Gosselin: Route to Super Bowl doesn't require star receiver - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***Mike the Brit*** · 07-20-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unoriginal

He uses the plural multiple times and deploys "Top 30" in receiving as a stat in the article. What else could he possibly be trying to measure in a 32 team league other than good receivers in general?

Not the way I read this article at all. Have a look at the following paragraph:

"In 1995, when the Cowboys won their last Super Bowl, Irvin caught 111 passes. Kevin Williams, the other starting wide receiver, caught only 38 balls. But those days of offensive imbalance are over. The formula for success in today's NFL is run the ball, play defense and spread it around in the passing game."

Seems to me that it's all about Jerry Jones' (alleged) obsession with a superstar number one receiver.

TrueBeliever · 07-20-2009, 02:59 PM

When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was "The dad from Jon & Kate Plus 8 is writing a sports column now?"

***BradyFTW!*** · 07-20-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike the Brit

I think your post is a bit beside the point. Gosselin's article wasn't about the importance of wide receivers in general but, specifically, about the importance of having a single, outstanding wide receiver.

So your examples of Wayne and Harrison and Holmes and Ward could actually make Gosselin's point -- much better to have two very good wide receivers than one outstanding one and one who is mediocre. It might well be that wide receivers as a whole have become more important while the relative importance of the number one receiver has diminished.

Why would you want an outstanding wide receiver? I think for two reason: he could make plays that no one else would make and he would force changes to the defense. The plays that you really need are on third down and in the red zone. I don't have statistics, but it strikes me that the two best third-down/red zone offenses I've seen in recent years (Patriots and Colts) have been the result of quarterbacks who are very flexible at changing plays and switching targets rather than a single dominant player. On the other hand, it may well be true that a really exceptional player (Randy!) can force a defense to open up elsewhere, if he demands consistent double coverage or deep safety help. But then again you have to be able to take advantage of that with your quarterback using other receivers.

(In the end, I'm not completely convinced by Gosselin's article either, but if he's having a pop at Jerry Jones that's all right by me.)

True, but the premise that I interpreted him to be driving at by citing Baltimore and New England was that you don't need a single star-caliber receiver. My response was to indicate that, if anything, you can make the argument that it is now necessary to have two star-caliber receivers.

***Mike the Brit*** · 07-20-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

True, but the premise that I interpreted him to be driving at by citing Baltimore and New England was that you don't need a single star-caliber receiver. My response was to indicate that, if anything, you can make the argument that it is now necessary to have two star-caliber receivers.

Yes. That's the interesting question. And difficult to answer. It depends what you mean by "star-calibre". You certainly need depth in the receiver corps, but there is also some indication that with wide receiver (like running back) there is a long tail of talent available (guys like Jabar Gaffney being out of the league). So you may not need to spend big to have a strong group of receivers overall.

***AndyJohnson*** · 07-20-2009, 04:07 PM

I wonder how much the lack of top flight WRs on SB Champs coincides with the era of the WR as the Center of Attention Prima Dona, Look at ME I AM The Team?
Troy Brown and Marvin Harrison listed as the only 2 ProBowl WRs with rings stands out, huh?
Its a chicken or egg argument, but I think guys like TO and OchoNachos contribute as much to their teams failing to be Championship TEAMS as they contribute to putting points on the board.

Snake Eyes · 07-20-2009, 05:55 PM

This is related to the other thread, debating whether the over-reliance on the explosive passing game does not often lead to championship rings.

Since your team probably won't be perfect in every way would you agree with the theory that a team that is built from the line out will probably win v. one that has issues with their line?

***maverick4*** · 07-20-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I wonder how much the lack of top flight WRs on SB Champs coincides with the era of the WR as the Center of Attention Prima Dona, Look at ME I AM The Team?
Troy Brown and Marvin Harrison listed as the only 2 ProBowl WRs with rings stands out, huh?
Its a chicken or egg argument, but I think guys like TO and OchoNachos contribute as much to their teams failing to be Championship TEAMS as they contribute to putting points on the board.

Marvin has a ring because of the Pats and Bears choking. Troy was barely a pro bowler.

There aren't too many examples in NFL history of pass-first teams winning rings, relative to all years.

***maverick4*** · 07-20-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

This is related to the other thread, debating whether the over-reliance on the explosive passing game does not often lead to championship rings.

Since your team probably won't be perfect in every way would you agree with the theory that a team that is built from the line out will probably win v. one that has issues with their line?

Yes I would. On defense we've always emphasized winning the ground war, but on offense the past few years we've become a finesse team obsessed with explosive passing and stats. It's no coincidence we haven't won since 04 that way.

***BradyFTW!*** · 07-20-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I wonder how much the lack of top flight WRs on SB Champs coincides with the era of the WR as the Center of Attention Prima Dona, Look at ME I AM The Team?
Troy Brown and Marvin Harrison listed as the only 2 ProBowl WRs with rings stands out, huh?
Its a chicken or egg argument, but I think guys like TO and OchoNachos contribute as much to their teams failing to be Championship TEAMS as they contribute to putting points on the board.

IMO, it says a lot more about the Pro Bowl voting process than the types of WRs who contribute most to winning SBs.

***maverick4*** · 07-20-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

IMO, it says a lot more about the Pro Bowl voting process than the types of WRs who contribute most to winning SBs.

Why? Wide receiver isn't generally a position known to put in undeserving players, it's one of the most competitive spots to get into the pro bowl every year.