Quote
Flipper336
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).
[
www.espn.com]
Simply look at the top 35 WRs. So no, there are not a lot of ways to view average and average does not = #1 WR
Your threshold may have worked in the 70s but in today's NFL 4-5 catches and 63 yards per game is meh...any way you try to dress it up.
Brandon Lafell was just a tick off....Brandon....La....fell
My numbers were 70 receptions AND 1000 yards. 24 receivers did that, though I am counting two that got 68 and 69 catches respectively and one that got 997 yards, cause, close enough.
[
www.pro-football-reference.com]
My whole point is to not mix up what is "elite" and what is a "#1". So the fact that it is fairly common is just fine with me.
See if I am separating the concept of an elite receiver from a concept of a productive #1 receiver, then it's no argument against that to say a lot did it. Sure. Why not. Means #1 types by my definition come in all shapes sizes and types. That's the whole point.
Most elite receivers are #1s but not all #1 WRs are elite.
And yes there is nothing rare about them. Would everyone rather have Julio Jones? Sure. But. There's a couple dozen guys in the league, and probably a few more than that, who can be used to get reliable, consistent, regular production without being Julio Jones.
Only 2 of the top 12 total offenses last year did not have a guy who achieved that, but they were also both ranked low in attempts: Dallas at 30 and Buffalo and 32.
BTW by turning it into 4-5 + 63, you miss part of the point...the guy has to play most of the of games because part of the point here is to look at consistent, reliable production. There are guys who got 4-5 + 63 but not 70 + 1000 because they missed games.
...
.
..
...
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2017 07:38AM by zn.