Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Limeaid

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

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is profound.  It goes to the heart of the issue "can one have a truly great NFL player on a sub-par team?"

 

To which I say "yes.  Yes, Joe, you can have a great, impact player who is stuck on a lousy team."

 

 

Someone's a bit salty.

 

The question I'm asking (in the name of clarity) is that if a #1 WR is the panacea for offensive ineptitude and the key to greatness, how come these guys are on teams that have failed?

 

Could it be, perhaps, that having a #1 of #1s isn't the big deal some make it out to be?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Someone's a bit salty.

 

The question I'm asking (in the name of clarity) is that if a #1 WR is the panacea for offensive ineptitude and the key to greatness, how come these guys are on teams that have failed?

 

Could it be, perhaps, that having a #1 of #1s isn't the big deal some make it out to be?

 

 

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.  Smart QB playing schemes which are clever about scheming guys open, can also manage with lesser WR if they're skilled at reading the D and ID'ing where the open guy is likely to be pre-snap (those are usually more veteran QBs).

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. 
Please turn out the lights and lock the door when you're done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

:rolleyes:

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Chemical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

No.

 

Then please tell me why we are having this discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by dave mcbride

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Golliday was making circus catches that day.  No CB would have stopped him.  And despite that big day, the Lions still lost.  So you need more than just a #1 WR.

 

 

No.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...