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

[Moo Daeng]

 

36 minutes ago, Djmooreforthescore said:

No it's not look at Antonio brown , Odell , Julio and what they do for an offense . I'm hoping dj Moore can be on that list 

They obviously help their offenses better but what about the team? A group of good receivers seems more useful than a superstar.

Beckham has helped his team to one winning season in 4 for all the attention he gets. Since Julio came in to the leave the Panthers have more wins than the Falcons and we've been always regarded as weak in the receiver department.

[Mr. Scot]

15 minutes ago, stbugs said:

LOL, I’m not getting upset, but you are acting like that. I show you that there are more WRs making $13M plus than any other non-QB position and somehow you ignore that in your response because some talking heads have said that they are being devalued. 2 of those 12 signed new deals in 2016 and the other 10 signed in 2017 or this offseason. That’s more $13M per year deals signed in a little over a year than the total of any other non-QB position without OBJ and Cooks’ extensions. How is that NFL teams devaluing WR?

14 WRs drafted in the 1st round (1 every 9 picks) in 4 years is devaluing WR? Again, if they are being devalued what position on offense is being valued more? TE or RB or OL or maybe FB coming back?

I don’t mind all the posts you start, love to read them but you are just sticking to a couple articles and their IMHO bad interpretations. John Ross as #9 reach is an example of valuing the position so highly that you take a questionable guy too high. Same with people saying Josh Allen was a big reach at #7.

You say Cooks being traded is an example of devaluing except that you ignore that the Rams just valued him as the 23rd pick in the first round even with his soon to be huge salary. It also ignores Belichick’s modus operandi of dumping players before they’re expensive, which says he’s not devalued.

Sorry, but you are ignoring some really blatant signals that WRs are the opposite of being devalued. I’m good in this thread.

You're talking about what's happened in prior years.  I'm talking about now and into the future.

And again, this speculation doesn't start with me.  Several different analysts have suggested this, not all necessarily in written form.

[MasterAwesome]

Using any metric besides money/contracts to assess how much teams value a certain position is frankly beyond me.

“Yeah...having good WRs just really isn’t that vital anymore. Ooooo!!! Look, a mediocre WR!! Let’s give him a $40 million contract!”.

The only thing sillier than that argument is basing the value of a position on how many of those players were drafted in the first round. As someone else said, 2 DEs drafted in the first = DEs are being devalued? How about 3 OTs?? OTs are becoming devalued now? Most every team still employs some form of BPA ..if there aren’t first round caliber WRs/OTs/DEs in a given draft class then you wouldn’t expect a ton of them to be drafted in the first round...that has nothing to do with being devalued.

This thread has been one big facepalm.

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Using any metric besides money/contracts to assess how much teams value a certain position is frankly beyond me.

“Yeah...having good WRs just really isn’t that vital anymore. Ooooo!!! Look, a mediocre WR!! Let’s give him a $40 million contract!”.

The only thing sillier than that argument is basing the value of a position on how many of those players were drafted in the first round. As someone else said, 2 DEs drafted in the first = DEs are being devalued? How about 3 OTs?? OTs are becoming devalued now? Most every team still employs some form of BPA ..if there aren’t first round caliber WRs/OTs/DEs in a given draft class then you wouldn’t expect a ton of them to be drafted in the first round...that has nothing to do with being devalued.

This thread has been one big facepalm.

That is one pretty small portion of this thread. I think the more reasonable people are debating whether the trending is towards WR's being devalued long term, not in the short term. Most people can see that one year does not make a trend.

Oddly, the entire point of the thread got largely derailed, but that's just the Internet.

[MasterAwesome]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

That is one pretty small portion of this thread. I think the more reasonable people are debating whether the trending is towards WR's being devalued long term, not in the short term. Most people can see that one year does not make a trend.

Oddly, the entire point of the thread got largely derailed, but that's just the Internet.

Again, I would point to the money trail even as recent as the current offseason...which suggests teams are valuing WRs higher than ever. I’m really not sure what evidence would lend itself to the justification of even having a debate on this topic. I hate to echo points that were already made in this thread, but even the same WR was traded for 1st round picks in back-to-back years. If you’re talking about the value of commodities in the NFL...not much comes close to the value of a 1st round pick. Even Garropolo only fetched a 2nd...when although he was unproven, he was widely considered to have franchise QB potential.

Any argument about WRs being devalued appears to ignore actual evidence in favor of speculation and silly anecdotal “evidence” that doesn’t even hold weight logically. Oh plus a Bucky Brooks article.

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, MasterAwesome said:

Again, I would point to the money trail even as recent as the current offseason...which suggests teams are valuing WRs higher than ever. I’m really not sure what evidence would lend itself to the justification of even having a debate on this topic. I hate to echo points that were already made in this thread, but even the same WR was traded for 1st round picks in back-to-back years. If you’re talking about the value of commodities in the NFL...not much comes close to the value of a 1st round pick. Even Garropolo only fetched a 2nd...when although he was unproven, he was widely considered to have franchise QB potential.

Any argument about WRs being devalued appears to ignore actual evidence in favor of speculation and silly anecdotal “evidence” that doesn’t even hold weight logically. Oh plus a Bucky Brooks article.

I think you are reacting a little harshly to a fairly reasonable debate. Speculation is kind of the point of all of this, as the trend being alluded to does not appear to strong at the moment(which we lightly examined in the thread). I don't see why examining the recent past and speculating on the future is silly. I am not terribly invested in the argument which you are objecting to but those guys having that debate doesn't seem "facepalm worthy." 

 

[GoobyPls]

6 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

Does he have a ring?

Nope, so what?

[Mr. Scot]

Money and contracts are a lot more reliable way to tell how a team values a particular player then they are a particular position.

Trai Turner and Jeremiah Sirles both play guard, but there's a pretty big difference in their paychecks.

Likewise, Andrew Norwell just got a huge contract. Does that mean that the league now places a premium value on left guards, or is that because Norwell is that good?

Position value comes into play more in the draft. Hence, why you don't see fullbacks being taken in the first round.

[GoobyPls]

Do you need an elite QB to win a SB? What about elite LT? elite RB? elite MLB? 

 

 

You can spin that argument to fit your narrative anyway you want.

[MasterAwesome]

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

I think you are reacting a little harshly to a fairly reasonable debate. Speculation is kind of the point of all of this, as the trend being alluded to does not appear to strong at the moment(which we lightly examined in the thread). I don't see why examining the recent past and speculating on the future is silly. I am not terribly invested in the argument which you are objecting to but those guys having that debate doesn't seem "facepalm worthy." 

 

It’s more that people in this thread are examining the recent past and then using that trend to infer the exact opposite of what the data is suggesting.

Recent past = teams paying WRs more and more relative to most any other position. Conclusion = teams are devaluing WRs? How is that the argument that is being made off of the underlying premise?

I don’t have a problem with speculation if it’s informed and grounded in empirical evidence...I just have little patience for baseless speculation, and to me this falls in the latter category.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the statement that “the trend being alluded to does not appear too strong at the moment”..if you can point out where that was proven or even supported in this thread, maybe  I overlooked that. To me, it’s a very strong trend...this current offseason had the most ridiculous WR contracts for marginal talent that I ever recall seeing.

[MasterAwesome]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

Money and contracts are a lot more reliable way to tell how a team values a particular player then they are a particular position.

Trai Turner and Jeremiah Sirles both play guard, but there's a pretty big difference in their paychecks.

Likewise, Andrew Norwell just got a huge contract. Does that mean that the league now places a premium value on left guards, or is that because Norwell is that good?

Position value comes into play more in the draft. Hence, why you don't see fullbacks being taken in the first round.

What??? Come on man...I don’t even know where to start with this. I’m not sure why I’m having to specify this, but we’re looking at average salary of a position group relative to other position groups...that’s how you determine how much NFL teams are valuing these positions. Not comparing two players who play the same position...that literally does nothing for this argument.

 

So money/contracts dictate how much teams value a particular player but when it comes to the draft, then we’re talking about the value of a position and not the player?? That seems an awful lot like a narrative to me...I’m guessing you don’t believe that BPA is a thing that teams do. Everyone just drafts whatever position they think is most valuable, right?

[Mr. Scot]

You guys are A) missing the point and B) getting way too emotional about a general discussion topic.

Is this really that big a deal?

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

A) in post 2 you started the WRs are being devalued discussion and have kept responding to every post trying to back up your point which IMHO is wrong. B) the only person who keeps saying emotional is you as if that strengthens your point, it doesn’t. C) there is nothing to talk about Panther wise right now so deal with people wanting to discuss your point which we understand and appear to be proving wrong. D) have a good night. 

I think you're overestimating the strength of your arguments.

As to the emotional part, I've based my arguments on what I've seen and read. This is a general discussion thread so I wouldn't expect people to get upset over it, but it's the Huddle, so...

[MasterAwesome]

3 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

I think you're overestimating the strength of your arguments.

As to the emotional part, I've based my arguments on what I've seen and read. This is a general discussion thread so I wouldn't expect people to get upset over it, but it's the Huddle, so...

Let me get this straight...so you’re basing your arguments on what you see and what you read from a random analyst’s Op-Ed (I.e. highly subjective “data”), and we’re basing it off of empirical evidence (I.e. statistical data), but the strength of our argument is in question lol. Got it...I mean, as the resident gossip blogger it doesn’t surprise me that you put more weight into random opinion pieces than statistics, but that’s not actually how the real world operates.

 

And I love when discussions inevitably devolve into “woah calm down, no need to get worked up..” when someone’s rebutting an argument, as if that’s not what you’re supposed to do in a discussion with dissenting sides. 9/10 times it’s clearly a case of projecting. You need to be able to present your opinion and support your argument without getting defensive if it’s challenged.