Re: Can Woods be a #1? Depends on what you mean by that (long)

Quote
zn
This is admittedly an old topic but it's the slow time so what the heck.

You can have a highly talented, productive WR who is elite or near elite and you look at him and say, that guy is or could be a #1. What about a guy who is not draft-day obvious elite but has enough skill to play in the NFL. Can he be a #1? To me yes, because I define that in terms of production, not in terms of the scouting report alone. As I say sometimes, elite WRs are usually #1s but not every #1 is elite.

I set the bar at 70 catches minimum plus 1000 yards minimum. According to the "#1 is talent level" approach, someone like Doug Baldwin in Seattle was always a bit more more marginal. His skill set may not be elite compared to the short list of top receivers, but apparently he had a number of things going for him. A guy like that, who can be more average in terms of talent, can have the mindset, dedication, work ethic, instincts, sense of the game, and inner steadiness to became an actual #1 as I define it. The offense recognizes this and builds some things around what he is good at, and puts him in a position to come through. So with that opportunity he provides consistent, regular, reliable production, and the numbers add up. Baldwin finally did that in his 5th year (78 catches, 1069 yards). Maybe it took some experience, some more focus or working on his game, some growing confidence or whatever. So then what happens is, however people rate his talent level or overall skill set, still, the team sees he can do it, they give him the opportunity by building on what he can do well, and he seizes it and comes through.I am pretty sure if Seattle had Julio Jones their offense would look different. But they saw what Baldwin COULD do---the things he was good at--and programmed that into their attack, and he did come through. You play to his strengths, and to the things he CAN do, which you know he will do consistently well, and just set him up to make catches, every now and then throwing in a type of play you know defenses don't expect from him (like the long pass Bradford threw to Amendola in the 1st 2012 SF game, the one they tied...a pass if I remember correctly that got called back.)

So if all I had in the receiving corps was Troy Brown, I would go--okay, what can he do for us, how do we make this work, how do we build what he IS capable of doing consistently well into the offensive attack. And sure enough, after years of flying under the radar, he has a season like 2001 where he catches 101 for 1199. #1 territory, as I am defining it. Just regular consistent production. It;s true that a lot of other guys with less than elite talent, just like Brown, could not be trusted to come through like that. He could. AND YET, at the same time, if I had Brown and could trade for Isaac Bruce, I would do it in an instant. You always want more elite talent. Doesn't mean though that you can't get #1 level production out of guys who may not get rated that high on draft day.

With this approach, by the way, a player can make the standard one year and not another. I just say he was a #1 in the year he did it. My definition allows for guys who drift in and out of the limelight that way.

Anyway.

Can Woods be that? A number #1 by THIS definition? In theory, yes. I am not promising or predicting it but I do think it's possible.

Here;'s a hint of that.

Woods played 13 games in 2016 and had decently modest numbers: 51 receptions on 76 targets (67.1%) and a YPR of 8.07. Granted that was for a predominantly running offense that was 32nd in passing attempts, plus they had traded up for Watkins who is clearly the more dynamic guy in terms of overall talent and he got most of the targets.

But how did Woods play without Watkins?

Last year Watkins was out for games 3-9. (Their bye week was week 10.) Woods played games 1-13. So that's 7 games where Woods played and Watkins didn't.

In the 6 games where both Woods and Watkins played, Woods averaged 3.8 targets per game. But in the games without Watkins, Woods averaged 8 targets per game. With Watkins playing too, Woods averaged 25 yards a game. Without Watkins, he averaged 66 yards a game.

All that suggests to me that he can make the 70/1000 standard with the Rams, since he will be the veteran receiver and he has that kind of mindset. Plus he wants it.

It would be nice, anyway.

..
...