Is having a #1 WR that important or just good to have?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Thank you for clarifying.  However, I don't think this thread is about whether a #1 WR is "the panacea for offensive ineptitude and the key to greatness".  Perhaps that is sarcasm?

I think the question is "is it important?" (for offensive success), and the answer remains "it depends on your QB".  To a lesser degree it depends on your scheme. 
QB who throw lasers with pinpoint accuracy have less need for that #1 guy than do QB with "zip code accuracy" or fading arms.

Now if you want to set up a strawman question no one else is trying to answer about #1 WR as team panaceas and keys to team greatness, Have At It. 
Turn out the lights and lock the door when you're done.

 

 

Well, glad we're all understanding each other now.

 

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

8 hours ago, MJS said:

You need a few elite players in order to really contend for a super bowl, and one of them is probably your QB. The QB can't do it alone. There has to be another guy or two on offense that are also elite. And on defense you need at least one elite presence as well.

 

Now what positions those guys play is not super important. You just need 2-3 elite guys on your team who make plays. If that's a #1 WR, great. If that's a TE (Gronk), great. If that's a HB, great. You just need some elite guys.

 

You can fill a team with solid players and can compete, but eventually you need those elite guys to really be good.

 

So I would say if you don't have an elite #1 WR, you need that somewhere else.

 

Completely agree. Why isn’t this article/thread about elite Defensive tackles or elite cornerbacks or having a top 5 left tackle? 

 

Ill tell you why, it’s because the genesis for this thread and many others like it this offseason is someone looking at a weakness on the Bills roster and trying to justify it. 

 

Yeah, it’s ok that the Bills don’t have a #1 WR but for a young QB like Allen I would like to see more talent surrounding him on offense at every position. Hopefully they will get there eventually, the Antonio Brown attempted trade gives me hope that they’re not actually satisfied. On the other hand they didn’t draft a WR and instead went with a 3rd/4th string running back. 

 

I see teams like the Chiefs,  Rams, Texans and probably others, continue to draft/sign WR to help their young QB when they already have much better talent than Buffalo currently. 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Chemical

[TigerJ]

I'd rather have three or four very good WRs than one legendary WR and scrubs.  

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

No.

 

Then please tell me why we are having this discussion. 

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

  Even when they had a WR like Stevie Johnson with back-to-back >1000 yd seasons, they did not have that guy.  

 

 

We hadthat one year (2016) where Sammy was that guy. But he is the only Bill in my time watching that I think falls into that category.... maybe one of the last years of Moulds too but I think I probably only saw him post his peak.  

[dave mcbride]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

We hadthat one year (2016) where Sammy was that guy. But he is the only Bill in my time watching that I think falls into that category.... maybe one of the last years of Moulds too but I think I probably only saw him post his peak.  

Moulds' 1998 season is the best season by WR in Bills history. He simply dominated the field.

[Jauronimo]

4 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Is it though? If these guys had the impact you're talking about, wouldn't their teams be better?

They are better with them. Do you think the Giants would have been better last year without OBJ or the Falcons better without Julio?

[The Senator]

14 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

It's a match up league.

 

You need guys who can get open against the tougher secondaries of the league. 

 

The elite WRs do that against ANY defense.

 

 

? 

 

Johnny Unitas? 

 

This isn't the 1950s AFL anymore bud. 

 

 

 

Um, there was no AFL in the 1950s.

.

[dave mcbride]

10 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

They are better with them. Do you think the Giants would have been better last year without OBJ or the Falcons better without Julio?

You are of course completely correct. Also, have you heard of this guy? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RiceJe00.htm

 

Or this guy? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/I/IrviMi00.htm

 

Or this guy? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HoltTo00.htm

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea. It is so simple and yet I confess it was only about a year ago when talking to me former NFL position coach friend / acquiantence that it really came home to me. I was talking about the makeup of the perfect receiving corps and he said that all the best personnel people he had been around did not care what "type" or receiver a guy was. They didn't talk about needing a "big guy" or needing a "slot guy" or needing a "speed guy" or needing a "YAC guy" they all talked about just getting guys who get open and catch the ball. The biggest example he gave was the Steelers. When they drafted Antonio Brown - even forgetting that he was a late round guy - he didn't meet the "profile" of a #1 receiver. Yet he became the best in the NFL. But he gets open and he caught the ball. 

Brown is definitely a #1 in the sense that he demands coverage by your best cover guy and the fact that he's the qb's first option. Where he was drafted doesn't really matter. After all, TO was a third rounder but an utterly dominant player. Same goes for Steve Smith (4th round) in his prime. 

Edited July 10, 2019 by dave mcbride

[row_33]

i'll wait till the end of the year and see who the best teams were and tell you what they did and how that is important to winning

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

13 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

They are better with them. Do you think the Giants would have been better last year without OBJ or the Falcons better without Julio?

 

Giants couldn't have been much worse, my man. Falcons, eh. Might have a case there.

 

[JESSEFEFFER]

I dislike the NFL QB rating as a measure of QB play but as a measure of WR or DB play it means alot more to me.  For instance, Josh's rating throwing to Robert Foster vs. Kelvin Benjamin.  Same QB throwing the ball but such different outcomes.  Their love of catch rate in the article is  misplaced as it is only a small part of a much bigger picture.

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Giants couldn't have been much worse, my man. Falcons, eh. Might have a case there.

 

The same logic could be used to diminish the impact of every position in football except for maybe QB.  Even HoF QBs aren't going to the playoffs every year.

 

You can say no position particularly matters in football outside of QB but I maintain we have a better chance of winning with good or even great LTs, DEs, WRs, CBs, RBs, LBs despite what the "logic" here might dictate.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

The same logic could be used to diminish the impact of every position in football except for maybe QB.  Even HoF QBs aren't going to the playoffs every year.

 

You can say no position particularly matters in football outside of QB but I maintain we have a better chance of winning with good or even great LTs, DEs, WRs, CBs, RBs, LBs despite what the "logic" here might dictate.

Let's approach it from this angle:

 

Would you rather have an average-level talent team and an all-world QB? Or would you rather have an all-world level talent team and a middling QB. There ARE examples of such teams in the NFL today.

 

[Jauronimo]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

Let's approach it from this angle:

 

Would you rather have an average-level talent team and an all-world QB? Or would you rather have an all-world level talent team and a middling QB. There ARE examples of such teams in the NFL today.

 

Lets not move the goal posts and change the question entirely.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

Lets not move the goal posts and change the question entirely.

 

I thought as much.

 

By the way, it was a response to your second sentence, FWIW.

 

[Jauronimo]

17 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I thought as much.

 

By the way, it was a response to your second sentence, FWIW.

 

Its your opinion that #1 WR is underlighting or a fancy decal on a car and I think it improves performance.  Its ok, we don't have to agree. You said something flippant and I don't feel like engaging you for 4 hours while you try to justify it since we both know you're not going to drop it or walk it back.  

[MJS]

54 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

Completely agree. Why isn’t this article/thread about elite Defensive tackles or elite cornerbacks or having a top 5 left tackle? 

 

Ill tell you why, it’s because the genesis for this thread and many others like it this offseason is someone looking at a weakness on the Bills roster and trying to justify it. 

 

Yeah, it’s ok that the Bills don’t have a #1 WR but for a young QB like Allen I would like to see more talent surrounding him on offense at every position. Hopefully they will get there eventually, the Antonio Brown attempted trade gives me hope that they’re not actually satisfied. On the other hand they didn’t draft a WR and instead went with a 3rd/4th string running back. 

 

I see teams like the Chiefs,  Rams, Texans and probably others, continue to draft/sign WR to help their young QB when they already have much better talent than Buffalo currently. 

Yes, I agree. Looking at the offense we don't have an elite player at any position, except for perhaps center if we are counting him elite. McCoy was, but probably isn't anymore. Same with Gore. Allen certainly isn't elite (yet). So yeah, I don't think the offense is going to be anything special, but it doesn't have to be.

 

On defense, however, we have some prospects. Tre White, Micah Hyde, perhaps Matt Milano and/or Trumaine Edmunds eventually. Ed Oliver could be elite one day. That defense is going somewhere quickly. I still think we are a few pieces away on offense.

 

And it might always be that way. Tough to have a really good offense AND a really good defense. Not enough money to go around.

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, Chemical said:

Then please tell me why we are having this discussion. 

 

Because the Bills don't appear to have a #1 WR on their roster.  The thread is asking whether it's necessary.

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Because the Bills don't appear to have a #1 WR on their roster.  The thread is asking whether it's necessary.

 

The Pats effectively used one for short to medium yardage to win the SB.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Its your opinion that #1 WR is underlighting or a fancy decal on a car and I think it improves performance.  Its ok, we don't have to agree. You said something flippant and I don't feel like engaging you for 4 hours while you try to justify it since we both know you're not going to drop it or walk it back.  

 

Appreciate the civility, and I'm well aware I won't change your opinion, either. Have a cold one on me.

 

[GunnerBill]

56 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Moulds' 1998 season is the best season by WR in Bills history. He simply dominated the field.

 

1998 is before my Bills fandom. 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

1998 is before my Bills fandom. 

My sincerest regards to your sanity then .

[Doc]

32 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

You need more than just a #1 reciever? Thanks. 

 

And thats my point about very good to elite recievers. They get open and make plays against the best of the best. 

 

The point is that, as you said, it's a game of matchups, and it's a team game.  Having a #1 WR and nothing else won't get you far.  But if you have 3 good WR's, you don't need a #1 WR.

 

And Golliday was uneven during the season.  He had a little over 1,000 yards but 1/3 of them came in 3 games. 

 

2 minutes ago, row_33 said:

The Pats effectively used one for short to medium yardage to win the SB.

 

True.  But that's largely because their defense stymied the Rams' offense.

[GunnerBill]

49 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

 

Brown is definitely a #1 in the sense that he demands coverage by your best cover guy and the fact that he's the qb's first option. Where he was drafted doesn't really matter. After all, TO was a third rounder but an utterly dominant player. Same goes for Steve Smith (4th round) in his prime. 

 

Yes - he totally is. I wasn't doubting that, I think he has been the best (non QB) player in the NFL most of the last 5 years. What I was saying was bad personnel teams have an idea of what a #1 is and Brown doesn't fit the modern #1 receiver prototype. But the Steelers draft on the basis of two things - can you get open and can you catch it? And then they develop guys with those skill sets from Hines Ward to Mike Wallace to Antonio Brown to JJ Smith-Schuster into guys who can dominate in their scheme because they get open and catch the ball. 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

The Pats effectively used one for short to medium yardage to win the SB.

you really admire those patsies don't you. I see countless posts from you that seem to always be praising them. you're prerogative obviously but seems odd from a, well I'm supposing anyway, a bills fan.

 

I know, I know, i'ts silly to get all worked up over a team that has dominated the team you root for. not that I do mind you, I just find those as yourself who are constantly praising them on this board, odd.

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Because the Bills don't appear to have a #1 WR on their roster.  The thread is asking whether it's necessary.

 

First of all, no it isn't. The question was stated as "important or good to have"

 

The problem is what do either of those terms mean? What does necessary mean? Necessary to win the Super bowl? You have to define all these terms AND "#1 WR" in order to even begin a discussion that makes any sense. 

 

My point is this is all just a bunch of rationalization of the fact that the WRs are average at best on paper. Fans want to believe they will be good, and sure it's possible. We don't need to say elite receivers hurt their teams to justify our middling at best talent at the position.

[T master]

Having a Julio Jones is a great player to have because the guy is $$ when it comes to needing a play to be made but i'm hoping that the team concept in the Bills wide receiver room will prevail in that there will be a number of really goo WR's to go to and that at least one will be open for Allen to find .

 

Brady has been doing it for a long time with out a true number 1 i just hope Allen has been paying attention & Dabol can pass on what he picked up while being Pats employee !! 

[Gugny]

24 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

I'd take one good WR, let alone three. As it stands now, Bills don't have one "good" WR on the roster. 

 

 

 

Enough about the Bills.  Who are the receivers on YOUR favorite football team?

[K-9]

2 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

They are better with them. Do you think the Giants would have been better last year without OBJ or the Falcons better without Julio?

Shouldn’t the question be, would they have been worse?

[K-9]

2 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

The same logic could be used to diminish the impact of every position in football except for maybe QB.  Even HoF QBs aren't going to the playoffs every year.

 

You can say no position particularly matters in football outside of QB but I maintain we have a better chance of winning with good or even great LTs, DEs, WRs, CBs, RBs, LBs despite what the "logic" here might dictate.

I agree. The idea is always to have as many great players at every position as possible. Playmaker is always a position of need, regardless of the position and playmakers tend to be the better players.

[Gugny]

Just now, ScottLaw said:

Uh oh. Gungy is mad again.

 

But if you want to talk about other teams, how's Van Wagenen working out for the Mets? ?

 

Mad?  You're so effin' cute.

 

Saying the Bills don't have one "good," WR on the team is silly.  Even for you.  Silly, I tell ya.

 

BVW has been horrible.  I think everyone knows this.

 

Most people wouldn't say the same about Robert Foster or Zay Jones last year.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Uh oh. Gungy is mad again.

 

But if you want to talk about other teams, how's Van Wagenen working out for the Mets? ?

 

Sick burn, bro. Picking on the mets is like picking on the handicapped.

 

[Formerly Allan in MD]

16 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

It's a match up league.

 

You need guys who can get open against the tougher secondaries of the league. 

 

The elite WRs do that against ANY defense.

 

 

? 

 

Johnny Unitas? 

 

This isn't the 1950s AFL anymore bud. 

 

 

Nice blinders.  Enjoy, bud.

[Gugny]

35 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Sick burn, bro. Picking on the mets is like picking on the handicapped.

 

 

you bastard!

[Doc]

42 minutes ago, Chemical said:

First of all, no it isn't. The question was stated as "important or good to have"

 

The problem is what do either of those terms mean? What does necessary mean? Necessary to win the Super bowl? You have to define all these terms AND "#1 WR" in order to even begin a discussion that makes any sense. 

 

My point is this is all just a bunch of rationalization of the fact that the WRs are average at best on paper. Fans want to believe they will be good, and sure it's possible. We don't need to say elite receivers hurt their teams to justify our middling at best talent at the position.

 

We can have a semantic argument if you like.  So what then does "important" mean?  I showed earlier in the year that half of the playoff teams didn't have a WR over 1,000 yards.  And many teams without a true #1 WR have won the SB.

 

As for the Bills' current group, they're better than average.  Brown was on-pace for 1,000 yards before Jackson took over and then went more to a run game.  Beasley can get open like no one's business.  And Foster can get open and was on pace for more than 1,000 yards with little in the way of help from other offensive weapons.

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

I'd take one good WR, let alone three. As it stands now, Bills don't have one "good" WR on the roster. 

 

That's a joke.

[Mr. WEO]

Why have a #1 at any position?

 

Just stick with a bunch of 3's a nd 4's and everyone can beat the traffic out of the stadium lot in the 4th Q

[oldmanfan]

If you have one great #1 and a bunch of bums at #2-5 then teams will simply double team and do what they have to do to take your elite guy out of the equation.  Belichick is great at this.  But if you have say several good WRs then it might be better overall because teams can't focus on taking out one player.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

38 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

you bastard!

 

I got your back, dawg.

 

[Jauronimo]

The article cited in the OP is objectively stupid.  If the choice is to have give Allen an AB, Hopkins, or OBJ vs not, all other things equal, I'm strongly in the camp that you give your QB a true #1 WR.  I don't even see how that's debatable.  

 

The real question is one of resource allocation.  Is a true #1 WR the best option given the money they command?  Is WR by committee a better option? Debatable.

 

For his progression, I would love it if Allen had a Deandre Hopkins type target who is open even when he's covered for a year or two while he learns the game.  While we didn't land a true number one we at least added another true deep threat and a real Edelmand/Welker style slot receiver.  Foster and Brown can take the top off and keep safeties honest giving opportunities for Beasely, Zay, and our run game.