Gosselin: Route to Super Bowl doesn't require star receiver

[Box_O_Rocks]

Route to Super Bowl doesn't require star receiver | Rick Gosselin Columns | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News

Route to Super Bowl doesn't require star receiver

Rick Gosselin
01:12 AM CDT on Saturday, July 18, 2009

Jerry Jones has an obsession with wide receivers.

Understandably so. When Jones envisions a Super Bowl championship team, he envisions a Michael Irvin on the flank catching passes, scoring touchdowns and going to Pro Bowls.
-----
Quite simply, the game has changed – as have offensive priorities. The blue-chip wide receiver isn't as important in the championship equation as he was in the 1990s.
-----
When the New England Patriots won back-to-back titles in the 2003 and 2004 seasons, their top wideouts failed to crack the NFL's top 30 in receiving those seasons. Deion Branch finished 42nd in 2003 and David Givens 40th in 2004. Baltimore's top wideout in its 2000 championship season was Qadry Ismail, who finished 68th in the NFL.

Only two NFL champions in the 2000 decade lined up a Pro Bowl wide receiver in their Super Bowl seasons – Troy Brown for the Patriots in 2001 and Marvin Harrison for the Indianapolis Colts in 2006. The rest preferred quantity over quality on the flank.
-----
SLACKING OFF

[b]Comparing the numbers of the average top receiver on Super Bowl-winning teams 
from 1991-1999 to 2000-2008:[/b] 
Statistic              	1991-99 	2000-08 
Receptions                   83.2         	72.7 
Receiving yds.               1,264.1    	1,003.3 
Receiving TDs                9.3         	7 
Pro Bowls*                   5             	2

*Pro Bowls by team's top WR during each nine-year span

 

[JoeSixPat]

Hmmm - I wonder how much we could get in a trade for Moss.

 

[RDS11]

Hmmm - I wonder how much we could get in a trade for Moss.

He was worth a 4th rounder 2 years ago...so I guess we could get a 6th or maybe a late 5th for Moss today...

 

[patriot lifer]

...and Goose attempts to pacify the entire Cowboys fanbase.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

...and Goose attempts to pacify the entire Cowboys fanbase.

Actually I believe he was intending to educate or enlighten them. Because much like their owner/GM they are putting way too much emphasis on the state of their passing offense. Searching for ways to prove investing heavily in Romo wasn't a mistake. It was, and somehow Tuna knew that which is why he dragged his feet in that process.

Winning championships is all about balance and execution and competence (including on the sidelines).

Given the current makeup of this team even talking about championships ridiculous. You need to learn to walk before you run. Tuna was attempting to build a solid, disciplined foundation in Big D but Jerry has always been nothing if not impatient. He looks for shortcuts in the form of overhyped talent to either bridge the gaps or distract the fanbase from the real underlying disconnect - which is his ego. Drew and TO were mistakes born of that impatience. Tony Romo and Wade Phillips are what they are left with in it's wake. No WR is gonna salvage that.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

No WR is gonna salvage that.

Cynic, just one little Detroit cast-off and it's onto "New Orleans."

 

[BradyFTW!]

First off, he's going back and citing examples from 2004 and earlier- yes, this used to be true, but then Polian got the rules changed/reemphasized/whatever specifically to make WRs more effective. So now, all of a sudden, he can't find any examples for 2005 onward.

Plaxico/Ward, Wayne/Harrison, and Holmes/Ward all indicate that you need a very good pair of receivers. Hell, and in the last 2 years alone Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Anquan Boldin and Wes Welker have lined up for the losing SB team.

Pro Bowls are a pretty useless metric to use.

 

[unoriginal]

First off, he's going back and citing examples from 2004 and earlier- yes, this used to be true, but then Polian got the rules changed/reemphasized/whatever specifically to make WRs more effective. So now, all of a sudden, he can't find any examples for 2005 onward.

Plaxico/Ward, Wayne/Harrison, and Holmes/Ward all indicate that you need a very good pair of receivers. Hell, and in the last 2 years alone Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Anquan Boldin and Wes Welker have lined up for the losing SB team.

Pro Bowls are a pretty useless metric to use.

Agree with this. In this case, Gosselin's analysis isn't very penetrating.

 

[maverick4]

This alludes to the fact that while you do need a deep threat (basically, just having a balanced offense and the capability of doing anything), the potent passing games overly reliant on the pass don't really have a strong history of WINNING Superbowls.

 

[MarvLevy]

Haha. He's a good writer and part of the point is right, but if honestly thinks the Cowboys are better off with the underachieving Roy Williams than TO, he is was off base. Funny, I doubt this column was made before last season when the Boys were "Super Bowl contenders."

 

[BradyFTW!]

And if anyone wonders why he doesn't cite anything before 2000, it's because the point might have been sorta kinda true for a very brief 5 year stretch, but was patently false both before and after. 1999 Rams, 97-98 Broncos, 1996 Packers, 1994 49ers and threepeat Cowboys all had exceptional passing games with a clear #1 receiver. If you want to go back into the 80s, go ahead and ask how the Montana-Rice connection worked out for the 49ers. That, added to the 2005-2008 champions, just shows that the entire premise of this article goes far beyond flawed, and well out into the ridiculous. That's not to say that they didn't mostly have strong ground games, too, but the idea that you don't need a strong #1 receiver is historically false. Every single one of those teams had a clear #1 receiver in an extremely effective passing attack.

 

[patriot lifer]

Actually I believe he was intending to educate or enlighten them...

while that may be the case (point taken), I frequent the Cowboys Zone messageboard. wr is a big concern to the hardcore fanbase, which they are looking thin at.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Gosselin is among the refined cream of the crop of NFL writers. Anyone who pulls out a tired the-media-sux post over this column is probably just too dim to realize no one's perfect and/or has certainly never tried to be among the best at what they do day in day out. When Brady plays a bad game do we start saying he sucks?

Anyway, I agree with several here that think Mr. Gosselin has swung and missed on this one. Top WR's (assuming they have a decent QB) have lately made up for some serious shortcomings. The Cardinals had no running game for instance, and a mediocre defense. Plax (and Asante Samuel's two drops in the SB) made Eli a star. Likewise, the Colts WR's were the key to their SB along with Peyton. Welker and Moss took a lot of pressure off a D that had some major ups and downs. And I was never really convinced about Holmes until the SB (though I secretly still want to call him a BUM!! Sorry, it's the homer in me...)

 

[spacecrime]

I think he is generally right, that a star WR isn't needed, and that teams win without one.

He didn't say it was bad to have one, only that is wasn't necessary. Worst case is having a star WR.

I think that may be accurate, that teams relying on a star WR will falter. Better to have a solid 1WR-2WR combo, and even then, Moss-Welker weren't enough in and of themselves to overcome the Giants' DLine advantage.

 

[Deus Irae]

No position is a "Must have star!" position.

 

[maverick4]

I think that may be accurate, that teams relying on a star WR will falter. Better to have a solid 1WR-2WR combo, and even then, Moss-Welker weren't enough in and of themselves to overcome the Giants' DLine advantage.

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

 

[brdmaverick]

Not that the Steelers WR's posted incredible numbers last year, but the numbers would have been more skewed if the Titans finished the deal last season.

 

[brdmaverick]

The game certainly has changed, and I agree that a top tier receiver is no longer near the top of every team's list. Much in the way that the need for a franchise running back has been greatly diminished. We have seen too many guys ....A.) go down with injury and B.) come out of nowhere to produce better than 'big name' players. Committee's are the new fad.

 

[Mike the Brit]

First off, he's going back and citing examples from 2004 and earlier- yes, this used to be true, but then Polian got the rules changed/reemphasized/whatever specifically to make WRs more effective. So now, all of a sudden, he can't find any examples for 2005 onward.

Plaxico/Ward, Wayne/Harrison, and Holmes/Ward all indicate that you need a very good pair of receivers. Hell, and in the last 2 years alone Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Anquan Boldin and Wes Welker have lined up for the losing SB team.

Pro Bowls are a pretty useless metric to use.

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.)

 

[unoriginal]

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.

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?