Jump to content

What is a “true #1 WR?”


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

I agree, we've had only 2 true #1 wrs in the history of the team. 

Ironically Tim said in the 1990’s the Bills has 2 #1 WRs in Andre Reed and James Lofton.  If anything, I’d say Lofton was a true #2 on those teams.

6 hours ago, No Place To Hyde said:

So many BBMB "Stevie Johnson" argument flashbacks right now....?

 

I totally understand why.  It’s not an easy answer to determine whether Stevie was #1.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A #1 receiver is one that can consistently beat opponents’ best secondary defenders. 

 

Welker was brought up earlier; I wouldn’t consider him a #1 by that criteria since he consistenty lined up in the slot. Definitely one of the best slot (#3?) receivers of all time though. He mastered the kinds of routes those guys need to run.

Edited by JoPar_v2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, No Place To Hyde said:

So many BBMB "Stevie Johnson" argument flashbacks right now....?

To me, a #1 wr is each team's " go to" guy.  Gets the most targets and is looked to when as the leader of the wr group.As sad as this is, he was our #1 for a couple of years. Would he have been for other teams? For most, no. But he was for us those 2-3 yrs. It's harder to gauge on a team that spreads it out a lot(Pats, Rams, etc.). If I was a fan of any of these teams and watched them exclusively, I could probably point him out. Sure you want size and speed, but it's someone the qb trusts in every situation. Tough question though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

Thelin, yes.  Welker, no.

 

I'd peg Hopkins for best hands.

Hopkins made that play in the endzone last night, with 2 mins left in the game, even though he was held and covered well. I think that's what makes a true #1. Everyone knew he was the target, they held him and blanketed him and it didnt really matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

I mean #1 literally means the first option. And certain passing concepts and schemes value different skill sets. The Patriots flat out spread you thin and then attack the middle of the field. That’s what they do now. If they had a big time WR on the outside and Edelman in the slot, they still are going to go to the underneath guy most of the time. It’s a rhythm on time passing game. They should just classify WR as “inside guys” and “outside guys” They are quite different.  

 

Right, but it seems that the conversation is more “franchise wr” than “1st read”

 

i think most most of us can agree a randy moss and an Edelman are very different types and would have very different values in the league in their prime. 

 

Where do you draw the line between those? 

 

Full route trees, size, speed, hands, beat elite talent or doubles, can make plays without hof qb and great support, etc... Aj green is great in 32 cities. Larry fitz was fantastic on bad teams. Edelman I think struggles in many cities.

Edited by NoSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that a #1 receiver is an overrated commodity.  Some QBs, when they have a #1 receiver grow to depend on him to the degree that if the defense is somehow able to take him away, the QB is unable to adjust by distributing the ball to other receivers who may be capable in their own right.  I'd rather have an offense where the QB has a comfort level with multiple receivers and distributes the ball in such a way that defenses can't focus on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...