dave mcbride Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 For one, I don't know you so I never said you are stupid...I just thought the post was stupid. Secondly, I lived in Naples,FL and went to the 1999 WC game @Miami when Moulds had a playoff record 240 yards recieving...I know that guy was a freak. (although he did fumble after his first huge catch of that game..) But back in the day I just saw Andre make clutch play after play (aside from the Super Bowls) and was so tough after the catch. By clutch plays I mean constantly on 3rd and long plays he would catch a 5-10 yard slant and turn it into 20 yards and a fresh set of downs. I do agree that the other great players around him gave him more room to operate and less double teams. But Jerry Rice had EVEN BETTER talent around him and he never gets criticized for that. Michael Irvin had EVEN MORE talent around him and he doesn't get downgraded. It's all opinion and I guess no one is right or wrong... but a (future) Hall of Famer vs a very solid WR...in my mind there's just no comparison. I just think that Moulds was more talented. He didn't last as long, however. His best season (1998) was probably better than any of Reed's, and I do think that his best five year stretch (1998-2002) was better than Reed's best stretch. He was just a more dominant player (certainly if one uses the ol' eyeball test). But Reed was certainly better for longer -- he played at a very high level from 1988-1996. Also, to be fair to Reed, he was on track to have one of his better seasons in 1995 when he went down against the Jets early in the season because of a cheap shot.
dave mcbride Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 xactly... What did Reed do that was so great in that game other than get open against a secondary that had one of the biggest meltdowns in NFL history? I mean, practically everyone was open in the second half. Reed caught the balls that were thrown to him, which certainly counts for something, but he didn't do anything spectacular in that game. And yes, I've watched it about a half dozen times.
manbeast Posted March 2, 2010 Author Posted March 2, 2010 For one, I don't know you so I never said you are stupid...I just thought the post was stupid. Secondly, I lived in Naples,FL and went to the 1999 WC game @Miami when Moulds had a playoff record 240 yards recieving...I know that guy was a freak. (although he did fumble after his first huge catch of that game..) But back in the day I just saw Andre make clutch play after play (aside from the Super Bowls) and was so tough after the catch. By clutch plays I mean constantly on 3rd and long plays he would catch a 5-10 yard slant and turn it into 20 yards and a fresh set of downs. I do agree that the other great players around him gave him more room to operate and less double teams. But Jerry Rice had EVEN BETTER talent around him and he never gets criticized for that. Michael Irvin had EVEN MORE talent around him and he doesn't get downgraded. It's all opinion and I guess no one is right or wrong... but a (future) Hall of Famer vs a very solid WR...in my mind there's just no comparison. Who were the other WRs and the RBs on the 9ers prior to '96.
dave mcbride Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Who were the other WRs and the RBs on the 9ers prior to '96. Um, Roger Craig? Ricky Watters? John Taylor? Brent Jones? Dwight Clark? Russ Francis? You're shooting yourself in the foot here ...
BuffOrange Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 <3 Moulds. In '98 he was the best WR in the league - and that was the Randy Moss monster rookie yr. He aint no HOFer though; Reed will be.
jack_spikes Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Ranking the best Bills receivers: Reed (Andre not Josh) Moulds Butler Evans (I hesitate to even list him because of his last two $ucka$$ years) Chandler Dubenion Who did I miss? I would add Glenn Bass and Frank Lewis to that group
manbeast Posted March 2, 2010 Author Posted March 2, 2010 Um, Roger Craig? Ricky Watters? John Taylor? Brent Jones? Dwight Clark? Russ Francis? You're shooting yourself in the foot here ... I know who they were sally. do you really want to mention those RBs in the same breath as TT. Do you really want to mention those recievers in the breath as James Lofton. Watters best years were in Phily and Seattle. Hopefuly you read what I was responding to and I am sorry if you didn't realize that I knew the answer to that question what I was saying was that those names don't impress me with the exception of Watters post 9ers career. Don't get me wrong Craig is great but not when compared to TT. In 1985 Craig put up one of the best seasons by a RB. But TT put up 2000 yrds from scrimmage how many times. Twice and twice he was close.
John from Riverside Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 I have no problem believing Moulds was better..... - Who was the QB - Who was lined up across from him - How much protection was the QB getting.....how good was the line Moulds by a landslide
Buftex Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 You still havn't proved me wrong. I told you I couldn't back it up with stats. So who were the other solid recievers that Moulds had on the team that actualy drew coverage. By the wat will Terrell Davis make the hall. Where was the O-line. Bledsoe had one good year in BUF. Don't forget Beebe and Lofton and TT. Moulds was always doubled or tripled in coverage. The truth is that Moulds, Reed and Evans are all excellent recievers and my true point is that you really can't keep comparing them to each other I believe Moulds was the best and it is impossible to prove me wrong as it is impossible for me to prove you wrong. The problem is that there are alot of if onlys. Reed had all the benifits that neither Evans or Moulds had. Teams had to game plan around moulds they had toe game plan against Reeds hole team. As far as being stpid I backed my opinion up i didn't just throw it out there. I could keep backing it up but I would be here all day. Manbeast, your argument is absurd. You have to judge players by their results, not by what "they could have done". So, you give Jim Kelly, James Lofton, Thurman Thomas and Don Beebe (that is hilarious!) all the credit for Andre Reeds career success. But, conversely, Reed gets no credit for Kelly, Lofton, Thomas of Beebe's (did I mention Beebe is hilarious?) success? Think about it, Jame Lofton was considered washed up by most, when he came to Buffalo. Don't you think the revival of his career had anything to do with playing opposite of Reed? Since your argument is based purely on speculation and not on fact, I will throw this out there. I like Moulds, a lot...but if there is a legit criticism to his game, and something that Andre Reed had him dwarfed with by miles, is desire. For all his size, and physical stature, I thought there were many times over Moulds tenure, that he didn't play as hard as he could have. I could never make that argument against Andre Reed. Reed may have lost his head a time or two, and may not have been the first to realize that he had lost a step or two in his last season or tow, but the guy played hard, and above his perceived abilities, for years.
dave mcbride Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 I know who they were sally. do you really want to mention those RBs in the same breath as TT. Do you really want to mention those recievers in the breath as James Lofton. Watters best years were in Phily and Seattle. Hopefuly you read what I was responding to and I am sorry if you didn't realize that I knew the answer to that question what I was saying was that those names don't impress me with the exception of Watters post 9ers career. Don't get me wrong Craig is great but not when compared to TT. In 1985 Craig put up one of the best seasons by a RB. But TT put up 2000 yrds from scrimmage how many times. Twice and twice he was close. Both Craig and Watters were the equal of Thomas when it came to receiving. In fact, Craig (566 catches) caught almost 100 more balls than Thomas (472) and Watters caught essentially the same amount (467). They were all great at it. Also, if you think Lofton was as good as Taylor by the time he got to the Bills, you're wrong.
BADOLBILZ Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Reed was great at a lot of things. Routes/RAC/hands and he had a large receiving radius. He actually caught poor throws. He was smooth and had light feet but also had plenty of power. He really was a great player. Moulds was just a brute force player. His game was outmuscling db's. His routes weren't crisp , his RAC was not great and his hands were very pedestrian for an NFL WR. He never made the spectacular diving type catch or that shoestring on the run grab that Reed made look easy. He had one truly great season, his breakout year in 1998. His greatest flaw was a lack of speed. The second half of his career everything thrown his way was contested because he could not get open. There really isn't much comparison between the two.
PushthePile Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 I'll take Moulds over Reed too. It's close but in the end Eric Moulds was the best player on the field most Sundays and that usually included both teams. Andre Reed was a great player during a great time for the Bills but he was rarely the best player on the field. Players that play on winning teams are always upgraded over time. That's the beauty of winning.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Andre Reed ----------------- Receptions 951 Receiving yards 13,198 Touchdowns 87 7× Pro Bowl selection (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994) 2× Associated Press Second-team All-Pro selection (1989, 1990) 3× Newspaper Enterprise Association Second-team All-Pro selection (1989, 1990, 1991) Buffalo Bills Wall of Fame Buffalo Sports Hall of Fame Also in 1989 he put up 1300+ with FLIP JOHNSON as his #2... Eric Moulds ------------------ Receptions 764 Receiving Yards 9,995 Touchdowns 49 3× Pro Bowl selection (1998, 2000, 2002) 7 times Reed was one of the best receivers in the NFL and he is also HOF nominee. Moulds will never be close to a HOF'er. I don't see where Lee Evans even get mentioned among these two based on his accomplishments thus far.
Buftex Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Reed was great at a lot of things. Routes/RAC/hands and he had a large receiving radius. He actually caught poor throws. He was smooth and had light feet but also had plenty of power. He really was a great player. Moulds was just a brute force player. His game was outmuscling db's. His routes weren't crisp , his RAC was not great and his hands were very pedestrian for an NFL WR. He never made the spectacular diving type catch or that shoestring on the run grab that Reed made look easy. He had one truly great season, his breakout year in 1998. His greatest flaw was a lack of speed. The second half of his career everything thrown his way was contested because he could not get open. There really isn't much comparison between the two. Exactly...no question that Moulds had an edge over Reed in physical stature, but he didn't get the most of it, IMO. In fact, particularly after his huge season in 2002, Moulds always seemed more concerned with drawing interference calls, than catching the damn ball...it didn't work. In fact, IIRC, Moulds had an inordinate number of offensive pass interference calls against him. Reed, and it isn't really close.
dave mcbride Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Reed was great at a lot of things. Routes/RAC/hands and he had a large receiving radius. He actually caught poor throws. He was smooth and had light feet but also had plenty of power. He really was a great player. Moulds was just a brute force player. His game was outmuscling db's. His routes weren't crisp , his RAC was not great and his hands were very pedestrian for an NFL WR. He never made the spectacular diving type catch or that shoestring on the run grab that Reed made look easy. He had one truly great season, his breakout year in 1998. His greatest flaw was a lack of speed. The second half of his career everything thrown his way was contested because he could not get open. There really isn't much comparison between the two. Totally disagree. Moulds made a lot of spectacular catches in 1998-2001. Plus he was plenty fast for a three year window -- faster than Reed was, I'd wager. I know you must remember his game against NE in 1998 and the Bengals in 1999. He wasn't as good for as long as Reed, but his relatively brief period of greatness was better, in my opinion, than any similar window in Reed's career. Overall, Reed had the better career, of course. I've seen all of the same games as you, and he simply wasn't the physical specimen that Moulds was. I get you about being more polished, though, and that certainly counts for something. Moreover, Moulds sucked his first two years, while Reed came into the league and was at least moderately productive from the get-go. Still, Reed never had a season like Moulds' one in 1998. I mean, it's not even close.
machinegun12 Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Who were the other WRs and the RBs on the 9ers prior to '96. Joe Montana...Steve Young....John Taylor....Roger Craig....Ricky Watters....Dwight Clark....Brent Jones....very good OL.... One of the greatest teams in the NFL's HISTORY...that's it though. Two Hall of Fame QBs threw to him nearly his entire career. Two guys better than that Jim Kelly guy that threw to Reed for all those years. C'mon man. ...AND you could argue that Jerry Rice was the beneficiary of a newly introduced offensive gameplan that teams couldn't figure out how to stop back then. Should I continue?
lovehatebuffalo Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Lets just admit it...Bills fans fall in love with certain players and have a bias when they get brought up plus you really cant compare Evans yet cause his career isnt over yet...that said i think moulds was OG no doubt about it and was sad to see him playin with the sucky titans Also on a different note i think if Marshawn comes to camp in shape, looks quick in his cuts, and shows improved vision he should START ( i know somewhere a Freddy fan had a stroke) but people seem to forget 2 seasons ago he went to the pro-bowl not just off his numbers but because players/coaches/fans realized he was damn near all of the teams production. Plus unlike most pro bowlers he went HARD with his pt
34-78-83 Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Reed was great at a lot of things. Routes/RAC/hands and he had a large receiving radius. He actually caught poor throws. He was smooth and had light feet but also had plenty of power. He really was a great player. Moulds was just a brute force player. His game was outmuscling db's. His routes weren't crisp , his RAC was not great and his hands were very pedestrian for an NFL WR. He never made the spectacular diving type catch or that shoestring on the run grab that Reed made look easy. He had one truly great season, his breakout year in 1998. His greatest flaw was a lack of speed. The second half of his career everything thrown his way was contested because he could not get open. There really isn't much comparison between the two. You know I wouldn't think soooo many people out there couldn't see these differences. Kinda Scary really.
Recommended Posts