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

[rayzor]

6 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

 

Because the data was so easy to mine, I went ahead and gathered it from the advent of the 16 game regular season schedule. The trends over that period are obvious.

 

The 2000-2017 data really doesn't show that there has been much movement based on the criteria you were curious about. It is pretty much a wash, overall. 

pretty interesting. thanks for doing that. that number of WRs w/ 1k from 1995-2005 is really interesting. i don't think you can tell too much from looking at that, though. just that the weight of the position over the past couple decades hasn't really changed and i don't see it changing all that much.

[Moo Daeng]

In the middle of that first trend 3 teams were added. In the second trend series (2000 on ) you just have the Texans being added at very beginning.

More teams will mean more receivers having 100 catch and 1000 yard seasons.

[t96]

19 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

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

That is just random year to year. Look at the sh*tty wideouts taken so high in '16...

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Even if you chop off 2000-2004 it would be a pretty static. I don't know that the 100+ reception and 1000+ yard criteria really shows a lot as far as what we were looking for. It's certainly interesting.

I am not sure how to best show that trend over time. Maybe by setting the thresholds much, much lower to see the trend of overall production increases. But, you might just be able to see that by taking a look at total offense and looking at the trend of passing yards to WR's or passing yards to WR's as a percentage of total offense. You would need to graph the percentage of total offense(Running vs. Passing) and see if it matched or perhaps the percentage of offense to WR's was at a higher rate than that. Even so, it might be difficult to isolate the "#1 WR" from that data. That could take some considerable crunching and establishing criteria.

It's hard because just showing the numbers eliminates context.  That's a big reason why I hate stat based analysis for football.

Receptions and yards probably went up a lot, for example, in the years when the Run and Shoot was popular or upon the advent of the West Coast Offense.  Likewise, favorable rule changes to offense make a difference as well.

Mind you, that's not particular to this discussion.  I'm just speaking in general.

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, rayzor said:

pretty interesting. thanks for doing that. that number of WRs w/ 1k from 1995-2005 is really interesting. i don't think you can tell too much from looking at that, though. just that the weight of the position over the past couple decades hasn't really changed and i don't see it changing all that much.

No, I was surprised that there wasn't a more definitive trend. Really, the production has only gone up dramatically from that group over the past 30-40 years. 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

No, I was surprised that there wasn't a more definitive trend. Really, the production has only gone up dramatically from that group over the past 30-40 years. 

Well, remember too, when football first became a sport there was no forward pass at all.

You can thank the guys who created the AFL for that particular innovation.

[TheRed]

I get what people are saying here as far as where the league is currently with WR's getting hefty contracts. But the problem is you need superior coaching and scheme design if you are going to be able to make a postseason run without a clear cut #1 wideout. Teams like the Eagles and Patriots have very tactful and resourceful coaches. In that regard Ron Rivera has shown inconsistency at best over his head coaching career so far.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, TheRed said:

I get what people are saying here as far as where the league is currently with WR's getting hefty contracts. But the problem is you need superior coaching and scheme design if you are going to be able to make a postseason run without a clear cut #1 wideout. Teams like the Eagles and Patriots have very tactful and resourceful coaches. In that regard Ron Rivera has shown inconsistency at best over his head coaching career so far.

To be fair, is that Rivera or Shula?

(and yes, it was Rivera's decision to hire, and retain, Shula; just sayin'...)

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's hard because just showing the numbers eliminates context.  That's a big reason why I hate stat based analysis for football.

Receptions and yards probably went up a lot, for example, in the years when the Run and Shoot was popular or upon the advent of the West Coast Offense.  Likewise, favorable rule changes to offense make a difference as well.

Mind you, that's not particular to this discussion.  I'm just speaking in general.

Yeah, raw numbers are fascinating but the context can be obtained by digging deeper. As you said, things like rule changes or fads can have some more obvious short term effects. It does make me wonder if the idea of a "#1 WR" is somewhat of a myth.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, raw numbers are fascinating but the context can be obtained by digging deeper. As you said, things like rule changes or fads can have some more obvious short term effects. It does make me wonder if the idea of a "#1 WR" is somewhat of a myth.

As I recall, Rivera has stated he doesn't really buy into the notion.

Granted, some have suggested he says that because we don't have one.

[kungfoodude]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Well, remember too, when football first became a sport there was no forward pass at all.

You can thank the guys who created the AFL for that particular innovation.

Actually the NFL had legalized forward passes in 1933. The first forward passes in US professional football was apparently around 1906.

[Cam's New Arm]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Actually the NFL had legalized forward passes in 1933. The first forward passes in US professional football was apparently around 1906.

"the players tried for a forward pass.."

 

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

As I recall, Rivera has stated he doesn't really buy into the notion.

Granted, some have suggested he says that because we don't have one.

Yeah, hard to discern whether that is "coachspeak" or something he actually believes.

[Mr. Scot]

FYI: This topic was discussed at some length just a few years ago, also by CBS Sports oddly enough, in the wake of some comments by then Browns GM Ray Farmer.

Does a team need an elite receiver to get to the Super Bowl?

Part of the discussion revolves around the idea that if you have a truly elite quarterback, you don't need a great receiver, just a competent corps.