Who needs a number one receiver anyway?
by VanRam on May 3, 2010 10:54 AM CDT
in 2010 St. Louis Rams offseason
80 comments
You absolutely must read this fan post from Carneros on the role of wide receivers in the St. Louis Rams offense. In it, he speaks to the concern many have discussed here and around the web of the Rams' lack of a prototypical "#1 wide receiver."
Taking a look back at the Andy Reid offensive systems in Philadelphia, where Rams offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur made a name for himself, he points out the success of those teams without a number one receiver. Shurmur's installing a similar offensive system in St. Louis, and doing it without the kind of receiver that gets his name on the marquee.
Only three times during that 2001-2009 period covered in the post, did the Eagles get a 1,000+ yard season from a receiver: T.O. in 2004, Kevin Curtis in 2007, and DeSean Jackson last year. Other than Owens, these guys don't fit the traditional definition of a #1 WR. The claim to fame for Curtis and Jackson is their ability to get yards after the catch, with Curtis more of a slot guy who can run routes well and Jackson with the speed to do just about whatever it is he wants to do after the catch. Jackson had an incredible 10 receptions for for 40 or more yards. If anything the success of players like Jackson should force everyone to redefine what a number one receiver really is.
The Rams receivers offer some interesting similarities.
Donnie Avery might not feel the pain of being a square peg of a speedster fit into the round hole of a possession guy, something that came out of necessity in the last two years thanks to injuries and other offensive struggles with the Rams. Fourth round pick Mardy Gilyard brings a very nice array of after the catch skills with his strong legs, jukes and his burst. As Coach Conners said, "you can do a lot with a guy who can catch and run."
Besides more dish on the Rams receivers, I thought it was worth taking a look at how the Eagles and their offenses fared in the years covered by Carneros. In the chart below, you've got the season, the Eagles record and their offensive ranking for total points and yards.
| Season | Record | Points rank | Yards rank |
| 2001 | 11-5 | 9 | 17 |
| 2002 | 12-4 | 4 | 10 |
| 2003 | 12-4 | 11 | 18 |
| 2004 | 13-3 | 8 | 9 |
| 2005 | 6-10 | 18 | 19 |
| 2006 | 10-6 | 6 | 2 |
| 2007 | 8-8 | 17 | 6 |
| 2008 | 9-6 | 6 | 9 |
| 2009 | 11-5 | 5 | 11 |
Lots of factors are at play here, like injuries and defensive play, but the key takeaway is that these offenses score points. The biggest anomaly, 2005, the Eagles were without McNabb in all but 9 games, and it was the worst season for their defense out of all those years by far.
Go back one more season to the year 2000. That was McNabb's second season in the league and his first as the Eagles full time starter. He led the Eagles to an 11-5 record that year, and led the team in rushing. The Rams aren't counting on Sam Bradford's legs to carry their offense. However, the passing game and what the Eagles later came to expect from Buckhalter and Westbrook is very similar to what the Rams are installing in this offensive system.
Getting back to the issue of a traditional #1 receiver, given Bradford's style versus McNabb's, especially the added dimension of McNabb's ability to run with the ball, I'd still look for the Rams to add a wide receiver in an upcoming draft. That just wasn't a priority this year given the team's many other needs. Shurmur's experience without a #1 WR probably allowed them to put that off a year, or so I would think.
The next question is when to start expecting results.
0 recs |
80 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Lets also remember
McNabbs best year came when he had TO, who at that time, was maybe the best WR playing.
Adding to the Rams situation
You touched on it a bit when you mentioned Avery as square peg trying to fit into round hole, from what I’ve seen they haven’t had the players to fully open up the offense like they want to, like we want them to. I know it’s frustrating on Sunday when they get so conservative on the playcalling but I really felt like they were hamstrung to a certain degree by the available personnel. You gotta have the horses, man.
I’ve also read from St. Lou local reporters how Shurmur has had to defer to Spags a bit on the type of offense they’re running. How much, I don’t know. But I think when you look at the style of run oriented Defense Spags is building, it wouldn’t be too much of a reach to think he has a bit more of a run oriented philosophy on Offense. As 3K noted, they aren’t trying to recreate the GSOT.
screen passes
classic example of something that frustrated observers last year (the lack of screen passes with SJ) but now we have better personnel to do that
Turf Show Times
I dont agree with Shurmurs offense
I for one am not sold on Shurmurs offense lets face it last year his play calling was totally predictable and the worst offense in football ,The style he prefers takes a week to get down field lol and every thing has to be perfect all the way to the end or the drive will fail ,I totally prefer a fast striking team that can come back in the game if need be,but that’s just my thinking
Coach what do you mean when you say had to defer to Spags a bit on the type of offense?
was it Spags that ran S.J. on first down 90% of the time or Shurmur ?when you run the worst offense in NFL history last year, you better defer to something lmao
"was it Spags that ran S.J. on first down 90% of the time or Shurmur?"
We don’t know.
All we know is that the local football reporters have noted that offensive decisions are not entirely Shurmur’s. Since there is a question about who decided what, I don’t think it’s fair to hang that on entirely Shurmur. We don’t know.
Who was the number one when they actually went to the Super Bowl? Thats right TO! When did Mcnabb have his best year as a pro? Thats right when TO was there. So it seems to me that he made a pretty big difference. So, yes having a number one makes a huge difference, if you want to win that is. The Pats and Baltimore are the only teams that I can think of that didn’t have a true stud at WR and won a Super Bowl.
Here's a couple more from the 2000's
New Orleans – 2009
Tampa Bay – 2002
So, 4 teams in the 2000s (Pats, Baltimore, New Orleans, Tampa Bay) have won the SB without a bona fide #1 WR and another 4 made it to the SB (Chicago, Seattle, Oakland (unless you’re counting Jerry Rice), Tennessee) without a top tier WR. I’d say it’s a luxury, but not a necessity.
Heck, you could even put Seattle on that list.
Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.
- John Wayne
Dude, Keyshawn Johnson.
Come on now.
As for New Orleans, all of their receivers can be classified as above average. A couple of ours reach “average” (though we don’t know about Gilyard yet).
"I was just letting the shots fly. You know, I don't leave any bullets in the chamber."
"Everything negative- pressure, challenges- is all an opportunity for me to rise."
-Kobe Bryant
A mantra for all athletes.
by TrojanRam on May 3, 2010 4:56 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Take New Orleans' receivers and put them on last year's Rams team
and no one knows who any of them are.
And Keyshawn Johnson was really never a #1 receiver. He was a possession receiver and quite possibly one of the best possession receivers ever. But, a big up top, go get it, big play receiver he wasn’t.
Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.
- John Wayne
Yup...that's one of the better possesion receivers ever then.
I mean, having deep play ability isn’t all it takes. In 2002, the Bucs’ Superbowl year in question, he averaged as many Yards Per Catch as Torry Holt.
And please, no one knows who they are? So you’re attributing their success to Brees specifically? Are you really going to tell me that our top 3 receivers and TE (Avery, Robinson, Gibson, and McMichael) would have the same success in New Orleans that Colston, Henderson, Meachem and Shockey have right now? Because their Qb is better? Really?
Because if Colston and Co. would suck in Stl, that MUST mean that Avery and co. would thrive in N.O. right? I think you’re selling that team’s wide outs short. Not saying they’re the Greatest Show on Turf as far as WR talent/depth, but there’s no way you lead the league in pass yards the last 3 years total(by far) without having quality wide receivers, and saying that they’d be garbage on the Rams just because of the QB is extremely questionable.
Colston may or may not be a #1 (he’s borderline), but you’re not going to convince me that a guy that out gained our entire corps’ top 3-4 receivers is simply the product of a good QB.
"I was just letting the shots fly. You know, I don't leave any bullets in the chamber."
"Everything negative- pressure, challenges- is all an opportunity for me to rise."
-Kobe Bryant
A mantra for all athletes.
Colston?
Jerry Rice, Tim Brown?
You’re point is well taken but you missed some dudes.
I can take a beating ... I'm a Rams fan.
The Raiders.
I have to admit, Rice was better that year than I remember. However, I just noticed, while Rice was the top catcher (92 catches) he was followed by Charlie Garner who had 91 catches and almost 1000 yards.
I guess all I can remember about that year was Rich Gannon putting up, not only his best season of his career, but one of the greatest passing seasons in the history of the NFL. Seems like I could have caught 30 or so passes that year too……..
Btw, Rice was pretty much toast in SF before going to the Raiders where he put up two very good years that coincided perfectly with Gannon’s two amazing years. Coincidence? I don’t know for sure. Maybe it was just the perfect storm of passing.
Either way, take Oakland off the list if you like.
Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.
- John Wayne
Really, Colston isn’t a prototype #1 at 6’4" and over a thousand? Keyshawn wasn’t a #1 for years, definately not Jerry Rice and his 1,100 and 1,200 yard years with the Raiders or Tim Brown for that matter. Tennesse’s Mason was still a number one with Baltimore. Ok so Chicago, Seattle, Baltimore, The Pats until they got Moss. So 4 teams out of 22 possible?
His name was Keyshawn Johnson.
Fight On!
"I was just letting the shots fly. You know, I don't leave any bullets in the chamber."
"Everything negative- pressure, challenges- is all an opportunity for me to rise."
-Kobe Bryant
A mantra for all athletes.
by TrojanRam on May 3, 2010 4:53 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Key!
Oh man, they won a SB in 02 and then the next year Gruden sent him home for half of the season. What a mess that was, if you think Brandon Marshall’s situation is bad…
last 10 SB's
So if the Rams didn’t have a “true #1” that’d be one team that won the SB without one. Ravens were the next year, that’s 2.
Pats won 3 of them (dayum) in 2004, 2005, 2006 but Randy Moss didn’t get there until later in 2007. Deion Branch was their top guy, but in Seattle he hasn’t played too incredible so I don’t know if he’s really a #1, eh?
So that’s half the SB’s of the last 10 years.
Do you guys consider Marvin Harrison a true #1? He’s not a real overpowering kind of guy, nothing like a TO, and when it came time they let him go like no big deal and Wayne replaced him easily. I guess the case can be made, I don’t know.
Pats won in 2001, 2003, and 2004.
2005 was Steelers and 2006 were the Colts.
Marvin Harrison is one of the most prolific receivers in NFL history with multiple Colt receiving records. Yes he was a number one guy ever if he isn’t 6’2 plus.
You're right, I misread the list
on Wiki, I was talking about years, not seasons, and I was still off
8^p
it's all in how you think about a #1
lots of reliable go-to guys out there that can catch a lot of balls and put up yards, that’s really all you need for a #1 in the strictest sense of it.
Turf Show Times
Ward not a number one for me
He’s very valuable to his team and the best blocking WR in the game, but he’s not a true 1 in my definition
You really don't think Bruce and Holt
were #1 quality receivers. I think the Rams had two #1s that year, not just one. Bruce is still the second receiver in line behind Rice for receptions and yards. He caught the opening long bomb against Minnesota in the playoffs and the winning TD in the Super Bowl. That sure sounds like a #1 to me.
My take on what a #1 is
I considered Holt a 1, but not Bruce. I guess like Keyshawn, I need more in my definition of a 1. But it’s pretty clear guys have different definitions of what constitutes a proverbial “true #1 receiver”.
Andy I was trying to assume someone else’s argument for a minute for the sake of developing a more clear line of thought.
I always felt that a QB makes WR’s, not the other way around. You don’t see WR’s carrying a team to championships without a QB very often, but you will be able to find QB’s with just good to ok recievers doing it.
For me, a 1 can come in any package, he doesn’t have to even be 6’.
5’7"-ish Steve Smith a #1, and a badass #1 at that.
My #1 needs to:
- a true #1 makes big plays in big games. Not once David Tyree, but reliably, and answers the call every time (or at least when needed most)
and one or more from the list below:
- able to do the above on any given play,
- a constant threat to score — yardage monsters therefore don’t fit my definition
- someone who is almost impossible to single cover (requiring constant double attention from the Free Safety, Slot CB or OLB ) .
- Someone you can throw to with confidence on big plays in big games (“Big Game” Torry Holt, for ex)
And possess 1 (or more) of the following athletic advantages that he can exploit:
- Beastmode brute strength, or
- Dominating height advantage in most matchups, or
- Truly spectacular hands while tighly covered – you fully expect this man will catch the ball regardless of tight coverage, and are shocked when he doesn’t, or
- True “burner” deep speed or electric quickness and agility (these are different things), where he can consistantly either run away from the deep Safety without being caught or catch the ball in traffic and pull a Barry Sanders-like RAC and scat throught the broken field like junebug
This will be the guy the QB has the most trust in and looks to in must have situations.
My list for #1 may seem long, but its not that bad really. And I am not convinved we don’t have one rostered right now. I just think there’s a lot that goes into WR success and we have yet to see these young players best plays, best games and best years…that last part almost always takes a year or two before it shows up on the field so I’m reserving judgment on th current stable and I would hope guys know enough about history of the game to know that’s realistic, whether we are impatient or not…
Basically I’m saying a#1 has to be special. Not big….not tall…doesn’t need ALL those things, but has to have a special talent and know how to use it to his advantage.
Thats my definition of a #1 and I’d be interested in hearing how others actually define him.
I guess this is the more subjective route (no numbers to consider)
I agree with this. My number 1 selections were more subjective, but this list fits closely to what I considered from a number 1. I just never put my thoughts onto a list, its all jumbled in my brain somewhere. But, the descriptions are not set in stone and there will obviously be debates.
Although, I think a lot of peoples definition of number 1 here seems to be the best WR on his team, as long as he is considered “very good” in terms of the rest of the league’s WRs.
IMO you missed the most important factor. Route running. That is where Holt, Harrison, Carter, Ellard, Rice, Wayne, Clayton and so on seperated from the rest. None of them huge but quick in and out of routs and sharp route runners. This is were our guys are sooo terrible, at least from what I could see. I mean they have to be able to stay on the field for longer than a couple games a season.
I don't understand why you are leaving Bruce off the list.
The year we won the Super Bowl he was clearly our #1, as well as in the years before that. He caught the long TD to start the playoff win against Minnesota and he caught the long pass and turned it into the winning TD in the SB. He was an unbelievable route runner who constantly got himself open and scored big TDs. I think he was more of a #1 WR than Holt in Holt’s early years on the team. Only when Bruce got old did Holt become the #1.
So using your logic there are only two maybe three true number ones out there? Fitgerald, A. Johnson and Donnie Avery are the only three in the league. Of course Holt was a true number one and if Marvin Harrison wasn’t you are seriously high. You are right, Hall of famer to be Chris Carter was replaced by Randy Moss so he must have sucked. Haha!
I was repeating someone else's assertion..read above..trying to get him to expound on it
But as a matter of fact, yes I do think there’s only a handful of them out there. I am not so sure about Marvin. Chris Carter was replaced by a number one, whereas Reggie Wayne is borderline and not comparable to Moss in anyway, so its not apples to apples.
So are you really saying that Carter who will be a HOF’er was a second rate receiver? In statisctics, Wayne is comparable to Moss. Sure he hasn’t played as long but, he is a true number one no doubt about it.
Reggie Wayne is not comparable to Randy Moss, at all
Wayne has Manning. Moss had dogshit at Oakland, and has been doubled so heavily in NE that Wes Welker constantly gets the second look. There’s no comparison at all to Wayne and Moss when it comes to physical talent in their prime. Moss is a 6’4" and was very fast in hus prime, not to mention his ability to go up and get it a la Plaxico. Really, there’s no comp between those 2 athletes.
Moss V Harrison
From 2000-2006 (Moss’s prime) he had 7,974 yards and Wayne from 2003-2009 had 8,332 yards. Yeah Moss was on the Raiders for two years but he had over 1,000 one year with them. That’s a difference of roughly 400 yards in Wayne’s favor. Pretty sure (just looking at it) Harrison beat him in receptions and TD’s too. He also did this with Harrison being the number one for half of his career. The only way Wayne doesn’t compare is in physical stature.
We'll get our number 1 guy next year
Lets face it we arent going to make a run at the super bowl this year. This will just be a year of learning for all our young players. Hopefully they will grow and build a strong chemistry with one another. We have a nice receiving corp right now but we are missing that big tall physical guy. There will be a ton of them in next years draft and with our 1st or 2nd round pick we will grab one solidifying our receiving corp. Spend the other picks filling our remaining holes and with a year of experience under sam’s belt I think we can be pretty good next year but dont expect much this year.
Do they need a #1? Or do they need
Lots of good pics in there. If someone already linked ’em, enjoy them again.
I think
Bradford will make someone on the roster a #1. He will find his go to guy, thats the only way he’ll succeed. Hopefully he finds him early in camp and starts building the relationship.
GO RAMS!!!
Laurent Robinson could very well be a number 1. He just needs to stay healthy. Eventually this offense will run through Bradford and it will be up to him to get his receivers to play for him. Peyton Manning does not need a “1”. Brees doesn’t need a “1”. He just needs guys that can play hard and catch his passes. That’s all we need. Lets stop writing our current guys off so quickly and give them a chacne to develop…
agreed
They are still very young. I think they will be pretty good. Next draft I want defense mainly with a TE and a backup for stee j
by Moobreff on May 4, 2010 12:20 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Brees and Manning do not need a "1"?
Well, maybe, but how many years in the NFL before they got to the point where they didn’t? Surely I hope you are not saying that Bradford can come in his rookie year (or even his 1st couple) and mimic those guys…..
Andthe whole not needing a #1 is debatable anyway – at least Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Marques Colston think so. You’ll also notice in Brees numbers that he didn’t jump up in performance and QB rating until he got Antonio Gates in SD.
Baseball season is back - Go Halos!
I guess these guys sucked to you.
Todd pinkston
Freddie Mitchell
James Thrash
Chad Lewis
Can we define what a #1 WR is before we even start debating?
Is it if you get a certain amount of receptions and yards? (i.e. 80+ rec, 1300+ yrds)
- when you do get these numbers, are you just referred to as a number 1 until you retire?
Is it when you make multiple all-pro teams?
- when are you no longer considered a number 1? (i.e. Jerry Rice)
Is it when enough people think you are a number 1? (This one’s kind of subjective)
Maybe when the other teams start to gameplan around you. (Randy Moss and Welker gets all the receptions maybe?)
TDS? I really think its just what the majority thinks because obviously people think Keyshawn was a number 1 during Tampa’s SB run.
having said that
I don’t think anyone on our team has proven they are a number 1 yet. Potentially, sure, but that doesn’t matter I want to see production, like I want them to be starting on someone’s fantasy team consistently.
well you will never get that in guys so young
You know it takes until usually their third year, so be realistic in your expectations. Check out Brandon Marshall’s first year stats. You would be one fo the guys saying hes not a number 1 after that season. Avery has only had 1.5 years.
i totally agree
I’m obviously down to give them a chance, because they do have potential. I saw people saying Avery was not a number 1 or that we needed to get a number 1 from the draft. Once again, I totally agree that we need to give our WRs a chance. Avery showed something so we should see where that goes, Gibson had a small sample size, but showed good hands, and Laurent needs to stay healthy.
that's a very realistic approach to it
Just because some people want a #1 right now doesn’t change the reality that WR’s take a couple of years to prove whether they truly are or not. It is what it is, that’s just the simple reality of it. Anyone who see’s a year or year and half of a WR and thinks they know everything he’s going to be are simply ignoring the reality of WR development in the NFL.
Now, maybe Avery will never be one. Maybe he wil next year. Point is we don’t know yet, because that’s how these guys develop.
Chris Long (while not a WR) looked very slow and bascially like a one trick pony until the second half of last year when he started to put it together. I exect he’ll take another step forward this season too.
Finally, listen to Spags who said they felt good about the progress the WR’s have made over this offseason. I think that’s the clue you won;t be seeing the same kind of production oiut there this year. Of course, Bradford and an upgraded and healthy o-line should help that eventaually too. Lets not forget the Wides suffered right along with Bulger when the line started getting hurt.
i liked avery.
he was good his rookie season. For me, I can’t really blame Avery for his crappy sophomore season. The team just sucked, had no stability in QB/OL. I like him. But I think SJAX should end up being our best receiver anyways.
Brandon Marshall started 1 game his rookie season and in his second he caught over 100 balls. Avery started 12 games his first year and his second he caught 47 passes. Don’t even try to compare. Avery has had two full seasons and has shown nothing at all.
Easy to compare
Because Marshall played in 15 games. Its not like he didn’t have is chances.
And the point about almost all Wides needing 2 solid years is absolutely valid regardless of these 2 guys’ stats.
I agree most of them need a year, maybe two if they can hold onto their job long enough. Starting and seeing a few plays a game are two different animals. Starting, you see 99% of all offensive plays, while just playing in 15 games means you saw limited action behind a minimum of 2 other starters. In his first season as a starter Marshall caught 103 while Avery in his second season as a starter caught 47. Better QB, better team, better system but, Moss still caught balls when Oakland was horrible so did Boldin when the Cards were bad. Like I said I hope our O-Line is awesome because Bradford will need 6 seconds before these clowns get open.
I just did above
Fror me, the answer is about what did those guys have that made them a #1…..what we can look for to determine if we even have one (or will have one)
haha
i just saw that. answering my question from the future.
I had the same question, what is a #1 WR.
So i googled this a few days back and found this link. Take it as you wish, but thought it might be interesting. It also lists potential #1’s in 2009.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2009/10/clearing_up_the_issue_of_the_b.html
Have fun.
The problem with our offense is the lack of consistent moderate and deep threats
Right now there is no one on the team that will stop defenses from playing 8, sometimes even 9, guys in the box.
The designed short-range passing attack also is not helping since most defenses are now fast enough to easily switch from short-range pass coverage to run coverage without missing a beat.
Agreed. We need a tight end too.
"I was just letting the shots fly. You know, I don't leave any bullets in the chamber."
"Everything negative- pressure, challenges- is all an opportunity for me to rise."
-Kobe Bryant
A mantra for all athletes.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Turf Show Times
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
