Importance of the Wide Receiver position

[arrellbee]

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

You have a small valid point which I'll get into later. But I think you are making much too much of that small flaw. I think it was actually a pretty good perspective in their main theme:

"But fans and “pundits†are just as guilty of overestimating the importance of these pigskin prima donnas."

Notice the use of the word "overestimating". I think they made a pretty case for that.

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

I think they made a pretty good case both ways as far as 'translate' goes. Certainly I think you have to agree that there are loads of examples where super-star receivers don't get you a superbowl ring - or even to the superbowl - or even winning records in the playoffs. I also thought they made a pretty good case that teams have won superbowls without super-star receivers AND without high passing production.

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

Here's the small point that you make that I think is correct. They used the phrase:

"The truth is this: Wide receiver is the most overrated and most useless position on the football field. "

I absolutely agree that it's a totally false premise that the wide receiver is the most useless. But I agree with the first part that it may be the most overrated - wouldn't you agree with that also ? Just curious. The second part of the premise would have been much more valid if they had said that wide receiver is the most useless position to waste on prima-donnas. I would tend to agree with that although I would also agree that it is overstating the case a little bit - but that's CHFF's schtick in the first place, isn't it ?

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

Perhaps, as I said. But I think they expect their reader's to realize that they are making an over-the-top assertion for effect. But they certainly give you complete license to respond in kind as you did by going over-the-top in critiquing them.

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.

Now you one-up them on stating something poorly. You'd have to point it out to me, but until you do, I can find NOTHING in their article that even hints at "suggesting" that the WR position be "eliminated". That's putting words into their mouth that aren't there.

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.

You are kind of putting words into their mouth again and taking your quote out of context. But I really do agree that they have gone over-the-top in saying that:

"In the big scheme of things on a football field, wide receivers are not very important."

I agree totally with you that wide receivers are an important part of the game. Perhaps they should have said that having "super-star" wide receivers is not very important. Now that I would have agreed with completely and I think they made a pretty good case for that.

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

You are certainly correct. I'm just not sure that this is the point they are trying to make.

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.

You are reaching to critcize again. They didn't lump those two teams together. They commented on various aspects of 12 different teams. They were supporting their main thesis that super-star wide receivers do not get you to a superbowl and lack of super-star wide receivers does not keep you from winning a superbowl. I think they had pretty good examples to support that.

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, I guess I am not one of the "most Patriot fans". I don't think it is "WAY" off the mark. I agree if you say it's not the sole reason. But you have to agree with the facts that the Colts formula is to spend two-thirds of their cap on offensive positions and a big part of that is the combination of QB and receivers. You have to include Manning in that because you don't have to pay a QB 10M a year to hand the ball off to running backs. You pay him the big bucks to be part of the "passing attack" package. They have had "much success" - but ONLY in the regular season. Even the Indy fans are vocally disgruntled about lack of success in the post-season.

----------------------------

Please - don't think I am attacking you or your basic premise that the wide receiver position is an important part of the offense in today's game. I am in complete agreement. But I am also in complete agreement with the PART of the CHFF premise that having super-star wide receivers is way overrated and more useless than not. I am in complete agreement with you that the article in many of the words used was very poor or was actually expressing a wrong viewpoint.

 

[arrellbee]

shatch62

You made an interesting adventure into logic.

Kerry made several premises:
Having super-star receivers does not get you a superbowl ring.
...He supported that.
You can win a superbowl without superstar receivers and/or passing production
...He supported that.
The wide receiver position is useless.
...As JoeSixPat points out so well, this is totally incorrect.
The wide receiver position is relatively unimportant.
...Bad premise unless you add to Kerry's words that "super-star" receivers are relatively unimportant

You then countered his examples with premises and examples that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS. What, for gosh sakes, is the point of that ?? ?? ??

Having top rushers does not guarantee you success
...Don't think anyone will disagree with you on that premise
Having an average RB doesn't keep you from winning a superbowl
...Don't think anyone will disagree with you on that one
Having superstar receivers doesn't prevent you from winning a superbowl
...Duhhh
Drafting DBs in the first round does not guarantee success
...What for gosh sakes does this have to do with anything ?? ?? ??

As I say, interesting excursion into logic.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'd add that there are have been 3 SuperBowl Champions that have their leading WR catch less than 40 balls. 1983 Raiders, 1986 & 1990 Giants. For some of you, you might reacall that those teams had very good pass-catching TEs, functional running games, excellent defenses and solid QB play.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Here's the small point that you make that I think is correct. They used the phrase:

"The truth is this: Wide receiver is the most overrated and most useless position on the football field. "

I absolutely agree that it's a totally false premise that the wide receiver is the most useless. But I agree with the first part that it may be the most overrated - wouldn't you agree with that also ? Just curious. The second part of the premise would have been much more valid if they had said that wide receiver is the most useless position to waste on prima-donnas. I would tend to agree with that although I would also agree that it is overstating the case a little bit - but that's CHFF's schtick in the first place, isn't it ?

Overrated? Sure - I can go along with that... and I'd probably one up them as the Cold Hard Football Facts could also show that QBs are overrated, and RBs are overrated too, as some have already illustrated in this thread. I'd probably emphasize that Defense collectively is the most important element, but keeping the ball out of opposing Offensive hands is a big factor too (i.e a ball control offense, eating up the clock and running effectively)

Perhaps, as I said. But I think they expect their reader's to realize that they are making an over-the-top assertion for effect. But they certainly give you complete license to respond in kind as you did by going over-the-top in critiquing them.

Now you one-up them on stating something poorly. You'd have to point it out to me, but until you do, I can find NOTHING in their article that even hints at "suggesting" that the WR position be "eliminated". That's putting words into their mouth that aren't there.

Well, when they said the position was "useless" I don't think I've gone too far over the top in an interpretation that there's no need for the position. That's what set me off - and seeing that there was a lot of agreement about that certainly spurred me to come back with a strong argument against the "uselessness" of the WR position.

Some felt the FB position was useless - at least in terms of how it had been used - and it effectively has been all but eliminated. I really think it would be a mistake to follow suit with WR and abandon that phase of the game as well


You are kind of putting words into their mouth again and taking your quote out of context. But I really do agree that they have gone over-the-top in saying that:

"In the big scheme of things on a football field, wide receivers are not very important."

I agree totally with you that wide receivers are an important part of the game. Perhaps they should have said that having "super-star" wide receivers is not very important. Now that I would have agreed with completely and I think they made a pretty good case for that.

You are certainly correct. I'm just not sure that this is the point they are trying to make.

Maybe. I'd agree that the distinction beteween a 100 reception super star and a 75 catch deep threat isn't significant enough to justify double the salary. In other words I'd be very comfortable having a 1b WR instead of a bonafide #1 superstar WR.

But again in no way would I go along with their contention that the position is "useless"

You are reaching to critcize again. They didn't lump those two teams together. They commented on various aspects of 12 different teams. They were supporting their main thesis that super-star wide receivers do not get you to a superbowl and lack of super-star wide receivers does not keep you from winning a superbowl. I think they had pretty good examples to support that.

Maybe I'm just not as good a writer as these guys - but again they're making a false argument.

You can find as much diversity among SB winners as in those who haven't come close to the SB, and those who did come close. Their comparisons don't prove anything - they try to make it LOOK like they prove something but they don't

Well, I guess I am not one of the "most Patriot fans". I don't think it is "WAY" off the mark. I agree if you say it's not the sole reason. But you have to agree with the facts that the Colts formula is to spend two-thirds of their cap on offensive positions and a big part of that is the combination of QB and receivers. You have to include Manning in that because you don't have to pay a QB 10M a year to hand the ball off to running backs. You pay him the big bucks to be part of the "passing attack" package. They have had "much success" - but ONLY in the regular season. Even the Indy fans are vocally disgruntled about lack of success in the post-season.

My comments here were tongue in cheek, as every "good" Patriots fan knows its Peyton's fault they've never won a SB. Truth be told I think in the short term they had a pretty good approach. They were able to have a quality offense in nearly every respect. It was expensive but they kept it under the cap.

It could have worked and gotten them a SB - but it didn't, and now with the departure of James, that window may be closing.

The Colts fans have to be thanking their lucky stars that the Cap went up as much as it did and will, otherwise they'd be really screwed.

----------------------------

Please - don't think I am attacking you or your basic premise that the wide receiver position is an important part of the offense in today's game. I am in complete agreement. But I am also in complete agreement with the PART of the CHFF premise that having super-star wide receivers is way overrated and more useless than not. I am in complete agreement with you that the article in many of the words used was very poor or was actually expressing a wrong viewpoint.

Bottom line for both of us - WR is not a useless position. ... and its amazing to me the good folks at CHFF would make such an assertion and that folks would so easilly buy into it.

But I guess you can use statistics to say whatever you want them to say. 95% of all people know that.

 

[Johnny Z]

Several weeks ago somebody posted on here that all these tall #-1 WRs ever do is sit on the couch and watch Deion Branch win SBs.

I don't know why I remember that post.

 

[BradyManny]

It all probably has something to do with the fact that tall #1 wideouts are expensive, and a team that spends a lot of $$ on a wideout probably isn't spending it where it should, on more important positions.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

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.

One last shot here and then I'll just agree to disagree while I saute some Patriot's Brand Super Schnitzel -

The article, nor do I, suggest great WR's are a deterrent. Instead, all that is proposed is that great WR's are often overvalued money-wise. The argument here is the Colts may not have won a SB only because they over-valued their WR's in terms of dollar value thus limiting the amount they could pay other players which might have put them over top, not that the great play of Harrison and Wayne limits their success.

I will agree with the other recent poster here that this CHFF article is a bit heavy on anecdotal, versus empirical evidence.

 

[Lockdown06]

heres the reason that wide receivers are overrated: an excellent quarterback with below-average wide receivers will find a way to win games.

A terrible quarterback with great receivers will not.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

ugh, that was a crappy article. he would have been better off dropping his attempt to use examples and facts, which he cherrypicked in a manner that removed any and all credibility his point had. he should have just stuck to theory.

it just sucks when you believe something that isn't given much attention, and when it does the reporter is a hack.