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

[Mike the Brit]

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]

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!]

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]

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.

 

[Ring 6]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

It's definitely true that replacement-level for a WR is pretty high, when you can get guys like Gaffney pretty easily. Still though, I think the best case for Gaffney is being a #3 WR on a super-bowl caliber offense. He hasn't done anything in his career without Brady throwing to him, so I think a lot of people docked him (and probably rightfully so) for that. Competent #3s may not be that hard to dig up, but above-league-average #2s aren't.

 

[Deus Irae]

T.O. was the only reason the Eagles didn't lose by about 40 points in 2004. Moss and the Patriots were a helmet catch away from winning in 2007. The 'bad diva' is as much a myth as most of the other "Gotta/Can't" have players when it comes to Super Bowls.

People really read a lot into very small samples, and it's too bad. The real lesson I see when I look at Super Bowl winners (and losers to a lesser extent) is that what's crucial is good coaching and front office work. Teams can win with, or without, greatness at any given position, but it's very rare to find teams that win in spite of the coaching and front office.

Dallas under Switzer comes to mind, but it's pretty well understood that the win there was really the result of what the front office had done in the years prior.

 

[BradyFTW!]

T.O. was the only reason the Eagles didn't lose by about 40 points in 2004. Moss and the Patriots were a helmet catch away from winning in 2007. The 'bad diva' is as much a myth as most of the other "Gotta/Can't" have players when it comes to Super Bowls.

People really read a lot into very small samples, and it's too bad. The real lesson I see when I look at Super Bowl winners (and losers to a lesser extent) is that what's crucial is good coaching and front office work. Teams can win with, or without, greatness at any given position, but it's very rare to find teams that win in spite of the coaching and front office.

Dallas under Switzer comes to mind, but it's pretty well understood that the win there was really the result of what the front office had done in the years prior.

100% agree. If 2 close plays had gone differently over the last 2 years, Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Larry Fitzgerald, and Anquan Boldin would all be SB champs, and the exact opposite article would be written about how there has been a clear shift to where you absolutely NEED two dynamic, elite WRs to win a SB; there's just no other way anymore.

Now obviously, those 2 plays went the way they went, and I'm not trying to trivialize that, but to make such far-reaching, broad assumptions about team-building philosophy because two balls bounced the way they did strikes me as awfully ridiculous.

 

[maverick4]

100% agree. If 2 close plays had gone differently over the last 2 years,

Two plays??? Look at the history of the entire NFL.

Gosselin's point is valid. The pass-first, explosive offenses do not have a good (or even respectably bad) history of winning Superbowls.

Stopping the run, and running the ball, and being physical on D are way more important than being a potent pass-first team.

 

[maverick4]

[ Neither of the last two Super Bowl champions – Pittsburgh in 2008 or the New York Giants in 2007 – had a Pro Bowl wide receiver that season. Neither had a Pro Bowl quarterback, for that matter. The Steelers finished 17th in the NFL in passing and the Giants were 21st.

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. ]

 

[Ring 6]

T.O. was the only reason the Eagles didn't lose by about 40 points in 2004. Moss and the Patriots were a helmet catch away from winning in 2007. The 'bad diva' is as much a myth as most of the other "Gotta/Can't" have players when it comes to Super Bowls.

People really read a lot into very small samples, and it's too bad. The real lesson I see when I look at Super Bowl winners (and losers to a lesser extent) is that what's crucial is good coaching and front office work. Teams can win with, or without, greatness at any given position, but it's very rare to find teams that win in spite of the coaching and front office.

Dallas under Switzer comes to mind, but it's pretty well understood that the win there was really the result of what the front office had done in the years prior.

Consider this critieria:

The most defining quality of which team is the best, is which has the least liabilities, or more simplisiticly the team whose worst 4 regualars are the best.
This defined the 2001 Pats, IMO.
They were good enough at everything to exploit weak players/units, to win the battle against average ones, and to not be exploited by good ones. every facet of the team could step up and take advantage of the other teams weakness, but would not be dominated by the opponents strength.
That is the best tangible quality I can put on "Most Valuable Team" and if you really look over Championship teams, that is one of the most consistent characteristic.

 

[Deus Irae]

Consider this critieria:

The most defining quality of which team is the best, is which has the least liabilities, or more simplisiticly the team whose worst 4 regualars are the best.
This defined the 2001 Pats, IMO.
They were good enough at everything to exploit weak players/units, to win the battle against average ones, and to not be exploited by good ones. every facet of the team could step up and take advantage of the other teams weakness, but would not be dominated by the opponents strength.
That is the best tangible quality I can put on "Most Valuable Team" and if you really look over Championship teams, that is one of the most consistent characteristic.

The Colts in 2006 and the Giants in 2007...

 

[maverick4]

The most defining quality of which team is the best, is which has the least liabilities, or more simplisiticly the team whose worst 4 regualars are the best.

That is the best tangible quality I can put on "Most Valuable Team" and if you really look over Championship teams, that is one of the most consistent characteristic.

The 2000 Ravens passing offense says hello.

 

[Bartmac36]

You need GOOD WRs, not great, but adequate...but you also can't game plan for a SB buy trying to solely lean on an aggressive passing game...see Superbowl 42/43...

 

[Deus Irae]

You need GOOD WRs, not great, but adequate...but you also can't game plan for a SB buy trying to solely lean on an aggressive passing game...see Superbowl 42/43...

WRs for the past 3 Super Bowls:

Fitzgerald/Boldin
Holmes/Ward
Moss/Welker
Burress/Toomer
Harrison/Wayne
Berrian/Muhammad


While I don't think elite receivers are essential, the notion that it's not about having the top quality wideouts doesn't hold up over the past 3 seasons. Only 1 team out of the 6 didn't have an acknowledged top shelf tandem and an acknowledged top shelf #1 receiver.