Is having a #1 WR overrated in the modern NFL?

[Mr. Scot]

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

But three were taken in the top 10 last year.

And those guys didn't exactly set the league on fire.  That's part of the issue.

Heck, the Bengals were talking about switching Ross to corner.

[LinvilleGorge]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

To the point that teams would rather pay someone with some experience, even if they're not that great, than draft an unknown with a high pick.

It's the kind of thing that affects rookies more than vets.  If you've proven you can play in the league, you have more value no matter the position.

 

 

I agree to a point but when you see a guy like Taylor Gabriel get $26M over 4 years, Paul Richardson get $40M over 5 years, and Sammy Watkins get $48M over 3 years it shows how desperate teams are at WR. There’s been quite a few 1st round busts at WR (honestly, Watkins being among them) and it’s made teams even more desperate in free agency. 

The overall value of quality WRs is going up, not down.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

And those guys didn't exactly set the league on fire.  That's part of the issue.

Heck, the Bengals were talking about switching Ross to corner.

Ross was a dumb pick to begin with. He can run really fast, but his knees are shot and he was really raw as a WR as it was. He’s basically a faster version of Curtis Samuel with bum knees.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, tiger7_88 said:

I don't agree though.

RBs value has dropped due to NFL rules designed to increase the ability for offense to score in games (something of which Ron Rivera ignores and, when he deigns to recognize it, HATES).

These same rules increase the value of the TRUE #1 receiver.

However (and there's always a however), a TRUE #1 isn't just picked off of the receiver tree.

A true #1 in today's NFL has to have the strength to fight off the press (and hand-fighting). the deep speed to get open down-field (WRs that specialize in the 5-10 yd catch are NOT "#1's"), and the skill to run sharp routes.

And, as I said above, those guys don't grow on trees.  

Honestly, I think it's the same thing that's making it tougher to find elite quarterbacks.

College systems these days might have a receiver running three routes and might not bother to have them block or read coverages.  Thus, it takes more time to train a guy to be a pro than it used to.

SO now some teams would rather just spend on a guy who's had some pro training than try to...you know... train them.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I agree to a point but when you see a guy like Taylor Gabriel get $26M over 4 years, Paul Richardson get $40M over 5 years, and Sammy Watkins get $48M over 3 years it shows how desperate teams are at WR. There’s been quite a few 1st round busts at WR (honestly, Watkins being among them) and it’s made teams even more desperate in free agency. 

The overall value of quality WRs is going up, not down.

See above.

Colleges are dumbing down the position, same as they have with OL, QB and other spots.

Teams don't want to spend high picks on guys they have to teach a basic route tree.

[kungfoodude]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

But only two were taken in the first round this year.

Yeah, although it was not looked at as being a particularly strong WR class. I generally agree that it seems to be trending towards a it being a position that is losing value but I don't know that it will tank as hard as RB's have. We probably have quite a few years until that happens, if it does.

[tiger7_88]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

College systems these days might have a receiver running three routes and might not bother to have them block or read coverages.  Thus, it takes more time to train a guy to be a pro than it used to.

And one reason for that is college systems and rules still value the running back, whereas NFL rule-making does not.

If the NFL wants to be in sync with college and get NFL ready players, then they should adapt their rules.  I don't expect them to, nor do I think they should.  BUT they should also not be bitching about "NFL-ready players" either.

[kungfoodude]

16 minutes ago, Lumps said:

Comparing salaries to RBs is silly and doesn’t say much...they’re different positions. 

I disagree. RB's were at one time some of the highest paid players in the league on a fairly consistent basis. The switch from feature backs to the RB by committee approach has led to an overall devaluing of that position in general. Salaries and draft positions have borne that trend out over time. 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, tiger7_88 said:

And one reason for that is college systems and rules still value the running back, whereas NFL rule-making does not.

If the NFL wants to be in sync with college and get NFL ready players, then they should adapt their rules.  I don't expect them to, nor do I think they should.  BUT they should also not be bitching about "NFL-ready players" either.

I can understand why it would annoy them, but it's not really the college's job to prepare guys to play in the NFL.

I think at some point, the NFL is just gonna have to give in and start a developmental league.  Not holding my breath, though.

[tiger7_88]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I can understand why it would annoy them, but it's not really the college's job to prepare guys to play in the NFL.

I mean, that's GREAT selling point for recruiting.  Pete Carroll and USC milked that for all it was worth in the early 2000's.

But events and offensive evolution overtook the "pro-style" offense.

Even Bama's HC Nick Saban has moved to more of a multiple "spread" offensive scheme over the last 2 or 3 years or so.

[LinvilleGorge]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

See above.

Colleges are dumbing down the position, same as they have with OL, QB and other spots.

Teams don't want to spend high picks on guys they have to teach a basic route tree.

It is what it is. In the last two decades or so, honestly most of the innovation in the game is coming at the college level and the NFL lags behind in adapting. The college football world is where their talent comes from. They better find a way to help these players adjust to the NFL level because they’re not going to find a new source of young football talent to replenish the league. 

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I can understand why it would annoy them, but it's not really the college's job to prepare guys to play in the NFL.

I think at some point, the NFL is just gonna have to give in and start a developmental league.  Not holding my breath, though.

The NFL and NBA are equally guilty of this. They heavily abuse college as an unofficial minor league systems. The idea of an NFL minor league would be pretty interesting. I would honestly consider going to see games if the Panthers had a minor league team in the state.

[Cyberjag]

It's not about having a so-called #1 WR, it's about having a dominant offensive player at the WR position.  And a dominant offensive player is NOT overrated in the NFL, regardless of their position.  It can't be.

[AU-panther]

How many teams actually have a #1 receiver?  What is the definition of a#1 receiver?

Julio? Brown? Hopkins? Thielen?

What metric are we using?

Personally I think there are only a handful of guys that are a notch above everyone else, Julio, Moss, Calvin.  Type of guys that would probably be dominant in any system with any QB.