Andre Reed Before Mark Clayton?

[Nicky Napoleon]

Also if you took Claytons career average added 5 years to his stats to equal Reeds 16 years he would have.....

847 Catches 13054 yards 15.4 YPC and 122 TD's

And if you use these numbers Clayton would sit 1st in catches, 3rd in yards, and first in TD's by 22!

 

[Vessel17]

And if you use these numbers Clayton would sit 1st in catches, 3rd in yards, and first in TD's by 22!

Wow... if I take Matt Schuab's stats from the preseason game and see what his stats would be over 1,000 years he'd have better stats than Dan!!!

I see your point about what Clayton's stats would be, but those aren't what his stats are. So it's kind of pointless to talk about.

 

[Jimmy James]

It is because of Jerry Rice in part. His numbers blow those numbers away by so much that it is crazy.

It is because of Cris Carter and Tim Brown in part. Both have 100 or more TDs to go with their yardage.

Most of all, it is because there are a glut of guys with stat lines that look a lot like the ones you're talking about. Look at Henry Ellard as another example. Somebody needs to decide that all these guys go in or that all of them don't if you ask me.

I'll note that when I say "all of these guys", I don't include Clayton. I loved watching him play, but he didn't play long enough to make it over the bar if you ask me.

 

[Nicky Napoleon]

Ok I know that Lynn Swann played great in the Super Bowl, but how on earth did this guy get in??? He never had a 1000 yard season.....He never had a 900 yard season, in fact he only topped the 800 yard mark twice.

 

[Nicky Napoleon]

It is because of Jerry Rice in part. His numbers blow those numbers away by so much that it is crazy.

It is because of Cris Carter and Tim Brown in part. Both have 100 or more TDs to go with their yardage.

Most of all, it is because there are a glut of guys with stat lines that look a lot like the ones you're talking about. Look at Henry Ellard as another example. Somebody needs to decide that all these guys go in or that all of them don't if you ask me.

I'll note that when I say "all of these guys", I don't include Clayton. I loved watching him play, but he didn't play long enough to make it over the bar if you ask me.

Swann only played 8 years, but I kind of agree other than Swann and one other who played 11 years most played 13 or more years.

 

[Jimmy James]

I also meant to include Marvin Harrison in my analysis. In 9 years, he has over 10000 yards and nearly 100 TDs. If he retired after this year, I think he'd have a strong case for enshrinement.

 

[PhinKev]

OK this is for Crisis......

I pulled the stats on all of the HoF WR's, there are 19 total but I narrowed that down by eliminating players that played two positions like Hirsch and players that played pre 1960. That leaves 12 players....

Fred Biletnikoff
589 catches 8974 yards 76 TD's

Ray Berry
631 catches 9275 yards 68 TD's

Lance Alworth
542 catches 10266 yards 85 TD's

Charlie Joyner
750 catches 12146 yards 65 TD's

Steve Largent
819 catches 13089 yards 100 TD's

James Lofton
764 catches 14004 yards 75 TD's

Don Maynard
633 catches 11834 yards 88 TD's

Tommy McDonald
495 catches 8410 yards 84 TD's

Bobby Mitchell
521 catches 7954 yards 65 TD's

John Stallworth
537 catches 8723 yards 63 TD's

Lynn Swann
336 catches (Joke) 5462 yards(Joke) 51 TD's (Joke)

Paul Warfield
427 catches 8565 yards 85 TD's



OK so just as a reminder the three biggest names in this thread have been
Andre Reed
951 catches 13198 yards 87 TD's

Mark Clayton
582 catches 8974 yards 84 TD's

Art Monk
940 catches 12721 yards 68 TD's

Also remember that Monk and Reeds careers were 16 seasons while Claytons was 11 years. My arguement is for Clayton, he would rank 6th in both catches and yards among all of the HoFers, and tied for 5th in TD's. But looking at this the same arguement can be made for all 3 WR's. Andre Reed would rank 1st in catches, 2nd in yards and 3rd in TD's. Why arent these guys getting any love?

Nice job there.

I think the issue is a little more difficult since football is not as numbers driven as baseball. I remember Clayton playing and he was dominating. Unfortuantely, Marino was so great that Clayton will never get his due.

As mentioned above, the numbers would have some competent but not great receivers in. Unfortunatley, thay can't take Swann back out.

 

[zephon]

Ok I know that Lynn Swann played great in the Super Bowl, but how on earth did this guy get in??? He never had a 1000 yard season.....He never had a 900 yard season, in fact he only topped the 800 yard mark twice.

it was a sentimental pick because of "all those Super Bowls" and the fact that like 10 players off that team are in the HOF. It was rediculous and that part of my point. I think the voters realized that.

While I've stated before that Monk should be the next WR in I"m starting to question myself.

Lets be honest...we've got to stop saying, "well this guy got in...and player X is eligable for enshrinement. Player X had better stats than 3 or 4 guys already there...therefore it's a lock, he should get in"..with era's having changed (and the rules) the stats are going to be he higher. So I don't think election into the HOF can be based on that (it obviously wasn't because Swann is in). From here on out...it's got be about who dominated at their position during that era. Thinking in this manner is what has got me questioning even my decision to put Monk in and it certainly makes me question Irvin (who's career kinda matches Swann) and Reed. But I do feel thinking in this manner helps Clayton.

I'm sure there are deserving guys that will come up but right now off the top of my head..Tim Brown will likely be the next guy enshrined and he just retired..with Rice the only given (after he finally retires).

 

[finfansince72]

Lynn Swann kind of throws the whole discussion out of whack. He didnt deserve to get in yet players that do like Monk, Irvin and Carter have or will have trouble gettting in. I probaly would vote Clayton in but really hes an extremely borderline candidate that probaly won't get in. Reed played on 4 Superbowl teams, as time goes on a lot of those bills players are going to get in. Its the samething with Swann and a lot of Steelers, if they werent on such legendary teams they would not have made it. Swann getting in is a joke, yea he made some amazing plays and was fun to watch but he just wasnt dominate or great just good. If he hadnt been on TV every week pleading his case he'd never have made. He is the most underserving player Ive ever seen make any Hall of Fame.

 

[Boik14]

Everyone has amazing numbers at WR nowadays. The hall is just now starting to feel the impact of the rule changes in the mid-80's. It's only going to get worse. When looking at numbers you need to realize that for his final two years Reed was a backup while another year he was injured and only had 24rec's. His stats for his last two years were 52 rec 536 yds. 10.3 avg. 1 TD and 10rec. 103yds. 10.3avg. and 1TD.

With all the big numbers by WR's no one's really a lock right now except rice. I mean Art Monk hasn't gotten in yet! Monk was awesome! A lot of voters will say that Clayton's success was partly due to the fact that Miami threw almost every down. Reed was just crazy go nuts good, weird though, he wasn't really fast (Lofton and Beebe were our speed threats) but also wasn't a possession guy. He was just a great all around reciever like Hines Ward is now.

I tend to agree. Reed was the guy that made the other wrs effective; not that lofton and beebe were'nt good on their own. Just that Reed made them a lot better. They complimented him very well.

And I agree 100% on monk. Him not being in the hall is a travesty.

 

[kastofsna120]

when i think of the name "mark clayton," the words "hall of fame" just doesn't come to mind. that's pretty much how i decide who should be in the hall....

 

[PhinKev]

when i think of the name "mark clayton," the words "hall of fame" just doesn't come to mind. that's pretty much how i decide who should be in the hall....

YOu know, despite the fact I disagree with you, that system is as good as the one they are using now.