Definition of a #1 receiver

[oldmanfan]

I keep reading how we have to go find a true #1 WR.  That begs the question:  what is a #1 WR?  A guy that makes X catches a year?  Demands double teams?  What?

 

I ask because the team we keep trying to beat, the team who has won several Lombardis in recent years, doesn’t seem to have a #1 WR.  So how do they win?  They have a #1 TE.  Does that count?  Is so than can Kincaid count as ours?

[Maynard]

They do. His name is Travis Swift. 

[hondo in seattle]

I sometimes think the #1WR is overblown.

 

What if a team rotates 5 wideouts, none of whom surpass 1,000 yards.  But when you add in the TEs and backs, the offense still gains 5,000 yards through the air.  Do the fans then think: "Well, we would have had 6,000 yards if we had a true #1!"  

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, Maynard said:

They do. His name is Travis Swift. 

Travis Pfizer-Swift, actually. His daddy Taylor shares custody.

[Herc11]

A better term would be #1 target. As we know, Brady had Gronk and Pat had Kelce. They aren't WR, but they give the same benefit as a #1 WR. 

 

A true #1 target is someone another team has to scheme for. This person is open even when they are not open. Contested catches, reliable week in and week out. Routinely beats their coverage. They are going to get you 1200+ yards and ~10 TDs a year.

8 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

I sometimes think the #1WR is overblown.

 

What if a team rotates 5 wideouts, none of whom surpass 1,000 yards.  But when you add in the TEs and backs, the offense still gains 5,000 yards through the air.  Do the fans then think: "Well, we would have had 6,000 yards if we had a true #1!"  

 

Is there even any examples of this actually being done?

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Herc11 said:

A better term would be #1 target. As we know, Brady had Gronk and Pat had Kelce. They aren't WR, but they give the same benefit as a #1 WR. 

 

A true #1 target is someone another team has to scheme for. This person is open even when they are not open. Contested catches, reliable week in and week out. Routinely beats their coverage. They are going to get you 1200+ yards and ~10 TDs a year.

Sounds reasonable.  Maybe Kincaid is that guy.  Maybe Coleman is the guy who gets those contested catches.  

[sven233]

A #1 WR is a lot of things, but first and foremost he is a guy that strikes fear into the opposing team.  He's someone that coaches go to bed thinking about how to contain him, because he will never truly be stopped.  He's an alpha on the field and competes down in and down out.  Ideally, although a lead dog, he loves it when his route opens up another guy for a big play.  He is someone that impacts the game in a big way even on snaps he doesn't get the ball.  He's a guy that forces teams to put multiple sets of eyes on him every play and shifts coverage when he goes in motion.  He's a guy that wants the ball in big moments and the brighter the lights, the better he plays.  He makes big time plays at key moments.  To me, that is a #1 WR.  They may not always be WRs, though.....they could be TEs like Kelce that demand targets and can't be stopped in the passing game.  He may not be a WR, but he is a #1 playmaker/target.

Edited April 28 by sven233

[Low Positive]

6 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

Is there even any examples of this actually being done?

Ravens just this last year. No one had over 900 yards receiving and only Flowers had over 600. They won 13 games. It was Lamar that strikes the fear. https://www.espn.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/bal/baltimore-ravens

[JGMcD2]

8 minutes ago, Low Positive said:

Ravens just this last year. No one had over 900 yards receiving and only Flowers had over 600. They won 13 games. It was Lamar that strikes the fear. https://www.espn.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/bal/baltimore-ravens

Too bad nobody fears our QB… 

[McBean]

32 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I keep reading how we have to go find a true #1 WR.  That begs the question:  what is a #1 WR?  A guy that makes X catches a year?  Demands double teams?  What?

 

I ask because the team we keep trying to beat, the team who has won several Lombardis in recent years, doesn’t seem to have a #1 WR.  So how do they win?  They have a #1 TE.  Does that count?  Is so than can Kincaid count as ours?

 
look up Quintez Cephus on Wikipedia and there you will find the definition of a #1 WR.

[NewEra]

I agree that we don’t need a true elite WR if we have 5-6 good playmakers. Spread it out.  Makes it tougher to scheme against and you don’t have to worry about a diva wrecking the locker room

 

not saying I don’t want one. I do.  I just don’t think it’s needed to win a SB

[Success]

It's a futile obsession.

 

I want a #1 offense - not a #1 receiver.  We have 2 position units that have complimentary players to give even the best DC's nightmares - Tight End and Running Back.  And we have a solid O-line, and a very CAPABLE receiver corps, that has speed, good hands and versatility. And we still have a top 2 QB in the league.

 

This offense will be top 3-4 in the league.  I'm tired of the hand-wringing about the WR position, and not having a "true #1."  We almost beat the SB champs with our "true #1" barely showing up & dropping a game-changing pass.

 

Edited April 29 by Success

[Governor]

Randy Moss was the last true #1.

[BuffaloBillyG]

Man , this debate brings back memories of the whole Stevie Johnson..is he a TRUE #1 receiver or just the guy with the most targets debate from years ago😂

Edited April 29 by BuffaloBillyG

[LeGOATski]

13 minutes ago, Governor said:

Randy Moss was the last true #1.

Interesting

11 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

Man , this debate brings back memories of the whole Stevie Johnson..is he a TRUE #1 receiver or just the guy with the most targets debate from years ago😂

He was Darrelle Revis's worst nightmare. I think that tells you all you need to know bout that.

[Wizard]

A #1 receiver/TE is someone that consistently makes big plays and can have a 100 yards or a TD fairly regularly.

 

They can beat you with production, a big play, or a high pressure situation because they've done it before and everyone knows the QB is looking for them.

 

Their presence forces a defense to account for them often creating easier opportunities for others.

 

Diggs had the numbers of a #1, he had the right QB, but there was very little around him so the offense was usually a one-trick pony. Moulds or Evans  could have been but did not have the QB. Reed, Lofton, and Thurman Thomas made a 3 headed monster were all 3 could individually or collectively serve as a #1 in various games and matches with a QB.

 

There are few #1 WR's or TE's in the NFL, probably no more than 10-12 at a time.

 

#1's cause nightmares. Kelce always gets the first down. Hill can get a 50 yard TD anytime and get a 100+ any gain. Guys like Jefferson can make a good QB look like a 1st ballot HOFer.

 

Harrison Jr, Nabers, and Odunze all have the potential to be a #1. Brock Bowers if he gets a QB.

 

Brian Thomas looks like a possible #1 with the right coaching, work ethic, and an environment. Keon Coleman looks like a #1, really is a #3 right now, who with the right environment may become a solid #2 at his peak.

 

 

 

[Wizard]

36 minutes ago, Success said:

It's a futile obsession.

 

I want a #1 offense - not a #1 receiver.  We have 2 position units that have complimentary players to give even the best DC's nightmares - Tight End and Running Back.  And we have a solid O-line, and a very CAPABLE receiver corps, that has speed, good hands and versatility. And we still have a top 2 QB in the league.

 

This offense will be top 3-4 in the league.  I'm tired of the hand-wringing about the WR position, and not having a "true #1."  We almost beat the SB champs with our "true #1" barely showing up & dropping a game-changing pass.

 

Kincaid is very promising. Cook made a great leap in year #2. They are good. I hope I will be proven wrong, but they do not yet create nightmares for any DC. They could become that.

 

The only #1 is Allen right now.

 

Outside of Buffalo and sport stat fanatics, Cook and Kincaid do not register on the "scary good or elite" scale.

 

Kelce does. Mahomes does. Jones on their Defense does. Coach Reid does.

 

The reason why Bills want a #1 WR is that the margin of error is so small when you have only one (1) match up nightmare and the best teams have 2+.

Edited April 29 by Wizard

[Pete]

definition of a #1 WR is that the whole stadium knows that Josh is throwing to #1, and #1 still makes the play, they are unstoppable.  Diggs is no #1.  Kelce is.

Edited April 29 by Pete

[Herc11]

1 hour ago, Low Positive said:

Ravens just this last year. No one had over 900 yards receiving and only Flowers had over 600. They won 13 games. It was Lamar that strikes the fear. https://www.espn.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/bal/baltimore-ravens

He stated no one over 1k yards and the offense producing over 5k through the air. The Ravens did not produce more than 5k through the air. Their offense was a success as more a byproduct of Lamar running along with a run-first philosophy. Lamar barely hit 4k yards passing.

Edited April 29 by Herc11

[Bangarang]

You know what a #1 receiver is without having it defined for you. This is like asking what a franchise QB is and saying we could get by with a guy like Tyrod because Nick Foles won a SB at one point.