- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did Andre Reed deserve to be in the HOF?very much overrated
Posted on 8/3/14 at 1:04 am to ItsThatDude12
Posted on 8/3/14 at 1:04 am to ItsThatDude12
not to forget.. he was over 30 for 2 of them, and well he also took 4 hours for his speech, so yeah i would not have voted for him... he mad 7 pro bowls.. how????? colston hasnt made any, which is fricking robbery, colston should get in if reed did
This post was edited on 8/3/14 at 1:09 am
2
Posted on 8/3/14 at 1:17 am to dukke v
quote:
dukke v
Posted on 8/3/14 at 1:34 am to SPEEDY
quote:
SPEEDY
Posted on 8/3/14 at 1:51 am to TPecoraro23
Posted on 8/3/14 at 1:53 am to SPEEDY
Missed you Peej
Posted on 8/3/14 at 1:53 am to jimithing11
Reed claim to fame is comeback game
Posted on 8/3/14 at 1:59 am to Statsattack
The amount of derp in this thread is unreal.
I wasn't aware this much late-night trolling took place on the MSB
I wasn't aware this much late-night trolling took place on the MSB
Posted on 8/3/14 at 3:23 am to jimithing11
Technically it's the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of Production.
It's supposed to be players that "you can't tell the story of the NFL without talking about those players"'or something to that effect
It's supposed to be players that "you can't tell the story of the NFL without talking about those players"'or something to that effect
This post was edited on 8/3/14 at 3:24 am
Posted on 8/3/14 at 3:50 am to ItsThatDude12
Idk but I wish I didn't decide to cut onions during his speech, that moment with Jim Kelly. 
Posted on 8/3/14 at 10:37 am to wildtigercat93
Andre Reed was a role player on a dominant team. That's it.
Posted on 8/3/14 at 11:47 am to ItsThatDude12
quote:
Any rebuttal? He was on a great team for years but he really didn't have the numbers to justify this.
The rebuttal is you obviously didn't watch football at that time and are just looking at stats.
He was one of the very BEST receiver's in the game and was one of the top three reasons the bills were in those super bowls.
This is a guy you don't look at the stats
Posted on 8/3/14 at 12:20 pm to ItsThatDude12
At no point in his career was he ever a top 3 receiver in the game. IMO he shouldn't have made it. It's borderline b/c of his importance to the bills' historical run, as well as his career numbers.
All but 4 seasons in his career, he was not a 1,000 yd receiver. This was a team where he should've always gone over that mark.
Truth is, Kelly and Thurman Thomas were easy 1st ballot HOF on a historic team, Reed was at best the 4th best player on the team.
All but 4 seasons in his career, he was not a 1,000 yd receiver. This was a team where he should've always gone over that mark.
Truth is, Kelly and Thurman Thomas were easy 1st ballot HOF on a historic team, Reed was at best the 4th best player on the team.
Posted on 8/3/14 at 12:22 pm to WHATDOINO
quote:
He was one of the very BEST receiver's in the game and was one of the top three reasons the bills were in those super bowls.
Bull.
He was a very very good receiver.
But if you were alive and watching football from 1984-present...(and not as a baby) - he was far from the best...
And being "one of the best" - that's slippery...was he one of the 10 best...yes, he was.
But that doesn't mean he should be in the HOF...should we just start inducting every receiver who was really good just because Art Monk got in?
Or receivers who compile stats (Sorry Timmy, Raider fan) but who really aren't HOF.
Andre Reed didn't change the game and he wasn't dominant and really - nobody talked about him as a stud.
He was the receiver for the Bills. And his highest honors...two measly 2nd Team All-Pros - came at the apex of the Bills' failed dynasty - the early Super Bowl misses when that offense was a machine and the hurry-up.
Evaluating special teams was the worst the HOF committee has historically done.
Now...it's the WR. And will be a problem in 10 years with all these pass-happy-rules, basketball-on-grass receivers start being eligible.
How do you sort through that mess? Steroid-era baseball numbers in football because of the legislating out physicality.
Posted on 8/3/14 at 12:33 pm to wildtigercat93
Regardless of whether Reed does or doesn't deserve election, there are always going to be situations like this due to the NFL's ridiculous mandatory rule that between 4 and 7 members are elected each year. I know a lot of people don't care for baseball's sanctimonious attitude towards their HOF, but I think they do it right. You hear a lot of arguments about who should be in theirs, but you don't hear many about who shouldn't. It's the opposite with the NFL.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 2:31 pm to TPecoraro23
quote:
As a key contributor to the Bills’ four Super Bowl berths in the 1990s, Reed is a qualified candidate for the game’s greatest individual honor. But while he was good, he wasn’t nearly as good as several other receivers the Hall has ignored. It’s not Reed’s fault — it’s the Hall’s. Canton hasn’t figured out how to best judge the careers of modern wide receivers.
Take Reed’s career as an example. It’s a glossy one — at the time he retired, he ranked third all time in catches, fourth in receiving yards and sixth in touchdown receptions. But it’s also one that was entangled with the great ensemble of offensive talent, and one that was a beneficiary of the dawn of the NFL’s passing explosion.
Moreover, some advanced stats show that Reed’s on-field influence wasn’t what it appeared to be — the evidence is surprisingly mixed with regard to his actual effect on team passing efficiency.
Wide receivers are products of their eras. When the NFL opened up the passing game in 1978, enacting new rules to make pass-blocking easier and to eliminate downfield defensive contact with receivers, league-wide passing output spiked almost instantly.
As a consequence, the numbers that once automatically signified greatness quickly became devalued.
For example, using a simple ratio of league passing yards per game in one season compared to another, Reed’s 1,312-yard campaign in 1989 would have been the equivalent of a mere 883 yards a dozen years prior. What was, at the time, the 22nd-highest single-season yardage total ever becomes the 324th.
(Brown’s resume, on the other hand, was more impressive by every standard that doesn’t involve the postseason.
And while 71 percent of Reed’s career yardage came on passes from Hall of Famer Jim Kelly, Brown put up his superior numbers with an aging Rich Gannon, Jeff Hostetler, Jeff George, Jay Schroeder and Vince Evans at quarterback.)
LINK
Spot-on...and finally someone in the media said what I voiced earlier on here instead of placating Peter King and his gang of lackeys on the HOF committee.
No one who watched Reed in his prime ever thought he would be the HOF. Unless you were just a homer Bill's fan.
Andre Reed is in but Sterling Sharpe can't get in?
And before anyone says Raider homer, I'm not sure Brown is 100% worthy. He's certainly more worthy than Andre freakin' Reed.
Shite, by today's standards, that would be like electing Victor Cruz.
This post was edited on 8/4/14 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 8/4/14 at 2:56 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
It's supposed to be players that "you can't tell the story of the NFL without talking about those players"'or something to that effect
We could eliminate a LOT of the players already in if this is the criteria.
This post was edited on 8/4/14 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 8/4/14 at 2:59 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Shite, by today's standards, that would be like electing Victor Cruz.
4 years in the league vs. 15?
Posted on 8/4/14 at 3:01 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Evaluating special teams was the worst the HOF committee has historically done.
Now...it's the WR. And will be a problem in 10 years with all these pass-happy-rules, basketball-on-grass receivers start being eligible.
Nailed it. I still can't believe Reed got in.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 3:02 pm to ironsides
Cruz has played more than 4 seasons, no?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News