Was Sidney Rice true #1 WR for Hawks and lessons for new #1?

[olyfan63]

Some of us started waxing all sentimental in another thread about missing Sidney Rice in his 'Hawks prime, like the game-winning TD's vs New England and Chicago in 2012.

Was Rice a true #1 receiver that plays like a #2 in Seattle's offense? Was he a #1.5 pretending to be a #1? Was he just banged up so much that we didn't see the "real" #1 Sidney Rice in Seattle, the one that flashed #1 impact in Minnesota and that we spent big bucks to bring here? Is All-22 available for past season games, and has anyone done a breakdown analyzing Sidney Rice's impact and contributions in Seattle's offense? Russell did tie the rookie QB record for TD passes in 2012, with Rice as a key contributor.

And, most importantly, what did we learn from the Sidney Rice experience that would help us identify, target, and acquire a #1-ish receiver for the 'Hawks either in the '15 draft, or free agency? What players would you expect/hope PC/JS to target? We almost coulda had a Kelvin Benjamin (I think he went #28) this last year.

God I miss Sidney Rice...

Who would ever think we'd feel that way??!!

We can't just forget the Percy Harvin fiasco, it was proof that we were putting a lot of stock into our passing game, contrary to what people are believing. Plus Richardson was picked in the top half of the second round, with our first pick, saying he's a third rounder is wrong. That's our top two picks in the last two years spent on helping our passing offense.

Sure Percy hasn't worked out, but we tried, and we'll try again. There's no way our FO is happy with our passing game, for starters Russ's completion percentage isn't near enough to that 70% Pete was targeting, and you have to believe that we're wanting more big plays than we're getting in the air.

Pete's always looking to progress, and just because we're getting by in the pass game doesn't mean we're (not) going to try and do the same next year. I expect us to strengthen early in the draft/FA.

Sid did a good job for us, when he was healthy. He gave the 'Hawks everything he had in his body to give.
Much of the time, it seemed like he was a #1.5 receiver with a #1 receiver contract. Not fully a true "#1", but close. More like a good #2. Though it's easy now to wonder if it was more the 'Hawks system and scheme that limited him, and maybe in Detroit, or New England, etc. he'd have more like true #1 impact and numbers, like Tate getting his numbers and having massive impact in Detroit. But definitely good enough to miss.

What can we learrn from the Sidney Rice experience to help know what receivers to target to upgrade the 'Hawks passing attack next season?

 

[gargantual]

I think everything is told by the difference from when he was in the lineup and when he had to sit on the bench. The passing game dropped considerably.

Our offensive philosophy just isn't built to make receivers look good. Pair him with a gunslinger and suddenly he's a number one.

 

[Basis4day]

I personally hate the term #1 Wide Receiver because there are very few of them in the league, but it the way it's described makes it sound impossible to have success without one.

When most people use the term, they're generally talking about Calvin Johnson, AJ Green, Dez Bryant and Julio Jones types. With the exception of Bryant, all of them were drafted in the top 10. To put it simply, we're not going to have a shot at those players without giving up some serious draft capital.

I'd personally rather have a stable of unique WRs who complement each other. My preference would be a big bodied possession WR in the mold of Anquan Boldin rather than mortgaging the farm for a WR that won't make it past the 5th Pick in the draft.

WRers tend to take time to develop, and i'm perfectly happy to let players like Richardson and Norwood develop rather than unrealistically expecting immediate impact on a run first team.

 

[SomersetHawk]

I personally hate the term #1 Wide Receiver because there are very few of them in the league, but it the way it's described makes it sound impossible to have success without one.

When most people use the term, they're generally talking about Calvin Johnson, AJ Green, Dez Bryant and Julio Jones types. With the exception of Bryant, all of them were drafted in the top 5. To put it simply, we're not going to have a shot at those players without giving up some serious draft capital.

.

I dunno, I just consider it a term for a guy who's good enough to consistently be your #1 in targets/yardage/TDs. There's a lot more guys than you listed who can be considered #1 receivers and who were not even top 10 picks. Thomas/Jeffery & Marshall/Beckham/Benjamin/Nelson/Gordon/ and even Antonio Brown, DeAndre Hopkins and T.Y Hilton are now the focus of their teams passing offense. I think if you put any of those guys in our offense then it's fair to suggest they'd top the receiving categories.

On topic, Sidney was that guy for us. And if healthy, he'd still be that guy, so yeh, I guess I'd call him a #1.

 

[AgentDib]

There are too many different opinions about what makes a #1 receiver to consider it as a legitimate category. Does it matter if they are a split-end or a flanker? How about a slot receiver who performs like Welker did with Brady? Does it matter if they are a key end-zone target or just if they rack up the yards?

I think a better category is whether a receiver is a primary focus of the defense they are playing against. Guys like Antonio Brown, Dez Bryant, Jordy Nelson, Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson, Rob Gronkowski, DeSean Jackson, AJ Green, Demaryius Thomas, T.Y. Hilton, Jimmy Graham, and Julio Jones. If the Seahawks play any of those teams your very first thought on defense is those guys. For example, ODB belongs on that list for NYG right now - if we played them tomorrow your first thought on defense would be him.

With that definition Rice was probably never in that category for us. If we brought out a three receiver set with Rice/Tate/Baldwin/Miller/Lynch the defense would still be worried primarily about Lynch. Harvin was that guy for us very briefly if you look at the GB game but with his attitude teams sort of figured out they should worry more about Lynch then him.

 

[edogg23]

I think the only thing I learned from Sidney rice is don't give a wr with a history of being injured a big contract. Also Dez Bryant is a free agent after this year.... imagine the Hawks picking him up

 

[Basis4day]

I think the only thing I learned from Sidney rice is don't give a wr with a history of being injured a big contract. Also Dez Bryant is a free agent after this year.... imagine the Hawks picking him up

I prefer to think of the Hawks paying Wilson and Wagner.

 

[Basis4day]

I personally hate the term #1 Wide Receiver because there are very few of them in the league, but it the way it's described makes it sound impossible to have success without one.

When most people use the term, they're generally talking about Calvin Johnson, AJ Green, Dez Bryant and Julio Jones types. With the exception of Bryant, all of them were drafted in the top 5. To put it simply, we're not going to have a shot at those players without giving up some serious draft capital.

.

I dunno, I just consider it a term for a guy who's good enough to consistently be your #1 in targets/yardage/TDs. There's a lot more guys than you listed who can be considered #1 receivers and who were not even top 10 picks. Thomas/Jeffery & Marshall/Beckham/Benjamin/Nelson/Gordon/ and even Antonio Brown, DeAndre Hopkins and T.Y Hilton are now the focus of their teams passing offense. I think if you put any of those guys in our offense then it's fair to suggest they'd top the receiving categories.

On topic, Sidney was that guy for us. And if healthy, he'd still be that guy, so yeh, I guess I'd call him a #1.

A lot of those names are a result of the rest of the talent at the WR position on the roster rather than the individual ability of the player.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

Norwood is going to be money for us eventually. I've never been more certain of anything.

 

[olyfan63]

There are too many different opinions about what makes a #1 receiver to consider it as a legitimate category. Does it matter if they are a split-end or a flanker? How about a slot receiver who performs like Welker did with Brady? Does it matter if they are a key end-zone target or just if they rack up the yards?

I think a better category is whether a receiver is a primary focus of the defense they are playing against. Guys like Antonio Brown, Dez Bryant, Jordy Nelson, Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson, Rob Gronkowski, DeSean Jackson, AJ Green, Demaryius Thomas, T.Y. Hilton, Jimmy Graham, and Julio Jones. If the Seahawks play any of those teams your very first thought on defense is those guys. For example, ODB belongs on that list for NYG right now - if we played them tomorrow your first thought on defense would be him.

With that definition Rice was probably never in that category for us. If we brought out a three receiver set with Rice/Tate/Baldwin/Miller/Lynch the defense would still be worried primarily about Lynch. Harvin was that guy for us very briefly if you look at the GB game but with his attitude teams sort of figured out they should worry more about Lynch then him.

Great questions. To me, the classic #1 receivers are the obvious Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones (tore Patrick Peterson a new one), Andre Johnson, Dez Bryant, Demaryus Thomas, AJ Green, (a healthy) Larry Fitzgerald, and new on the block this year, Kelvin Benjamin and Odell Beckham Jr., and there are numerous others that could be on this list. I suppose the way I think of it, aside from getting open, is that your QB will throw the ball pretty much any time the #1 has single coverage, with confidence the #1 will either come down with a catch, or make sure it doesn't get picked. And, of course, the #1 would be the QB's #1 Red Zone target. Just racking up yards isn't really enough, if he becomes almost invisible in the Red Zone.

While I don't see Welker in the #1 category (though extremely valuable in his own way, and certainly a Red Zone force), I think there's a very good argument to be made for TY Hilton and DeSean Jackson, using exactly the criteria you mentioned, "primary focus of the opposing defense." It appears Pete sees PRich as having the potential to become that kind of threat. It seems Pete views it this "primary threat" way too; In theory that was the "value" of Harvin in our offense. Of course, at the time we DID have the big target of Sidney Rice, so Harvin was to be a complementary force. And now we have neither... But with our defense, it's all seeming more like a "nice to have" these days.

In terms of the Seahawks, we have an obvious glaring deficit in the tall, fast, big-catch-radius receiver, which Rice gave us when healthy. I recall the 1990's Redskins had the Smurfs, 5'10", 5'8", 5'7", but also had Art Monk, 6'3". Right now, we have the Smurfs, with no Art Monk. I think our biggest WR is Jerome Kearse. Lockette and Richardson are supposedly both 6'0", but they both play as small receivers. Aside from Kearse, we could certainly use more physicality in our WR corps. I think many of us believe we really need that big-body threat in our WR corps, to keep defenses honest, and be a security blanket for Russell.

 

[Scottemojo]

Number ones command double teams in clear passing situations.

Sid was no number 1.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

The NFL needs to allow WRs to use the number 1 on their jerseys just to make the attempts at defining what a #1 is all the more confusing.

 

[olyfan63]

Number ones command double teams in clear passing situations.

Sid was no number 1.

Nice!
I think we have a winner!

And by definition, the WR that draws a doubleteam is the focus of the defense.

 

[RunTheBall]

"True" #1 WRs - D. Thomas, Calvin Johnson, AJ Green, Dez Bryant, Brandon Marshall, Julio Jones... usually a big, very talented WR that demands a double team. Rice was a good WR, not a True #1 though.