clarifying all this

Quote
laram
Dez Bryant is a perfect example IMO of why your formula is faulty.

Dez Bryant is a #1 receiver by any measurement.

He has been as important and possibly next to Jason Witten has made more big plays than anyone on the team.

Dez was coming off an injury plagued season where he only played in 9 games.

Last season he missed the first 3 games and played in 13 games with only 50 resc for 796 yards.

BUT in the playoffs where it was one and done, he had 9 recs 132 yards and 2 TD's.

He is a #1 receiver by any measurement!

Your comments on Dallas are a perfect example of how we're talking past one another.

First, I was talking just about receivers and how to define them. I wasn't referring to backs or TEs. That might be part of a larger conversation, but still, the issue remains---when talking about receivers, who is regarded as a #1? Asking that does not imply that receivers are the only ball catchers in the NFL or even in all cases the most important.

Second, whenever you use the term "#1 receiver" YOU MEAN AN ELITE RECEIVER. Which is fine with me, except, you also act as if I were using the term the same way.

So a conversation that looks like this...YOU: Is he a #1? Yes he's a #1, you said he's not a #1.

Is really this...YOU: Is he elite? Yes he is elite, you said he's not elite.

But I did not say he wasn't elite. I assume Bryant IS elite.

I am using the term #1 an entirely different way.

I define a #1 receiver by production. I set a particular standard and ask if a player meets it. This approach for me de-mystifies the entire thing about lead receivers, because often teams find ways to use tenacious, dedicated non-elite receivers in ways that are central to their offense. Look at Baldwin in Seattle or Tate in Detroit. Asking if a guy is elite is an entirely different issue.

So if you asked m,e, do you consider Bryant elite I would say sure, absolutely. But I would add that although he did not have #1 WR production in 2016, he still produced in the playoffs, because he is elite.

So we're just using different definitions to say different things.

My approach allows me to say something like this: no not every good offense needs an elite receiver. But 10 out of 12 playoff teams had a #1 receiver in the sense I am defining and using that term.

As I keep saying, most if not all elite receivers are #1s, but not all #1s are elites.



...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2017 07:30AM by zn.