Solomon Grundy Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 ?? Tippett was an absolutely dominating player. I'll restate what I hinted at earlier. Reed was a very good player, but he was the fourth best player on that offense. Tell that to Bill Parcells and the 90 Giants. His defensive game plan was to"STOP ANDRE REED"!!! Besides Thurman who was better than Andre offensively?
Big Turk Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 So tell me again why Cris Carter is a lock for the hall? Because, B through E, he lacks any of these, and he played in a better passing era than Reed. He also had Randy Moss on the other side of him. I don't get the fascination with Cris Carter.....at all. Truth be told, I thought the other Carter on the team was a better receiver...Anthony Carter...
TheBlackMamba Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 Tell that to Bill Parcells and the 90 Giants. His defensive game plan was to"STOP ANDRE REED"!!! Besides Thurman who was better than Andre offensively? it was not stop andre reed! the game plan was for the giants to run the ball and have time consuming drives to keep the bills offense off the field as evidenced by the 8 minute drive before the half and the 10 minute drive to start the 3rd quarter. im sorry this board is way to myopic. to sit here and say that andre desrves to get in over chris carter this year is absurd. the stats dont lie guys. i am not stating that andre reed wasnt great but he is going to be waiting an awfully long time to get into the hall with tim brown and jerry rice coming up in the next few years
dave mcbride Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 I assume you are referring to Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas and Kent Hull? While I might agree (all three were tremendous players) I am kind of surprised, routinely, about how little appreciation Andre Reed gets from Bills fans. Go back and watch some of those classic era games. Reed was absolutely dominating, and was rarely shut down by any defense. You could make the argument that James Lofton might not have gotten in the HOF, if it weren't for Reed. You would think, particularly after what we witnessed the last 10 years or so at the WR position in Buffalo, that Bills fans (especially you Dave McBride) would appreciate what a great player he really was. If he had been a first round pick out of Notre Dame, or USC, you can bet, the clamoring for him to go the HOF would be much greater. As the Gughan article states so well, he was the second most dominating WR in the leage for about 4 years, and pretty damn good and productive for another 7 or 8 years on top of that. He was an elite receiver in his time. Unfortunately, it seems like too many only remember him for his hissy fitting toward the end of his career...he was much more than that. I think Reed was every bit as integral to that offense as the other stars were. No - Wolford, who in my opinion was significantly better than Hull (another very good player).
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 it was not stop andre reed! the game plan was for the giants to run the ball and have time consuming drives to keep the bills offense off the field as evidenced by the 8 minute drive before the half and the 10 minute drive to start the 3rd quarter. im sorry this board is way to myopic. to sit here and say that andre desrves to get in over chris carter this year is absurd. the stats dont lie guys. i am not stating that andre reed wasnt great but he is going to be waiting an awfully long time to get into the hall with tim brown and jerry rice coming up in the next few years YES, IT WAS! I saw Parcells says it on an interview years ago! That's why they went to the two/three man front. They wanted to take Reed out of the game physically. I agree with the rest of your post, however.
Big Turk Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 basically what i am trying to say is to be a hall of famer you should have exceptional numbers in the regular season (rice, carter, moss, brown, harrison) or do something special in the playoffs (rice, irvin, swan) and have some championships to back it up (rice, swan irvin) reed had great numbers at the time but every year he falls further down the list of catches, yards and td's well, he is still in the top 10 all time, so that argument is pretty much out, and with the way offenses are throwing the ball around, it really is pretty much irrelevant to compare players from various eras to anyone other than players from that era...
Big Turk Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 e) Comparing stats against eras is dumb. Every QB from the 80s and 90s will pale in comparison to players now. It is a different league. Defensive backs can't even touch receivers without getting a penalty. Jon Kitna has put up 2 4,000 yard seasons. Kelly never put up one. So is Kitna better than Kelly? Or is Brees better than Montana? Silly. Yes, this is very true...the only possible way you could make any type of argument is to do what Football Outsiders does and normalize all eras to today's standard to put those players on an even footing and then compare all the players that way. Even this isn't foolproof as you have no idea what kind of offense that team would run these days with all the passing going on, but at least it is something a lot better than someone looking directly at stats... It would be like someone saying how all those old baseball players had no power because they couldn't hit home runs when the fences were at like 430+ feet back then...the game was totally different
Buftex Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Truth be told, I thought the other Carter on the team was a better receiver...Anthony Carter... Okay, I am with you that Andre Reed belongs in the hall, but Anthony Carter was better than Cris Carter? You lost me there... A Carter was a good receiver, but not Cris Carter good...
Stenbar Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 I can't TOTALLY disagree, but have you ever played sports? And if you did, did you ever play with that much heart and passion? I agree dumb penalty, but he was clearly beyond himself...the guy was getting molested on EVERY play and nothing was being called. It was out of sheer frustration that he acted the way he did. I still play ball with as much passion...people still complain and they're not anywhere near the competitive level or pressure that Reed was on then. Sad you judge a man's entire career on a single play, but that's yours to deal with. I played 14 yrs of competitve football..I know the passion..BUt he lost it at when he was on the clock..Choked when it counted too much disappeared when it mattered the most..The single play was the icing the 4 SuperBowl disappearing acts were the cake... I loved watching him in the regular season had some great plays..
Buftex Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 I played 14 yrs of competitve football..I know the passion..BUt he lost it at when he was on the clock..Choked when it counted too much disappeared when it mattered the most..The single play was the icing the 4 SuperBowl disappearing acts were the cake... I loved watching him in the regular season had some great plays.. Reed was one of the all-time receivers in NFL playoff history at one point, and was the leading receiver in Super Bowl history when he retired IIRC, and was only surpased by Jerry Rice, as a Raider. Rice played on much more successful Super Bowl teams than Reed did. Sure, he had some miserable Super Bowl games, but so too did fellow HOF'ers Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas. You could make the argument, that the wide receiver position is the one most affected by a struggling team. A running back and QB, by the sheer fact that they alone control the ball on every play, have a much greater opportunity to affect a play. If a QB can't get the ball out, ain't a hell of a lot that a WR can do. To say Reed "disappeared when it mattered most" is ludicrous.
Guest dog14787 Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Reed was one of the all-time receivers in NFL playoff history at one point, and was the leading receiver in Super Bowl history when he retired IIRC, and was only surpased by Jerry Rice, as a Raider. Rice played on much more successful Super Bowl teams than Reed did. Sure, he had some miserable Super Bowl games, but so too did fellow HOF'ers Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas. You could make the argument, that the wide receiver position is the one most affected by a struggling team. A running back and QB, by the sheer fact that they alone control the ball on every play, have a much greater opportunity to affect a play. If a QB can't get the ball out, ain't a hell of a lot that a WR can do. To say Reed "disappeared when it mattered most" is ludicrous. I remember reading an article were Jerry Rice himself complimented Andre Reed as being on of the best WR playing. When the best WR that ever played the game gives you a compliment like that, it says allot. I've never seen a WR who looked more awesome running after the catch then Andre Reed. He was beautiful to watch.
Adam Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Probably the best case I've read for Andre's inclusion in the HOF. Great point about stats. They are immaterial as they can't be compared across eras in any reasonable way IMHO. But the IMPACT a player has during his career CAN be compared. Performances in big games CAN be compared. By that criteria alone, Andre is in elite company. I wish I could sell Andre during that 5-10 minute presentation by the voters. I'd close that deal! GO BILLS!!! He was as electrifying after the catch as any player I've ever seen. That sums up a hall of famer......forget stats
Cornerville Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 i think colin cowherd says it best...if u can sum up why a player is a hall of famer in one sentence then he belongs there. i am not so sure u can do that with andre reed. he was one of the premier receivers of his time but: A: he scored 10 td's or more just once (where as the jerry rices, chris carters, randy moss, marvin harrisons, etc.. have B: he never had a game that sticks out to anyone else besides bills fans C: never came up big in the super bowls D: never won a super bowl E: with each passing year he falls further down the the major receiving categories Carter's List based on your comments: A. Yes B. No C. Hell No D. Hell No 5. Um...Yes But I am sure ESPN has brainwashed you into believing Carter is a lock.
McD Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I played 14 yrs of competitve football..I know the passion..BUT he lost it at when he was on the clock..Choked when it counted too much disappeared when it mattered the most..The single play was the icing the 4 SuperBowl disappearing acts were the cake... I loved watching him in the regular season had some great plays.. I think this applies to most of the Bills players on the last 3 SB Sunday's we played. Why blame it all on Reed?
McD Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I remember reading an article were Jerry Rice himself complimented Andre Reed as being on of the best WR playing. When the best WR that ever played the game gives you a compliment like that, it says allot. I've never seen a WR who looked more awesome running after the catch then Andre Reed. He was beautiful to watch. I heard the same thing. The thing that hurt Reed the most was that he played in his prime during the same time Rice was at his prime. Reed got overshadowed a lot by Rice. Hell, remember the day Reed set or tied an NFL record with receptions in a game and Rice broke it later that same day? Lol, I might be a bit off on the facts but it was something like that. Poor 'Dre
Recommended Posts