Im hoping someone can help me out with this. For years I have heard people talk about the need for a #1 WR and the statement "true #1 WR. What the heck constitutes a #1 WR? It can't be a guy with top end speed who can stretch defenses. We had one in a guy like Darryl "deep heat" Turner a number of years ago. He wasn't considered a number one then. In my mind Largent was the number 1 WR but he was often referred to as a posession guy. In my mind, a #1 WR is the guy who catches the most balls. But that notion doesn't seem to mesh with what the pundints usually talk about when referring to a #1.
Regarding the Seahawks WR corps, the discussion usually comes around to the fact that there is no true #1 guy. Sydney Rice has been mentioned as having the potential to be a #1. But somehow he falls short.
So what explicit criteria, skill set, or credentials are needed to make a guy a true #1 WR in the eyes of experts?

_________________
Go Hawks!

You are not sure whether Steve Largent was a #1 receiver? Really?

_________________
"Check out my 2012 NFL Draft Grades. I just gave the worst grade ever to Seattle." - WalterFootball.com

Did you read my post? I am talking about the perception of #1.

_________________
Go Hawks!

Who do you think is perceived ahead of Largent from his era? James Lofton or Art Monk? I think most non-seahawks would not only be happy to tell you that Largent was a true #1, but that he was the best #1 of the early 80's.

_________________
"Check out my 2012 NFL Draft Grades. I just gave the worst grade ever to Seattle." - WalterFootball.com

I always thought #1 receiver was the receiver who the quarterback looks at first during his progressions.

A #1 receiver is a guy that demands double-teams on most passing downs and at least some safety/LB help any time they are on the field.

They are not good at one particular area nor do they meet any specific size requirements (steve smith).

A #1 receiver has the same types of requirements that a #1 QB does - he may be stronger in one area but has to be great accross the board at all the other things. You can't have a #1 QB who is not accurate or can't throw at least a decent deep pass any more than you can have a #1 receiver with poor hands and only mediocre ability to get separation.

Sidney Rice is actually a pretty good all-around player but he's not an all around great player. He would be a more than adequate #2 receiver on a team that had a true #1. If he could work on getting more separation then he might get himself there this next season. To me that's the biggest weakness keeping him from that status.

_________________

You mean like Jay Cutler with Brandon Marshall where progression reads don't matter lol

_________________
I got passion for my Hawks and I ain't afraid to show it

A #1 receiver has the ability to line up against a #1 corner or double-team and beat them on a fairly consistent basis.

_________________

I will take a stab at this. And I will say up front that there are probably only 6-8 true "#1"s in the league. Most teams don't have a 'real" #1 in the same way most teams don't have a shutdown corner, although so-called shutdown corners are more rare.

A legit #1 would start for every team in the league, is an all-pro and commands a double team on nearly every play. Elite.

There.

How's that?

(PS I love SRice's game but have always thought of him as a very good 1A--not a #1 but capable of much more production than we have seen from him this far--bring in a true #1 or another 1A and we would have a lethal combo)

_________________
"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk

I think the notion of a #1 WR is very dumb and closed minded. When I hear the media refer to a #1 WR, they are usually talking about someone who is 6'2, and can run a 4.4. If they are 6'0 with above average speed, but can still get open consistently and make catches regularly, they are a "#2 WR type".

By this logic WRs such as Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson in his prime, Roddy White, etc were never #1 WRs. That is false.

It all comes down to if they can consistently get open and their QB can consistently find them.

Sydney Rice was wide open alot this year and think he will be a #1.

_________________
Wolf grey all day every day.

Peyton Manning disqualifies them, IMO.

_________________
"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk

_________________
My milkshake brings all the turtles to the yard.... damn right... and men's room Drakkar... damn right... and men's room Drakkar.

The league's obsession with #1 receivers seems to be along the same lines as "top tier quarterback", "smashmouth running back", "shutdown corner", and "unmovable left tackle". Top 5-6 guys at all those positions really don't happen on the same team. A team is probably pretty elite with decent talent around and one or two top guys at any couple of positions.

#1 guys at any position should be a little broader-based than that. After all, there are 32 starters at every single position in the league.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

i think the #1 notion is a bit overrated.. you have several successful teams on both sides of the spectrum as far as recievers go...

for instance: NE, GB, BAL, SEA all very successful this year.. Does any of those teams have a clear cut #1? not really, but they spread the ball around , and you have a few big plays here and there which any reciever on their squad could make.. Also the tight end plays a big part in the passing game.

the you have: DET, AZ,CIN, DAL , these teams have a clear cut #1 but are not as successful... You have one guy targeted 10+ times a game, if they have an off day, the team has an off day..

i prefer our style of offense, because any given reciever can be the difference in any particular game (matchup).. which is why i don't think a true #1 reciever will fit into our offense.. they won't see a ton of targets, we spread the ball around and run too much...

_________________
On to the Next Episode

Exactly, I would bet if you lined up SidR across from Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson or Fitz (in a better offense of course) his numbers would probably get him to a solid 1A.

_________________

I agree with some other posters here in that I don't think we need a "#1 WR". I think a guy like DeAndre Hopkins could be a guy in an elite passing offense that puts up 1200 and 10 TDs, if in the right situation. Plenty of production for me.

... and Atlanta has 3 #1 receivers.

agreed. Rice was a #1 in Minnesota under TJack until injury took him out. Then his first year here we didn't get to see him play. This year he was back to his old form, but Wilson didn't see him on many, many plays. The guys is a true #1 when he stays healthy. If he stays healthy next season, I think everyone will see that.

_________________
Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

Sidney Rice is a #1 in most offenses in the NFL, as long as he stays healthy. Is he a Fitz or Andre/Calvin Johnson type? No, but there aren't many of those out there. A true #1 has the coverages rolled his way and can still be effective, while also helping the other receivers be more effective by drawing the coverage to them.

I really doubt we'll easily be able to get a receiver better than Rice, or one as effective easily or cheaply. Rice's numbers should improve with the offense being open all year and Wilson taking the expected next step next season. Wilson improving his game, along with improved protection, will make Rice look better and better.