Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Playing with a bunch of PBers cuts both ways. Sure he benefits because other teams have to cover other quality players, arguably giving him better quality opportunities to catch the ball, but at the same time, his numbers suffer given that Kelly spread the ball around. I've seen plenty of pundits rating Carter and Brown over Reed because of numbers and the fact that Reed had the advantage of working with the same HOF QB over most of his career. But none of these analyses appear to take into account the Thurman factor, which is to say if we didn't have a HOF tailback, taking a lot of the touches during most of Andre's career, what would Reed's numbers have been. Sure, Carter played with Moss for a few years, Brown played with ... oh nevermind, but during the peak years of Andre's career, 89-96, he was second fiddle to Thurman IMO. That't because it's not really a deciding factor, for two reasons. First, every #1 WR loses "lot of touches" to the team's running back. Also, he will lose "alot of touches" to the #2 receiver--even if that receiver is a RB. Amp Lee had a year 71 catch 600 plus yard year once (more than TT ever had). Also, of course, every #1 WR shares touches with the #2 WR. Reed had less to worry about form the #2's he was paired with over his career than he did about Thomas. Some of Carter's best years came when Jake Reed was putting up 4 1100 plus seasons in a row. Second, Andre Reed's best stretch, 89-94 (especially 89-92)coincided with Thomas's best receiving seasons. Thomas had nothing to do with Reed's numbers. And none of that is keeping him out of the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibum Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 It's a very talented pool this year. I think with all the expansion teams they need to allow 1 or 2 more guys in per year. Anyway, I always thought Andre was more deserving of the hall than Jimbo. That's to say I would rank Reed higher among all-time receivers than I would Kelly among all-time QBs. Blasphemy? Maybe, but I stand by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Hansen Forever Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Reed won't get in because the HOF voting guys are tired of seeing Bills Fans in Canton. They want you to die off before Reed ever makes it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) How do Reed's SB numbers stack up against Cris Carter's? +1 Reed does not have the stats that Carter has, but he played on better teams, and was a huge part of why they were better. Mr Weo argues that the only edge Reed has over Brown & Carter is that he has 4 Super Bowl appearences (Carter & Brown have one between them), but never was on a winning team. Truth is, though, the Bills, including their other HOF'ers didn't fare well either. To show how meainingless stats are, Reed didn't have any great Super Bowls, but he was, at one time, the leading receiver in Super Bowl history, and currently ranks at #2, behind only Jerry Rice. See the conundrum? Carter racked up stats on teams that were far less successful than the Bills, and only sporadically had a running game. Not to mention, Mr Weo's argument ignores the fact that Reed had some huge playoff games over those years (again, where are Carter and Brown in that argument?) and had an amazing game, in, perhaps, the most memorable playoff game in NFL history...the comeback against the Oilers. Again, not saying that Carter and Brown don't belong, but to say that Reed doesn't belong is just silly.... It's a very talented pool this year. I think with all the expansion teams they need to allow 1 or 2 more guys in per year. Anyway, I always thought Andre was more deserving of the hall than Jimbo. That's to say I would rank Reed higher among all-time receivers than I would Kelly among all-time QBs. Blasphemy? Maybe, but I stand by it. Interesting. Someone else in this thread says that Steve Tasker belongs in the HOF before Andre Reed. So, let me ask, if you put Andre and Tasker in the HOF, how would you rank our 6 HOF'ers from that era? I would say: Bruce, Thurman, Marv, Jimbo, Andre, then Tasker... Edited February 4, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machinegun12 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 +1 Reed does not have the stats that Carter has, but he played on better teams, and was a huge part of why they were better. Mr Weo argues that the only edge Reed has over Brown & Carter is that he has 4 Super Bowl appearences (Carter & Brown have one between them), but never was on a winning team. Truth is, though, the Bills, including their other HOF'ers didn't fare well either. To show how meainingless stats are, Reed didn't have any great Super Bowls, but he was, at one time, the leading receiver in Super Bowl history, and currently ranks at #2, behind only Jerry Rice. See the conundrum? Carter racked up stats on teams that were far less successful than the Bills, and only sporadically had a running game. Not to mention, Mr Weo's argument ignores the fact that Reed had some huge playoff games over those years (again, where are Carter and Brown in that argument?) and had an amazing game, in, perhaps, the most memorable playoff game in NFL history...the comeback against the Oilers. Again, not saying that Carter and Brown don't belong, but to say that Reed doesn't belong is just silly.... Interesting. Someone else in this thread says that Steve Tasker belongs in the HOF before Andre Reed. So, let me ask, if you put Andre and Tasker in the HOF, how would you rank our 6 HOF'ers from that era? I would say: Bruce, Thurman, Marv, Jimbo, Andre, then Tasker... Totally agree with Bruce Smith as our greatest HOFer from that era. To me, it is very simple...he is the only guy on that list that ranks in the top 10 all time at his position (aside from Tasker, but I don't think he'll make it, and I don't think that special-teamer is technically a "position"). My order goes like this... Bruce, Thurman, Jim Kelly, Marv, then Reed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I think I'd go Bruce-Thurman-Kelly-Reed-Marv. Levy was a very good coach, but he was never masterful in the way the other guys were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I think I'd go Bruce-Thurman-Kelly-Reed-Marv. Levy was a very good coach, but he was never masterful in the way the other guys were. While I completely agree with this take on Marv as an X's & O's guy, I think it under values the tremendous role he played in keeping his team (many a little immature side for at least part of their careers) focused enough to go to the Super Bowl 4 years in a row. Losing 4 in a row, at this point, is nauseating to most of us here, but, to make it to that point, 4 times, particularly after dealing with the tremendous pain of losing each time, is pretty remarkable. I have heard some (and I agree I think) that what the Bills did, in many ways, is more remarkable than had they just won the first one. I think Marv was a lousy GM, but, I am not sure, if he hadn't come along to coach, when he did, that Bruce, Jimbo, Thurman, Andre and Taker (to name only the most obvious) would have had achieved as much in their careers, as they did. X's & O's are very important, but so too, IMO, is the human element of the game...and Marv may have mastered that as well as anyone ever, in pro-sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Playing with a bunch of PBers cuts both ways. Sure he benefits because other teams have to cover other quality players, arguably giving him better quality opportunities to catch the ball, but at the same time, his numbers suffer given that Kelly spread the ball around. I've seen plenty of pundits rating Carter and Brown over Reed because of numbers and the fact that Reed had the advantage of working with the same HOF QB over most of his career. But none of these analyses appear to take into account the Thurman factor, which is to say if we didn't have a HOF tailback, taking a lot of the touches during most of Andre's career, what would Reed's numbers have been. Sure, Carter played with Moss for a few years, Brown played with ... oh nevermind, but during the peak years of Andre's career, 89-96, he was second fiddle to Thurman IMO. Let's hope they realize that Reed also played in Rich Stadium, which is well known for it's harsh conditions the latter half of the year, and the wind could ALWAYS be a factor, no matter what time of year it was. Here's the thing... it doesn't matter what we say here... these writers just don't "like" what Reed has to offer, or what he accomplished. I think many of them feel "obligated" to put in Brown or Carter first. That thought process is simply ignorant. Edited February 5, 2011 by McD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts