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

40 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

How many teams actually have a #1 receiver?  What is the definition of a#1 receiver?

Julio? Brown? Hopkins? Thielen?

What metric are we using?

Personally I think there are only a handful of guys that are a notch above everyone else, Julio, Moss, Calvin.  Type of guys that would probably be dominant in any system with any QB.  

It is a generally subjective phrase, that is absolutely true. When I think of a #1 WR, I think of guys that play almost every offensive down and always have to be accounted for on every passing play. The guy in the WR corps that the QB looks for whenever he needs a critical play made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is true. Certainly teams want a WR who can go deep and possesses elite skills, but I do think some quarterbacks play better without feeling the need to force feed a WR1.

There will be games where the QB will continuously connect with a certain WR, but doing it all 16 games...I don’t think so these days. Spreading the ball just works for some offenses. 

In the case of this past year’s Super Bowl participants, their leading receivers were actually their tight ends—Ertz and Gronk. So the NFL is evolving in terms who is targeted in the passing game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view "#1 WRs" like "franchise QBs". It's just a talking heads term to create debate. It's a meaningless term that no one can define. It seems that whenever people talk "franchise QBs" they're pretty much talking about future HOFers. When they talk about "#1 WRs" they're pretty much talking about the Antonio Browns, Julio Joneses, and DeAndre Hopkins of the world. Simply put there aren't many of those guys around and hell no they aren't overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I view "#1 WRs" like "franchise QBs". It's just a talking heads term to create debate. It's a meaningless term that no one can define. It seems that whenever people talk "franchise QBs" they're pretty much talking about future HOFers. When they talk about "#1 WRs" they're pretty much talking about the Antonio Browns, Julio Joneses, and DeAndre Hopkins of the world. Simply put there aren't many of those guys around and hell no they aren't overrated.

See, I have never connected the term "franchise QB" to being a future HOFer. It's all kind of subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is, there aren't enough true #1 receivers for every team to have one, just like franchise QBs.

Dak is right, it's all about matchups. We we're in the Superbowl with Ted Ginn as our most productive receiver.  Cam had an MVP season with no receiver being better than Ginn. 

Reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rayzor said:

i wonder if the number of 1000+ yard or 100+ recp receivers have gone down over the years. seems like with spread offenses growing that QBs are spreading the ball around more.

Give me a time period and I can probably dig up that data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

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

Thats a horrible argument. Only 2 D.E's were taken in the first round this year. Does that mean the league is devaluing them?

Number 1 receivers are not being devalued at all. They are actually increasing in value. Supply and Demand. Every team has a number 1 receiver by default but that does not mean they have the talent to be a universal number 1. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...