Should Andre Reed be in the HOF? (1 Viewer)

[ceo3west]

Rice, Brown and Carter are coming up, they are locks. I believe Reed should be too, but the lack of respect for this guy over the years has always bugged me to be honest. Here are some of his accomplishments:

* 951 rec; 13,198 yds; 87 TD's (plus 500 rush yards, 1 TD on 75 carries)

* 6th all-time in receptions

* Top 10 all-time in yards & TD's

* Yards-per-catch average of 13.9 is better than that of six of the other receivers in the top 10 in all-time catches, including Marvin Harrison (13.2), Cris Carter (12.6), Tim Brown (13.7) and Art Monk (12.9)

* In 21 postseason games, caught 85 passes for 1,229 yards with nine touchdowns

* 2nd in superbowl receptions (27) and thrid in superbowl yards (323)

* In the 1992 season came a three-touchdown, 136-yard game in the greatest comeback ever against Houston, without Kelly and without Thomas

* 7 pro bowls

Well?

 

[schooner44]

Seriously? This doesn't even need a poll. Andre Reed is undoubtedly one of the best WRs the game has seen. In the early 90's, Jerry Rice called Reed the best WR in the NFL.

Its an insult that you even posted this.

 

[ceo3west]

Seriously? This doesn't even need a poll. Andre Reed is undoubtedly one of the best WRs the game has seen. In the early 90's, Jerry Rice called Reed the best WR in the NFL.Its an insult that you even posted this.

Hey, there are folks out there who don't beleive he should be in. Easy Bills .

 

[CrossEyed]

Absolutely. Guy was a beast.

 

[mjm3773]

I voted yes.

Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).

Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

If Irvin and Monk are in, I think he deserves to be in as well.

 

[Hagger]

Rice, Brown and Carter are coming up, they are locks. I believe Reed should be too, but the lack of respect for this guy over the years has always bugged me to be honest. Here are some of his accomplishments:* 951 rec; 13,198 yds; 87 TD's (plus 500 rush yards, 1 TD on 75 carries)* 6th all-time in receptions* Top 10 all-time in yards & TD's* Yards-per-catch average of 13.9 is better than that of six of the other receivers in the top 10 in all-time catches, including Marvin Harrison (13.2), Cris Carter (12.6), Tim Brown (13.7) and Art Monk (12.9)* In 21 postseason games, caught 85 passes for 1,229 yards with nine touchdowns* 2nd in superbowl receptions (27) and thrid in superbowl yards (323)* In the 1992 season came a three-touchdown, 136-yard game in the greatest comeback ever against Houston, without Kelly and without Thomas* 7 pro bowlsWell?

I'm not buying your shtick. It's a no-brainer that he deserves to be in. You claim in your post that you think he should, yet you call out the " Bills " Not sure what your motive or point is.

 

[ceo3west]

Rice, Brown and Carter are coming up, they are locks. I believe Reed should be too, but the lack of respect for this guy over the years has always bugged me to be honest. Here are some of his accomplishments:* 951 rec; 13,198 yds; 87 TD's (plus 500 rush yards, 1 TD on 75 carries)* 6th all-time in receptions* Top 10 all-time in yards & TD's* Yards-per-catch average of 13.9 is better than that of six of the other receivers in the top 10 in all-time catches, including Marvin Harrison (13.2), Cris Carter (12.6), Tim Brown (13.7) and Art Monk (12.9)* In 21 postseason games, caught 85 passes for 1,229 yards with nine touchdowns* 2nd in superbowl receptions (27) and thrid in superbowl yards (323)* In the 1992 season came a three-touchdown, 136-yard game in the greatest comeback ever against Houston, without Kelly and without Thomas* 7 pro bowlsWell?

I'm not buying your shtick. It's a no-brainer that he deserves to be in. You claim in your post that you think he should, yet you call out the " Bills " Not sure what your motive or point is.

I called out the Bills homer because he said it was an insult to even post this, yet people are voting no.I posted to get an idea of the % of people that think he should be in, and get some feedback from those voting "no" as to the case against Reed.You two seem to be taking this personally, relax guy. If it was a no brainer, he would have been in already. As it is, he'll probably have to wait at least a few more years and it arguably gets tougher as time goes on.

 

[Hagger]

Rice, Brown and Carter are coming up, they are locks. I believe Reed should be too, but the lack of respect for this guy over the years has always bugged me to be honest. Here are some of his accomplishments:* 951 rec; 13,198 yds; 87 TD's (plus 500 rush yards, 1 TD on 75 carries)* 6th all-time in receptions* Top 10 all-time in yards & TD's* Yards-per-catch average of 13.9 is better than that of six of the other receivers in the top 10 in all-time catches, including Marvin Harrison (13.2), Cris Carter (12.6), Tim Brown (13.7) and Art Monk (12.9)* In 21 postseason games, caught 85 passes for 1,229 yards with nine touchdowns* 2nd in superbowl receptions (27) and thrid in superbowl yards (323)* In the 1992 season came a three-touchdown, 136-yard game in the greatest comeback ever against Houston, without Kelly and without Thomas* 7 pro bowlsWell?

I'm not buying your shtick. It's a no-brainer that he deserves to be in. You claim in your post that you think he should, yet you call out the " Bills " Not sure what your motive or point is.

I called out the Bills homer because he said it was an insult to even post this, yet people are voting no.I posted to get an idea of the % of people that think he should be in, and get some feedback from those voting "no" as to the case against Reed.You two seem to be taking this personally, relax guy. If it was a no brainer, he would have been in already. As it is, he'll probably have to wait at least a few more years and it arguably gets tougher as time goes on.

I think the only one taking things personal is you. Calling someone a homer and telling people to "relax guy" makes me think you're getting a little worked up there.

 

[ceo3west]

Rice, Brown and Carter are coming up, they are locks. I believe Reed should be too, but the lack of respect for this guy over the years has always bugged me to be honest. Here are some of his accomplishments:* 951 rec; 13,198 yds; 87 TD's (plus 500 rush yards, 1 TD on 75 carries)* 6th all-time in receptions* Top 10 all-time in yards & TD's* Yards-per-catch average of 13.9 is better than that of six of the other receivers in the top 10 in all-time catches, including Marvin Harrison (13.2), Cris Carter (12.6), Tim Brown (13.7) and Art Monk (12.9)* In 21 postseason games, caught 85 passes for 1,229 yards with nine touchdowns* 2nd in superbowl receptions (27) and thrid in superbowl yards (323)* In the 1992 season came a three-touchdown, 136-yard game in the greatest comeback ever against Houston, without Kelly and without Thomas* 7 pro bowlsWell?

I'm not buying your shtick. It's a no-brainer that he deserves to be in. You claim in your post that you think he should, yet you call out the " Bills " Not sure what your motive or point is.

I called out the Bills homer because he said it was an insult to even post this, yet people are voting no.I posted to get an idea of the % of people that think he should be in, and get some feedback from those voting "no" as to the case against Reed.You two seem to be taking this personally, relax guy. If it was a no brainer, he would have been in already. As it is, he'll probably have to wait at least a few more years and it arguably gets tougher as time goes on.

I think the only one taking things personal is you. Calling someone a homer and telling people to "relax guy" makes me think you're getting a little worked up there.

Ok, thanks again for adding to the discussion.

 

[switz]

Seriously? This doesn't even need a poll. Andre Reed is undoubtedly one of the best WRs the game has seen. In the early 90's, Jerry Rice called Reed the best WR in the NFL.

Its an insult that you even posted this.

Hey, there are folks out there who don't beleive he should be in. Easy Bills .

They need their NFL fan card revoked. Or they were born in 1995.You don't need to be a Bills homer to know Reed was one of the best of his era.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

 

[Hagger]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

What's your criteria? Frankly, a few of the names you listed don't make much sense to me in terms of top 10 all time.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

What's your criteria? Frankly, a few of the names you listed don't make much sense to me in terms of top 10 all time.

Well I listed way more than ten just as an example. I would think almost everyone would take at least ten (and probably 15) of those names over Reed.

 

[switz]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

Stuart and his anti-Bills rhetoric. Come on, some of those guys were nowhere nearly as good as Reed.

 

[BBRULE]

I voted yes.

Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).

Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

The HoF is/should be all about the #'s. Irvin has less catches, yards and TDs than Reed. I don't want to hear about injuries either, longevity is a part of greatness, fair or not. Irvin getting in before him is an insult.

 

[drew726]

if Michael Irvin gets in....

 

[Hagger]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

What's your criteria? Frankly, a few of the names you listed don't make much sense to me in terms of top 10 all time.

Well I listed way more than ten just as an example. I would think almost everyone would take at least ten (and probably 15) of those names over Reed.

Oh, I see. You would think wrong then.

 

[Adebisi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't each Hall of Fame class had the maximum number of inductees every year since Reed was eligible?

Who would you guys bump from any of those classes in order to get Reed in?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Reed is not a top-10 WR of all-time, but that's not particularly relevant to the poll question here since you can be a non top-10 WR and still deserve to be in the HOF.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't each Hall of Fame class had the maximum number of inductees every year since Reed was eligible?Who would you guys bump from any of those classes in order to get Reed in?

Art Monk

 

[Adebisi]

I voted yes.

Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).

Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

The HoF is/should be all about the #'s. Irvin has less catches, yards and TDs than Reed. I don't want to hear about injuries either, longevity is a part of greatness, fair or not. Irvin getting in before him is an insult.

I guess some folks think that championships are also a part of greatness.

 

[Hagger]

Reed is not a top-10 WR of all-time, but that's not particularly relevant to the poll question here since you can be a non top-10 WR and still deserve to be in the HOF.

Maybe, maybe not. But, if you're going off of career numbers he's definitely in the conversation for top 10 all time.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Reed is not a top-10 WR of all-time, but that's not particularly relevant to the poll question here since you can be a non top-10 WR and still deserve to be in the HOF.

Maybe, maybe not. But, if you're going off of career numbers he's definitely in the conversation for top 10 all time.

probably not for longNumbers can be misleading. For example, Isaac Bruce has the 2nd most career receiving yards right now. Nobody would consider him to be in the discussion for the 2nd greatest WR of all time.

 

[Hagger]

Reed is not a top-10 WR of all-time, but that's not particularly relevant to the poll question here since you can be a non top-10 WR and still deserve to be in the HOF.

Maybe, maybe not. But, if you're going off of career numbers he's definitely in the conversation for top 10 all time.

probably not for longNumbers can be misleading. For example, Isaac Bruce has the 2nd most career receiving yards right now. Nobody would consider him to be in the discussion for the 2nd greatest WR of all time.

T.O. will pass him this year, and there's a huge drop off between #1 and #2. So if numbers are misleading I'll ask you the same question. What's your criteria?

 

[zed2283]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

Irvin no. Jimmy Smth no. Torry Holt no. Tim Brown no. James Lofton no. Harold Jackson no (ok, I don't know who he is). Tommy McDonald no. Isaac Bruce no.

 

[BBRULE]

I voted yes.

Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).

Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

The HoF is/should be all about the #'s. Irvin has less catches, yards and TDs than Reed. I don't want to hear about injuries either, longevity is a part of greatness, fair or not. Irvin getting in before him is an insult.

I guess some folks think that championships are also a part of greatness.

There are many parts to it yes, but to put him in before Reed because he played on a "TEAM" that won championsips is just crazy to me. If thats how they decide who gets in where is Alvin Harper too.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

T.O. will pass him this year, and there's a huge drop off between #1 and #2. So if numbers are misleading I'll ask you the same question. What's your criteria?

there isn't just one criteria. it's very difficult to compare players who played on different teams in different situations, and even more difficult to compare players from different eras based solely on statistics.statistics are one important criteria to useso are team success, postseason performance, and championshipsrecognition like Pro Bowls, All Pro, MVP awards are also importantbottom line is was the player one of the best at his position while he played. I think Reed clearly was. But, even though his career numbers look great and were elite when he retired, his year by year numbers do not look very impressive now considering the direction the league has gone in the past 10 years.

 

[Mik789fl]

if Michael Irvin gets in....

..agreed. Irvin is not HOF worthy imop.Reed should be in.

 

[Manster]

if Michael Irvin gets in....

some guys get in for more than numbers. Irvin was a leader for those '90's Cowboys teams. he set the example for hard work. yea, yea, we know about his off-field issues. imo, his getting in the HOF had more to do with his drive to win and his contributions to 3 SB teams. his intangibles if you will.that said, Andre Reed is a no-brainer. he was just solid, period. i believe that if the Bills would have won one of those SB's he'd already be in.

 

[zed2283]

I voted yes.

Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).

Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

The HoF is/should be all about the #'s. Irvin has less catches, yards and TDs than Reed. I don't want to hear about injuries either, longevity is a part of greatness, fair or not. Irvin getting in before him is an insult.

No it isn't/shouldn't.

 

[Adebisi]

I voted yes.

Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).

Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

The HoF is/should be all about the #'s. Irvin has less catches, yards and TDs than Reed. I don't want to hear about injuries either, longevity is a part of greatness, fair or not. Irvin getting in before him is an insult.

I guess some folks think that championships are also a part of greatness.

There are many parts to it yes, but to put him in before Reed because he played on a "TEAM" that won championsips is just crazy to me. If thats how they decide who gets in where is Alvin Harper too.

I think you know that the Alvin Harper comparison is completely ridiculous, so I won't bother to address that.Irvin was a leader and one of the best players on a team that won 3 Super Bowls and was one of the best of all time. That's a really relevant factor when it comes to HOF voting, like it or not.

 

[Hagger]

T.O. will pass him this year, and there's a huge drop off between #1 and #2. So if numbers are misleading I'll ask you the same question. What's your criteria?

there isn't just one criteria. it's very difficult to compare players who played on different teams in different situations, and even more difficult to compare players from different eras based solely on statistics.statistics are one important criteria to useso are team success, postseason performance, and championshipsrecognition like Pro Bowls, All Pro, MVP awards are also importantbottom line is was the player one of the best at his position while he played. I think Reed clearly was. But, even though his career numbers look great and were elite when he retired, his year by year numbers do not look very impressive now considering the direction the league has gone in the past 10 years.

I'd say top 10 career numbers, 7 consecutive pro-bowls, 4 times all-pro and 4 straight SB appearances are worthy. Not many WR's have a resume like that.

 

[BassNBrew]

How many rings does he have?

 

[ceo3west]

How many rings does he have?

Are you saying he needs one to be in the HOF?

 

[BBRULE]

How many rings does he have?

The same as Barry Sanders and Dan Marino.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

Stuart and his anti-Bills rhetoric. Come on, some of those guys were nowhere nearly as good as Reed.

If I had a nickle for every anti-Bills post by him, I'd be retired. Jimmy Smith? Really Chase?

Player	G	 Rec	 Yds	 Appx Value   Pro Bowls   All-Pro  Super BowlsA		  178   862   12287   119			   5			   2		  0B		  234   951   13198   132			   7			   4		  4

On what planet is Player A better than Player B?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

On what planet is Player A better than Player B?

per game stats?I think Reed was definitely better than Smith, but an argument can be made the other way.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

On what planet is Player A better than Player B?

per game stats?I don't get the Jimmy Smith love, but an argument can be made for him.

So better per game stats would beat out better career stats, more post-season success and more awards?

 

[Sweet Love]

I voted yes.

Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).

Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

The HoF is/should be all about the #'s. Irvin has less catches, yards and TDs than Reed. I don't want to hear about injuries either, longevity is a part of greatness, fair or not. Irvin getting in before him is an insult.

This is why I get where the OP is coming from. Guy was great...no doubt, but there are many out there that feel (1) there are man better than him and (2), he is coming up for nomination/election with other greats (honestly, those who were better than him. May not be fair, but Carter and Rice should go in before him. Unless the Hall decides to go all-WR for a class, Reed is going to have to wait a bit, fair ir not...which really is the point the OP was trying to get at before everyone jumped down his throat.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

On what planet is Player A better than Player B?

per game stats?I don't get the Jimmy Smith love, but an argument can be made for him.

So better per game stats would beat out better career stats, more post-season success and more awards?

for Chase, absolutely.

 

[Baron Samedi]

I can't believe 16 people voted "no" . I would love to read some of the reasoning as to why people voted no.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

Irvin no. Jimmy Smth no. Torry Holt no. Tim Brown no. James Lofton no. Harold Jackson no (ok, I don't know who he is). Tommy McDonald no. Isaac Bruce no.

I listed 21 WRs. You said no to 8 of them, although I disagree with some. That still puts Reed squarely outside of the top ten.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

What's your criteria? Frankly, a few of the names you listed don't make much sense to me in terms of top 10 all time.

Well I listed way more than ten just as an example. I would think almost everyone would take at least ten (and probably 15) of those names over Reed.

Oh, I see. You would think wrong then.

Which 12 WRs that I listed was Reed better than?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

On what planet is Player A better than Player B?

per game stats?I don't get the Jimmy Smith love, but an argument can be made for him.

So better per game stats would beat out better career stats, more post-season success and more awards?

for Chase, absolutely.

What about for you?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

On what planet is Player A better than Player B?

per game stats?I don't get the Jimmy Smith love, but an argument can be made for him.

So better per game stats would beat out better career stats, more post-season success and more awards?

for Chase, absolutely.

What about for you?

No way. Andre Reed is a much more deserving HOF candidate than Jimmy Smith, IMO. Jimmy had better individual seasons but Reed had the better career.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

So better per game stats would beat out better career stats, more post-season success and more awards?

for Chase, absolutely.

What about for you?

No way. Andre Reed is a much more deserving HOF candidate than Jimmy Smith, IMO. Jimmy had better individual seasons but Reed had the better career.

Thanks.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I voted yes.Andre Reed suffers from what I call the Tim Raines syndrome (no, not a cocaine habit). Both are top ten players all-time at their positions (Raines in LF, Reed at WR) but both are often overlooked because just as Raines came into the league the exact same year as Rickey Henderson, who is a top 5 all-time left fielder and generally regarded as the greatest leadoff man in history (Raines also was a leadoff man) Reed had the misfortune of entering the league the same year as the greatest wr ever (Rice).Thus, although both Raines and Reed were great players and should be in the HoF, they often aren't regarded as such just because they were overshadowed by their deep inner-circle HoF contemporaries.

Rice, Hutson, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Alworth, Largent, Berry, Warfield, Maynard, Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Torry Holt, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Bob Hayes, James Lofton, Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Tommy McDonald, Charley Taylor. Definitely not a top-ten WR of all-time.

Stuart and his anti-Bills rhetoric. Come on, some of those guys were nowhere nearly as good as Reed.

If I had a nickle for every anti-Bills post by him, I'd be retired. Jimmy Smith? Really Chase?

Player	G	 Rec	 Yds	 Appx Value   Pro Bowls   All-Pro  Super BowlsA		  178   862   12287   119			   5			   2		  0B		  234   951   13198   132			   7			   4		  4

On what planet is Player A better than Player B?

I wasn't saying Jimmy Smith was better than Reed. I was just listing a bunch of WRs who are arguably better than Reed. Do you really think Reed was better than 12 of the WRs I listed?If I wanted to say Jimmy Smith was better than Reed, I'd say that Reed has 0 top three finishes in yards, two top five finishes, and three top ten finishes, while Smith has 1 top three finish in yards, five top five finishes, and five top ten finishes in receiving yards.But the point isn't about Jimmy Smith vs. Reed. I don't think anyone that has really thought through the issue and looked at all of NFL history could put Reed in their top 10 or 12, and I doubt most would put him in their top 15.

 

[Adebisi]

I can't believe 16 people voted "no" . I would love to read some of the reasoning as to why people voted no.

I voted "no" because I can't come up with anyone who's gotten in since 2006 that I would bump in favor of Reed. No one responded to that question when I raised it, except for Aaron, who named Monk. I can understand his argument for Reed over Monk, but I don't agree with it. No one made a case for anyone else, and scanning the classes from 2006-present, I don't see anyone who I'd bump for Reed.This is a very relevant part of the "Should Andre Reed be in the HOF?" question, even though I realize that most folks around here overlook that and tend to believe that HOF standards should be significantly lower than they are.ETA: And even if you can come up with someone who should be bounced in favor of Reed, there may be others that should still get in ahead of either of them.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I can't believe 16 people voted "no" . I would love to read some of the reasoning as to why people voted no.

I voted "no" because I can't come up with anyone who's gotten in since 2006 that I would bump in favor of Reed. No one responded to that question when I raised it, except for Aaron, who named Monk. I can understand his argument for Reed over Monk, but I don't agree with it. No one made a case for anyone else, and scanning the classes from 2006-present, I don't see anyone who I'd bump for Reed.This is a very relevant part of the "Should Andre Reed be in the HOF?" question, even though I realize that most folks around here overlook that and tend to believe that HOF standards should be significantly lower than they are.

I don't think this poll is whether he should already be in the HOF, but about whether he should ever be inducted.I think most people agree that he'll get in eventually. I have no problem with him having to wait awhile though. He's deserving but probably isn't the lock that some people make him out to be.