I hope you're right, but I went to Cortland many times his rookie year and watched him close. Not good. Actually, scary bad. Wide open rainbows bouncing off his forearms in the endzone, etc. But again, I hope you're right about him.
Given that this thread provides an in depth description of the different types of receivers (split end, flanker, slot, h back) in the NFL, can someone please explain to me what a #1 receiver is? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An arbitrary phrase that means jack shit. supposedly the qualifications are: 1.a WR thats very physical and very fast who can separate from great amounts of coverage easily and make circus catches if need be. 2.a WR offenses plan around and defenses plan to to stop (more than others on the team I guess) 3. a WR that gets at least 1k yards a year. examples I've heard are Calvin Johnson, AJ Green, Alshon Jeffery and Brandon Marshall (at the same time some how at times despite the phrasing) Vincent Jackson, Pierre Garcon and Demaryius Thomas. So I guess its a relatively inaccurate label to describe the current premier class of wide receivers, a # 1 WR is just a weird way of saying a top end WR thats got good stats and looks the part. a #2 or #3 WR is a complementary receiver thats flashed talent but apparently needs a # 1 around to work right. (implying a # 1 WR needs no other weapon to distract defenses form their talent, nope none at all) where it gets stupid is when people act like teams NEED a WR that separates themselves statistically to be worth a damn, as if having a good overall set of WR's is worse than having one really good one and then the other guys. just as well it ignores any sense of roleplaying like an X and Z, although slot receivers are always treated as second citizens. Really its nothing that can be consciously attained, its just something that happens as a result of the kind of talent you've brought on you're team, a resulting talent gap will leave you with one guy that's give more opportunity to shine and thus a "#1". if you do you're job right that shouldn't be easy to tell, see the broncos last year or Bears.
Hill might have all these great tools but he lacks the most basic tool to be a good receiver; good hands
http://turnonthejets.com/2014/05/new-york-jets-need-wide-receiver/ awesome article on the same topic.
Good read Tony. Looks like we need to sign Holmes back on board to be our "#1". Lol Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well said. IMHO, The term was coined for the selected few superstars like Megatron, Green, Marshall, and very few others that separate themselves as the best of the best, constantly demanding double teaming and specific game planning against. There is not a position per se that has to be filled by a "#1WR" as opposed to "the best WR on your team" nor do most teams really have a so called #1WR. If you have such a stud you are blessed, but as you well pointed out is not a position that can be consciously obtained, but rather a talent level that comes around once in a great while. For example. M. Lee might turn out to be a very good WR, we don't know, but to say he is a #1 type WR and so and so is not means nothing coming off the draft. You got to separate yourself to a higher level with demonstrated ability on the NFL field and that's easier said than done.
The overuse of the phrase #1 receiver in the media and by fans is one of the most annoying things we've been dealing with for a while. People basically get boners for the extreme examples of guys they see make circus catches and move the chains and score touchdowns, but the truth is these guys are few and far between. AJ Green, Julio Jones, Calvin Johnson, and Josh Gordon are the guys in the league who right now exhibit the characteristics that make a player like this. One of the problems with using this phrase is that the average fan sees lots of highlights for other WR's like Keenan Allen, Alshon Jeffrey, Kendall Wright, Vincent Jackson, and even Dez Bryant and think that they are even close to the same caliber of receiver as the first guys that I listed. These players are all very good receivers, but they represent another tier of players. What fans are actually saying is that they want Calvin Johnson, and well, sorry but only 1 team has Calvin Johnson. Fans think that because these players physically resemble the top tier, and can sometimes make big plays or do some of the things that these others can, they are on a similar level but they just aren't. The truth is Santonio Holmes was as good a receiver as any of these 2nd tier guys in his prime, but because he doesn't physically look like Calvin Johnson of AJ Green, he can't be a #1receiver in most fans eyes. Mark my words, none of the players in the second tier are going to consistently put up numbers on the level of the first 4 guys. If you want a transcendent, top 4 WR like the first 4, start asking the front office to tank the season because you aren't getting one outside of the top 5 picks, or maybe you can get lucky with a guy like Josh Gordon who will get suspended for a year immediately following his breakout season. These are the only players who can successfully do everything you could want a WR to do on any given play. The 2nd tier receivers all do multiple things well, but have clear strengths and some weaknesses. The key to having a successful receiving corps is that at least 1 guy has to be a threat in multiple ways. If he can not do multiple things well, defenses will be able to scheme and figure out a way to take away the one thing he does well. Holmes could beat you deep, juke the shit out of you with the ball in his hands off a slant or screen, and work the sidelines better than just about any receiver in the league. So he couldn't win a jump ball, who cares? that's what Braylon, Plax, and Stephen Hill are supposed to do. Santonio Holmes was a #1 receiver if you use the term properly. Eric Decker also does multiple things well, and is effectively our #1 receiver. Guys, don't make the mistake of thinking Eric Decker is any worse than those other 2nd tier WR's I listed, he just has a different style.
That article caused me to channel my inner Big Blocker, as it is a bit homer-iiiiiiiiiiiiish [say it like Kanye]. Whether one prefers to use the term #1 WR or not, the fact still remains that Decker has never been the guy that defenses put their top CB on, double or roll coverage towards. He, thus far in his career, has been the beneficiary of playing opposite such a WR. As the roster stands right now, he must change from beneficiary to benefactor. Can he still be productive in this new role? We don't know. On the other side, who's going to be the WR to make defenses pay for focusing all their attention on Decker? While Kerley is more than serviceable on the outside, he is a pro-bowl caliber WR IMO in the slot. One would think that it would be in the team's best interest to place guys in the position where they would garner the most success and not just get by. Best case scenario, someone emerges out of the group of cast-off vets and late round draft picks to become a consistent, productive and reliable outside WR. Worst case scenario, Decker struggles in his new role, the production we get out of which WR that plays opposite Decker is not any better than what we got from Nelson and Kerley is our leading WR once again; basically, a repeat of 2013.
First of all, Cumberland and Amaro, even if you don't believe Hill has the potential. You're completely ignoring the fact that we will be using a run heavy attack with some very good RB's. People forget how much the threat of a run game can effect the passing game. Safeties and CBs will bite on play action fakes when we establish that Chris Ivory can crush a linebacker and gain a big chunk if there is no safety there to bring him down after, and when we establish that Chris Johnson can get around the edge and take one to the house if there is no CB breaking off coverage to make the tackle.
From what i can gather on this site, to be a "#1 WR": 1) must be over 6'2" tall 2) cannot be white 3) must be drafted among the first 2 rounds of a fantasy football draft, and inserted into the first WR slot of your lineup every week Any very productive WR that does not fit the above criteria, cannot be considered a #1. That said, apparently only a handful of teams actually have one of these WR's.
No one is ignoring or forgetting about anything. This thread and the article which I posted a comment on is about the WRs. That said, if I'm defending against the Jets, I'm putting 8 man in the box to load up against the run and pressing the WRs @ LOS rolling coverage towards Decker Cumby is one of my favorite players on the team but teams but he, Amaro and the WRs would have to prove to me that they can consistently hurt me.
I hope Hill realizes he's gotta show up or go home and he gets motivated to learn the position. I have a feeling we're more likely to see one of our rookies pass him on the depth chart though. By the way here's a pick of shaq Evans as a kid, in LA.
Very happy with where the receiving group is now, especially compared to last year. Obviously a Calvin Johnson type would be nice, but he isn't needed. A group of reliable receivers will be fine.
If you were Hill watching the draft, what would worry you more, the Jets trading up in the 2nd to get Lee or them picking a couple WRs on the 3rd day? Cool pic! By the way here's a pick of shaq Evans as a kid, in LA.
what!? aw man, we got the wrong guy... oh well, at least Decker is still scrappy. I'm glad most here are on the same page in regards to the BS term that is a "number one wide receiver". Hate to sound like Junc, but that phrase belongs in fantasy football and has no value in an actual football conversation. "the jets improved their WR corps with Eric Decker but failed to attain a TRUE # 1 WR TYPE guy from the draft to draw attention from his sorry #2 caucasian ass. defenses are now gonna double and triple cover said sorry ass every play because theres no other strategic course of action that needs to be taken to stop the jets offense. nope, I see no repercussions for crowding one side of the field every play to stop ONE tough WR, that won't open up opportunities elsewhere AT ALL."
If we traded up to draft say Marquis Lee and didn't spend another pick on a receiver, I think he'd be a lot safer. He would have to beat out lower end guys like Gates and Salas which I think he can do, especially based on potential. We would probably have Decker, Lee, Kerley, Hill, Nelson, Ford, just as a guess. But it's really unlikely (but not impossible) that we get rid of either 4th round pick. That would take up one more available spot. I don't know much about Enunwa, but people seem to like him. I'm sure at the very least he'll give Hill real competition for a spot. Either way if he doesn't step up he won't be playing much longer. I'm really pulling for him though, if he breaks out his size and speed would be a huge asset opposite decker.
thats just asking for trouble, if the jets RB's are that respected play action fakes are gonna be a breeze, leave 3-4 men in your secondary if you dare, you're just asking for Smith to shock you by hitting an open man or dashing to the sidelines for a first down. he's not THAT bad and neither are the jets WR's and TE's that this won't backfire.
Evans is going to remove any chance of Stephen Hill starting as a #2 in my opinion. I see Evans / Nelson splitting a lot of #2 duties on game-day
