# 1 WR

[Sgt. Largent]

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.

 

[Missing_Clink]

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.

 

[mikeak]

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....

 

[MontanaHawk05]

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.

 

[Veilside]

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.

 

[JKent82]

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.

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.

 

[joeshaney]

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

 

[BlueTalon]

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.

 

[joeshaney]

Let's play a game....

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

 

[sutz]

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.

 

[joeshaney]

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.

 

[Jville]

#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.

 

[Schadie001]

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.

 

[scutterhawk]

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.

 

[oldhawkfan]

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.

 

[garrylt4]

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.

 

[Hawks46]

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.

 

[two dog]

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.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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.

 

[HawkFan72]

Basically a #1 WR is the Top 5 on the list of best WRs in the NFL.