San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Both Reed and Carter are great WRs, but Carter got better press and exposure during and after his career, hence, he's going in first. Maybe you're proven to be correct. But at the most recent Hall of Fame vote, Andre Reed made the list of top ten finalists. Cris Carter did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 A friend of mine (a Bears fan) told me that the fact that Kelly is in the HOF is a travesty since he benefited from the no-huddle offense. Wouldn't that be a case for him to be in the HOF, since he ran the offense by himself...? As for Reed, he definitely belongs in the HOF. I can't find a reference to the quote, but I remember reading that Rice said Reed was just as good as he was. High praise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrocles Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 A friend of mine (a Bears fan) told me that the fact that Kelly is in the HOF is a travesty since he benefited from the no-huddle offense. You could argue that Warren Moon is only in the Hall of Fame because he benefited from the Run & Shoot... Stupid Bears fans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 I will not entertain that thought for a second. I am certain that Carter was an incredibly rare talent, whereas Reed was merely very good. I think you have gotten used to the home cooking. I honestly think that is just crazy talk. Chris Carter was that good. He had the best hands that I have ever seen. Nonsense. Reed was better because he worked harder and played better when it counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 All Cris Carter did was catch touchdown passes. Seriously though Carter didn't always have the best QB's in Minny and when he did get even above average QB's he just lit it up (Cunningham and Culpepper). Carter is one of the best ever and is better then Reed. Buffalo had other weapons in the red zone which limited Reeds changes. Reed shared the spotlight and stayed cool about it. Imagine Reed's numbers in a nice comfy climate controlled dome like Carter played in? Reed gets my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDD Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 I will not entertain that thought for a second. I am certain that Carter was an incredibly rare talent, whereas Reed was merely very good. I think you have gotten used to the home cooking. I honestly think that is just crazy talk. Chris Carter was that good. He had the best hands that I have ever seen. Agreed. Plus he wasted the early years of his career when he was coked up in Philly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Andre Reed is my favorite Bill of all time and thoguh I'm no Carter fan, he is slightly ahead of Reed. Carter had the best hands I have ever seen and was arguably the 2nd best receiver ever when he retired. Reed was avery good and the 2nd best after teh catch ever. He will get in but it will take some time. I think the voters eventually will look at Reed's playoff stats and put him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Do yourself a favor and speak only for yourself. This is supposed to be funny? Because it's not. I see Reed as a very good receiver and a marginal bet for the hall of fame. Apparently so do the voters. The home cooking this guy gets is unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 I see Reed as a very good receiver and a marginal bet for the hall of fame. Apparently so do the voters. The home cooking this guy gets is unbelievable. Wait a second! Bills fans are going to fight for a former Bill to be in the HOF over another guy on a Bills message board? That's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talley56 Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Wouldn't that be a case for him to be in the HOF, since he ran the offense by himself...? As for Reed, he definitely belongs in the HOF. I can't find a reference to the quote, but I remember reading that Rice said Reed was just as good as he was. High praise. My thoughts exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Nonsense. Reed was better because he worked harder and played better when it counted. Except in those SBs....Especially against Washington and Dallas...He really laid eggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 I don't quite understand the juvenile need to boost one choice while denigrating the other. Both were excellent receivers, both were clutch, both were durable. And both were indispensable to their teams in their day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Carter was great and deserves to be there but Reed was better and it is not the home cookin'. You know I looked up the stats, and Carters are a little bit more impressive, but I don't remember him impressing me near as much as Reed. He had great hands, and I was thinking maybe he was more of an intermediate receiver, but he has lots of long balls too. All I can say is that when I watch the Andre Reed touchdown compilations on Youtube he sure looks like a HOFer (ONLY TD's, there were some many great catches that he was just short of the endzone, and so many great catches over the middle that aren't on those reels!). I would like to see something like that made up of Carter's TD's, but no one has posted one. The difference is that Carter has been on the Radio and Television broadcast in the last five years, which can pretty much influence the voters whereas Reed never did anything similar after he retired from the NFL. Andre was the better WR. What they said. A friend of mine (a Bears fan) told me that the fact that Kelly is in the HOF is a travesty since he benefited from the no-huddle offense. Unfortunately, a lot of people see it the same way and make the same argument against Reed getting in. While I think that is the dumbest reason to keep someone out (especially to say it's a "travesty") in the grand scheme of things both Monk and Carter were probably better. However, I don't think it would be ridiculous if Reed got in over Carter though both should get in at some point in spite of the offenses they were in. Wouldn't that be a case for him to be in the HOF, since he ran the offense by himself...? As for Reed, he definitely belongs in the HOF. I can't find a reference to the quote, but I remember reading that Rice said Reed was just as good as he was. High praise. You could argue that Warren Moon is only in the Hall of Fame because he benefited from the Run & Shoot... Stupid Bears fans! Moon ran the the run and shoot because he could do it very well. Kelly ran the no huddle because he could do it well. Jeff George couldn't have run those offenses. It's the player's ability to do it. Nonsense. Reed was better because he worked harder and played better when it counted. Wait a second! Bills fans are going to fight for a former Bill to be in the HOF over another guy on a Bills message board? That's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Wait a second! Bills fans are going to fight for a former Bill to be in the HOF over another guy on a Bills message board? That's crazy. oh...well..Lee Evans should be in the hall of fame. Wait wait...JD Hill....Bobby Chandler...Bo Roberson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 You can argue which was better for the rest of your life- they both played like Hall of Famers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 This is a reasonable debate...here is my 2 cents FWIW Carter and Reed were both very talented WR's and some of the leagues best. I believe they both deserve to be in the HOF. That being said, if I had to pick one that I think was better, I would give the edge to Carter. I actually watched them both play a lot, and as much as I loved Reed I just feel Carter edges him out narrowly. Here is how I see it in 4 key areas for a WR... Hands - Carter: He had some of the best hands I have ever seen and one could easily argue that he and Rice are 1 and 2 all time in regards to hands. There were balls he caught that should never had been caught. Body control - Carter: He might be the best WR in the history of football at using his body to get position on the defender. No one I have ever seen could get open when blanketed like he could. He didnt need seperation to be open even when blanketed by the defender. Routes - Draw: Carter was a master at body positioning on his routes and a master route runner. Reed too was an amazing route runner and knew how to get open. They both excelled at this in their own ways. Run after the catch - Reed: Reed was an excellent playmaker and very dangerous once he caught the ball. A lot of this was due to his exceptional route running. Because of Carters more physical style of getting position on his defenders, I have to give this one to Reed. In conclusion, I give the edge to Carter. If he didnt struggle with personal demons to start his career then his numbers could have been even better than they already were. Reed is one of the 10 or 15 best WR's of all time and deserves to be in the HOF. Carter though is a top 10 WR all time and slightly edges him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 You can argue which was better for the rest of your life- they both played like Hall of Famers Nailed it on the head. A HOF'er is a HOF'er. They'll both get in because they were both awesome in different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills in va Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Since Carter is on TV so much I wish he would remove that HUGE mole on his face, it's very distracting. BTW-I'd take Reed over Carter anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Nailed it on the head. A HOF'er is a HOF'er. They'll both get in because they were both awesome in different ways. I can accept that. I always thought Carter was a bit overrated and Andre very underrated. But IMO they both deserve to be in the HOF. If you look at who is in the HOF there should be no doubt. BTW, I think Art Monk belongs, too. Remarkable consistency (at t high level) and longevity is as rare as the talent the flashier guys have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seadog Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 Why is michael irvin in the hall before monk or reed? He's had a lot of drug issues and he can't speak very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts