dave mcbride Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/08/11/thir...at-receivers-2/
Green Lightning Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 Great list and with that many greats (some I forgot about) I can't quibble with the positions of any of them. Andre was a great receiver. Tough over the middle and great run after catch. Great size and quickness and as the article says, was very good for a long time. It's an honor for Andre to be included in the same list with those names. Thanks for posting that.
Spiderweb Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 Great list and with that many greats (some I forgot about) I can't quibble with the positions of any of them. Andre was a great receiver. Tough over the middle and great run after catch. Great size and quickness and as the article says, was very good for a long time. It's an honor for Andre to be included in the same list with those names. Thanks for posting that. I may be in the minority, but Bob Hayes was very one dimensional and didn't have bad hands, but they weren't "great: either. I diagreed with his going into the HOF and the height of his ranking here. If one could include him, why not Elbert Dubenion. In 1964, he had a 27.1 average per catch on a 42 catch season. He too had the misfortune of playing for a run first conservative team. Again, I don't believe Bob Hayes was one of the all time greats, and Andre surely belong ahead of him....
Recommended Posts