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

By kungfoodude,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted

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
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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
Asurfaholic Newbie

Asurfaholic

Posted
Posted

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
tondi Newbie

tondi

Posted
Posted
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
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
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
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
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
Lumps Newbie

Lumps

Posted
Posted
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
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
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
tiger7_88 Experienced

tiger7_88

Posted
Posted
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.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible").  I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      So if one of the parents wants to buy the theatre group or the band lunch they should get banned?
    • TD alt
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By TD alt · Posted

      OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought. 
×
×
  • Create New...