WRs: Every team but one

[zoostation]

Using total yards and taking the top 2 receivers of each season only 1 in almost 20 years has won a championship and that was 19 years ago

• 2000: Isaac Bruce (second in total yards in 2000)
  
• 2001:
• 2002:
• 2003:
• 2004:
• 2005:
• 2006:
• 2007:
• 2008:
• 2009:
• 2010:
• 2011:
• 2012:
• 2013:
• 2014:
• 2015:
• 2016:
• 2017:
  
• 2018:

I'd take the 18 million being paid to "shiny" players like AB and OJB and spread it around but focus on building the lines. That's where the games are won and lost.

 

[Deus Irae]

And the Giants showed that having a one-dimensional offense, no matter how great, has downsides.

Of all the offensive positions, WR is literally the most one-dimensional position, which is why I'm a little hesitant to invest in one except under the right circumstances.

The Patriots weren't a one dimensional offense. The Patriots were an offense with injured TEs, an injured QB and an injured RG. That same offense had put up 38 points against the Giants about a month earlier, and had rushed for 145 and 149 yards in the two previous playoff games.

 

[Deus Irae]

Using total yards and taking the top 2 receivers of each season only 1 in almost 20 years has won a championship and that was 18 years ago.

• 2001: Isaac Bruce
• 2002:
• 2003:
• 2004:
• 2005:
• 2006:
• 2007:
• 2008:
• 2009:
• 2010:
• 2011:
• 2012:
• 2013:
• 2014:
• 2015:
• 2016:
• 2017:
  
• 2018:

I'd take the 18 million being paid to "shiny" players like AB and OJB and spread it around but focus on building the lines. That's where the games are won and lost.

So now you're pretending that total yards is the measure of the best WRs? So T.Y. Hilton was the NFL's best WR in 2016?

 

[zoostation]

It’s not that, it’s once you challenge him
and don’t back down when he tells you he is right, off to ignore with you.

One should be so lucky.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tom Brady is a multi time MVP. However, the last time the MVP won the Super Bowl was way back in 1998. So, therefore, by the logic of Zoostation, MVP winners aren't as desirable as non-MVP winners, because Super Bowls.

Except Manning and Brady are both multi SB winners and Multi MVP winners, just not at the same time.

 

[Deus Irae]

What are the underlying issues in the world according to Douchee?

You're now insulting me via my screen name, because your argument sucks and you can't just admit that. How sad for you. But, as long as you're already butthurt, perhaps you can explain why

Marvin Harrison

• 8 Pro Bowls
• 3 All Pros
• 1 SB
• Won the SB in 2006, a year where he was voted to the Pro Bowl and first team All Pro, and was #2 in WR yards

wasn't on your list

 

[Flash]

It has never been about whether an elite WR is needed or not, it's about that specific player's cap hit. It is the same reason why Belichick let the likes of Chandler Jones/Trey Flowers walk. You guys think Belichick wouldn't want OBJ in this offense? Of course he would, but the problem is OBJ is taking significant amount of cap space that could be invested else where. It's about relative value. Teams are overpaying WRs, DEs, LTs significantly, and Belichick does not believe those players warrant their price tags. That's why we take our chances with late round picks and occasionally bring in an underpriced WR (ex. Josh Gordon).

 

[zoostation]

I don't block people over lost arguments.

Word on the street has come to a different conclusion.

What are your thoughts on the 2018 receiving group? I think if you're able to stick with one topic it may help you with the losing arguments.

 

[Ian]

I think one key part of @patchick's statement of "in spite of" would center around the fact that if you take Julian Edelman out of that equation, let's be honest, they would have been in real trouble and we might not have seen things turn out the way we did. I understand we won, but, aside from Edelman and Gronk, they had a group of guys who they really eeked by with. A lot of the credit really goes to the defense for this year's postseason win. They were just absolutely terrific.

Being as both Gronk and Edelman are getting older (and one is obviously hitting the end sooner than the other), the discussion is valid that they need to start building for the future. Edelman is so great because of how quick and shifty he is. That's hard to maintain into your late 30s. Hopefully he'll have a few years left, but they need to start building for the future and get - or develop - someone (preferably younger) to compliment him.

I think if you take into account the fact it took Edelman nearly 4 seasons to come into his own, there's a possibility they can find another late-round gem if they can't find one in the early rounds...who knows. It is a little staggering that they haven't had much success finding, drafting and developing young receivers, with Malcolm Mitchell being the only recent exception and they suffered their usual bad luck with him getting injured. They just can't catch a break. I'd love to see someone already on the roster develop into that role and surprise everyone the way Edelman did, but I do definitely agree with her that it's worth the discussion.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

Come on...lol! So they waited till the 6th round to take the QB that they knew would not only be the QB of the future, but also dominate the league, and win 6 SB's? LMAO!!! I thought ole bill polian was quoted as saying they knew he'd be good...but still that was a complete f******" dart throw.

I don’t believe polian for a second. Even with manning if he thought brady was a first round talent he would’ve scooped him up well before pick 199.

 

[Ian]

Actually its a combination of your screen name and you being an azzhole

Naughty Naughty. Not only is that a personal attack, but it's an attempt to circumvent the censoring in place on the board.

Guys, let's move on - it's Friday night and the weekend is here. We're on to the next post

 

[Deus Irae]

I think one key part of @patchick's statement of "in spite of" would center around the fact that if you take Julian Edelman out of that equation, let's be honest, they would have been in real trouble and we might not have seen things turn out the way we did. I understand we won, but, aside from Edelman and Gronk, they had a group of guys who they really eeked by with. A lot of the credit really goes to the defense for this year's postseason win. They were just absolutely terrific.

Being as both of those Gronk and Edelman are getting older (and one is obviously hitting the end sooner than the other), the discussion is valid that they need to start building for the future. Edelman is so great because of how quick and shifty he is. That's hard to maintain into your late 30s. Hopefully he'll have a few years left, but they need to start building for the future and get - or develop - someone (preferably younger) to compliment him.

I think if you take into account the fact it took Edelman nearly 4 seasons to come into his own, there's a possibility they can find another late-round gem if they can't find one in the early rounds...who knows. It is a little staggering that they haven't had much success finding, drafting and developing young receivers, with Malcolm Mitchell being the only recent exception and they suffered their usual bad luck with him getting injured. They just can't catch a break. I'd love to see someone already on the roster develop into that role and surprise everyone the way Edelman did, but I do definitely agree with her that it's worth the discussion.

Yeah. The question's really not about whether or not WR help is needed. It's about where it is going to come from. The Mitchell knee problem was a big loss in that sense, as you note.

 

[Ian]

Yeah. The question's really not about whether or not WR help is needed. It's about where it is going to come from. The Mitchell knee problem was a big loss in that sense, as you note.

That was their first opportunity in a while to finally get one right, and it's just bizarre how that whole situation turned out. Like I said, they just can't catch a break. But they definitely need help. They're really, really fortunate to have Edelman and to have him playing at this level. How much longer they'll have him playing like that is the big question, but he needs some help, especially if Gronk's days are coming to a close.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Using total yards and taking the top 2 receivers of each season only 1 in almost 20 years has won a championship and that was 19 years ago

• 2000: Isaac Bruce (second in total yards in 2000)
  
• 2001:
• 2002:
• 2003:
• 2004:
• 2005:
• 2006:
• 2007:
• 2008:
• 2009:
• 2010:
• 2011:
• 2012:
• 2013:
• 2014:
• 2015:
• 2016:
• 2017:
  
• 2018:

I'd take the 18 million being paid to "shiny" players like AB and OJB and spread it around but focus on building the lines. That's where the games are won and lost.

Couldn't you have just written it like 2000: Bruce.

2001-2018: nobody

?

 

[zoostation]

Couldn't you have just written it like 2000: Bruce.

2001-2018: nobody

?

No

 

[Deus Irae]

That was their first opportunity in a while to finally get one right, and it's just bizarre how that whole situation turned out. Like I said, they just can't catch a break. But they definitely need help. They're really, really fortunate to have Edelman and to have him playing at this level. How much longer they'll have him playing like that is the big question, but he needs some help, especially if Gronk's days are coming to a close.

I hear you, and that's why this year's draft, with all the picks, is so interesting to me.

• Do they push picks into next year, in order to try getting enough ammo to move up and take the successor?
• Do they really take advantage of the picks in the upper rounds, and go after DT, TE and WR (or some other spot) with all those picks?
• Do they bundle picks and move up this year, in order to get the higher end DL talent?

If I hadn't decided not to watch the draft anymore on principle (Freakin' weeknights), I'd be glued to the TV for this one.

 

[Zuma]

I just don't want to see them draft a WR in the 1st 2 rounds....not a lot of success over the years there. Go TE/DT/DE in rounds 1-2 and wait till 3-5 to draft a couple WR's please.

I also don't want a top 5 WR pick Diva with a huge head on the team. I prefer a mid-round guy that feels he needs to earn his way. No Divas !

 

[TB_Helmet]

While you could use "top 2 WRs in receiving yards" as your definition for #1 WR, I think that might be a bit flawed, since it seems to be the same guys in the top 5 year to year and they just jostle for position. The best analysis would be to do a correlation between receiving yards (or receptions, or TDs, or something) and post-season wins across all WRs and see how much of an impact any of those metrics has, rather than cherry-picking (by the way, I just found out about this API which might make that sort of analysis trivial: Getting Started - NFL API).

But in absence of that, here's something I looked up the other month, as I mentioned. Copy-paste from this thread:

I rest my case -

If you use "number of Pro Bowls" as a proxy for top WRs, the only player who made three or more Pro Bowls and won the Super Bowl was Marvin Harrison.

But, there are plenty of WRs who made three or more Pro Bowls and LOST Super Bowls: Fitzgerald, Holt, Chad Johnson, Julio Jones, Terrell Owens, Moss, Wayne, Smith, Welker, Thomas, Bruce, Boldin.

Those can all be considered #1 WRs. Obviously some of those players weren't elite when they were in the Super Bowl (Chad Johnson, LOL). And no idea if they made the Pro Bowl the same year they played in the Super Bowl, or how much cap space they were taking up that year. But there are quite a few elite receivers who lost the Super Bowl, so I wouldn't say that having an elite WR precludes success, unless there's something special about the Super Bowl (as opposed to the regular season and rest of the playoffs) that makes that the case.

Notably, of the 12 "elite" WRs who lost in the Super Bowl, 5 lost to the Patriots and 3 were on the Patriots. So again, all of these trends have to be considered in the context of New England dominance.

 

[miloofcroton]

I think I need to adjust what I said earlier. I don't know about spending a top 10-15 pick on a WR because you're getting this potentially great player that costs a ton of money but doesn't necessarily lead to championships. On the other hand, a late first or second round pick is definitely a good time to take a WR. That's where you get guys like JJ Smith-Schuster.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

If Super Bowl wins validate team composition wholesale, leaving little room for nuanced disagreements, then it only seems fair that playoff loses serve as equally comprehensive indictments. Blow up everything! The teams are trash! Too reactionary, methinks.

A more judicious approach to a postmortem (with an eye toward using the findings to influence future roster construction) would readily show that WR was sorely neglected in numerous years; notably, 2006 and 2013, although I'm sure the board can come up with additional seasons. Even with Brady directing the show and elevating the offensive talent, the abysmal WR corps proved insurmountable.

Also, 20 years is a strange cut off for the great-wide-receivers-in-the-Super-Bowl debate, since it ignores the dominance of Irvin and Rice, among others, who earned multiple championships each. I'm not sure they were simply fungible components in the passing attack. But sure, maybe the game has changed (or maybe trends are simply observed outcomes, not predictive analysis).