I think he's borderline at best.
* He went to the Pro Bowl 7 times. Good, but not great. To go to the Pro Bowl you just have to be a top 8 WR (more or less).
* He had just *5* seasons with 70 or more receptions (and two of those seasons were 71).
* Look at the receptions each year: 48 53 57 71 88 71 81 65 52 90 24 66 60 63 52 10. That doesn't say HOFer to me.
* He had just one season with 10 TDs, and never any more than that. In only 4 seasons did he average half a TD/game.
* Career YPC - 13.9 yards - nothing special for his time.
* Top 10 leaders (rank in parenthesis):
-- Receptions: 5 (8, 2, 10, 5, 6)
-- Yards: 3 (5, 6, 5)
-- TDs: 4 (6, 6, 5, 8)
So out of receptions, yards, and TDs - the measuring sticks of WRs - Reed was in the elite (top 3) once in his career.
There's two things that Reed has going for him - 1. He played on one of the dominating offensive teams of his era; and 2. He had a very good player for a very long time and rarely was injured, which allowed him to accumulate a lot of stats.
Art Monk is actually a pretty good statistical comp for Reed - someone that played a long time but rarely was among the elite WRs in the league, and Monk's having a pretty tough time getting in. I don't see why Reed is any different. It essentially boils down to how low you want to lower the bar for entry into the HOF. I prefer the highest standards myself, so if I were to vote I'd vote no.
And just for the record, among Bills from this period I would have Levy, Kelly, Thomas, Bruce, and Tasker in the HOF.