Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Limeaid

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

1998 is before my Bills fandom. 

My sincerest regards to your sanity then :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

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. 

 

 

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

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

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

Uh oh. Gungy is mad again.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...