arrellbee
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- May 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 0
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:JoeSixPat said:Actually this was not one of the better Cold Hard Football Facts articles I've read before
"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.
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.JoeSixPat said:The only fact they've presented is that having great, good, or bad WRs doesn't necessarilly translate into SB rings.
Here's the small point that you make that I think is correct. They used the phrase:JoeSixPat said: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 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 ?
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.JoeSixPat said:This is a test from CHFF isn't it? Just seeing how gullible readers are?
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.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.
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:JoeSixPat said: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.
"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.JoeSixPat said:Am I speaking gibberish here? Or am I the only one who understands the role that WRs play in stretching the defense?
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.JoeSixPat said: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.
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.JoeSixPat said: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.
----------------------------
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.