Is having a #1 WR that important or just good to have?

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

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.

 

 Not arguing the first part. Of course it can be done. Just don’t know why anyone would prefer to not have a #1 WR. I see some people saying “#1 WR and nothing but scrubs after that” which isn’t the question

 

Kelvin Benjamin had 1,000 yards as a rookie. Funny how the 1,000 yard pace logic is thrown out when you mention Sammy Watkins. 

[Alphadawg7]

21 hours ago, Limeaid said:

There is an article in Foebes on WRs. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtisrush/2019/07/08/the-buffalo-bills-dont-have-a-true-no-1-receiver-so-whats-the-big-deal/#4e432bb56727

Some of it is economic:

He put Sammy in same sentence as word elite without mentioning availability or rehab and that is tough! Of course  6' 2" Robert Foster and Zay Jones will not get mentioned based on rookie contracts.

 

Some of which is percentage caught which I think is most important.

 

I think availability is also very important, when you spend most of your time being rehabbed you cannot be catching the ball  - Beasley was available 93 of 96 games.

 

If you depend on a #1 WR I think you are more vulnerable.  Andre was #1 WR for Bills but it teams slanted coverage to him too much Bills could beat teams with other players.  Unlike Cole he played a lot over the middle but he was a big WR like Foster and Jones (he was at our tailgate but he did not seem much bigger than me, maybe his body is compressing as he gets older).  He always was available playing in 234 games and missed most games year he was injured before contract year.  He also played in 21 playoff games.  If a team has a dominant #1 WR it can lose its identity without the player.

 

All teams have a #1 WR...just some teams use them differently and some teams have better and worse ones.  Calvin Johnson was force fed the ball...while say Russell Wilson spread the ball around a lot instead of just force feeding Baldwin for example.  

 

I expect our offense to look a lot like Seattles has.  Dangerous QB behind center with his arm and legs, a good run game overall, and spreading the ball to the open spots while being able to still put deep ball pressure on most pass plays.  

[John from Riverside]

5 hours 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. 

So what do teams do that dont have an elite WR?   There are only so many of them to go around in the league......do they just pack up shop and go home?

 

There are some good WR's on this team

[Chicken Boo]

18 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

At best it is good to have. QB makes the WR not the other way around.

 

In a perfect world, maybe.  Tell that to Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, AJ Green, etc.

 

I believe this is going to be a problem for the Bills this season.  It's inevitable.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Chicken Boo

[John from Riverside]

Just now, ScottLaw said:

Not sure what your point is John.

 

There are a lot of good WRs in the league. Only a few I would consider elite. 

 

If you look at the Bills recievers they have a couple borderline #2 recievers, and some average to below average ones behind them with Foster being the wild card. 

 

As of right now who would you consider a "good" WR? Beasley is arguably the only one at this point and he's a best a solid #2 on most teams.

 

I would determine a legit 2 to be a "good wr"

I also consider Foster to the be wild card.....although in the second half of the season Foster put up numbers comparable to a number 1 receiver....and was a rookie.

That is the guy on this team I think could end up being a legit 1

[3rdand12]

7 hours ago, MJS said:

Yes, I agree. Looking at the offense we don't have an elite player at any position, except for perhaps center if we are counting him elite. McCoy was, but probably isn't anymore. Same with Gore. Allen certainly isn't elite (yet). So yeah, I don't think the offense is going to be anything special, but it doesn't have to be.

 

On defense, however, we have some prospects. Tre White, Micah Hyde, perhaps Matt Milano and/or Trumaine Edmunds eventually. Ed Oliver could be elite one day. That defense is going somewhere quickly. I still think we are a few pieces away on offense.

 

And it might always be that way. Tough to have a really good offense AND a really good defense. Not enough money to go around.

I think balance is better served when you have a very competent to very good QB and a solid coaching staff on both sides of the ball. if it comes to money ,you are not doing it holistically. Balance between second contracts and solid rookies.

 Teams can easily become unbalanced financially chasing number 1 anythings.

 If they develop one? Okey doke. sign him to his second contract but don't get locked up in one unless you love the guys for long time.

 Julio Jones is a good example of a player. Larry Fitz also comes to mind

[C.Biscuit97]

For Tom Brady, nope, it doesn’t matter.  But for Allen and most young QBs,  they should have too target.  You need a guy you can throw to with the game on the line.  You also need a guy who draws consistent double teams and is a person defenses have to key on every play.  I worry we don’t have that and that might hold his offense back. 

[3rdand12]

4 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

For Tom Brady, nope, it doesn’t matter.  But for Allen and most young QBs,  they should have too target.  You need a guy you can throw to with the game on the line.  You also need a guy who draws consistent double teams and is a person defenses have to key on every play.  I worry we don’t have that and that might hold his offense back. 

do not fret. it very well might be on the team right now. might be two or three honestly.. Guys Allen will gain trust with.

 More about Josh i might guess ?

 Even Shady and Gore will get open. will Allen keep his other eye on them as they get off the block ?

[C.Biscuit97]

3 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

All teams have a #1 WR...just some teams use them differently and some teams have better and worse ones.  Calvin Johnson was force fed the ball...while say Russell Wilson spread the ball around a lot instead of just force feeding Baldwin for example.  

 

I expect our offense to look a lot like Seattles has.  Dangerous QB behind center with his arm and legs, a good run game overall, and spreading the ball to the open spots while being able to still put deep ball pressure on most pass plays.  

I get where you’re coming from but Wilson was like a 70% passer in college and is a career 64%.  He’s pretty accurate and guys like that have an easier time spreading the ball around.

 

my fear is Daboll is trying to copy NE and Allen shouldn’t play the same way as Brady.  

32 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said:

do not fret. it very well might be on the team right now. might be two or three honestly.. Guys Allen will gain trust with.

 More about Josh i might guess ?

 Even Shady and Gore will get open. will Allen keep his other eye on them as they get off the block ?

Good point but they say it’s really tough for young QBs to train their eyes from looking certain places. Allen, for better or worse, wants to make a big play.  It will be an adjustment for him to look quickly down field and just take the short stuff.  It seems like it should be super easy but he’s been playing a certain way his whole life. 

[Doc]

5 hours ago, Chemical said:

 Not arguing the first part. Of course it can be done. Just don’t know why anyone would prefer to not have a #1 WR. I see some people saying “#1 WR and nothing but scrubs after that” which isn’t the question

 

Kelvin Benjamin had 1,000 yards as a rookie. Funny how the 1,000 yard pace logic is thrown out when you mention Sammy Watkins. 

 

No one is saying a team shouldn't try and get a #1 WR, ideally through the draft (which isn't assured).  The question is whether you need to have one.  And another issue to consider is that often-times available (i.e. in trade) WR's have personality issues.  I've said before that I'm fine with Brown and Beasley being 2 of the top-3 WR's and allowing Foster (and hopefully Jones) to become the Bills' own homegrown version of a #1 WR. 

 

As for Sammy and KB and 1,000 yards seasons, you only get so many seasons to show what you've got.  Neither has shown they can reliably get 1,000 yards, although at least Sammy has a chance to since KB appears to practically be out of the league.

 

[SoTier]

On 7/9/2019 at 6:45 PM, Limeaid said:

There is an article in Foebes on WRs. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtisrush/2019/07/08/the-buffalo-bills-dont-have-a-true-no-1-receiver-so-whats-the-big-deal/#4e432bb56727

Some of it is economic:

He put Sammy in same sentence as word elite without mentioning availability or rehab and that is tough! Of course  6' 2" Robert Foster and Zay Jones will not get mentioned based on rookie contracts.

 

Some of which is percentage caught which I think is most important.

 

I think availability is also very important, when you spend most of your time being rehabbed you cannot be catching the ball  - Beasley was available 93 of 96 games.

 

If you depend on a #1 WR I think you are more vulnerable.  Andre was #1 WR for Bills but it teams slanted coverage to him too much Bills could beat teams with other players.  Unlike Cole he played a lot over the middle but he was a big WR like Foster and Jones (he was at our tailgate but he did not seem much bigger than me, maybe his body is compressing as he gets older).  He always was available playing in 234 games and missed most games year he was injured before contract year.  He also played in 21 playoff games.  If a team has a dominant #1 WR it can lose its identity without the player.

 

Is this Curtis Rush guy the same guy who advocated a few months ago that regularly letting  proven franchise QBs walk in FA rather than paying them and replacing them with a rookie was a viable strategy for NFL teams?  IIRC, that article was from Forbes also.   It was a great justification for teams putting profitability ahead of winning, and this article on the importance of having a top WR (or in Rush's case, not having one) seems to be in the vein.  It works if $$$ is more important to a team than winning lots of games.

 

Teams have #1 WRs because they're weapons, which teams need to have if they're interested in winning a lot of games in the modern NFL.  You can make all the excuses you want for the Bills not having a top flight WR but don't pretend that it's "better"  for the Bills chances to win games to not have a WR of the caliber of Beckham, Bryant, Cooper, etc. on the team.

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by SoTier

[Bing Bong]

Depends on your definition of a WR1, I'd say conservatively it's a WR that can reasonably compete with the CB1s in the league. I certainly want my wideout to be able to beat the other teams CB1 for some chunk yards just a few times a game. If your WR1 is getting his *** waxed by most of his matchups, like a scrub against prime Revis, in the league we're going to have forced throws to a dude like Kelvin who can't get open, cause several lost downs, likely a pick, take targets from WRs that match up better, all sorts of shenanigans.

 

We need a WR1 better than whoever it was 2 years ago. A certain level of talent is necessary. Past that the better your guy gets is economic, but it certainly becomes a strength that can factor for wins for any given team. I don't think Kurt Warner's Cardinals even win their first playoff game when they made the SB without Larry Fitz.

 

Teams just have strengths in certain position groups, all with unique rosters, and need the strong position groups to have an impact. WR can be one of them and I've seen teams loaded like that be successful. But it just as well could be your OL making the biggest impact. And these groups are where the vast majority of your money is going to go. So as far as salary goes I think every position, including WR, gets paid appropriately for their impact... it's hard to imagine a free market in sports with a salary cap being nothing but ultra efficient. It's a free market, teams are cutthroat competitive, they are all given equal money to spend, they have tons of highly paid staff, and inevitably all 30 teams have jointly determined the worth of a top WR1. And if he's performing to his salary and the teams builds the right roster otherwise with a large contract tied to WR, that team can most definitely be successful.

 

As with any group, you'll be complete crap if the WR position is a true net negative to your team.. which it was 2 years ago. There's a bare minimum you need to hit at OL, LBs, QB whatever to not have them drag your stronger groups to the mud. We had that 2 years ago and it hurt my eyes.

 

It's all about how you use your assets. Some highly paid pieces on a football team are a waste with ill fitting personnel. I think Josh Allen needs speedy WRs, not slow jump ball lugs. Maximize that synergy if the best fit possible is there.. the money's worth it if JA's throwing a Steve Smith Sr type 1400 yards a year.

Edited July 11, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[BarleyNY]

On 7/10/2019 at 3:19 PM, Jauronimo said:

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.

 

 

 

Gotta agree with that.  I can’t believe that he actually wrote that the Steelers had AB, but failed to make the playoffs.  He kind of neglected the fact that they made it every other year he played there.  He also didn’t bring up players like Tyreek Hill.  And he neglected to note that while the Patriots don’t have a true #1 WR they have possibly the best QB ever on the team.  So yeah, lots of ways to skin a cat.  A stud WR sure does help.

 

I do think the relative VALUE of a stud WR can be argued, but the Forbes guy didn’t really go down that road.  He just made a logically invalid argument by picking and choosing examples that fit his hypothesis. 

 

The 2020 draft looks like a really good one for WRs so hopefully we can snag a great one.

Edited July 12, 2019 by BarleyNY

[GreggTX]

If it means you are simply adding a better WR to your roster, then yes. You're adding talent. Use it wisely. Call it what you will.

[NoSaint]

On 7/9/2019 at 5:45 PM, Limeaid said:

There is an article in Foebes on WRs. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtisrush/2019/07/08/the-buffalo-bills-dont-have-a-true-no-1-receiver-so-whats-the-big-deal/#4e432bb56727

Some of it is economic:

He put Sammy in same sentence as word elite without mentioning availability or rehab and that is tough! Of course  6' 2" Robert Foster and Zay Jones will not get mentioned based on rookie contracts.

 

Some of which is percentage caught which I think is most important.

 

I think availability is also very important, when you spend most of your time being rehabbed you cannot be catching the ball  - Beasley was available 93 of 96 games.

 

If you depend on a #1 WR I think you are more vulnerable.  Andre was #1 WR for Bills but it teams slanted coverage to him too much Bills could beat teams with other players.  Unlike Cole he played a lot over the middle but he was a big WR like Foster and Jones (he was at our tailgate but he did not seem much bigger than me, maybe his body is compressing as he gets older).  He always was available playing in 234 games and missed most games year he was injured before contract year.  He also played in 21 playoff games.  If a team has a dominant #1 WR it can lose its identity without the player.

 

You need a deep bench at WR, especially without an established QB. You are better if one of those is an elite impact player.

 

Comparing injuries and catch percentage between a guy that’s often getting more targets than the other gets catches and those targets being twice as far down field in heavier coverage is a fools errand though.

[WideNine]

On 7/9/2019 at 6:26 PM, Jauronimo said:

Its asinine to make diminish the impact of OBJ, AB, Julio, AJ Green based on playoff appearances.  

 

 

 

Dunno,  I would definitely add playoffs and championships won as part of any pro-athletes resume and impact analysis. I mean that is why they are paid millions of dollars, to help their teams win games not to pad stats.

 

As great as our SB Bills teams were, those players will always be rated lower than players with similar stats on teams that won the big game - it is just the way winning and losing either adds to or diminishes the perception of a player's impact on the game.

 

In today's spread offenses I think the concept of a number 1 receiver is giving way to role players ala NE and New Orleans. Just scheming guys open, whether they are slot, perimeter, seam, or RBs releasing. I wonder how much it would change their offense for a team like New Orleans, that likes to dink and dunk down the field, to have a stud player like Julio Jones? Would he be featured less and have less yards than he has had with Atlanta?

 

I think good teams with solid QBs make good receivers look great without tying up significant cap signing so-called "elite" receivers. On poor teams elite receivers often disappear and the prima donnas tend to implode. It will be interesting to see how AB fares this year and how the Steelers perform without him.

 

 

[Saxum]

3 hours ago, GreggTX said:

If it means you are simply adding a better WR to your roster, then yes. You're adding talent. Use it wisely. Call it what you will.

It depends on what else you can do with they money.  It is a zero sum game and previous GM tried to spend future money to get results and it did not work.

 

If you sign Lammy for $16 million a year to play WR and he gets hurt you are in a world of hurt.

[Stank_Nasty]

40 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Dunno,  I would definitely add playoffs and championships won as part of any pro-athletes resume and impact analysis. I mean that is why they are paid millions of dollars, to help their teams win games not to pad stats.

 

As great as our SB Bills teams were, those players will always be rated lower than players with similar stats on teams that won the big game - it is just the way winning and losing either adds to or diminishes the perception of a player's impact on the game.

 

In today's spread offenses I think the concept of a number 1 receiver is giving way to role players ala NE and New Orleans. Just scheming guys open, whether they are slot, perimeter, seam, or RBs releasing. I wonder how much it would change their offense for a team like New Orleans, that likes to dink and dunk down the field, to have a stud player like Julio Jones? Would he be featured less and have less yards than he has had with Atlanta?

 

I think good teams with solid QBs make good receivers look great without tying up significant cap signing so-called "elite" receivers. On poor teams elite receivers often disappear and the prima donnas tend to implode. It will be interesting to see how AB fares this year and how the Steelers perform without him.

 

 

The saints Michael Thomas has absolutely been elite the last 2 seasons. And it’s no coincidence they’ll also had absurdly good teams. He and kamara gave that offense another gear. It’s taken freak occurrences to keep them from the title game. 

 

Also Julio Jones was absolutely one of the main reasons the falcons marched to the Super Bowl in 16. He had a phenomenal playoff run and A phenomenal catch in the Super Bowl that all gets overshadowed due to AWFUL field position awareness and clock management by the coaching staff. 

 

Teams can win without and elite #1 but there are plenty of examples of teams with top tier wr’s helping them to a title or right to the cusp. 

[Jauronimo]

11 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

Dunno,  I would definitely add playoffs and championships won as part of any pro-athletes resume and impact analysis. I mean that is why they are paid millions of dollars, to help their teams win games not to pad stats.

 

As great as our SB Bills teams were, those players will always be rated lower than players with similar stats on teams that won the big game - it is just the way winning and losing either adds to or diminishes the perception of a player's impact on the game.

 

In today's spread offenses I think the concept of a number 1 receiver is giving way to role players ala NE and New Orleans. Just scheming guys open, whether they are slot, perimeter, seam, or RBs releasing. I wonder how much it would change their offense for a team like New Orleans, that likes to dink and dunk down the field, to have a stud player like Julio Jones? Would he be featured less and have less yards than he has had with Atlanta?

 

I think good teams with solid QBs make good receivers look great without tying up significant cap signing so-called "elite" receivers. On poor teams elite receivers often disappear and the prima donnas tend to implode. It will be interesting to see how AB fares this year and how the Steelers perform without him.

 

 

Thats fair and makes sense. What doesn't make sense is arguing that "having an Andre, Bruce, Thurman, and Talley isn't even important cause they didn't win the super bowl and some years didn't make the playoffs".

[dave mcbride]

I'll try and put this in material terms so that everyone can understand a top-dog receiver's importance: Plaxico Burress. Burress, drafted 8th overall, was an absolute stud -- just incredibly physically talented --  and once he became a full-time starter in 2001, the Pittsburgh offense took off, going from 18th to 3rd in yardage in one season. They got to the championship game that season and lost to the Pats. They lost in a shootout in the second round of the playoffs the next season (34-31 in OT; Pittsburgh never saw the ball in OT because they lost the toss), but Burress was a great performer in the postseason in both of those seasons. He missed some time the next season (2004), but still had a solid postseason. The Pats lost to the Steelers in the championship game, but that was a game in which spygate was in full force. He then went to the Giants in 2005, and the Giants went to the playoffs (11-5) and finished 4th in yardage (Burress put up big numbers that season). They had finished 23rd the year before and went 6-10.  Clearly, he had an impact. In 2007, you know the story. He had another excellent season (over 1000 yards), performed well in the playoffs, and made the game-winning TD catch vs the 16-0 Pats. After that, he shot himself on the dance floor, but that doesn't detract from his impact. 

Edited July 12, 2019 by dave mcbride