SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.SVN said:
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.
Well Said.....sometimes our fans treat any media article as near gospel....JoeSixPat said: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.
JoeSixPat said:Am I speaking gibberish here? Or am I the only one who understands the role that WRs play in stretching the defense?
JoeSixPat said: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.
MoLewisrocks said: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.
JoeSixPat said: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.
Parker said:loved the article. really puts the Pats situation into a perspective.
David Givens at 5m per is insanity.
SamBam39 said: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.
JoeSixPat said: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.
Very pertinent observations.Brady'sButtBoy said: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.
Brady'sButtBoy said: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.