Importance of the Wide Receiver position - New England Patriots Forums

SVN · 10-04-2006, 05:25 PM

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...043&Category=1

***MoLewisrocks*** · 10-04-2006, 06:31 PM

I have a feeling BB figured this out a long, long time ago. That's why of all the positions he will not overpay for, WR probably tops the list. It is also why he prefers even while not overpaying for them that his WR's do more than just run fast and catch the ball.

HAMMERMILL · 10-04-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVN

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...043&Category=1

Have to slightly disagree,
Teri Hatcher's breast are not SPECTACULAR anymore,Still darn good but not spectacular

The rest of the articule is exactually what the pats have been saying(in their actions) for awhile.

RayClay · 10-04-2006, 06:39 PM

I need to save that. It's almost too much fun to read.

And I might have grounds for a law suit. OK, who's been reading my posts that works for CHF?

SamBam39 · 10-04-2006, 07:58 PM

that is a spectacular article.

it really makes you realize how deceptive all the hype is.

this is why BB has no patience with the media.

they have no idea what he's doing and he's not inclined to explain it to them, giving away his knowledge.

this is why nobody can understand why the pats win. they don't have the big flashy stat men. it's why everyone is enamored with manning - stat boy.

they don't see what that article just showed!
awesome!

JoeSixPat · 10-04-2006, 09:32 PM

Actually this was not one of the better Cold Hard Football Facts articles I've read before

The only fact they've presented is that having great, good, or bad WRs doesn't necessarilly translate into SB rings.

Duh! It's a team sport last I checked - and that in and of itself undermines the notion that the WR position is unnecessary.

Quote:

The truth is this: Wide receiver is the most overrated â€“ and arguably most useless â€“ position on the football field. A lot of things need to go right before a wideout even touches the ball. The coach needs to call his number. The line needs to block well. The quarterback may or may not look his way â€“ and if he does, he still has to deliver an accurate pass. Receivers do little on their own.

In the big scheme of things on a football field, wide receivers are not very important. Itâ€™s just that the few times in a game they do make a play, itâ€™s usually pretty spectacular.

This is a test from CHFF isn't it? Just seeing how gullible readers are?

I mean, eliminate the WR position as they "suggest" - instead of requiring CBs and Safeties to worry about what's happening 30-40 yards, let's just collapse coverage in the 0-20 yard range and see how offenses do.

They've completely missed the point that a WR doesn't actually need to catch a pass every play to be effective... they just need to make a catch "a few times a game" as they say in order to keep defenses honest and free up the short to mid-range game.

Am I speaking gibberish here? Or am I the only one who understands the role that WRs play in stretching the defense?

The fact that they'd lump the Titans and the Colts together to make the point that WR is over-rated should indicate that they've over-reached on this one.

We all know that Indy has great WRs - and have much success because of it. But to say that Indy hasn't won a SB because they've put too much stock in WRs is WAY off the mark as most Patriots fans should agree.

spidey2559 · 10-04-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeSixPat

Actually this was not one of the better Cold Hard Football Facts articles I've read before

The only fact they've presented is that having great, good, or bad WRs doesn't necessarilly translate into SB rings.

Duh! It's a team sport last I checked - and that in and of itself undermines the notion that the WR position is unnecessary.

This is a test from CHFF isn't it? Just seeing how gullible readers are?

I mean, eliminate the WR position as they "suggest" - instead of requiring CBs and Safeties to worry about what's happening 30-40 yards, let's just collapse coverage in the 0-20 yard range and see how offenses do.

They've completely missed the point that a WR doesn't actually need to catch a pass every play to be effective... they just need to make a catch "a few times a game" as they say in order to keep defenses honest and free up the short to mid-range game.

Am I speaking gibberish here? Or am I the only one who understands the role that WRs play in stretching the defense?

The fact that they'd lump the Titans and the Colts together to make the point that WR is over-rated should indicate that they've over-reached on this one.

We all know that Indy has great WRs - and have much success because of it. But to say that Indy hasn't won a SB because they've put too much stock in WRs is WAY off the mark as most Patriots fans should agree.

Well Said.....sometimes our fans treat any media article as near gospel....

Parker · 10-04-2006, 10:07 PM

loved the article. really puts the Pats situation into a perspective.
David Givens at 5m per is insanity.

***Mike the Brit*** · 10-04-2006, 10:14 PM

I agree too, Joe.

First they give some examples of successful teams that have had poor wide receivers and some examples of poor teams with successful wide receivers. Big deal, indeed! Absent a proper analysis this means nothing (yes, there are people who smoke and don't get lung cancer and people who don't smoke that do ...)

Then they simply go with the number of catches receivers have made as an indicator of value. But think of this. Might it not be true -- indeed, isn't it likely to be true -- that good players in good teams will be less likely to play a dominant role statistically because those teams will have a more varied offense? But that doesn't mean that those receivers aren't valuable.

No single player can carry a football team on his back individually. That's the nature of the game. But wide receivers are obviously more dependent than most -- not just on their quarterback but, in turn, on the offensive line (and, indeed, on the offense having enough other weapons to ensure that the defense has to distribute its resources).

I'm a fan too and I love CHFF -- but this article isn't Cold Hard Football Facts but Hot Wet Fan Emotions ("Deion Branch! Deion Branch! We don't need no stinkin' Deion Branch!")

Wotan_the_Wanderer · 10-04-2006, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeSixPat

Am I speaking gibberish here? Or am I the only one who understands the role that WRs play in stretching the defense?

No, you're not the only one. To further your point, it's not just about stretching the defense. How quickly we've forgotten the Denver game. Not only did we lack the ability to stretch the defense and thus enabled Denver to defense a smaller playing field, that smaller field became even smaller when Bailey effectively took away the offense's right flank. A military that missing artillary and a right flank is doomed even before the battle's ever waged.

Also, I'm a bit baffled as to how the writers of the article would explain the following:

- In seven drafts with the Patriots, BB has drafted a total of 5 WRs. Three out of these five have been in the second round.

- In his tenture with the Browns, BB drafted Derrick Alexander with the #29th overall pick and Patrick Rowe in the second round.

A history of investing high first day picks on WRs hardly indicates that BB's in agreement with the "wide receiver is the most overrated â€“ and arguably most useless â€“ position on the football field" assertion. IOW, why waste high draft picks on a useless position when he could have elected to just keep drafting receivers in the sixth round with the expectation that another Givens or Michael Jackson would eventually be found.