Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said: Its your opinion that #1 WR is underlighting or a fancy decal on a car and I think it improves performance. Its ok, we don't have to agree. You said something flippant and I don't feel like engaging you for 4 hours while you try to justify it since we both know you're not going to drop it or walk it back. Appreciate the civility, and I'm well aware I won't change your opinion, either. Have a cold one on me.
GunnerBill Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 56 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: Moulds' 1998 season is the best season by WR in Bills history. He simply dominated the field. 1998 is before my Bills fandom.
NoHuddleKelly12 Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: 1998 is before my Bills fandom. My sincerest regards to your sanity then .
Doc Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 32 minutes ago, ScottLaw said: You need more than just a #1 reciever? Thanks. And thats my point about very good to elite recievers. They get open and make plays against the best of the best. The point is that, as you said, it's a game of matchups, and it's a team game. Having a #1 WR and nothing else won't get you far. But if you have 3 good WR's, you don't need a #1 WR. And Golliday was uneven during the season. He had a little over 1,000 yards but 1/3 of them came in 3 games. 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: The Pats effectively used one for short to medium yardage to win the SB. True. But that's largely because their defense stymied the Rams' offense.
GunnerBill Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 49 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: Brown is definitely a #1 in the sense that he demands coverage by your best cover guy and the fact that he's the qb's first option. Where he was drafted doesn't really matter. After all, TO was a third rounder but an utterly dominant player. Same goes for Steve Smith (4th round) in his prime. Yes - he totally is. I wasn't doubting that, I think he has been the best (non QB) player in the NFL most of the last 5 years. What I was saying was bad personnel teams have an idea of what a #1 is and Brown doesn't fit the modern #1 receiver prototype. But the Steelers draft on the basis of two things - can you get open and can you catch it? And then they develop guys with those skill sets from Hines Ward to Mike Wallace to Antonio Brown to JJ Smith-Schuster into guys who can dominate in their scheme because they get open and catch the ball. 1
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, row_33 said: The Pats effectively used one for short to medium yardage to win the SB. you really admire those patsies don't you. I see countless posts from you that seem to always be praising them. you're prerogative obviously but seems odd from a, well I'm supposing anyway, a bills fan. I know, I know, i'ts silly to get all worked up over a team that has dominated the team you root for. not that I do mind you, I just find those as yourself who are constantly praising them on this board, odd.
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, Doc said: Because the Bills don't appear to have a #1 WR on their roster. The thread is asking whether it's necessary. First of all, no it isn't. The question was stated as "important or good to have" The problem is what do either of those terms mean? What does necessary mean? Necessary to win the Super bowl? You have to define all these terms AND "#1 WR" in order to even begin a discussion that makes any sense. My point is this is all just a bunch of rationalization of the fact that the WRs are average at best on paper. Fans want to believe they will be good, and sure it's possible. We don't need to say elite receivers hurt their teams to justify our middling at best talent at the position. 1
T master Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 Having a Julio Jones is a great player to have because the guy is $$ when it comes to needing a play to be made but i'm hoping that the team concept in the Bills wide receiver room will prevail in that there will be a number of really goo WR's to go to and that at least one will be open for Allen to find . Brady has been doing it for a long time with out a true number 1 i just hope Allen has been paying attention & Dabol can pass on what he picked up while being Pats employee !!
Gugny Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 24 minutes ago, ScottLaw said: I'd take one good WR, let alone three. As it stands now, Bills don't have one "good" WR on the roster. Enough about the Bills. Who are the receivers on YOUR favorite football team? 2
K-9 Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Jauronimo said: They are better with them. Do you think the Giants would have been better last year without OBJ or the Falcons better without Julio? Shouldn’t the question be, would they have been worse?
K-9 Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Jauronimo said: The same logic could be used to diminish the impact of every position in football except for maybe QB. Even HoF QBs aren't going to the playoffs every year. You can say no position particularly matters in football outside of QB but I maintain we have a better chance of winning with good or even great LTs, DEs, WRs, CBs, RBs, LBs despite what the "logic" here might dictate. I agree. The idea is always to have as many great players at every position as possible. Playmaker is always a position of need, regardless of the position and playmakers tend to be the better players. 1
Gugny Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 Just now, ScottLaw said: Uh oh. Gungy is mad again. But if you want to talk about other teams, how's Van Wagenen working out for the Mets? ? Mad? You're so effin' cute. Saying the Bills don't have one "good," WR on the team is silly. Even for you. Silly, I tell ya. BVW has been horrible. I think everyone knows this. Most people wouldn't say the same about Robert Foster or Zay Jones last year.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, ScottLaw said: Uh oh. Gungy is mad again. But if you want to talk about other teams, how's Van Wagenen working out for the Mets? ? Sick burn, bro. Picking on the mets is like picking on the handicapped.
Formerly Allan in MD Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 16 hours ago, ScottLaw said: It's a match up league. You need guys who can get open against the tougher secondaries of the league. The elite WRs do that against ANY defense. ? Johnny Unitas? This isn't the 1950s AFL anymore bud. Nice blinders. Enjoy, bud.
Gugny Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 35 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Sick burn, bro. Picking on the mets is like picking on the handicapped. you bastard! 1 2
Doc Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 42 minutes ago, Chemical said: First of all, no it isn't. The question was stated as "important or good to have" The problem is what do either of those terms mean? What does necessary mean? Necessary to win the Super bowl? You have to define all these terms AND "#1 WR" in order to even begin a discussion that makes any sense. My point is this is all just a bunch of rationalization of the fact that the WRs are average at best on paper. Fans want to believe they will be good, and sure it's possible. We don't need to say elite receivers hurt their teams to justify our middling at best talent at the position. We can have a semantic argument if you like. So what then does "important" mean? I showed earlier in the year that half of the playoff teams didn't have a WR over 1,000 yards. And many teams without a true #1 WR have won the SB. As for the Bills' current group, they're better than average. Brown was on-pace for 1,000 yards before Jackson took over and then went more to a run game. Beasley can get open like no one's business. And Foster can get open and was on pace for more than 1,000 yards with little in the way of help from other offensive weapons. 1 hour ago, ScottLaw said: I'd take one good WR, let alone three. As it stands now, Bills don't have one "good" WR on the roster. That's a joke.
Mr. WEO Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 Why have a #1 at any position? Just stick with a bunch of 3's a nd 4's and everyone can beat the traffic out of the stadium lot in the 4th Q 1
oldmanfan Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 If you have one great #1 and a bunch of bums at #2-5 then teams will simply double team and do what they have to do to take your elite guy out of the equation. Belichick is great at this. But if you have say several good WRs then it might be better overall because teams can't focus on taking out one player. 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 38 minutes ago, Gugny said: you bastard! I got your back, dawg.
Jauronimo Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 The article cited in the OP is objectively stupid. If the choice is to have give Allen an AB, Hopkins, or OBJ vs not, all other things equal, I'm strongly in the camp that you give your QB a true #1 WR. I don't even see how that's debatable. The real question is one of resource allocation. Is a true #1 WR the best option given the money they command? Is WR by committee a better option? Debatable. For his progression, I would love it if Allen had a Deandre Hopkins type target who is open even when he's covered for a year or two while he learns the game. While we didn't land a true number one we at least added another true deep threat and a real Edelmand/Welker style slot receiver. Foster and Brown can take the top off and keep safeties honest giving opportunities for Beasely, Zay, and our run game. 5
Recommended Posts