Leading Receivers on SB-winning Teams

[ivanvamp]

The goal is to build the best possible team; it is not to build the best possible rotation at any specific position. Of course, it is not optimal to get rid of good players and replace them with lesser ones, unless such a move is accompanied (thanks, perhaps, to freed up money) by an improvement elsewhere that is a bigger improvement than the loss you just felt.

Which brings us to Welker and the receiving corps. Clearly, by any measure, he was a monster while he was here. Perennial pro-bowler, those 6 years of production from 2007-12 were off the charts great. I'm a big Welker fan and wish he was still here. But is it necessary to have a singularly great receiver? Here's a list of past SB champions and their leading receivers:

2012 - Bal - Boldin - 65 rec, 921 yds
2011 - NYG - Cruz - 82 rec, 1536 yds
2010 - GB - Jennings - 76 rec, 1265 yds
2009 - NO - Colston - 70 rec, 1074 yds
2008 - Pit - Ward - 81 rec, 1043 yds
2007 - NYG - Burress - 70 rec, 1025 yds
2006 - Ind - Harrison - 95 rec, 1366 yds
2005 - Pit - Ward - 65 rec, 975 yds
2004 - NE - Givens - 56 rec, 874 yds
2003 - NE - Branch - 57 rec, 803 yds
2002 - TB - K.Johnson - 76 rec, 1088 yds
2001 - NE - T.Brown - 101 rec, 1199 yds
2000 - Bal - Sharpe - 67 rec, 810 yds
1999 - StL - Faulk - 87 rec, 1048 yds
1998 - Den - R.Smith - 86 rec, 1222 yds
1997 - Den - Sharpe - 72 rec, 1107 yds
1996 - GB - Freeman - 56 rec, 933 yds
1995 - Dal - Irvin - 111 rec, 1603 yds
1994 - SF - Rice - 112 rec, 1499 yds
1993 - Dal - Irvin - 88 rec, 1330 yds
1992 - Dal - Irvin - 78 rec, 1396 yds
1991 - Was - Monk - 71 rec, 1049 yds
1990 - NYG - Meggett - 39 rec, 410 yds
1989 - SF - Rice - 82 rec, 1483 yds
1988 - SF - Craig - 76 rec, 534 yds
1987 - Was - Clark - 56 rec, 1066 yds
1986 - NYG - Bavaro - 66 rec, 1001 yds
1985 - Chi - Payton - 49 rec, 483 yds
1984 - SF - Craig - 71 rec, 675 yds
1983 - Oak (LA) - Christensen - 92 rec, 1247 yds
1982 - Was - STRIKE SHORTENED SEASON
1981 - SF - Clark - 85 rec, 1105 yds
1980 - Oak - Chandler - 49 rec, 786 yds
1979 - Pit - Stallworth - 70 rec, 1183 yds
1978 - Pit - Swann - 61 rec, 880 yds
1977 - Dal - Pearson - 48 rec, 870 yds
1976 - Oak - Casper - 53 rec, 691 yds
1975 - Pit - Swann - 49 rec, 781 yds
1974 - Pit - Lewis - 30 rec, 365 yds
1973 - Mia - Briscoe - 30 rec, 447 yds
1972 - Mia - Warfield - 29 rec, 606 yds
1971 - Dal - Garrison - 40 rec, 396 yds
1970 - Bal - Hinton - 47 rec, 733 yds
1969 - KC - Garrett - 43 rec, 432 yds
1968 - NYJ - Sauer - 66 rec, 1141 yds
1967 - GB - Dowler - 54 rec, 836 yds
1966 - GB - Taylor - 41 rec, 331 yds

Only three times has a SB champ had a receiver catch 100+ passes. Only five times has a SB champ had a receiver catch 90+ passes.

The average leading receiver for these SB champs (minus 1982, when they played just 9 games) put up these stats: 66 rec, 949 yds.

During the new passing rules era (2004-2012), the average leading receiver for the SB champs put up these stats: 73 rec, 1120 yds.

Welker, as a Patriot, averaged these stats: 112 rec, 1243 yds.

In other words, while it's of course great to have great players, and for the money I wish Welker was here instead of Amendola, this just goes to show that not only is it possible to win a SB without a single dominant WR, it's usually the case that teams win without such a stat-producing phenom. I'm not saying they win *BECAUSE* they lack a stat-dominant WR; I'm saying that they win because they are great teams, and they don't NEED a stat-dominant WR. Thus the Patriots, if they assemble a great team, certainly will not need Wes Welker, or any other individual receiver, putting up gaudy numbers.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The goal is to build the best possible team; it is not to build the best possible rotation at any specific position. Of course, it is not optimal to get rid of good players and replace them with lesser ones, unless such a move is accompanied (thanks, perhaps, to freed up money) by an improvement elsewhere that is a bigger improvement than the loss you just felt.

Which brings us to Welker and the receiving corps. Clearly, by any measure, he was a monster while he was here. Perennial pro-bowler, those 6 years of production from 2007-12 were off the charts great. I'm a big Welker fan and wish he was still here. But is it necessary to have a singularly great receiver? Here's a list of past SB champions and their leading receivers:

2012 - Bal - Boldin - 65 rec, 921 yds
2011 - NYG - Cruz - 82 rec, 1536 yds
2010 - GB - Jennings - 76 rec, 1265 yds
2009 - NO - Colston - 70 rec, 1074 yds
2008 - Pit - Ward - 81 rec, 1043 yds
2007 - NYG - Burress - 70 rec, 1025 yds
2006 - Ind - Harrison - 95 rec, 1366 yds
2005 - Pit - Ward - 65 rec, 975 yds
2004 - NE - Givens - 56 rec, 874 yds
2003 - NE - Branch - 57 rec, 803 yds
2002 - TB - K.Johnson - 76 rec, 1088 yds
2001 - NE - T.Brown - 101 rec, 1199 yds
2000 - Bal - Sharpe - 67 rec, 810 yds
1999 - StL - Faulk - 87 rec, 1048 yds
1998 - Den - R.Smith - 86 rec, 1222 yds
1997 - Den - Sharpe - 72 rec, 1107 yds
1996 - GB - Freeman - 56 rec, 933 yds
1995 - Dal - Irvin - 111 rec, 1603 yds
1994 - SF - Rice - 112 rec, 1499 yds
1993 - Dal - Irvin - 88 rec, 1330 yds
1992 - Dal - Irvin - 78 rec, 1396 yds
1991 - Was - Monk - 71 rec, 1049 yds
1990 - NYG - Meggett - 39 rec, 410 yds
1989 - SF - Rice - 82 rec, 1483 yds
1988 - SF - Craig - 76 rec, 534 yds
1987 - Was - Clark - 56 rec, 1066 yds
1986 - NYG - Bavaro - 66 rec, 1001 yds
1985 - Chi - Payton - 49 rec, 483 yds
1984 - SF - Craig - 71 rec, 675 yds
1983 - Oak (LA) - Christensen - 92 rec, 1247 yds
1982 - Was - STRIKE SHORTENED SEASON
1981 - SF - Clark - 85 rec, 1105 yds
1980 - Oak - Chandler - 49 rec, 786 yds
1979 - Pit - Stallworth - 70 rec, 1183 yds
1978 - Pit - Swann - 61 rec, 880 yds
1977 - Dal - Pearson - 48 rec, 870 yds
1976 - Oak - Casper - 53 rec, 691 yds
1975 - Pit - Swann - 49 rec, 781 yds
1974 - Pit - Lewis - 30 rec, 365 yds
1973 - Mia - Briscoe - 30 rec, 447 yds
1972 - Mia - Warfield - 29 rec, 606 yds
1971 - Dal - Garrison - 40 rec, 396 yds
1970 - Bal - Hinton - 47 rec, 733 yds
1969 - KC - Garrett - 43 rec, 432 yds
1968 - NYJ - Sauer - 66 rec, 1141 yds
1967 - GB - Dowler - 54 rec, 836 yds
1966 - GB - Taylor - 41 rec, 331 yds

Only three times has a SB champ had a receiver catch 100+ passes. Only four times has a SB champ had a receiver catch 90+ passes.

The average leading receiver for these SB champs (minus 1982, when they played just 9 games) put up these stats: 66 rec, 949 yds.

During the new passing rules era (2004-2012), the average leading receiver for the SB champs put up these stats: 73 rec, 1120 yds.

Welker, as a Patriot, averaged these stats: 112 rec, 1243 yds.

In other words, while it's of course great to have great players, and for the money I wish Welker was here instead of Amendola, this just goes to show that not only is it possible to win a SB without a single dominant WR, it's usually the case that teams win without such a stat-producing phenom. I'm not saying they win *BECAUSE* they lack a stat-dominant WR; I'm saying that they win because they are great teams, and they don't NEED a stat-dominant WR. Thus the Patriots, if they assemble a great team, certainly will not need Wes Welker, or any other individual receiver, putting up gaudy numbers.

Not having welker will force brady to spread it around more. Welker's abilities as a receiver are limited. The problem was that brady relied on welker like he was a number 1 receiver - hence welker's gaudy stats. However, welker is at best a number 2 receiver skill-wise. Welker moving on is a good thing.

Oh, and welker would be on your list for 2011 if he............nevermind.

 

[mgteich]

I would take any of those players in their SB years over Amendola.

 

[BlueThunder]

I, for one, am waiting to see what DA can do for the offense on this year's Pat's team. Maybe I am over estimating his worth, but I'm going to take the wait and see approach.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I would take any of those players in their SB years over Amendola.

2010 - NYG - Cruz - 0 rec, 0 yds

 

[signbabybrady]

I would take any of those players in their SB years over Amendola.

Off the top of my head the 2000 Ravens came to mind so I looked them up and I would take DA over their leading WR that year Quadry Ismailwith 45 catches for 655 yards and 5 TDs.

It should be noted that Shannon Sharpe topped the WRs but we have 2 TEs that could top our WRs.

 

[mgteich]

I stand corrected. I was only looking at 2001 - 2012 and should have said so.

Off the top of my head the 2000 Ravens came to mind so I looked them up and I would take DA over their leading WR that year Quadry Ismailwith 45 catches for 655 yards and 5 TDs.

It should be noted that Shannon Sharpe topped the WRs but we have 2 TEs that could top our WRs.

 

[mgteich]

At the same price and contract, I would rather have Cruz on the team than Amendola. Would you prefer Amendola?

2010 - NYG - Cruz - 0 rec, 0 yds

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

At the same price and contract, I would rather have Cruz on the team than Amendola. Would you prefer Amendola?

Definitely; I just don't think that was an option.

 

[ALP]

Two comments

1. I would suggest looking at 2005 and on since the game has changed since then
2. You are looking at 1 of 32 teams in a single elimination playoff format, what does this mean? The SB winner does not have to be the best team of the year, hence I would take and compare the final 4 teams alive in the playoffs each year since 2004 and do that comparison

 

[borg]

Until NE has a D that can produce an occasional 3 and out, it helps having a first down machine catching passes. NE has chosen to remove two WRs that combined for 122 first down catches (WW #6=72 1st down catches, BL #22=50 1st down catches).

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I would take any of those players in their SB years over Amendola.

Which is why amendola cannot be the number 1 receiver for this team....

 

[randomk1]

Until NE has a D that can produce an occasional 3 and out, it helps having a first down machine catching passes. NE has chosen to remove two WRs that combined for 122 first down catches (WW #6=72 1st down catches, BL #22=50 1st down catches).

The D has held their own relatively well. It's the O that can't produce more than 20 points once it gets into a fight.