We Must Draft this guy in 2010

Archive of discussions on NFL Draft 2003, NFL Draft 2004, NFL Draft 2005, NFL Draft 2006, NFL Draft 2007 NFL Draft 2008, NFL Draft 2009 and NFL Draft 2010.
mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:08 am

I think the position of WR is slightly overrated anyway. The best receiver in the NFL (by yardage) was Chad Johnson, and his team didn't even make the playoffs. I'm not saying having a great receiver doesn't help (it clearly does), but it's not nearly as important as some people think. New England won three Super Bowls without a truly GREAT receiver - what does that tell you?

The Evil Straw
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:30 pm
Location: Leather Chair

Postby Fios » Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:15 am

Mursilis wrote:what does that tell you?


WE MUST SIGN THIS GUY GIVE HIM ELEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS
RIP Sean Taylor

mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:52 am

Fios wrote:
Mursilis wrote:what does that tell you?


WE MUST SIGN THIS GUY GIVE HIM ELEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS


This guy's a genius!

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11008
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:02 pm

Mursilis wrote:I think the position of WR is slightly overrated anyway. The best receiver in the NFL (by yardage) was Chad Johnson, and his team didn't even make the playoffs. I'm not saying having a great receiver doesn't help (it clearly does), but it's not nearly as important as some people think. New England won three Super Bowls without a truly GREAT receiver - what does that tell you?



Unfortunately, I think the same thing can be said for any position, coach, or FO position. Just replace the word "receiver" in that sentence with quarterback, running back, offensive coordinator, head coach. . .and I think it still works. Any one position fails this test, and even entire units (like wide receivers, even offensive and defensive lines) will fail to prove to be the key for success.

I think that I also haven't really seen that many people saying that you need a great receiver to be great in the league. That's not to say that the position isn't valued more highly than it should be -- I think that the skill positions (not well named!) tend to grab more attention than they deserve, for obvious reasons.
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:50 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
Mursilis wrote:I think the position of WR is slightly overrated anyway. The best receiver in the NFL (by yardage) was Chad Johnson, and his team didn't even make the playoffs. I'm not saying having a great receiver doesn't help (it clearly does), but it's not nearly as important as some people think. New England won three Super Bowls without a truly GREAT receiver - what does that tell you?



Unfortunately, I think the same thing can be said for any position, coach, or FO position. Just replace the word "receiver" in that sentence with quarterback, running back, offensive coordinator, head coach. . .and I think it still works. Any one position fails this test, and even entire units (like wide receivers, even offensive and defensive lines) will fail to prove to be the key for success.


I'd disagree - I think some positions, even amongst the 'skill' positions, are clearly more important than others. For example, I'd take greatness at QB before I'd take greatness at WR. Few Super Bowl winners don't have a good or great QB (recent exceptions being Baltimore in 2000 and maybe Tampa a few years later). I'd also suspect, although I haven't actually studied it, that the correlation between good QB play and team winning is higher than that between good WR play and team winning. A QB (and to the same extent a RB) just get more touches per game than a WR, typically, and thus their impact will be greater.

I think that I also haven't really seen that many people saying that you need a great receiver to be great in the league.


The OP seems to be saying it.

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11008
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:17 pm

Mursilis wrote:I'd disagree - I think some positions, even amongst the 'skill' positions, are clearly more important than others.


I agree with that, and I don't think my previous post contradicts it.


Few Super Bowl winners don't have a good or great QB (recent exceptions being Baltimore in 2000 and maybe Tampa a few years later).


That gets tricky for a number of reasons, most prominently the fact that how good a player is so often seems to depend on the system and players around them. Was Bradshaw a great QB? (I'd say maybe good). Was Steve Young really that amazing himself, or was he playing in an amazing system with an amazing offensive unit?

It's a bit too complex for me to generalize, but at the very least I think I can say with confidence that having a great QB is not the key for success (e.g., Dan Marino; John Elway before he had the '96 Broncos surrounding him; Dan Fouts; Drew Bledsoe; Dave Krieg; Fran Tarkenton).


I'd also suspect, although I haven't actually studied it, that the correlation between good QB play and team winning is higher than that between good WR play and team winning.


I don't doubt this, although again with how intertwined these statistics get it's difficult to say. For example, how can a WR have a stellar season without making the QB look good? I can imagine that it's possible that the QB still manages to throw a few INTs a game, but take a mediocre QB and put him with an amazing WR and the QB will look like an All-Pro player.


A QB (and to the same extent a RB) just get more touches per game than a WR, typically, and thus their impact will be greater.


I agree with this completely.

Nevertheless, as I said earlier, I still feel that skill position players get more credit for what they accomplish (shown in salaries and media attention) than they really "deserve." The other people on the field that help to make the team work, linemen and coaches for example, get too little credit and attention / analysis, proportionately. This is because the good work that the coaches and line do can only end in their RBs and QBs, and even WRs, looking like studs. OL don't score touchdowns, they just make it possible for other guys to do it. The analysis by commentators has a bad balance, in my opinion.
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

Return to NFL Draft 2003-2010