SoCal Pat Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Maybe Irvin had better receiving talent than Andre Reed, but better leadership? Uhh ... Peter? Wasn't this the same Michael Irvin whose off-field behavior was so deplorable that he had to sit out the first four games of the 1996 season? I'm sure his high-partying ways were a great sign of leadership. One can debate the merits of Reed's numbers in today's NFL as they pertain to Canton worthiness. But anyone who thinks such intangibles make Irvin a better HOF candidate than Andre Reed must've been irreversably brain-damaged from too many whiffs of The Playmaker's second-hand smoke. Bottom line is this: Reed was a better player than Michael Irvin in just about every way imaginable, and the numbers back it up. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...art2/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 it's a shame that the two lasting memories i have of andre are diametric opposites: one is his remarkable performance in "the comeback" and the other is his infamous temper-tantrum helmet-slam in super bowl XXVI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 don't forget "the great ref bump of 99." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Maybe Irvin had better receiving talent than Andre Reed, but better leadership? Uhh ... Peter? Wasn't this the same Michael Irvin whose off-field behavior was so deplorable that he had to sit out the first four games of the 1996 season? I'm sure his high-partying ways were a great sign of leadership. One can debate the merits of Reed's numbers in today's NFL as they pertain to Canton worthiness. But anyone who thinks such intangibles make Irvin a better HOF candidate than Andre Reed must've been irreversably brain-damaged from too many whiffs of The Playmaker's second-hand smoke. Bottom line is this: Reed was a better player than Michael Irvin in just about every way imaginable, and the numbers back it up. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...art2/index.html 233929[/snapback] Bottome line is: both players were great...in every way imaginable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 King is a blow-hard idiot, who really should have no right to vote in things like the Pro Football HoF and League/Super Bowl MVP races. For example, he has played a MAJOR role in keeping Art Monk out of the Hall of Fame, yet he is a major supporter of Michael Irvin? Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Maybe Irvin had better receiving talent than Andre Reed, but better leadership? Uhh ... Peter? Wasn't this the same Michael Irvin whose off-field behavior was so deplorable that he had to sit out the first four games of the 1996 season? I'm sure his high-partying ways were a great sign of leadership. One can debate the merits of Reed's numbers in today's NFL as they pertain to Canton worthiness. But anyone who thinks such intangibles make Irvin a better HOF candidate than Andre Reed must've been irreversably brain-damaged from too many whiffs of The Playmaker's second-hand smoke. Bottom line is this: Reed was a better player than Michael Irvin in just about every way imaginable, and the numbers back it up. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...art2/index.html 233929[/snapback] Smoking? Nothing. He was just breathing the air in Indiana too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I remember the big fumble he had at the end of the season against NE which pretty much ensured that the Bills would not make the playoffs that year.... that and the time he was extremely rude to me and my little sister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Days Lois & Clark Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Andre Reed's #'s are so much better than Michael Irvin's. There's No way Irvin should be in the Hall of fame before Reed. No way at all!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Peter King smokes Bill Belichick's White Owl. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Maybe Irvin had better receiving talent than Andre Reed, but better leadership? Uhh ... Peter? Wasn't this the same Michael Irvin whose off-field behavior was so deplorable that he had to sit out the first four games of the 1996 season? I'm sure his high-partying ways were a great sign of leadership. One can debate the merits of Reed's numbers in today's NFL as they pertain to Canton worthiness. But anyone who thinks such intangibles make Irvin a better HOF candidate than Andre Reed must've been irreversably brain-damaged from too many whiffs of The Playmaker's second-hand smoke. Bottom line is this: Reed was a better player than Michael Irvin in just about every way imaginable, and the numbers back it up. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...art2/index.html 233929[/snapback] Micheal Irvin was a big time leader on that Dallas team. He was huge part of the confidence that crew played with during their dominating era. He was a better receiver than Reed in both leadership and big game playmaking ability. Sorry if the truth hurts but that's how I see it. I think Andre Reed is borderline on making it to the HOF because he came up small during the Superbowls. Look at how long it took Lynn Swan and he was money in those games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Although these receivers can be compared by looking at their numbers, the paths by which they walked to earn them were drastically divergent. A seasoned sportswriter should know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndmanley Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Micheal Irvin was a big time leader on that Dallas team. He was huge part of the confidence that crew played with during their dominating era. He was a better receiver than Reed in both leadership and big game playmaking ability. Sorry if the truth hurts but that's how I see it. I think Andre Reed is borderline on making it to the HOF because he came up small during the Superbowls. Look at how long it took Lynn Swan and he was money in those games. 234050[/snapback] I have to agree. Let's not forget how self centered Andre Reed was. Michael Irvin and Emmitt Smith won many times because they were the leaders that sometimes willed their team to win. During our great years, those people were Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas. I would not say that about Reed. Reed has great numbers but it will be tough to put more than four or five Bills of that era in the Hall. I would put him behind Kelly, Smith, Thomas, Hull, and possibly Tasker (although it is tough to put in a special teams guy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I have to agree. Let's not forget how self centered Andre Reed was. Michael Irvin and Emmitt Smith won many times because they were the leaders that sometimes willed their team to win. During our great years, those people were Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas. 234055[/snapback] Well, except for that "Greatest Comeback Ever" thing. You know, when Kelly and Thomas were hanging out on the sideline and Reed was snagging TDs all over the field. I guess that was mostly Frank Reich, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I think Andre Reed is borderline on making it to the HOF because he came up small during the Superbowls. Look at how long it took Lynn Swan and he was money in those games. 234050[/snapback] You may be right about Reed being borderline on making the HOF, but I think it is a little unfair to say Reed came up small in Super Bowls. There are at least two more SB-era Bills that seem shoe-ins (Bruce and Thurman), and two are already in. It seems inevitable that all of them won't get in without having to wait some. The HOF seems to be a little tougher for WR. Reed was great, but he had some great contemporaries as well. Don't forget, until recently, Reed was the all-time leading SB receiver. The problem the Bills had in those SB losses, was that the O-line was dominated in the last three, and the Giants just outhit the Bills, and were tougher down the stretch...the problems weren't really the wide receviers in any of them. The most enduring SB image of Reed seems to be him slamming his helmet on the turf during the Redskins game. You can't dismiss the fact that he was money in the playoffs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 He's still bitter about the Bills firing Gregg Williams. Every time he came on to a show to talk, he always was puffing up old Greggy no matter how terrible his team was performing. The Art Monk snub job led by him is disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Go watch those SB's again. Andre was doubled team and pretty much eliminated from the game plan. Ask Kelly. Andre didn't suck or not show up cuz he didn't want to! Reed should make the Hall, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Andre's mistake was having the heyday of his career when the NFL glorified stretch speed receivers. Lots of media types are still hung up on how fast a wide out is. Andre was not that fast, and he made his mark going over the middle. He played the position in an unglamorous way (in their eyes). I remember when Buddy Ebsen Ryan brought his Philly club to town. He was finally HC and the NFC was too tough to handle - so much so that I believe the Bills were home dogs. Andre shredded their secondary so bad that Buddy wanted to punch his Defensive Coordinator. That's the game where Philly couldn't do anything until Bruce's near sack of Randle Richy Cunningham on the last play of the first half... (that was an amazing play, but I digress - Heavens! What would FFS think?). Andre was a very tough receiver, but was a convenient target for a press that just never wanted to give the Bills any credit because they were in love with smash mouth foosball as practiced by the NFC East. The Bills were an abberation to them. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohninMinn. Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 He could be up against the "Reed doesn't have a ring" thing. Another victim of "wide right." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I remember the big fumble he had at the end of the season against NE which pretty much ensured that the Bills would not make the playoffs that year.... 233985[/snapback] Are you referring to 1994? We got killed that game 40-something to 17. One can debate the merits of Reed's numbers in today's NFL as they pertain to Canton worthiness. I don't think they can. He's top 5 all-time in every major category, is he not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluv Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Micheal Irvin was a big time leader on that Dallas team. He was huge part of the confidence that crew played with during their dominating era. He was a better receiver than Reed in both leadership and big game playmaking ability. Sorry if the truth hurts but that's how I see it. I think Andre Reed is borderline on making it to the HOF because he came up small during the Superbowls. Look at how long it took Lynn Swan and he was money in those games. 234050[/snapback] Came up small? Of all our Super Bowls and so called SUPERSTARS, He and Bennett are the only ones who showed up and conributed every game. The game against Dallas he was the only player who even showed up. While he didn't play spectacular in the other SB he had 8,6,8, and 7 catches in all the Super Bowls. I mean he didn't get to big game, play way below his standard and CHOKE like Kelly and start throwing picks or forget his helmet and fumble like Thurman did! Now Bruce had a few moments, especially in the last Super Bowl against Dallas but he too came up small in the big game. So while Reed didn't DOMINATE every SB, you didn't see him playing uncharacteristically bad such as dropping easy catchable balls, fumbling,etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts