Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:56 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:06 pm
Posts: 528
Location: Spokane
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!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:57 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:08 pm
Posts: 2062
Location: Seattle
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:02 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:06 pm
Posts: 528
Location: Spokane
oldhawkfan wrote:
In my mind Largent was the number 1 WR but he was often referred to as a posession guy.


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

_________________
Go Hawks!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:06 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:08 pm
Posts: 2062
Location: Seattle
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:08 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:24 am
Posts: 143
I always thought #1 receiver was the receiver who the quarterback looks at first during his progressions.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:14 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am
Posts: 2218
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.


Last edited by Hawknballs on Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:15 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 1880
Location: Vancouver, Wa
seahawksTopGear wrote:
I always thought #1 receiver was the receiver who the quarterback looks at first during his progressions.


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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:16 pm 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
Posts: 11163
Location: Antioch, CA
A #1 receiver has the ability to line up against a #1 corner or double-team and beat them on a fairly consistent basis.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:21 pm 
* Glitter over Knives *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 8511
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
"BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)


Last edited by bestfightstory on Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:25 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:17 am
Posts: 554
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:30 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:44 am
Posts: 2524
Location: Naples, FL
Sydney Rice was wide open alot this year and think he will be a #1.

_________________
Wolf grey all day every day.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:32 pm 
* Glitter over Knives *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 8511
cacksman wrote:
By this logic WRs such as Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne were never #1 WRs. That is false.


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
"BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:38 pm 
* Gangnameister *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 11083
Location: PoCompton, BC Canada
Image

_________________
I <3 Nunchucks


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:46 pm 
* Natural Rubbing Action *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 17587
Location: The beautiful PNW
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.

_________________
World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:03 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 3870
Location: Tri Cities, WA
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...

_________________
World Champs - Sounds good don't it


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:09 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:50 am
Posts: 990
Location: Tonasket, WA to Temecula, CA
bestfightstory wrote:
(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)


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.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:21 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:17 am
Posts: 554
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:22 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:50 am
Posts: 156
... and Atlanta has 3 #1 receivers.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:24 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 4267
VHawk wrote:
Sydney Rice was wide open alot this year and think he will be a #1.

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.

R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:34 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am
Posts: 1805
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:37 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2447
Using the term "#1" is too abstract. You have to look at in football speak. In an offense like the Hawks run, you have the X, Y and Z receivers (or split end, slot and flanker).

Rice is a traditional X receiver (split end), Tate is a traditional Y receiver (slot)..........so that leaves a gaping hole in the Z spot. So when people say we need a #1 receiver, they mean we need a good Z receiver, which traditionally lines up behind the line to avoid jamming, has blazing speed and can stretch the defense.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:40 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:53 am
Posts: 2291
To me, a true number 1 WR has no weaknesses.

Potential weaknesses would include:
- lack of size
- lack of speed
- lack of route running ability
- lack of catching ability
- lack of leaping ability
- lack of physicality

I suppose you can overcome one or more of these and be a number 1, but if we are talking true, elite number 1s, they must not suffer from any of those in my opinion.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:44 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 3078
Location: Anchorage, AK
bestfightstory wrote:
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?


I agree but would add the following. A true #1 WR is also the guy that despite 3rd and long, everyone knowing the ball is going to him and being double-teamed comes up with the catch....


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:58 pm 
* 17Power Blogger *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am
Posts: 11209
Seahawk Sailor wrote:
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.


Unless you're the Seahawks.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:15 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:29 am
Posts: 692
Sgt. Largent wrote:
Using the term "#1" is too abstract. You have to look at in football speak. In an offense like the Hawks run, you have the X, Y and Z receivers (or split end, slot and flanker).

Rice is a traditional X receiver (split end), Tate is a traditional Y receiver (slot)..........so that leaves a gaping hole in the Z spot. So when people say we need a #1 receiver, they mean we need a good Z receiver, which traditionally lines up behind the line to avoid jamming, has blazing speed and can stretch the defense.


Pretty much everything I've learned about football is either from the internet or playing Madden, but I was under the impression that the split end was more a guy that stretched defenses and didn't rely so much on good route running, while the flanker could also stretch a defense but was a better possession guy who could draw double coverage. Basically I figured the #1 would more often than not play the flanker role. Like when Reggie Wayne took over Marvin Harrison's flanker role.

Of course I could be way off too.

_________________
"If the opportunity presents itself, we're going to come get you. You’re part of the family. You're part of us. You helped us start this thing." - John Schneider before releasing Michael Robinson


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:08 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:13 pm
Posts: 2987
MontanaHawk05 wrote:
Seahawk Sailor wrote:
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.


Unless you're the Seahawks.


:P

I do think for our offense it would be effective to have a really studly number one receiver since we aren't running a spread where we are looking more at match ups and sometimes we might go with 1 WR sets where a really kickass WR would keep the defense a lot more honest. Plus who doesn't like being able to just throw at somebody even when they're covered.

Though what offense wouldn't be helped by a great receiver, I don't think it's that big of a need. We need more WR talent on the roster, but I don't think we need to go crazy trying to add a great one. Development of mid rounders is gonna be important.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:14 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:10 pm
Posts: 290
Sgt. Largent wrote:
Using the term "#1" is too abstract. You have to look at in football speak. In an offense like the Hawks run, you have the X, Y and Z receivers (or split end, slot and flanker).

Rice is a traditional X receiver (split end), Tate is a traditional Y receiver (slot)..........so that leaves a gaping hole in the Z spot. So when people say we need a #1 receiver, they mean we need a good Z receiver, which traditionally lines up behind the line to avoid jamming, has blazing speed and can stretch the defense.


Slot receivers are traditionally excellent route runners with good hand, which does not = Tate


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:17 pm 
* NET Curmudgeon *
* NET Curmudgeon *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 7223
Location: Eastern Washington
AgentDib wrote:
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.

He was HOF caliber, duh. But you are missing the point. If Steve Largent were to enter the league now (time-travelling him and his college background from 1976 to 2013), nobody would be calling him a #1 receiver today. Partly because the label "possession receiver" would be applied and stick, and partly because of this amorphous fungible concept* of #1 receiver.




*As exemplified by this very thread.

_________________
49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:17 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:10 pm
Posts: 290
Let's play a game....

Name the #1 Receiver on the last 15 superbowl teams.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:21 pm 
USMC 1970-77
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 9551
Location: Monroe, WA
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't play for us. From what I read around here, I'm pretty sure they don't exist.

;)

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:22 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:10 pm
Posts: 290
The only free agent wide receiver I'm interested in is Mike Wallace.
With Mike Wallace on the team, Sidney Rice immediately becomes a #1 receiver (if healthy).

Likely too much money though. If we can get rid of Flynn and let Tate walk next year it might be doable. Particularly if we front load the contract to take advantage of our cap space that will quickly disappear after next year (Kam/Sherman/Earl).

Still like the draft better though. Draft a second or third round WR and sign a guy like Jared Cook. Our offense will be dynamic.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:58 pm 
* NET Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm
Posts: 2980
#1 receivers are among the modern mythological creatures of the North America continent. In the minds of those who treasure these creatures, they are every bit as real as the mythological heros of ancient Greece.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:32 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:32 pm
Posts: 525
The myth of the #1 WR. I would be interest to see just how many of the playoff teams have that unicorn known as a #1 WR. Let's start with the superbowl teams, Balt and SF. The Ravens don't have one, Boldin is the closest that they have but doesn't fit the mold spelled out in this post. He doesn't demand nor beat a double team consistently. Then we look at SF, where Crabtree is probably the closest they have as Moss is past his prime. Moss in his prime was probably as close as you get to the unicorn but not these days.

I'm not going to go through all the teams but if memory serves me I would probably say that Atlanta probably has the closest with either White or Jones.

Having a #1 WR just isn't that important in my opinion. WR's are 1 of 3 or 4 usually on the field and just don't touch the ball enough to warrant using high draft picks or spending tons of money on. That's why you always see them in FA after their team doesn't want to pay them. I would rather have 4 solid WR's than the unicorn. But that just me. If you have a good QB you don 't need a #1 WR.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:29 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm
Posts: 3179
oldhawkfan wrote:
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?

i would refer to an actual Corner who is considered one of the best in the League..Richard Sherman, who said that Julio Jones is a bring your A-Game if you hope to keep this guy from burning you big time,,Says he's not super fast, but has some outstanding moves, and brings it on every play, whistle to whistle.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:45 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:06 pm
Posts: 528
Location: Spokane
Regarding Largent and his status as the best of his era; never was he considered the best wr in any year he played. Looking back through the seahawk colored glasses, he was the best. Year in and year out he was anywhere from top 10 to top 5. Perhaps it was because he played in Seattle. Perhaps it was because he was generally considered a possession wr.

_________________
Go Hawks!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:54 pm 
NET Practice Squad
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 94
Calvin Johnson is a #1, Detroit sucks
Larry Fitzgerald. Is a #1 Arizona sucks
Brandon Marshall is a #1 Chicago sucks

Does Brady, Brees, Rogers have that true #1 stud? No Wilson will be fine as long as he has 3-4 good WRs.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:40 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm
Posts: 3181
We don't need a true dominating "#1" receiver for a few reasons:

As mentioned before, Wilson spreads the ball around.

We are a run first team. We ran the ball 55% of the time last year, which will hurt most of our receiver corps stats, thus precluding them from true #1 converstations. Because, you know, a "true #1" will have elite stats.

In the offense we run, we use TE's a lot. You'll see it a lot more once the line gets better at pass pro, like the end of the year. Also, with Wilson's progression will come deeper reads (3rd 4th and 5th options), and will familiarity our TEs will get used to Wilson and learn how to get open when he's scrambling.

What we really need is better depth and an upgrade to Baldwin's position. He's decent, but I think we can do much better.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:00 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:45 pm
Posts: 666
Location: Yakima
Do you remember Lester Hayes, cornerback for the Raiders. The guy that used
so much pine pitch on his arms, hands and uniform that he almost single-handedly
got its use banned. He always spoke of himself in third person.

He said something like: "Lester Hayes thinks the great Steve Largent is the best
receiver he's ever played against'. Thats a #1 receiver.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:57 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2447
joeshaney wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
Using the term "#1" is too abstract. You have to look at in football speak. In an offense like the Hawks run, you have the X, Y and Z receivers (or split end, slot and flanker).

Rice is a traditional X receiver (split end), Tate is a traditional Y receiver (slot)..........so that leaves a gaping hole in the Z spot. So when people say we need a #1 receiver, they mean we need a good Z receiver, which traditionally lines up behind the line to avoid jamming, has blazing speed and can stretch the defense.


Slot receivers are traditionally excellent route runners with good hand, which does not = Tate


I didn't say Tate was a good traditional slot receiver. But he's short and quick, which is why he fits the slot mold........and he did much better in 2012 with the route running and less drops.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: # 1 WR
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:08 am 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
Posts: 11163
Location: Antioch, CA
Basically a #1 WR is the Top 5 on the list of best WRs in the NFL.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gulliver, Scottemojo, Seanhawk, SoulfishHawk, themunn, Throwdown, TXHawk, Yahoo [Bot], YaktownHawK and 80 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.