Welcome to PatsFans.com

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

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Box_O_Rocks, Jul 18, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    20,550
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

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

    JoeSixPat Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,936
    Likes Received:
    65
    Ratings:
    +148 / 2 / -3

    Hmmm - I wonder how much we could get in a trade for Moss.
     
  3. RDS11

    RDS11 Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    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...
     
  4. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -0

    #87 Jersey

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

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
  6. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    20,550
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    Cynic, just one little Detroit cast-off and it's onto "New Orleans." :rolleyes:
     
  7. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    17,672
    Likes Received:
    347
    Ratings:
    +1,125 / 17 / -4

    #12 Jersey

    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.
     
  8. unoriginal

    unoriginal In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Ratings:
    +243 / 3 / -1

    Agree with this. In this case, Gosselin's analysis isn't very penetrating.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2009
  9. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2009
  10. MarvLevy

    MarvLevy Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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."
     
  11. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    17,672
    Likes Received:
    347
    Ratings:
    +1,125 / 17 / -4

    #12 Jersey

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2009
  12. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2009
  13. Brady'sButtBoy

    Brady'sButtBoy 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +40 / 4 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    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...)
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2009
  14. spacecrime

    spacecrime Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
  15. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,528
    Likes Received:
    798
    Ratings:
    +2,750 / 134 / -97

    Disable Jersey

    No position is a "Must have star!" position.
     
  16. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

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

    brdmaverick In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,122
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0

    #32 Jersey

    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.
     
  18. brdmaverick

    brdmaverick In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,122
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0

    #32 Jersey

    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.
     
  19. Mike the Brit

    Mike the Brit Minuteman Target PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,886
    Likes Received:
    209
    Ratings:
    +490 / 2 / -2

    Disable Jersey

    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.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2009
  20. unoriginal

    unoriginal In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Ratings:
    +243 / 3 / -1

    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>