Bettis was stifled. Chris Miller's DYAR, and DOVA that season were terrible. A washed up Mark Rypien didn't really help either. Bruce was working with scraps for passers. 

[JAF-N72EX]

36 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Comparing Holt's 2003 season, and Bruce's 1995 season just based on numbers alone, you really need to take into account the circumstances. 

Holt was playing under Martz in a system on a offense that was already accustomed to playing quality offense. Marc Bugler was in his first year as a starter, and did have his struggles. He threw 22 interceptions, but he also threw 22 touchdowns. He was a decent passer that season. Even made the Pro Bowl. Holt had Bruce as help, as he did most of his career. Faulk was 30, but he wasn't broke down yet. Had over 1100 yards in 11 games with 11 touchdowns. Holt had a great year, but he was a in a good situation. 

The 1995 Rams team overall was pretty bad. They started out strong, but fell apart the last 2/3 of the season after a blowout against the 49ers in St.Louis. Bruce was really the only bright spot on the team. A young Jerome Bettis was stifled. Chris Miller's DYAR, and DOVA that season were terrible. A washed up Mark Rypien didn't really help either. Bruce was working with scraps for passers. 

Faulk was breaking down by that time. This was being discussed in 2003. Back then (even now I suppose) RB's did not age very well, it was proven that most fall off late in their 20's.

Bulger was NOT a decent passer that passer season. I was waiting for someone to say this. In fact, at the time it only added fuel to the fire of those who were not sure whether he was the answer at QB or simply benefiting from a great cast around him and that notion was proven true when the Rams STILL gave him one of the richest contracts at the time.

I'm not ignoring anything. What Bruce did was great. But I'm also not going to ignore the fact that one season does not make a player better than another either. I'm also not going to ignore the fact that based on Holt's history, that he could have also done the very same thing. 

Again, I have yet a valid argument how Bruce was better and more deserving of the HoF than Holt was.

[rocky_rams]

3 hours ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Holt is a favorite of the stat nerds who don't judge players by how impressive they actually are on the field.

Anyway, the HOF voters should've circled back around to Sterling Sharpe by now. I do think he gets in as a seniors candidate some day. 

What did you not like about Holt?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

3 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Faulk was breaking down by that time. This was being discussed in 2003. Back then (even now I suppose) RB's did not age very well, it was proven that most fall off late in their 20's.

Bulger was NOT a decent passer that passer season. I was waiting for someone to say this. In fact, at the time it only added fuel to the fire of those who were not sure whether he was the answer at QB or simply benefiting from a great cast around him and that notion was proven true when the Rams STILL gave him one of the richest contracts at the time.

I'm not ignoring anything. What Bruce did was great. But I'm also not going to ignore the fact that one season does not make a player better than another either. I'm also not going to ignore the fact that based on Holt's history, that he could have also done the very same thing. 

Again, I have yet a valid argument how Bruce was better and more deserving of the HoF than Holt was.

Faulk was breaking down, but he wasn't broken down. To me that came the very next year. He wasn't like a liability in 2003 I mean, and defenses still had to respect him. Bulger wasn't horrible that year. Not great. Decent. He had some good games mixed with some bad. The Rams don't go 12-4 with Martin, and Warner still looked bad after that opening game against the Giants when he got benched. Bulger at least showed some sizzle when he started a few games the previous year. His first year had some ups and downs, and that isn't a surprise. The next couple of years he looked a lot better. When he got his mega contract after the 2006 season, there really wasn't a concern that he would fall off. But the hits caught up with him, and he was a completely different player. Just bad timing. Even so, Chris Miller never had close to the success that Bulger did as as passer, even if the success was short lived. He just wasn't good at all. 

One season doesn't make a player better than another one, but since both Holt's 2003 season and 1995 season were thrown out onto the chopping block, I don't think the full story was being told. Holt was in a MUCH better situation to put up numbers compared to what Bruce had to work with in 1995. 

Someone already explained in the previous posts about Bruce and his playing ability. In particular, his route running. That was his best trait to me. I think both should be in the HOF personally. 

[TENINCH]

12 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

"The writers put them there". Well who else would?

I guess you didn't watch Bruce before 1999. Looks at the 1995 Rams leading receiver. 

EDIT: I see you were already educated. 

I was only saying that I wouldn't. They are aren't HOF'ers imo.

[JAF-N72EX]

9 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Faulk was breaking down, but he wasn't broken down. To me that came the very next year. He wasn't like a liability in 2003 I mean, and defenses still had to respect him. Bulger wasn't horrible that year. Not great. Decent. He had some good games mixed with some bad. The Rams don't go 12-4 with Martin, and Warner still looked bad after that opening game against the Giants when he got benched. Bulger at least showed some sizzle when he started a few games the previous year. His first year had some ups and downs, and that isn't a surprise. The next couple of years he looked a lot better. When he got his mega contract after the 2006 season, there really wasn't a concern that he would fall off. But the hits caught up with him, and he was a completely different player. Just bad timing.

I guess we have different definitions of what is considered decent then because to me a decent passer doesn't turn the ball over 29 times in a single season. Bulger benefited more from Holt than Holt did Bulger. 

I guess I just don't understand the logic here. You're trying to downplay what Holt did by trying to prop up his supporting cast while ignoring it with Bulger. This seems especially strange when Holt alone accounted for 55% of Bulger's passing TD's.

You then cite Miller's DYAR/DVOA (which I don't agree with using for individual) to state how awful he was compared to Bulger but do not seem to be applying that same logic when comparing Bruce '95 season vs Holt's -- which shows Holt was better and by a significant margin. 

Bruce's DYAR was 442(3rd) and Holt's was 508 (T-1st with Randy Moss).
Bruce's YAR was 409 (4th) vs 541(1st)
Bruce's DVOA was 16.2% (11th) vs 23.6% (9th)
Bruce's Effective yards was +116 vs +195 

---------------------------

Who would say was the biggest part of the Rams offense in '03? 

Also, the Rams went 12-4 in large part because of their defense and special teams (something that gets overlooked far too often whenever people talk about the GSOT).  Not because of Marc Bulger. 

9 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Even so, Chris Miller never had close to the success that Bulger did as as passer, even if the success was short lived. He just wasn't good at all. 

9 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Holt was in a MUCH better situation to put up numbers compared to what Bruce had to work with in 1995. 

I haven't argued against either of these things. But I'm also not going use this to downplay Holt's success either.

[SkippyX]

On 2/1/2019 at 2:54 PM, TENINCH said:

Wayne had Marvin Harrison playing across from him. I wouldn't consider Reed or Lofton HOF'ers but the writers put them there. Holt put up the 1700 yards. Not Bruce.

Lofton not a HoF receiver?

He retired in 1993 and held these rankings for years:

• 1st in yards
• 4th in receptions
• 13th in TDs

18.3 yards per catch over those 764 catches.

He also had 759 yards and 8 TDs in the playoffs at 18.5 per catch

• This includes averaging 107 yards over 3 playoff games in the only season where the Bills did not get destroyed in the Super Bowl.

Does your HoF have Jerry Rice and no one else in it?

 

Jim Kelly was an 84.4 rated QB who had 2 excellent seasons (1990 - 101.2 rating) (1991 - 97.6 rating) and was just an 81 rated lunch pail guy the rest of his career.

• Those 2 years he had Lofton as his deep threat averaging 17.2 a catch and allowing Reed and Thomas to work underneath.
• Kelly had 5 TDs in 3 playoff games in that wide-right near miss playoff season.
  • Lofton caught 3 of them (60%).
• Kelly had 11 TD passes in 8 playoff games in those first three Super Bowl runs.
  • Lofton caught 5 of them.

Lofton was everything that people pretend that DeSean Jackson is (outside of 2 or 3 games a season)

• Lofton did not play in a passing era like those mid-late 90s guys or modern WRs.

The Hall of Fame is meant for guys like Lofton.

[Kiwibrown]

18 hours ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Holt is a favorite of the stat nerds who don't judge players by how impressive they actually are on the field.

Anyway, the HOF voters should've circled back around to Sterling Sharpe by now. I do think he gets in as a seniors candidate some day. 

He was impressive on the field. Watch his highlights and games. He was the 2nd best offesive player on the rams behind faulk. If he was no good, he want going to get the ball.

[Broncofan]

Well deserved for both; first ballot HoF for Champ.   Atwater didn’t get in but I’d imagine that time is coming.  

Tony Gonzalez, Ed Reed, Kevin Mawae apparently are the others.  

[lancerman]

6 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Well deserved for both; first ballot HoF for Champ.   Atwater didn’t get in but I’d imagine that time is coming.  

I think he will eventually get in. I think they probably figured they were sending in two high profile members of the Broncos and didn't wantto overload the class

[SkippyX]

18 hours ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Holt is a favorite of the stat nerds who don't judge players by how impressive they actually are on the field.

Anyway, the HOF voters should've circled back around to Sterling Sharpe by now. I do think he gets in as a seniors candidate some day. 

Sterling Sharpe is a lot like Tony Boselli.

• They both were superstar players who had short careers and they did not win a ring.
• They were both great at their position in an age when there were other Hall of Famers at that position everywhere.

 

Here are some numbers from 1988 - 1994 (Sharpe's active years) *

• I flexed back or up a year or two for a few extra close comparisons

 

• Jerry Rice 620 catches 9700 yards 91 TDs 15.6 per catch
• Sterling Sharpe 595 catches 8134 yards 65 TDs 13.7 per catch
• Chris Carter 444 catches  5749 yards 47 TDs 12.9 per catch
• Michael Irvin 416 catches 6935 yards 40  TDs 16.7 per catch
• Henry Ellard 478 catches 8211 yards 36 TDs 17.2 per catch
• Gary Clark 460 catches 7074 yards 44 TDs 15.4 per catch
• Andre Reed 518 catches  7408 yards 50 TDs 14.3 per catch
• Andre Rison (1989-1995) 522 catches 7154 yards 63 TDs 13.7 per catch
• Heywood Jeffries (1989-1995) 506 catches 5981 yards 46 TDs 11.8 per catch
• Mark Duper (1986-1992) 354 5910 38 16.7
• Mark Clayton (1986-1992) 401 catches 6144 yards 58 TDs 15.3 per catch 

His numbers hold up with anyone besides Rice, including Hall of Famers.

The problem is that a bunch of them played in or won a Super Bowl and were able to play 10, 12, 14 years to accumulate stats.

*Note: This is a quick comparison that is using the same or similar calendar years but not the same age seasons for the players above.