I'm not against Reed being in the Hall at all. He was a very good receiver...but you can't say Strahan doesn't deserve to be in and ignore Andre Reeds career when there are guys who were probably better that won't get in.
Yup--Reed was a faster more atheltic version of Anquan Boldin. Very physical, an early version of a "beast" WR. Steve Smith is a great player--Reed was HOF great. _
Anquan Boldin and Andre Reed couldn't be any more different. If Reed is HOF great(which I don't mind) then every productive receiver from the current era should get in, including Boldin.
I think Strahan deserved to be in as well. But you are crazy comparing Andre Rison, Gary Clark, Jimmy Smith to Andre Reed. There is no comparison, Reed was way, way better. WRs are going to be tough to judge in hall of fame circles going forward.The game changed significantly in the 2000s and altered many of the statistics for wide receivers, warping barometers. Think about guys like Jimmy Smith, Issac Bruce, Derrick Mason, Torry Holt, Hines Ward.. they all have amazing numbers, in previous eras they are hall of fame numbers, but I don't think any of those guys are hall worthy by any means. Andre Reed getting in was the right decision because even though it took awhile it shows they aren't just going to look at numbers they are going to put in the dominant players at the position.
Andre Reed is a faster more athletic version of Anquan Boldin. Physical, clutch, great hands, not afraid to go over the middle, both around 6-2 but Reed was a bit lighter in an era when everyone was lighter. Other than that, completely different. _
To suggest he wasn't dominant, wasn't a top 5 player at his position means you didn't see him play. He was one of THE most important pieces of those teams. _
Why is there no comparison? Because you say so? Of course there's a comparison, their numbers are similar. Especially Rison's(who also won a SB) Torry Holt is a HOF'er too, easily.
Do they put Kurt Warner in next year? That will be interesting. I am torn, part of me thinks he deserves it but I can understand both arguments on either end.
Andre Reed better than Boldin? Don't think so and Boldin is still playing at a high level. You old farts are the worst with the revisionist history. I saw them both play. The receivers of Reed's era were Rice, Irvin, Carter, Sharpe(pre injury). Was Reed ever even first team all-pro? Then obviously you have the Mid 90's guys Moss, TO, Harrison who are HOF locks.
He wasn't dominant. He was very good...Thomas was their dominant guy on offense and obviously Bruce Smith was the all timer on that team.
Clark maybe, he was the best WR on the redskins, better than the overrated Art Monk. I would say reed is a better version of Clark and Clark was really, really good.
reed was better than boldin, different eras and hard to compare but I'd take reed. Carter was a #s guy, I'd prefer reed to Carter but I'd take those other 3 over him.
Jim Kelly was their main guy on O. Reed was the second most important, especially in the post season where he was straight clutch. Thomas to me was real borderline, and i'm still surprised he got in before Reed.
Yeah. He was. Doesn't mean he wasn't dominant at his position. That team had great players up and down the lineup--Reed was a dominant WR during that era. _
I was trying to compare him to players of today's era--a bigger Steve Smith, a faster more athletic Boldin. _
The Boldin comparison is terrible other than trying to compare their numbers....they are totally different players. But Boldin will have better numbers in every category once he's finished playing.
