Why doesn't anyone include Steve Smith in their top 10 WR lists?

[Car123]

19 minutes ago, Snake said:

Because he's not a top 10 receiver. I mean he had to be cut just to get motivated. 

2013 Steve Smith is better than any WR on our roster.

[CRA]

because most list are stat driven more than anything.   No one watches everyone's career in reality. 

What keeps 89 off lists like that is that he had double digit TDs once in his career.   So when people start going back and comparing stats....the TD benchmark allows a lot of guys to get slotted ahead of 89

[Johnny Rockets]

5 minutes ago, RealisticPanther said:

Anyone who thinks Fitzgerald was better than smith, doesn't have eyes. You use the eye test, there's no way you can say Fitz was better. Its very frustrating to me that anyone would say otherwise because its plain as day. Fitz just was never as talented.

How many games have you watched Fitz play? Something tells me the answer will be exaggerated. Fitz may be the most talented receiver physically and mentally I have ever seen play. He is just the total package with no real deficiencies that I can think of. 

[beastson]

Still HOF

I'll never forget the day many years ago PANTHERS FANS on here was saying Steve won't go, yeah we'll see

[CRA]

so if are a neutral person and you compare 89's resume to Fitz.....Fitz's numbers are just better.  More 100+ catch season by far , more double digit TD seasons by far,  and slightly more 1000 yard seasons.    So he gets votes over Steve.  Makes sense.  Stat driven. 

Who has watched every 89 game and Fitz game?  Probably nobody.  A lot of what 89 brings shows up when you watch every down. 

[SmokinwithWilly]

9 minutes ago, RealisticPanther said:

Anyone who thinks Fitzgerald was better than smith, doesn't have eyes. You use the eye test, there's no way you can say Fitz was better. Its very frustrating to me that anyone would say otherwise because its plain as day. Fitz just was never as talented.

Fitz and Smith are two completely different receivers. Smith played with a huge chip on his shoulder, but with all the greatness he had as a receiver, you can't forget the bad that came along with him. Both have/had the ability to take over a game, both have hands of glue, and both were as solid a fixture at WR as you can have. Different situations made one better than the other for certain things. Both are HoF, maybe not 1st ballot because of the log jam at WR. Why argue who was better? Both are top 10 of all time. 

[Mr. Scot]

32 minutes ago, RealisticPanther said:

Anyone who thinks Fitzgerald was better than smith, doesn't have eyes. You use the eye test, there's no way you can say Fitz was better. Its very frustrating to me that anyone would say otherwise because its plain as day. Fitz just was never as talented.

I don't check stats when I'm comparing players.

Steve Smith is a fantastic receiver, but JR is right. You'd have a hard time selling the notion yeah he's better than Larry Fitzgerald to anybody outside the Panthers fanbase.

[RealisticPanther]

15 minutes ago, Johnny Rockets said:

How many games have you watched Fitz play? Something tells me the answer will be exaggerated. Fitz may be the most talented receiver physically and mentally I have ever seen play. He is just the total package with no real deficiencies that I can think of. 

Actually I've watched A LOT of Fitzgerald's games. I consider myself an objective person, although perhaps a little less so than in normal circumstances when it comes to the panthers for whatever reason, but still, in all objectivity he's a slightly less good steve smith as I've stated. The only thing he might've had over smith was a better red zone target due to his size. As far as hands, Smith was #1, Fitz was #2, and you can go down every other category and i'd place smith ahead of fitzgerald. Even blocking, steve smith was every bit as good as Fitz despite his shorter size.

[Mr. Scot]

And let's talk framing here. 

If you want to talk about the best of all time, you're invoking names like Jerry Rice, Andre Reed, Steve Largent, Fred Biletnikoff and Lynn Swann. Those guys made their careers in shorter seasons playing under rules that were far less offense-friendly than the current ones.

If you want to put somebody in that company, you better have a damn good argument.

[RealisticPanther]

I respect your view as you're a lot more knowledgeable than me I'm sure and I'm only 30 so my view is probably a bit more myopic in comparison, but fitz never had clausen, matt moore, weinke, as a QB which is why he has the edge in numbers among other reasons like having Boldin next to him and fitz NEVER got double coverage nearly to the extent smith did. Also, in 2013 the play calling limited Steve Smith's numbers because I guess they didn't want Cam just throwing it up to steve smith and wanted him to learn more structure and learn accuracy and reading defenses better rather than just be a gunslinger, that offense was just a terrible system. Hell, even a rookie cam newton wasn't a good QB at all but he did have a good deep ball and trusted steve smith to come down with the ball if he threw it up to him. His rookie numbers are so good soley because of steve smith, and of course, steve smith needed someone who would trust him and just chunk the ball up to him in order for his numbers to be good, too.

[TheRumGone]

Steve is more athletically gifted and I think that’s what you’re getting caught up on. Fitz can’t do the things smitty could do in his prime, but that doesn’t mean smitty is better than fitz overall.

[RealisticPanther]

2 minutes ago, TheRumGone said:

Steve is more athletically gifted and I think that’s what you’re getting caught up on. Fitz can’t do the things smitty could do in his prime, but that doesn’t mean smitty is better than fitz overall.

Nah man, not at all, i think that's what people get caught up on comparing Julio to Antonio Brown, AB is clearly better but julio has more size and athleticism.

Steve smith was just better in every aspect regardless of athleticism, but his athleticism certainly made him better. His hands were slightly better than Fitz's in my opinion, but they were at least even, they were at least even in route running, although i think steve smith was better at that too, he was quicker out of his breaks, way better at come back routes, and more of a nightmare to match up with. you can say larry was even in a lot of aspects, but then what separates them IS steve smith's athleticism and intangibles that larry didn't have IE SS's KR ability.

[SmokinwithWilly]

19 minutes ago, RealisticPanther said:

 but fitz never had clausen, matt moore, weinke, as a QB 

He had Stanton, Max Hall, Kevin Kolb, Blaine Gabbert, John Skelton, Ryan Lindley, and a couple other single games thrown in here and there. He had a few clunkers in the mix too. 

[Johnny Rockets]

34 minutes ago, RealisticPanther said:

Actually I've watched A LOT of Fitzgerald's games. I consider myself an objective person, although perhaps a little less so than in normal circumstances when it comes to the panthers for whatever reason, but still, in all objectivity he's a slightly less good steve smith as I've stated. The only thing he might've had over smith was a better red zone target due to his size. As far as hands, Smith was #1, Fitz was #2, and you can go down every other category and i'd place smith ahead of fitzgerald. Even blocking, steve smith was every bit as good as Fitz despite his shorter size.

So back when they both played at the same time, Fitz was #2 with the best career drop rate among active players....Smith was 110th. Even this year while playing with 3 different QBs he had 1 drop on 161 targets. How can you even argue this?