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

[ZoneRead]

it wasn't for the eagles in the Superbowl

 

Jeffery balled out

[AU-panther]

19 minutes ago, ZoneRead said:

it wasn't for the eagles in the Superbowl

 

Jeffery balled out

Jeffery is a #1?

Funchess had more yards and catches than him last year.  Is Funchess a #1?

[kungfoodude]

40 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

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.  

It is a generally subjective phrase, that is absolutely true. When I think of a #1 WR, I think of guys that play almost every offensive down and always have to be accounted for on every passing play. The guy in the WR corps that the QB looks for whenever he needs a critical play made.

[GoPanthers123]

To be number 1 you can't copy the trends but set them.   You got a deep threat and someone who draws double coverage, that's just deadly and always has been, always will be.

[2244]

I think this is true. Certainly teams want a WR who can go deep and possesses elite skills, but I do think some quarterbacks play better without feeling the need to force feed a WR1.

There will be games where the QB will continuously connect with a certain WR, but doing it all 16 games...I don’t think so these days. Spreading the ball just works for some offenses. 

In the case of this past year’s Super Bowl participants, their leading receivers were actually their tight ends—Ertz and Gronk. So the NFL is evolving in terms who is targeted in the passing game. 

[LinvilleGorge]

I view "#1 WRs" like "franchise QBs". It's just a talking heads term to create debate. It's a meaningless term that no one can define. It seems that whenever people talk "franchise QBs" they're pretty much talking about future HOFers. When they talk about "#1 WRs" they're pretty much talking about the Antonio Browns, Julio Joneses, and DeAndre Hopkins of the world. Simply put there aren't many of those guys around and hell no they aren't overrated.

[kungfoodude]

6 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I view "#1 WRs" like "franchise QBs". It's just a talking heads term to create debate. It's a meaningless term that no one can define. It seems that whenever people talk "franchise QBs" they're pretty much talking about future HOFers. When they talk about "#1 WRs" they're pretty much talking about the Antonio Browns, Julio Joneses, and DeAndre Hopkins of the world. Simply put there aren't many of those guys around and hell no they aren't overrated.

See, I have never connected the term "franchise QB" to being a future HOFer. It's all kind of subjective.

[rayzor]

i wonder if the number of 1000+ yard or 100+ recp receivers have gone down over the years. seems like with spread offenses growing that QBs are spreading the ball around more.

[pantherclaw]

Fact is, there aren't enough true #1 receivers for every team to have one, just like franchise QBs.

Dak is right, it's all about matchups. We we're in the Superbowl with Ted Ginn as our most productive receiver.  Cam had an MVP season with no receiver being better than Ginn. 

Reality.

[GoobyPls]

Was having Steve Smith overrated?

[Ivan The Awesome]

I think what people need to realize is that Greg Olsen has always been the #1 receiver for Cam. Even when Smith was here Cam spread that ball around, Greg has always been his go to guy. 

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, rayzor said:

i wonder if the number of 1000+ yard or 100+ recp receivers have gone down over the years. seems like with spread offenses growing that QBs are spreading the ball around more.

Give me a time period and I can probably dig up that data.

[panther4life]

15 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

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

Thats a horrible argument. Only 2 D.E's were taken in the first round this year. Does that mean the league is devaluing them?

Number 1 receivers are not being devalued at all. They are actually increasing in value. Supply and Demand. Every team has a number 1 receiver by default but that does not mean they have the talent to be a universal number 1. 

 

 

 

[pantherclaw]

1 hour ago, GoobyPls said:

Was having Steve Smith overrated?

Does he have a ring?