What is a “true #1 WR?”

[Bing Bong]

11 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said:

I'd peg Hopkins for best hands.

Yeah probably I mean I'm sure there's 3-5 you could name at the top.. ODB, Jarvis, and Brown.

I remember the probowl reciever challenge made that skill pretty clear. Chad Johnson won it easily hands down, and it was never close. If you lumped all the WRs together in a challenge like that, you'd get a very simple measurement of everybody's skill at catching.

 

I remember the Dolphins had that slot guy from Hawaii who had hands of glue and until he faded out in his 3 year prime I wouldn't ever say anybody had better hands than him. Dude who caught passes for Colt Brennan.

 

EDIT: Davone Bess! Wasn't perfect. But damn he never dropped the ball. Unfortunately didn't have all the other athletic attributes the very best WRs need.

Edited December 16, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[Chicken Boo]

12 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Yeah probably I mean I'm sure there's 3-5 you could name at the top.. ODB, Jarvis, and Brown.

I remember the probowl reciever challenge made that skill pretty clear. Chad Johnson won it easily hands down, and it was never close. If you lumped all the WRs together in a challenge like that, you'd get a very simple measurement of everybody's skill at catching.

 

I remember that well.  Ocho put all questions to rest that day.

[Bing Bong]

10 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

It’s hard to define but you know whether you have one or not..

If you don't have a guy that can do all the route runnimg, catching, physical contested balls, consistent hands, and speed, than you can have a nominal #1 and #2 that give you both. But once you need 3 guys that are elite at all those attributes, ya don't really have a #1. I'd say a guy with 3/4 or 4/4 of the top WR attributes.

[MAJBobby]

2 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

I was listening to the Tim Graham Show from last week and everyone debated exactly what a “true #1” receiver meant.  Tim was saying that a #1 is a taller WR that you can continually throw the ball to, that can change games etc.  I’m thinking he meant guys like Julio Jones or D’Andre Hopkins.  

 

He believes that many teams don’t have a #1 WR.   He thinks that most teams get by with 2 good #2 WR’s.

 

He said that Davante Adams, and Adam Thelin are not a #1 WR and neither was Wes Welker when he played in NE or any slot WR’s. While those players led the league in targets and/or receptions they weren’t a “#1 WR.”  They actually brought James Lofton on the show and he disagreed.  I guess if Thelin makes 103 catches and Michael Thomas (Who TG said is a #1) has 102, how is Thelin not a #1 whereas Thomas is?

 

The whole conversation started when people referred to Zay Jones as the Bills “#1 WR.”  He said he is not a #1 and that is ceiling is probably a #2.  

 

So how do you define who a “#1 WR” really is and what’s the difference between a #1 WR, #2 WR and even a #3 WR?

 

 

See Hopkins 

[Bing Bong]

5 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

I remember that well.  Ocho put all questions to rest that day.

I remember my friends saying with pretty strong conviction he'd blow everyone else out of the water. I don't think he dropped a ball. I remember thinking "yep I guess that's what makes him so good among everything else."

[BuffaloBillyG]

So many BBMB "Stevie Johnson" argument flashbacks right now....?

[Nelius]

See Hopkins performance against the Jets tonight.

 

It's more than the best WR that you have. It's a dependable, game changing wide receiver that can alter everything. We haven't had one since Moulds.

[Bing Bong]

1 minute ago, No Place To Hyde said:

So many BBMB "Stevie Johnson" argument flashbacks right now....?

Good route running is a very underrated skill.

[Nelius]

DeAndre Hopkins is still quietly the best receiver in the game by the way.

[LABILLBACKER]

2 hours ago, Andy1 said:

Andre Reed & Eric Moulds. A number one is a dominant player who the qb trusts to make a play. Size is a plus but not required. Their productivity makes success for the QB and team. They come through in clutch situations, even when the pass is not perfect. I thought Sammy would be that player, but that was a fail. Bills have not had one since Moulds. 

I agree, we've had only 2 true #1 wrs in the history of the team. 

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

 

So how do you define who a “#1 WR” really is and what’s the difference between a #1 WR, #2 WR and even a #3 WR?

 

 

 

Graham's smart, but wrong here, IMHO. 

 

Jerry Rice was 6' 2". He wasn't a true #1? That's crazy talk. It's not about height.

 

The way it's generally used is pretty much how Bucky Brooks uses it here:

 

"Sure, Brandin Cooks and Robert Woods are one of only three duos with 1,000 yards a piece (Tyreek Hill/Travis Kelce and Antonio Brown/JuJu Smith-Schuster are the others), but neither guy is considered a true No. 1 receiver with the capacity to dictate coverage through his presence and production on the perimeter. Defensive coordinators will take their chances in single coverage against Cooks and Woods, committing an extra defender to the box to contain Gurley." 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000999729/article/saquon-barkley-validating-giants-decision-pete-carroll-for-coy

 

By this definition, and most definitions, a true #1 is far more than the best guy you have on your team. The way it's most frequently used there aren't 32 of them in the league, or even 20. At any time there are generally somewhere between maybe 8 and 16 in the NFL and usually it's on the low side. It's hard to get one. When you do, you generally hold onto him.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Thurman#1

[BullBuchanan]

Usually #1's have it all - size, speed, strength, elusiveness, route tree, catching, hands, etc. There should be little that they can't do better than most #2's in the league. Sometimes they aren't the biggest (Brown), or the fastest (Fitzgerald), but that usually means that some other aspect of their game has to be so special that it overcompensates for their deficiencies. When i think of prototype #1's I think of guys like Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, and Terrell Owens. Obviously, it doesn't mean Jerry Rice wasn't better than all of them being slower and shorter, but that's what I ideally want when I'm looking for a #1.


 

[Fixxxer]

6 hours ago, Andy1 said:

Andre Reed & Eric Moulds. A number one is a dominant player who the qb trusts to make a play. Size is a plus but not required. Their productivity makes success for the QB and team. They come through in clutch situations, even when the pass is not perfect. I thought Sammy would be that player, but that was a fail. Bills have not had one since Moulds. 

 

Sammy had the talent to be the #1 WR, he lacked maturity and consistency at the position. One day he was spectacular, other days, it felt like he wasn't even on the field.

 

Moulds was a beast, fast and physical, it's shame he didn't have a consistent QB throwing him the ball throughout his career. He would have been borderline HOF material.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Fixxxer

[oldmanfan]

Your # 1 should demand a double team on every play.

[PlayoffsPlease]

5 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:

This is an overrated concept. We've had a true number one many times in the past, and it got us nowhere. I believe you need pieces on offense that are complementary to each other. We need a guy with some size and elite athleticism who can do a little bit of everything and make contested catches. That's what our team is missing. 

So you are saying we need a true WR1?

[row_33]

If you have to ask for a definition...

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, SinceThe70s said:

I would never characterize a #1 WR simply by physical attributes like height, weight and speed. Bigger, faster, stronger plays into to a big degree, but after that it's more about the size of the fight in the dog than it is the size of the dog in the fight.

 

Well put

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

8 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

I believe that many are getting at “the guy that can transcend scheme or situation” not the guy that happens to be the #1 option on a random depth chart at some point 

I mean #1 literally means the first option. And certain passing concepts and schemes value different skill sets. The Patriots flat out spread you thin and then attack the middle of the field. That’s what they do now. If they had a big time WR on the outside and Edelman in the slot, they still are going to go to the underneath guy most of the time. It’s a rhythm on time passing game. They should just classify WR as “inside guys” and “outside guys” They are quite different.  

[CommonCents]

A true #1 WR is a player that can’t be game planned for properly without ruining all the other match ups in the secondary. Sure you can shut down Hopkins if you triple cover him but then you can’t cover everyone else.

 

 

[The_Dude]

It’s a wide receiver that will catch you when you are falling — time after time.