Taking a break from Preseason - No Jerry Smith in SI's Top Ten All Time Tight Ends

flave1969 · #1 08-17-2006, 04:36 PM

Already tired with Preseason, so I was looking around and found this for us who might be interested as a distraction.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mul...content.1.html

?? Jerry Smith 421 Receptions 5496 yards 13.1 Avg 60TD's

10. Ben Coates 499 Receptions 5555 yards 11.1 Avg 50TD's
09. Todd Christensen 461 Receptions 5872 Yards 12.7 Avg 41TD's
08. Mark Bavaro 351 Receptions 4733 Yards 13.5 Avg 39TD's
07. Tony Gonzalez 648 Receptions 7810 Yards 12.1 Avg 56TD's
06. Kellen Winslow 541 Receptions 6741 Yards 12.5 Avg 45TD's
05. Mike Ditka 427 Receptions 5812 Yards 13.6 Avg 43TD's
04. Ozzie Newsome 662 Receptions 7980 Yards 12.1 Avg 47TD's
03. Dave Casper 378 Receptions 5216 Yards 13.8 Avg 52TD's
02. Shannon Sharpe 815 Receptions 10060 Yards 12.3 Avg 62TD's
01. John Mackey 331 Receptions 5236 Yards 15.8 Avg 38TD's

Smiths Position in Each Category (out of 11)

Receptions 8th
Yards 8th
Avg 5th
TD's 2nd

Now that is a fine Top Ten, but I really do think that Jerry Smith belongs in that Top Ten. I see Mackey, Casper and Ditka in the Hall Today and Jerry Smith was every bit their contemporary in excellence and era played in.

Were players like Christensen, Bavaro and Coates as fine a players as they were better. Some may think so, I think it is debatable.

I also feel that Keith Jackson also deserves mention but injuries robbed him of around 15 games.

What do you think?

danny's stogie · #2 08-17-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flave1969

08. Mark Bavaro 351 Receptions 4733 Yards 13.5 Avg 39TD's

Reminds me of a certain Harry Carson HOF vote.

redskin_rich · #3 08-17-2006, 05:01 PM

The only argument I would make against Smith is that he was really just a tall WR lined up at TE. All those other guys listed were classic TE's that could run over LB's. Smith was more likely to make a play with his speed.

It's a weak argument and personally, I think if he was considered a TE, which he was, than his numbers should put him in with the best, even if he wasn't a prototype.

BurgundyNGold · #4 08-17-2006, 05:01 PM

Who would you take off of that list so that Smith take his spot? I'm not sure, but Ben Coates and maybe Mark Bavaro are candidates, IMO.

BurgundyNGold · #5 08-17-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redskin_rich

The only argument I would make against Smith is that he was really just a tall WR lined up at TE. All those other guys listed were classic TE's that could run over LB's. Smith was more likely to make a play with his speed.

It's a weak argument and personally, I think if he was considered a TE, which he was, than his numbers should put him in with the best, even if he wasn't a prototype.

I beg to differ. Shannon Sharpe was a big WR playing TE most of the time.

flave1969 · #6 08-17-2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danny's stogie

Reminds me of a certain Harry Carson HOF vote.

Bavaro was a fine player, he meant a lot to the Giants who had pretty awful receiving corps in the 80's.

shally · #7 08-17-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redskin_rich

The only argument I would make against Smith is that he was really just a tall WR lined up at TE. All those other guys listed were classic TE's that could run over LB's. Smith was more likely to make a play with his speed.

It's a weak argument and personally, I think if he was considered a TE, which he was, than his numbers should put him in with the best, even if he wasn't a prototype.

you are right on.. he was a wideout playing tight end.. his blocking was not what was expected from a tight end at that time and maybe that contributed a little bit to the skins anemic running attack early on in smiths career

but he was a very productive player over a long period of time.. not sure if he merits HOF consideration however

danny's stogie · #8 08-17-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flave1969

Bavaro was a fine player, he meant a lot to the Giants who had pretty awful receiving corps in the 80's.

True, he was a fine player, but SI has a habit of trumpeting 1980s NY Giant players and making them out to be a lot better than they actually were.

redskin_rich · #9 08-17-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

Who would you take off of that list so that Smith take his spot? I'm not sure, but Ben Coates and maybe Mark Bavaro are candidates, IMO.

Take Ben Coates off but not Bavaro. The numbers don't tell the story with Bavaro, he was a flat out beast. The best in the league, in his time, no doubt about it. By comparison, Shockey wishes he was half as good as Bavaro.

danny's stogie · #10 08-17-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redskin_rich

Take Ben Coates off but not Bavaro. The numbers don't tell the story with Bavaro, he was a flat out beast. The best in the league, in his time, no doubt about it. By comparison, Shockey wishes he was half as good as Bavaro.

I'd remove Coates as well. He had a brief stretch of pure dominance, but it was just that - a brief stretch. Besides that little run I don't remember him as much more than above average and a name living off of 2 great seasons.

flave1969 · #11 08-17-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shally

you are right on.. he was a wideout playing tight end.. his blocking was not what was expected from a tight end at that time and maybe that contributed a little bit to the skins anemic running attack early on in smiths career

but he was a very productive player over a long period of time.. not sure if he merits HOF consideration however

Interesting perspective. So was Smith a TE or WR? Did he ever block?

redskin_rich · #12 08-17-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

I beg to differ. Shannon Sharpe was a big WR playing TE most of the time.

Shannon Sharpe may have run like a wide out but he was stronger than any of the linemen on his teams. That's not a good comparison. Jerry Smith was built like Art Monk only skinnier.

BurgundyNGold · #13 08-17-2006, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redskin_rich

Shannon Sharpe may have run like a wide out but he was stronger than any of the linemen on his teams. That's not a good comparison. Jerry Smith was built like Art Monk only skinnier.

You were talking about roles. Jerry didn't block much. Neither did Shannon and when he did, they were chip or angle blocks, not the typical drive blocks that you would associate with a true TE. I think that makes them very similar in they both were more WR than TE, regardles of how strong they were.

redskin_rich · #14 08-17-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

You were talking about roles. Jerry didn't block much. Neither did Shannon and when he did, they were chip or angle blocks, not the typical drive blocks that you would associate with a true TE. I think that makes them very similar in they both were more WR than TE, regardles of how strong they were.

I disagree, Sharpe did more blocking than you credit him for. But, because he was such an effective receiver, he did spend a lot of time running routes.
Either way, he still is closer to the prototype because he could run over defensive players, it just so happens, he could also run by them.

BurgundyNGold · #15 08-17-2006, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redskin_rich

I disagree, Sharpe did more blocking than you credit him for. But, because he was such an effective receiver, he did spend a lot of time running routes.
Either way, he still is closer to the prototype because he could run over defensive players, it just so happens, he could also run by them.

He is the prototype TE because he reinvented the TE position to be a vertical threat. He was for all intents and purposes a WR + 30 pounds of solid muscle. He was not the run blocking TE in the Denver offense. Never was. He could block, but was rarely called on to do more than chip and angle blocks.

Still, how he is not #1 is beyond me. He is the GOAT at that position.