Kelly the Dog Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I'm glad you mentioned that. His top year was something like 38 catches, with Stallworth and the rest of those members of those good teams setting him up. 338576[/snapback] Exactly. Andre Reed was far better than Lynn Swann.
bdelma Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 If placed in the proper perspective, Reed's accomplishments are HOF worthy WITHOUT question. 1. When he retired, he was in the top 5 in many all time categories, including #2 in catches. 2. At one time, he and Kelly held the record for the most QB-to-WR hook-ups. 3. Despite the lack of success in the 4 Super Bowls, Reed was actually very effective in the Big Show. Until Rice surpassed him in 1995, Reed held the record for the most catches in Super Bowl history. 4. Contrary to the Monk comparison, Reed's numbers were NOT just a product of longevity. He actually put together some dominating performances, including the Comeback Game against Houston and the previosuly mentioned 15-catch game against Green Bay, which was a record at that time. 5. While I won't say that he was as good as Rice across the board, I will have to say that he may very well have had better hands. Think back to some of the great.highlight reel catches that Reed made during the course of his career -- and remember the conditions that he often found himself playing in. If Reed doesn't make it in, it will be because of his attitude... If Michael Irvin gets in and Andre doesn't, then I am through even worrying about the Pro Football Hall of Fame, because I will consider it a fraud with unqualified people making the decisions. 338569[/snapback] WISH ANDRE WOULD HAVE PLAYED IN NICE WEATHER LIKE RICE DID IN CALIFORNIA
Lori Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Lynn Swann gets in. Christ give me a break 338558[/snapback] Four Super Bowl rings, one SB MVP award... and oh yeah, a national TV gig. Andre, your agent needs to get busy with NBC. They'll be looking for on-air talent for next season, right?
bdelma Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 HOW ABOUT DREW PEARSON FROM DALLAS, DOES HE GET IN TOO. WON A SUPERBOWL
Crows57 Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 any thoughts?? 338472[/snapback] 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.
34-78-83 Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 If Michael Irvin gets in and Andre doesn't, then I am through even worrying about the Pro Football Hall of Fame, because I will consider it a fraud with unqualified people making the decisions. 338569[/snapback] I agree 100%
Lori Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 IMO, Andre Reed was a better overall WR than James Lofton over the length of his career, and the Hall of Fame is one award based on totality. http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=131 338573[/snapback] That may be a tough sell, KTD - until he came to Buffalo, Lofton had neither a HOF receiver across from him nor a HOF QB pitching the ball to him..... and that 18.3 yds-per-catch isn't too shabby, either.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Four Super Bowl rings, one SB MVP award... and oh yeah, a national TV gig. Andre, your agent needs to get busy with NBC. They'll be looking for on-air talent for next season, right? 338580[/snapback] Put your thinking cap on and please try to answer this hypothetical: 1. Put Andre Reed in place of Lynn Swann on those Steeler teams. 2. Put Lynn Swann in place of Andre Reed on those Bills teams. Were the Steelers better, worse or the same with Andre. Were the Bills better, worse or the same with Swann. For me, the Steelers would have been just as good and won all those SBs. The Bills would likely have been slightly worse and not as productive or dominating on offense.
Lori Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Put your thinking cap on and please try to answer this hypothetical: 1. Put Andre Reed in place of Lynn Swann on those Steeler teams. 2. Put Lynn Swann in place of Andre Reed on those Bills teams. Were the Steelers better, worse or the same with Andre. Were the Bills better, worse or the same with Swann. For me, the Steelers would have been just as good and won all those SBs. The Bills would likely have been slightly worse and not as productive or dominating on offense. 338593[/snapback] Oh, I absolutely agree with your theory; in fact, I tell the Stillers fans around here that Swann wasn't even the best receiver on his team. But true as that may be, he's got the hardware and the name recognition that goes with it. Just like Irvin, who made the top 15 in his first year of eligibility.... hmm, he's also got multiple rings and a TV job. Andre, I'm serious. You need some airtime. (Think you can help him out, K?)
HopsGuy Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Let's get back to this "product of a system" argument. What were Billy Brooks' numbers for that 1995 campaign? As I recall, when Andre went down with the hamstring injury, it was Brooks that took his place. That might be a pretty good indicator as to whether Andre was just being plugged into a juggernaut offense. In the '96 opener, Andre showed that he was completely healed when he hauled in that bomb and broke away for the TD. When I summon to mind the memories of Andre, it's the 3 TDs in the Comeback and that one against the Giants on TNT Nitro that I think of.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Let's get back to this "product of a system" argument. What were Billy Brooks' numbers for that 1995 campaign? As I recall, when Andre went down with the hamstring injury, it was Brooks that took his place. That might be a pretty good indicator as to whether Andre was just being plugged into a juggernaut offense. In the '96 opener, Andre showed that he was completely healed when he hauled in that bomb and broke away for the TD. When I summon to mind the memories of Andre, it's the 3 TDs in the Comeback and that one against the Giants on TNT Nitro that I think of. 338602[/snapback] I'm not sure if your post is meant to say Andre was or wasn't a product of the system but in 1995, in 15 games Billy Brooks caught 53 balls for 763 yards, a 14.4 average and amazingly, 11 TDs, the most ever by a Bill I think, or close to it.
dave mcbride Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 i just want to throw one thing out there: the nfl isn't baseball. players don't last as long. hanging around a long time and piling up stats doesn't mean what it does in baseball. given the very real possibility of the short but brilliant career cut short by injury, HOF voters take into account the play of a guy over a 5 year stretch. for something like 5-6 years, swann was a game changing receiver. he wasn't a chain mover -- the steelers were a running team -- but he could be counted on to make the big play in a money situation. he was definitely borderline, but he got in for his spectacular play over a short period of time. the same could be said for gale sayers, kellen winslow, and dick butkus. terrell davis is another one, and i would go so far as to put michael irvin - a phenomenal player with excellent stats, but more importantly great hands and amazing ability to fight for a ball downfield in big games - in this category given how his career ended. as for davis, i think he should go in given his 4 years of sensational production and dominance. guys like art monk are the opposite: decent, reliable players who don't screw up and don't get hurt. they're not special players. reed is a tough case. the bills' offense was built around thomas, who should go in on the first ballot. kelly also was key, obviously. reed was better than monk, but there were a few receivers back then who in my opinion were bigger difference makers -- rice, michael irvin, even chris carter. were they way better? except for rice and irvin, no. but reed was also better than a guy who had more receptions than him: tim brown. i guess the key is to get past stats based on longevity. given the cruel nature of the nfl, there's a good reason that voters downplay this. the game's greatest players usually only shine for a max of 10 years, and the guys who go should be ones who dominated for a few seasons. i don't think anyone can say reed was a dominant player. again, though, he was more of a threat than monk. reed strikes me as the next lynn swann -- he'll have to wait a long time, but he'll eventually get in, probably in about 2010-2015.
seq004 Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 He's lost it. The NFC had Rice. The AFC had Reed. His numbers alone are enough.
Buftex Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I guess the disparity in opinions, amongst die hard Bills fans is a good indication that Andre Reed is not the shoe-in to the hall of fame that I think he should be...it just seems like some of you who are saying he is not, never saw, or wern't old enough to comprehend what you were seeing. Reed, like Rice, didn't have blazing speed, but he was more than able to "take it to the hole" in his prime, and was a great playoff performer. He was also able to catch tough passes over the middle. In some ways, he reminds me a lot of guys like Bob Chandler and Jerry Butler before him. He was able to be, in his prime, what ever type of receiver the offense needed him to be. I loved Lofton, don't get me wrong, but he was one dimensional compared to Reed. How many catches over the middle did he make...to argue that Reed was just the product of a system, or that he couldn't help but be good beacause all of the talent around him, is just ludicrous. Should we now pull guys out of the halll of fame, because they had other great players around them? The bottom line is production. Reed produced!
Buftex Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 He was not a game changer like Thurman could be or even Moulds can be. 338553[/snapback] Maybe you were drooling too much to realize that Moulds is not near the receiver that Reed was....no disrespect to Moulds! What is it with you people?
34-78-83 Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I just don't see how one could say that Irvin was better than Reed and use the "product of the system" argument at the same time. Irvin's cowboys had one of the top 2 or 3 offensive lines EVER, along with one of the greatest RB's of all time and a phenom D, no?
plenzmd1 Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I guess the disparity in opinions, amongst die hard Bills fans is a good indication that Andre Reed is not the shoe-in to the hall of fame that I think he should be...it just seems like some of you who are saying he is not, never saw, or wern't old enough to comprehend what you were seeing. How many catches over the middle did he make...to argue that Reed was just the product of a system, or that he couldn't help but be good beacause all of the talent around him, is just ludicrous. Should we now pull guys out of the halll of fame, because they had other great players around them? The bottom line is production. Reed produced! 338648[/snapback] Hold on there now young fella. I do not think anyone is saying Reed was not an awesome WR, but i've been watching the NFL since 1970, when I was 7 yrs old. Reed was a very good receiver, and he would play on my team every day. Like I said, I think he should be there. How ever(in my best Stephen A voice) people outside of Buffalo see him as a possesion reciever, and a product of the K-GUN. PLease forget reality about the run pass ratio etc, and focus on the perception that the K-gun was a modified run and shoot. Again, we know that not to be true, but ask non-bills fans what they think. People just do not feel he was a game breaker. Best example I can give is the boy never went before mid 2nd rd in any fantasy draft in the dc Harea.
Tcali Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 IMO, Andre Reed was a better overall WR than James Lofton over the length of his career, and the Hall of Fame is one award based on totality. http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=131 338573[/snapback] Reed better than lofton???? oh come on now.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 That may be a tough sell, KTD - until he came to Buffalo, Lofton had neither a HOF receiver across from him nor a HOF QB pitching the ball to him..... and that 18.3 yds-per-catch isn't too shabby, either. 338591[/snapback] Don't get me wrong, I think Lofton was an excellent receiver. That is why I said overall. To me, Lofton had about 5-6 good years and Andre had 10. Their stats are pretty equal with Andre having the slight edge overall. Lofton had much better speed but Andre was never caught from behind, had slightly better hands, ran slightly better patterns and was a better blocker. He was better on short routes and over the middle and was just as big a game breaker. He rarely got hurt, he didn't have down seasons. Perhaps one.
Alaska Darin Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Andre Reed is absolutely worthy of the HOF. And anyone who says he wasn't a game changer is either nuts, stupid, or has blown away significant portions of their gray matter by puffing on too much hippie lettuce. Kelly to Reed is STILL the most prolific yardage tandem in NFL history (9,538 yards) and 2nd most completions (663 to Manning/Harrison's 666). They are 3rd on the list for TDs. They were a tougher version of Manning to Harrison in much worse weather and with more playoff success. Dude was great.
Recommended Posts