Len Pasquarelli says....

[BuffaloBud]

Caught the tail end of the Dan Patrick show today. He was running through a list of names to J Thiesman asking him if they should be in the HOF.

 

Thiesman said NO to A Reed.

[cåblelady]

Theisman's a dork.

[Alaska Darin]

All the more reason he should be in. LT should have broken his mouth instead of his leg.

[BRH]

All the more reason he should be in.  LT should have broken his mouth instead of his leg.

338699[/snapback]

Far be it from me to take pleasure in another's gruesome injury, but does it make me a bad person that I didn't exactly break down in tears when it happened?

[duey]

Based on his performance on Sunday Night Football telecasts, I bet he'd vote in anyone whoever wore a fish uniform. Dumbass.

[dave mcbride]

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.

338662[/snapback]

dog, when it comes to the nfl hof (not mlb) the *number* of good seasons doesn't matter so much. in his prime in green bay -- games that i will bet no one on this board ever watched -- lofton put up absolutely staggering numbers while on a piss poor team with a lousy qb. in his prime of 5-6 years, he was absolutely better than reed ever was in his prime of the same duration.

[Wacka]

Another reason for Paul Maguire to beat the crap out of him.

[Kelly the Dog]

dog, when it comes to the nfl hof (not mlb) the *number* of good seasons doesn't matter so much. in his prime in green bay -- games that i will bet no one on this board ever watched -- lofton put up absolutely staggering numbers while on a piss poor team with a lousy qb. in his prime of 5-6 years, he was absolutely better than reed ever was in his prime of the same duration.

338733[/snapback]

Where does that idea come from? That they only look at player's prime years? Or consider that more than their longevity? Just because they inducted a few players like Gale Sayers?

 

What about Larry Wilson? What about Jim Otto? What about Jim Ringo? What about Paul Warfield? What about Fran Tarkenton? What about Don Maynard? What about Fred Bilitnekoff? What about Bob St. Clair? What about Dan Fouts? What about Leroy Kelly? What about jackie Smith? What about Steve Largent? What about Charlie Joiner? What about Paul Krause? What about Marcus Allen? What about thirty other players who were voted in because of their careers, both stretches when they were one of the 2-3 best in the league at their position as well as the endurance and quality of their play over many, many seasons. That POV to me is just made up nonsense.

 

They both played 16 seasons. Lofton played 6 more games total than Andre. Lofton had about 800 more yards total. Andre had about 180 more receptions. Andre had 12 more touchdowns. Lofton went to the pro bowl 8 times and Andre 7 times. Statistically, and value to their team, Andre's top 3-4 years were easily as good as Lofton's top 3-4 years. Seems pretty damn even. I'm not taking anything away from Lofton, I think he was great. I don't think people give Reed enough credit for being great, too.

 

And no, Lofton did not put up staggering numbers for 5-6 years. He did not put up staggering numbers for one year. He put up staggering yards per catch numbers 2-3 years and that's it. He never caught a staggering number of passes, he never scored more than 8 TDs. In fact, his touchdowns for such a deep threat were more pedestrian than staggering. His two best seasons of such staggering numbers he caught 58 and 62 balls, with 7 and 8 TDs.

[dave mcbride]

Where does that idea come from? That they only look at player's prime years? Or consider that more than their longevity? Just because they inducted a few players like Gale Sayers?

 

What about Larry Wilson? What about Jim Otto? What about Jim Ringo? What about Paul Warfield? What about Fran Tarkenton? What about Don Maynard? What about Fred Bilitnekoff? What about Bob St. Clair? What about Dan Fouts? What about Leroy Kelly? What about jackie Smith? What about Steve Largent? What about Charlie Joiner? What about Paul Krause? What about Marcus Allen? What about thirty other players who were voted in because of their careers, both stretches when they were one of the 2-3 best in the league at their position as well as the endurance and quality of their play over many, many seasons. That POV to me is just made up nonsense.

 

They both played 16 seasons. Lofton played 6 more games total than Andre. Lofton had about 800 more yards total. Andre had about 180 more receptions. Andre had 12 more touchdowns. Lofton went to the pro bowl 8 times and Andre 7 times. Statistically, and value to their team, Andre's top 3-4 years were easily as good as Lofton's top 3-4 years. Seems pretty damn even. I'm not taking anything away from Lofton, I think he was great. I don't think people give Reed enough credit for being great, too.

338741[/snapback]

first off: i'm not saying that reed doesn't deserve to go. i just think he's a good bit more borderline than a lot of people here think. as for the names you list above, sure, they all played awhile, but guys like fouts were flat out better than reed. otto was a dominant player. marcus allen had a couple of truly spectacular seasons and was a sb mvp. biletnekoff is actually pretty comparable, and if he made it, reed should. as for lofton, don't get too hung up on stats -- lofton had more sensational years than reed and did it while playing on worse teams.

 

bottom line -- in my book, reed is a hof receiver. he's not a first ballot guy, though. he wasn't as good as the best of his contemporaries (rice, irvin, carter, sterling sharpe in his 7 years). look -- i watched a heck of a lot of andre reed, and think he's one of the best bills players ever. it's very hard to get in on the first ballot, though, and i don't think he was dominant enough to merit that. it'll happen in time, though, i suspect.

 

re guys who didn't last long but made the hof, sayers is hardly the only one.

[stevestojan]

THEESman is doucebag.

[dave mcbride]

Caught the tail end of the Dan Patrick show today.  He was running through a list of names to J Thiesman asking him if they should be in the HOF.

 

Thiesman said NO to A Reed.

338693[/snapback]

 

joe theismann is not allowed to have an opinion about anything.

[Kelly the Dog]

first off: i'm not saying that reed doesn't deserve to go. i just think he's a good bit more borderline than a lot of people here think.  as for the names you list above, sure, they all played awhile, but guys like fouts were flat out better than reed. otto was a dominant player. marcus allen had a couple of truly spectacular seasons and was a sb mvp. biletnekoff is actually pretty comparable, and if he made it, reed should.  as for lofton, don't get too hung up on stats -- lofton had more sensational years than reed and did it while playing on worse teams. 

 

bottom line -- in my book, reed is a hof receiver.  he's not a first ballot guy, though. he wasn't as good as the best of his contemporaries (rice, irvin, carter, sterling sharpe in his 7 years).  look -- i watched a heck of a lot of andre reed, and think he's one of the best bills players ever. it's very hard to get in on the first ballot, though, and i don't think he was dominant enough to merit that.  it'll happen in time, though, i suspect.

 

re guys who didn't last long but made the hof, sayers is hardly the only one.

338749[/snapback]

Fair enough. I did add this paragraph as you were typing your response:

 

And no, Lofton did not put up staggering numbers for 5-6 years. He did not put up staggering numbers for one year. He put up staggering yards per catch numbers 2-3 years and that's it. He never caught a staggering number of passes, he never scored more than 8 TDs. In fact, his touchdowns for such a deep threat were more pedestrian than staggering. His two best seasons of such staggering numbers he caught 58 and 62 balls, with 7 and 8 TDs.

 

I don't necessarily think reed will or deserves to go on the first ballot. I think that should be reserved for automatics. I am only saying that I watched a lot of Andre and a lot of Lofton and while different players and Lofton was more spectacular, they are equal as far as talent and production and success and scoring and making plays. Frankly, I was shocked that Andre scored 12 more touchdowns in 6 less games when I looked up the stats.

 

Furthermore, I went to the Hall of Fame site and looked at all the inductees, and as I think you are a similar age as me and will recognize most but not all of the names, I defy you to look at that entire list and say voters look at a player's top prime seasons versus totality of their careers.

[Sound_n_Fury]

I think Reed's a long shot to make the HOF for three reasons:

 

1.) The group of 39 HOF selectors is made up of media representative for each of the 32 NFL franchises. In addition, there’s a representative of the Pro Football Writers Association and then six at-large representatives. Almost without exception, these voters are media people who have covered the NFL for many years. Some have been hanging around professional football for over 40 years.

 

The Bills team rep, I belive, is Mark Gaughan (since Felser's retirement). Mark is a relative rookie among these older writers and most likely has very little power to sway voters to "back his horse," especially when the vote is close.

 

2.) Subconsciously, many HOF selectors may be sloting Thuman and Bruce as sure-fire inductees. That would be four guys from the same team/era in the hall, which is a lot for any team, especially considering the four SB losses. In a numbers game, unfortunately, 'Dre might be odd man out.

 

3.) As folks have mentioned, Reed was never a real media-conscious guy who reporters could develop a soft spot for (like Swan). In addition, despite his HOF worthy stats, many selectors probably still remember Reed for his famous (infamous) "helmet throw" in SB XXVI, which while not on the same scale as Thurman's "misplaced" helmet in SB XXV, was viewed as universally negative in all media reports following the game.

 

The thing about these three points is that they don't really focus on Reed's career accomplishments. Rather, they're more about selectors' biases and perceptions, which can sometime be more powerful than reality.

 

I'd love to see 'Dre in the hall, but my gut tells me he'll not get the respect he deserves in retirement, much as it passed him by, to some degree, while he was playing (particularly in terms of his contracts).

[Kelly the Dog]

I think Reed's a long shot to make the HOF for three reasons:

 

1.) The group of 39 HOF selectors is made up of media representative for each of the 32 NFL franchises. In addition, there’s a representative of the Pro Football Writers Association and then six at-large representatives.  Almost without exception, these voters are media people who have covered the NFL for many years. Some have been hanging around professional football for over 40 years.

 

The Bills team rep, I belive, is Mark Gaughan (since Felser's retirement).  Mark is a relative rookie among these older writers and most likely has very little power to sway voters to "back his horse," especially when the vote is close.

 

2.)  Subconsciously, many HOF selectors may be sloting Thuman and Bruce as sure-fire inductees.  That would be four guys from the same team/era in the hall, which is a lot for any team, especially considering the four SB losses.  In a numbers game,  unfortunately, 'Dre might be odd man out.

 

3.)  As folks have mentioned, Reed was never a real media-conscious guy who reporters could develop a soft spot for (like Swan).  In addition, despite his HOF worthy stats, many selectors probably still remember Reed for his famous (infamous) "helmet throw" in SB XXVI, which while not on the same scale as Thurman's "misplaced" helmet in SB XXV, was viewed as universally negative in all media reports following the game.

 

The thing about these three points is that they don't really focus on Reed's career accomplishments.  Rather, they're more about selectors' biases and perceptions, which can sometime be more powerful than reality.

 

I'd love to see 'Dre in the hall, but my gut tells me he'll not get the respect he deserves in retirement, much as it passed him buy, to some degree, while he was playing (particularly in terms of his contracts).

338755[/snapback]

Good post, and you may be right. However, I was just looking at the Hall of Fame roster, and the closest equivalent to the Bills, the Vikings during the mid to late 70s when they lost four Super Bowls, had five players from those teams inducted: Alan Page, Carl Eller, Ron Yary, Paul Krause and Fran Tarkenton. Now, while Page and Eller and you could even say Yary were fabulous players, Tarkenton had a very Andre like career. And Krause was a very steady and very good but unspectuacular player. He, too, could be considered close to Andre in merit and career. So perhaps five players from that team is not out of the question. I am not predicting he will get in, I just think he deserves it.

[Sound_n_Fury]

the closest equivalent to the Bills, the Vikings during the mid to late 70s when they lost four Super Bowls, had five players from those teams inducted: Alan Page, Carl Eller, Ron Yary, Paul Krause and Fran Tarkenton.

338761[/snapback]

 

I think it'll be harder for the Bills to match the five inductees from the Vikes. (actually, it's six if you include Bud Grant). "Sports media" has become big business over the past decade and the selection process is more about marketing than ever.

 

I don't think Krause (1998) would get in today, if he hadn't already made it. Tark was a media darling, so that added a lot of juice to his selection. Eller wasn't inducted until last year (26 years after he retired). Yary was inducted 20 years after he retired.

 

Andre's best shot might come 10-15 years from now thru the veterans' committee.

[34-78-83]

Another consideration for WR's is going to have to be that there simply were not nearly as many pass attempts on average per team as there have been in recent years. 100 catches was once a sacred number, (of course achieved by Art Monk ironically) and now has become much more common place.

[Dr. Fong]

The most insane part about it isn't that he doesn't consider Reed a HOFer, but that he's on the fence about Rickey Watters. WTF?

[Sound_n_Fury]

I think it'll be harder for the Bills to match the five inductees from the Vikes.  (actually, it's six if you include Bud Grant).  "Sports media" has become big business over the past decade and the selection process is more about marketing than ever. 

 

I don't think Krause (1998) would get in today, if he hadn't already made it.  Tark was a media darling, so that added a lot of juice to his selection.  Eller wasn't inducted until last year (26 years after he retired).  Yary was inducted 20 years after he retired.

 

Andre's best shot might come 10-15 years from now thru the veterans' committee.

338768[/snapback]

 

Another thing working against Andre is that the Bills have had five guys inducted into the HOF over the past six years:

 

Joe D (2003)

James Lofton (2003)

Jim Kelly (2002)

Marv Levy (2001)

Billy Shaw (1999)

 

The selectors probably will want to take a break on the Bills players for a few years.

[bdelma]

Why would he say anybody from the bills should make the Hall. He hates Buffalo

[erynthered]

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.

338677[/snapback]

 

 

Nobody is responding to this post because its the truth. Watching Andre in a film clip does not do this man justice. With respect to the youngins here, your wrong. The guy should be in the HOF. Nice post Alaska Boy or whatever your name is.