Quote
zn

Quote
Flipper336

Quote
zn

I AM going there.

By my definition the #1 WR has to be consistently productive enough to get you both 70 catches and 1000 yards. "#1" is not "elite"--you can have guys who come through as #1 WR types who are not elite, it happens all the time.

And it doesn't matter how they do it, where they line up, their style or body type or skill set. Just this--if you use the guy to best advantage and set him up to use his strengths, can he be a #1 WR? On Woods I say yes. He is capable of that. Can he be a Garcon, Edelman, Baldwin, or Tate? Not talking body type, talent set, or where he lines up, how he is used—just talking about a certain level of reliable production that you can count on consistently.

Yes he can be that, I think it's clear he can be that.

So mostly we agree here.

...

So about 4-5 catches and 63 yards per game = Star?

Ehhh, I disagree

There are a lot of ways to view this. Constructive disagreement is always interesting. But to answer your question, no I don't think 4-5 + 63 = a star. That does however equal the basic level of production for a solid consistent #1 WR by my definition, which is based on production. If you look at the top 12 passing teams in the league, they all have a guy like that. If you just look at the top 12 OFFENSES in the league (not simply passing offenses), only 2 did not have a guy who met that minimal standard last year...but in both cases (Dallas and Buffalo) they were at the bottom of the league in passing attempts (Dallas 30th, Buffalo 32nd).