
The Greatest Show on Turf has been kind to
Isaac Bruce. How kind? The lifelong Ram, perhaps surprisingly, is seventh in all-time receptions (901) and receiving yards (13,555). He's got more receptions than any current Hall of Famer. You don't usually associate Bruce with the all-time greats, but the numbers are there. I mean, Bruce's stint in the league has to be measured in
Ricky Proehl time, so he's played enough to pile up the stats, but I'm still shocked as hell that they're that high.
But is he a Hall of Famer? For a frame of reference,
Art Monk (he a possible-maybe-finally Hall of Famer) has less receiving yards and only 39 more receptions than Bruce. He won three Super Bowls (but only played in two of them), while Bruce won one Super Bowl. Bruce also has one more Pro Bowl appearance (four) than Monk. So, in a purely statistical sense, their careers are comparable.
However, while I'm one of the rising number of voices that believe Monk should be in the Hall of Fame, Bruce isn't at that level. Monk was, during his day, arguably the best receiver of all-time. Bruce was never even the best receiver in the league for a single season. He also only topped 90 receptions once -- twelve years ago.
Bruce has been a fantastic player, and I can't believe he's still remotely effective. But he's the type of player that opens the discussion for a number of other fringe Hall of Famers, and that begins to further dillute what is already a sort of watered-down milestone. I don't think Bruce is a Hall of Famer.