Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Is having a #1 WR overrated in the modern NFL?


kungfoodude

Recommended Posts

The search for a #1 WR has been a hot topic amongst Panthers fans since Steve Smith left the franchise. Dak Prescott weighed in recently in an interview and said,

Quote

"I don't know if any team in the league necessarily needs a No. 1 receiver," Prescott said via Pro Football Talk. "It's about getting the ball out, spreading the ball around, keeping the defense on its toes."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/dak-prescott-i-dont-know-if-any-team-in-the-league-necessarily-needs-a-no-1-receiver/

The article goes on to present some examples on either side of the argument, including a blurb that mentions us as an example.

Quote

Fair enough, but having a go-to guy -- whether it's Dez Bryant or even tight end Jason Witten -- forces opponents to adjust how they defend you. Having a bunch of players who are considered second and third options makes life considerably easier on that defense.

Put another way: The Steelers without Antonio Brown are a completely different offense; same for the Texans and DeAndre Hopkins and the Falcons and Julio Jones.

The counterargument would be the 2017 Panthers; their leading receiver was running back Christian McCaffrey (80 catches) followed by wideout Devin Funchess (63) and then Kelvin Benjamin (51), who was traded midway through the season.

Admittedly, I don't think we were a great example of the point Dak is trying to make because of our previous OC and also the pile of hot garbage we had at WR for most of the season. The Patriots are a much more classic example of a true #1 WR being overrated, IMO. I tend to agree with what Prescott is saying. The trend seems to be towards having multiple pass receiving threats at wideout, TE and RB. 

Thoughts? Would you rather have an Antonio Brown/Julio Jones type #1 WR(and the expense they incur) or a stable of average to good receiving threats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've heard more than one analyst say that receivers are following the same trend of being devalued as runningbacks have been.

It hasn't hit that point yet because you still see large contracts being handed out to guys like Landry, Watkins, Robinson, Richardson, Lee, Wilson and Moncrief. I will be curious to see if it trends in that direction long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better to have an elite OL than a single elite WR. A decent OL and a group of #2 and 3 receivers plus a power back that can bulldoze in short yard situations is what I feel is all your offense truly needs other than a top 10 qb.

Have a OC who doesn’t have spaghetti for brains helps too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've heard more than one analyst say that receivers are following the same trend of being devalued as runningbacks have been.

I was about to post this exact thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

It hasn't hit that point yet because you still see large contracts being handed out to guys like Landry, Watkins, Robinson, Richardson, Lee, Wilson and Moncrief. I will be curious to see if it trends in that direction long term. 

But only two were taken in the first round this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've heard more than one analyst say that receivers are following the same trend of being devalued as runningbacks have been.

I think those analysts are morons to put it quite bluntly. Career JAG WRs we’re getting $8M+ per year in free agency this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Asurfaholic said:

Better to have an elite OL than a single elite WR. A decent OL and a group of #2 and 3 receivers plus a power back that can bulldoze in short yard situations is what I feel is all your offense truly needs other than a top 10 qb.

Have a OC who doesn’t have spaghetti for brains helps too.

This. You see it time and time again. It’s more about spreading the ball out and utilizing specialities (etc speed to stretch the field). It’s about having an array of tools. 

However #1 elite receivers are a must...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in Madden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

I think those analysts are morons to put it quite bluntly. Career JAG WRs we’re getting $8M+ per year in free agency this year.

To the point that teams would rather pay someone with some experience, even if they're not that great, than draft an unknown with a high pick.

It's the kind of thing that affects rookies more than vets.  If you've proven you can play in the league, you have more value no matter the position.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've heard more than one analyst say that receivers are following the same trend of being devalued as runningbacks have been.

I don't agree though.

RBs value has dropped due to NFL rules designed to increase the ability for offense to score in games (something of which Ron Rivera ignores and, when he deigns to recognize it, HATES).

These same rules increase the value of the TRUE #1 receiver.

However (and there's always a however), a TRUE #1 isn't just picked off of the receiver tree.

A true #1 in today's NFL has to have the strength to fight off the press (and hand-fighting). the deep speed to get open down-field (WRs that specialize in the 5-10 yd catch are NOT "#1's"), and the skill to run sharp routes.

And, as I said above, those guys don't grow on trees.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...