Andre Reed for Hall of Fame? I Vote No

Isn't this true of the lion's share of wideouts who pile up huge numbers - "Compiled his numbers while playing in a great offense with a Hall of Fame quarterback passing to him, making it hard to shake the feeling that he's a product of the system."
You could say that about Jerry Rice too. Surely he'd be a Hall of Famer.
Does that mean Randy Moss is a better receiver than Reed because he put up huge numbers without a Hall of Fame quarterback?
I'm not prepared to argue strenously for Reed but are there any WR's you see as being worthy of election? What's the defining criteria for them?

Reply

Rice was great with Joe Montana passing to him, great with Steve Young passing to him, great with Jeff Garcia passing to him, and great with Rich Gannon passing to him. There's no question he's a Hall of Famer. Cris Carter is a definite Hall of Famer, and he never had a great quarterback. Ditto for Tim Brown. I'm not at all opposed to putting wide receivers in the Hall of Fame. But when I'm considering someone's Hall of Fame credentials, I have to be convinced that he'd be great even without great teammates. I'm not convinced about Reed.

Reply

I didn't think anything of it when someone said "I notice you've only selected white members to the Hall of Fame."

After Monk and Reed, I'm REALLY beginning to wonder. If nothing else, perhaps you should have evaluated the order in which they were presented. By the way, Richard Dent is a goddamn lock, and you're foolish for not thinking so.

If I were you, I'd really make your next bit about a black guy you think deserves to be in. Try Derrick Thomas.

Reply

what, you're only in favor of linemen?

Reply

Thanks for the reply. I never thought Rice wasn't a HOFer but sometimes I'm surprised how little attention is paid to Canton as compared to Cooperstown. Take your support of the offensive lineman, using the criteria of how good they'd be regardless of great teammates, for example. One great guard can't make up for four shabby teammates and create a great rushing attack or pass protection, making it much harder to evaluate one guy with 10 players around him.

Reply

the all o-line class, huh?

Reply

the all o-line class, huh?

Reply

Feed, guards are probably the toughest players to evaluate. In general, though, I think guards have been under-represented in the Hall of Fame while receivers have been over-represented, so until that evens out I'll probably err on the side of more guards and fewer receivers.

Ben, I like how 13 minutes after I post a comment describing three black players as "definite Hall of Famers," you accuse me of only wanting white people in the Hall of Fame.

Reply

There is no doubt that MDS hates on WRs.

And again with the pro bowls. Monk went to three, Reed went to seven. Does that somehow suggest Reed was a better player?

Reply

Wow, MDS, just noticed your comment about Rice et al being great with multiple, less than great QBs. Isn't that the very definition of what Monk did?!

Reply

C'mon, Chris. You can't seriously be comparing Monk to Rice. The highest Monk ever ranked in receiving yards was third, in 1985. Rice ranked in the Top 3 for 10 straight years. The highest Monk ever ranked in touchdown catches was ninth. Rice ranked in the Top 5 in touchdown catches 11 times. In career receiving yards, Rice beats Monk by more than 10,000. There's no comparison between the two.

Reply

Ben, I noticed the same thing and was wondering it as well. Chris made a valid point about Monk, you said Reed is just a product of having a great QB, but Monk didn't have a Hall of Fame QB and he put up some great #'s. Granted he didn't dominate like Rice, but his overall body of work makes him Hall worthy in my opinion.

Reply

In my pro-Monk piece (http://thefeed.blogs.com/the_feed/2007/01/art_monk_yea_or.html), which I know Chris's brother was down with, I said the same thing. I think Monk gets overlooked because he played with so many quarterbacks. He's not Rice but if you are going to give Rice credit for making plays for so many QB's you have to do the same for Monk.

Reply

MDS--

Your comment about the three WRs wasn't up when I confirmed my comment. Sometimes I do it later, so I just read it now. As for Reed, you leave one valid thing out of the "Pros:" 'Helped his team get to 4 super bowls.' If you ask me, almost their entire goddamn team for those years should be in the Hall.

Secondly, I hope that (and this is for all readers) Jerry Rice isn't the bar for WR HOF entry. There just hasnt been anyone like him, ever.

Reply

"If you ask me, almost their entire goddamn team for those years should be in the Hall."

Read the very end of my post: "Note: By rule, the Hall of Fame must induct between three and six new members." Please explain how you're going to get Monk, Reed, Richard Dent and almost the entire Bills team of the late 80s/early 90s into the Hall of Fame when there's a maximum of six allowed in per year.

Reply

Andre Reed absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Whenever I hear people talk about getting in to Canton, it's not about numbers, but about the guys who made plays. Reed made lots of plays over his career: many of his touchdowns were comprised of taking a short pass, usually over the middle, and turning it into a long touchdown. The pros Mr. Smith listed certainly help Reed's cause. For whatever reason, everyone who votes for the Hall of Fame hates on receivers. Lynn Swann and John Stallworth had to wait forever to get in. James Lofton waited about five or six years. I know Reed has no championships, but Monk and Irvin were pretty much possession receivers. Irvin called himself "The Playmaker," but how can anyone with that nickname not even score 50 touchdowns in his career? If he had any speed at all, Emmitt Smith would have probably scored 40-50 fewer TDs. Monk did hold the single-season and career reception records for a little while, but I can't think of many big plays he made. I think of Ricky Sanders when I think of big plays by a Redskins WR. Reed was great and I vote yes.

Reply

Are you kidding me, this shouldn't even be a debate, if lynn swann is in the HOF then Andre Reed deserves it, if you are looking at numbers. Also he lived over the middle. He was afraid like today with lame receivers who are afraid of going over the middle.

He should get in.

Reply

Andre should've written his comment in the first person.

Reply

Rice also had pro-bowl QB's throughout his career... until Oakland when, NO, he was not "great" just decent and a #2 to Tim Brown who won't get in either. Rice was a product of an even greater system. No one could stop the west coast offense, not with able QB's running it. There is no point in saying Reed is as good as Rice, which would just draw outrage, but the "he was a product of a great system and QB" argument is nonsense. He did it for too long for it to be that, and great WR's often make great QB's. It's a symbiotic relationship. It's not like any other receivers put up comparable numbers to Reed. As for Monk, a lot of his reception where for like 3 yards... sorry, but you've got to do more than that. Reed has him by a mile in yards per catch and TD's.

Reply

MDS, as a big-time Pro Football HOF fan who wants to spend his honeymoon in Canton, I absolutely loved this series. However, your logic in denying Reed is poor. If anything point out that his statistics were not overly impressive for that era. I would not vote him in this year either, but I could care less how many players are worthy from a single team. I think you missed the boat on Monk, though. The guy retired with almost receiving record in the NFL. It is a joke and symbolic of the anti-receiver bias among the PFW that he is not in the HOF.

Reply