Importance of the Wide Receiver position

[SVN]

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=1043&Category=1

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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]

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=1043&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]

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? :bricks:

 

[SamBam39]

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]

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.

The truth is this: Wide receiver is the most overrated – and arguably most useless – 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 – 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. It’s just that the few times in a game they do make a play, it’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]

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]

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

 

[Mike the Brit]

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]

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 – and arguably most useless – 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.

 

[SamBam39]

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.

I think you missed the point.
I didn't agree with all of the things the article said either.
but their basic point was there has been alot of success without tremendous production from the wideouts and there has been many examples of teams with great wideouts not doing much as far as winning goes. They are saying there's a certain level of misconception by the casual fan that you need great wideout production to be successful, and the stats don't bear that out. I thought it was a very interesting piece, albeit not completely well written.

 

[PATRIOT64]

I've seen Super Bowls won with average WRs and even average QBs (Trent Dilfer,Doug Williams) but have never seen a SB won with an average or below defense...Thats what really matters more than any area of the team,Fortunately we have an above average Defense when healthy IMO

 

[IcyPatriot]

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.

Yes..we discussed that over, under and sideways a few years ago. As long as the other team cannot play 8 in the box the entire game your receivers are good enough.

 

[Seymour93]

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.

Good post.

You could argue that RB's aren't very important either. We won two SB's with, no offence, Antowain freakin' Smith!

What about TE? Jermaine Wiggins, while no slouch but not a top-tier guy, was our starting TE in SB XXXVI. I guess you can win without an impact TE too.

Now let's go to the O-line. In SB XXXVI, Grant Williams was one of our starting tackles. Grant Williams!!!

Ok then, we can all agree that QB is the only important position on offence, right?

 

[patsfan13]

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

Terri Hatcher at 5M OTOH.....

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think you missed the point.
I didn't agree with all of the things the article said either.
but their basic point was there has been alot of success without tremendous production from the wideouts and there has been many examples of teams with great wideouts not doing much as far as winning goes. They are saying there's a certain level of misconception by the casual fan that you need great wideout production to be successful, and the stats don't bear that out. I thought it was a very interesting piece, albeit not completely well written.

But the key is - and this is where they completely missed the point - you can't just plug anyone in at WR and expect to stretch defenses and keep them honest.

... furthermore, WRs do not get by on speed alone.

If that were the case we'd get Bethel Johnson and PK Sam back here in a heartbeat. But we know that defenses would have little respect for him, or a WR like him who has speed but can't run routes, and although they'd probably a CB to cover him, but they'd likely send in their SS and FS to blitz or double team someone like Watson.

... and forget about nickle and dime packages... with Bethel and Sam there'd just be no need.

Quite simply you need to have a credible deep ball threat if you want to have a successful short to mid-range game.

How they overlooked that is beyond me.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

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.

I would like to know where you come up with some of these assertions?

RE: the Colts - How do you know that the Colts investment in their WR's has not been a deterrent to winning a SB? Besides, the CHFF's observation in the Colt blurb simply points out that even having the greatest WR of this football generation, Harrison, hasn't led to even winning the conference. Are you trying to say that the Colt's WR's have helped them reach the SB? Because they hadn't last time I checked. Maybe, it's Manning - how "great" was Jerome Pathon after he left the Colts?

And I'd assert that you completely missed the point of their article. You say, good WR's are needed to stretch the defense "requiring CBs and Safeties to worry about what's happening 30-40 yards (downfield), let's just collapse coverage in the 0-20 yard range and see how offenses do." Well, just take the Cardinals example - they finished dead last in rushing last year even though the safeties and corners were busy downfield doing what you say is needed to "keep defenses honest."

And this comes to CHFF's central idea, which you inadvertently make against yourself : Football is a team game and how good your team is depends on how wisely you spend your money. Spend too much in the wrong places, like too much on your WR's maybe, and you may never have a balanced team even though you may possess one of the league's leading recievers.

 

[arrellbee]

I would like to know where you come up with some of these assertions?

RE: the Colts - How do you know that the Colts investment in their WR's has not been a deterrent to winning a SB? Besides, the CHFF's observation in the Colt blurb simply points out that even having the greatest WR of this football generation, Harrison, hasn't led to even winning the conference. Are you trying to say that the Colt's WR's have helped them reach the SB? Because they hadn't last time I checked. Maybe, it's Manning - how "great" was Jerome Pathon after he left the Colts?

And I'd assert that you completely missed the point of their article. You say, good WR's are needed to stretch the defense "requiring CBs and Safeties to worry about what's happening 30-40 yards (downfield), let's just collapse coverage in the 0-20 yard range and see how offenses do." Well, just take the Cardinals example - they finished dead last in rushing last year even though the safeties and corners were busy downfield doing what you say is needed to "keep defenses honest."

And this comes to CHFF's central idea, which you inadvertently make against yourself : Football is a team game and how good your team is depends on how wisely you spend your money. Spend too much in the wrong places, like too much on your WR's maybe, and you may never have a balanced team even though you may possess one of the league's leading recievers.

Very pertinent observations.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I would like to know where you come up with some of these assertions?

RE: the Colts - How do you know that the Colts investment in their WR's has not been a deterrent to winning a SB? Besides, the CHFF's observation in the Colt blurb simply points out that even having the greatest WR of this football generation, Harrison, hasn't led to even winning the conference. Are you trying to say that the Colt's WR's have helped them reach the SB? Because they hadn't last time I checked. Maybe, it's Manning - how "great" was Jerome Pathon after he left the Colts?

And I'd assert that you completely missed the point of their article. You say, good WR's are needed to stretch the defense "requiring CBs and Safeties to worry about what's happening 30-40 yards (downfield), let's just collapse coverage in the 0-20 yard range and see how offenses do." Well, just take the Cardinals example - they finished dead last in rushing last year even though the safeties and corners were busy downfield doing what you say is needed to "keep defenses honest."

And this comes to CHFF's central idea, which you inadvertently make against yourself : Football is a team game and how good your team is depends on how wisely you spend your money. Spend too much in the wrong places, like too much on your WR's maybe, and you may never have a balanced team even though you may possess one of the league's leading recievers.

You read the CHFF article to say that WRs are actually a DETERRENT to success?

Geeze - I thought they were just saying they were irrelevant and I was blasting them for that!

CHFF very clearly put teams that have good, even great WRs in the same category as teams that have mediocre WRs in an effort to show that WR itself is irrelevant... that while they might make a few impressive plays a game they really aren't a factor.

That'a fallacious argument - especially if they are only using SB rings as a guage.

Does anyone seriously think that the reason the Colts haven't won a Super Bowl (which is a bit of a red herring because unlike a team like Phoenix, they've certainly been condtenders) is BECAUSE of their WRs? I think a more logical statement is that they haven't won SBs IN SPITE of their WRs.

If you're looking at their WRs as too expensive I think most everyone would target the Colt's QB investment long before targeting WR. Its specifically been the QB who's choking has prevented them from having post-season success.

Of course, I think we all recognize that as of last year the Colts had done a pretty good cap job - but were mortgaging their future - as they had a quality QB (when he didn't chokw), quality RB, quality WR, quality K (when he didn't choke) and actually a D that wasn't half bad. Maybe they didn't have the depth to survive injuries like the Pats, but barring injury, the Colts had a pretty good team in spite of what they were paying their WRs (not to mentione their RB and QB).

Now as far as the Cardinals WRs... 100 catches as they point out.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but when teams fall behind in a game, they do tend to pass a bit more and are forced to give up on the run... much like the Pats had to do against Denver a few weeks ago.

Is there any chance do you think that Phoenix might have sometimes - even often - been behind in games and had to focus more on the passing game and therefore might not have the best running stats?

Of course, no where did I suggest that stretching a defense automatically means that a team would have a great running game either... that would be another fallacious argument.

But basically, I think I'd just rest my case on the fact that since the NFL in general hasn't given up on WRs - and indeed, nor has BB and the Patriots, attempting to sign Derrick Mason so that they'd not have been in this position with Branch or Givens - should suggest that the best minds of the NFL don't view WR quite as irrelevant as CHFF.

 

[shatch62]

One Sided Arguement

Byrne is the king of the one sided argument. If there are facts that don’t support his argument he will ignore them.

Here is a “fact†that apparently isn’t cold or hard –

The 1989 San Francisco 49ers went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl. In their 3 playoff wins they outscored their opponents 126-26. Their two starting WR were Jerry Rice (82-1,483 -17) and John Taylor (60-1,077-10). That doesn’t support the argument so we will forget about that season.

Let’s look at some of his arguments and my “factsâ€
Per Kerry
Arizona
The Cardinals fielded TWO guys last year who caught more than 100 passes each and combined for over 2,800 yards (Larry Fitzgerald had 103 for 1,409 and Anquan Boldin had 102 for 1,402). They went 5-11 overall and 0-8 against quality opponents. Fitzgerald and Boldin are each on pace to average more than 90 catches again this season. Arizona is 1-3 and ranks 22nd in scoring (17.0 PPG).

My reply
Cleveland (1985)
The Browns fielded TWO guys in 1985 who each rushed for more than 1,000 yards combining for over 2,300 yards (Kevin Mack had 1,104 and Ernest Byner had 1,002). They went 8-8 overall and lost in the first round of the playoffs.

Per Kerry
Baltimore
The immortal Qadry Ismail led the 2000 Ravens with 49 catches for 655 yards. The 2004 Ravens went 16-4, including playoffs, and won the Super Bowl.

My Reply
New England
The immortal Antowain Smith led the 2003 Patriots with 642 rushing yards. The 2003 Pats went 17-2, including playoffs, and won the Super Bowl.

Per Kerry
Detroit
Lions general manager Matt Millen famously and foolishly used a top-10 pick on a wide receiver in each draft from 2003 to 2005. They’ve gone 16-36 (.308) over that period and have averaged just 17.1 PPG in those 52 games.

My Reply
Oakland
Since 1993, the Oakland Raiders have had five 1st round picks and have used 3 of them on DBs (2003- Nnamdi Asomugha, 2005- Fabian Washington and 2006- Michael Huff). Since the start of the 2003 season the Raiders have gone 13-38. So, for the love of God don’t draft DBs.