Re: "Thumbs UP"....NM

Quote
wv ram

Quote
zn

Quote
laram
2016 season:

Mike Wallace - 72 recs 1,017yds

Kenny Britt - 68 recs 1,002yds

Tyrel Williams - 69 recs 1,059yds

Terrelle Pryor - 77 recs 1,077yds

Brandin Cooks - 78 recs 1.173yds

Emmanuel Sanders - 79 recs 1,032yds

Pierre Garcon - 79 recs 1,041

Larry Fitzgerald - 107 recs 1,023yds

Doug Baldwin - 94 recs 1,128yds

Golden Tate - 91 recs 1,077yds

Jarvis Landry - 94 recs 1,136yds

Who on this list would you consider a #1 receiver TODAY?

Different game...different criteria.

This is just a simple difference of definitions.

When you say "are these guys #1s?" you are asking "are they elite or special at the level of physical talent?" Or something like that.

My view is, you don't have to be an elite WR to be a #1---a #1 is someone who has enough skill and talent and tenacity to be consistently, reliably productive.

So when you ask "are all these guys #1s" given your own definition, the answer is no.

Given my definition, the answer is yes.

The key for me is steady consistent production, I say 70 catches/1000 yards as a convenient cut-off point to measure that.

The question then becomes, to me anyway, what does a guy need to have and do as a player, mentally as well as physically, to be among the 20 or so WRs in the league with 160-200 or so active receivers who produces at that level at any given year? Because it doesn't just happen. Not every guy can be counted on to come through at that consistent level.

The difference will always get down to our definitions.

For you #1 is elite, a gifted talent who stand above all the others and is capable of dominating.

For me a #1 is any guy, elite or not, who can come through in terms of production. As I put it, most elite WRs are #1s but not every #1 is elite.

So when you present your list, you're basically going, are all these guys truely elite players?

But to me, that list just names the guys, elite or not, who made the standard by being consistently productive week in and out.

So to me yes Woods can become one of those guys...I think it's possible. By my definition of a #1, that is,.

,,

================

Thing is, 1000 yards sure seems like it means a lot less than it used to. To me, what yer describing is more like "good, solid WR". So, I dunno why you use the term "No.1" because that usually seems reserved for "elite WRs". Not that it matters. You can define it however you want, obviously.

But it sure seems like your definition of no.1 is equivalent to a "B" level WR. Which is fine.

Do you have a definition for "No.1 RB" ? Just curious.

btw, I kinda assume one of your points is -- you can win with "good solid WRs". You dont 'have' to have an elite guy.

w
v