The real expectations from Roy Williams as a Wide Receiver
by Raf's on Jun 17, 2009 4:38 PM CDT
Email
Print
The question since the acquisition of Roy Williams has been whether or not he can be a number one receiver. The truth is that he had been a number one receiver in Detroit since his arrival until the arrival of Calvin Johnson. Therefore, he can be a number one receiver in Dallas as well.
Why is that answer so hard to accept? Why do writers and fans try to define a number one receiver? Is it somebody who demands double teams? Is it somebody who achieves the 1,000 receiving yard season? Or is it somebody who scores more than a specific number of touchdowns in a season?
How about defining a number one receiver as the best receiver in the team who can be counted on at any time to make a play as well as making his teammates better? Is that too hard to do?
Let me tell you that 1,000 receiving yards and a specific number of touchdowns in a season does not translate into team success in the playoffs. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even translate into a team making the playoffs.
The top ten receivers in yards last season each had over 1,145 receiving yards. Only half of those top ten WRs made the playoffs. There were 21 WRs in the NFL who totaled over 1,000 receiving yards last season. Only eleven of them made the playoffs. One of those five didn't even get a victory last year (Calvin Johnson).
As far as a specific number of touchdowns by a WR, it doesn't make a difference either. Of the top 9 WRs in TD receptions (only counted 9 because there are 8 WRs tied for the tenth spot) last season, only 3 of them made the playoffs. Of those eight tied for tenth spot, only four of them made the playoffs.
Didn't T.O. get over 1,000 yards and over 10 touchdowns each of his three seasons in Dallas? He sure did. Do you think he was a solid number one receiver during those three years? You bet. Did the Cowboys have any success in the playoffs? Nope!
The bottom line is that football is a team sport, and the last time I checked no one player by himself can deliver success. I believe last season the Cowboys had one of the most talented teams in the NFL, but they didn't maximize their talent at all. Who am I kidding? They didn't even play nearly as good as they could have played.
So back to the question, can Roy Williams get 1,000 receiving yards and a specific number of touchdowns in a season and be a number one receiver? I think he can do it, but only time will tell. What I don't understand is why everybody thinks the production will translate into team success. I rather Roy be the best he can be as well as everybody else in the organization (coaching staff included), and it translating into team success.
I think that last year’s missing piece wasn’t a specific position on the roster as it was team chemistry, leadership, the passion and desire to win. In my opinion, those do translate into team success. I rather have those four qualities than any number one receiver stats that don’t win championships, playoff games or even make the playoffs.
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
62 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm with ya
I could care less what Roy’s numbers are next year as long as we are winning (especially in the playoffs). As I’ve said all along, if Jason Garrett can prove he’s capable of mixing up our game plans to avoid putting too much pressure on one player, I think the sky is the limit on offense (without injuries). What I look for in Roy- 1. Sure handed receiver that doesn’t drop ANY easy catches like T.O. did. 2. Ability to be a possession receiver and move the chains (run good routes). Even Roy said he considered short and medium routes to be his specialty. 3. Legitimate red zone threat on fades/jumpballs. Put Roy on one side and Bennett on the other and it would create huge mismatches in that area of the field. Roy can straight go up and get it!
If Roy does all the things I’ve mentioned, he should have no problem being a solid part of our offense that won’t be asked to do too much. I feel that Romo will be at his best next year because he will go back to spreading the ball around and finding the open guy. Hopefully we won’t be throwing the ball 30-40 times a game this year and we will have a solid balanced attack.
Breaking down the T.O. Myth: Production vs. Production efficiency
in 2008, 27 Wide Receivers in the NFL posted more than 900 yards. I’ll leave TEs Gonzales (1058 yds) and Witten (952 yds) out of the analysis as they are not WRs.
With 1052 yds, T.O. ranked a respectable 12th among all NFL WRs. Given, 08 was not TOs best year in Dallas, but the 1052 yds are not far off his career average in Dallas of 1195 yds, which would have ranked him 9th on the 08 WR list.
So overall production could be considered good. But let’s look at how efficiently that production was achieved.
Reception efficiency: T.O. was targeted 140 times, and turned 69 of those balls into receptions. That’s a 49% reception rate. Rank: 27th, dead last among all top WRs.
By the way, the title of ‘Mr. Sticky Fingers’ goes to Marion Barber, who posted an 85.2% reception efficiency (52 of 61). Witten (67%) and Crayton (56%) were also more efficient than T.O.. Stat based on %Passes Caught/Target with min. 3.125 Targets/Game.
Dropped Balls: T.O. dropped 10 balls. Only Dwayne Bowe and Brandon Marshall (13 & 12) dropped more balls. Of the 140 balls thrown his way, T.O. dropped 7.1%. Rank: 24th
Yards per Game: Over the season, T.O. averaged 65.8 YPG, ranking him a solid 13th on the WR list. Now, if you take out the one 49ers game (7 Rec, 213 yds), that figure drops to a pedestrian 55.9 YPG. that 55.9 would rank 27th, again dead last.
1st down efficiency: Recording 38 1st downs against 69 receptions translates into a 55% 1st down rate. Rank: 24th.
Yards after catch: T.O. produced 4.2 YAC/ reception. Rank: 19th
In summary, T.O. unquestionably produced some nice numbers, but was highly inefficient in producing those numbers. I have no question in my mind that RW will be more efficient, and that will be better for all concerned.
by One.Cool.Customer on Jun 19, 2009 4:29 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bravo
Everything's looking up, Milhouse!
by accidental innuendo on Jun 19, 2009 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions
This is the football equivalent of
a guy scoring 40 in an NBA game, but taking 60 shots to do it. Big props on this analysis. Wow.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
Where do the games
Romo missed come into your equation.
Stats can be twisted to show anything you want.
I can say we would not have missed the playoffs if Romo did not gt hurt.
Let’s say he was thrown at 30 times in the games Romo missed.
That kind of throws off your stats knowing who the Cowboys had backing up Romo.
So If Romo plays all his games it looks like T.O. was headed to a 1400 yard 12-15 touchdown year.
If that’s overrated wait till you see Roy Williams.
by Sharksbreath on Jun 22, 2009 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Having a legit #1 does not by itself make a team a contender.
But you better have one if you want to contend.
Having one will not make you a contender, but you won’t often contend without one.
WELCOME HOME SEVEN!!
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Jun 17, 2009 7:49 PM CDT reply actions
thats just not true
last year, the Giants, Eagles, Cardinals, Vikings, Falcons and Panthers made the playoffs in the nfc. Of those, Id say the Cards, Falcons, Panthers and Giants got to the playoffs in large part because of their #1. Jackson was good for philly, but he wasn’t a complete gamechanging threat. So thats 4 or 5 out of 6, and us and the Saints sat home.
The DOlphins, Colts, Chargers, Steelers, Ravens and Titans made the playoffs. Of those, I’d say ONLY the Colts had a real true legit game changing #1. I guess you could possibly say the steelers had one, but Holmes really isn’t too scary. thats 1 or 2 out of 6. Considering teams like the Pats, Bengals, Browns, Texans, Broncos had much better receivers than most of those teams, and two of those teams didn’t even perform well offensively, I’d say that #1s hardly impacted success in the afc.
lol so I guess you are right to some extent
it certainly appears that in the NFC, you do need a #1.
awesome post
and the money quote was
The bottom line is that football is a team sport, and the last time I checked no one player by himself can deliver success.
In Romo we Trust
No
but its why they made it to the SB
by aussie_cowboy on Jun 19, 2009 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions
And the running game stepped up in the postseason too.
Edge was rocksteady
"Grow where you are planted."
by Aaron Novinger on Jun 20, 2009 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions
your stats somewhat ring true
you mentioned 11 of the 21 teams with 1000 yard recievers made the playoffs. well only 16 teams make it. plus its hard to ahve two 1000 yard recievers on a team. however the other side of the argument is that you do need a 1000 yard type WR, simply because it forces defenses to respect that player, roll coverage and it opens up everybody else. true that a WR is not going to make you into a champion. there are so many other parts that are important. but it does help. and some of those teams that didn’t make it, probably are teams that pick high in the draft year in year out. and there has been a lot of WRs with high grades coming out over the past few years. would I take a calvin johnson? heck yes, because we have the defense, the running game and a good QB and he would help the offense.
but to say he was a good WR and didn’t win a game? lets not forget the detroit defense, awful OL and no Running game and bad bad bad coaching.
Just curious what you guys think...
Just for fun, lets play “What if Jerry Jones had never given up a 1, a 3, a 6, and $45 mil for Roy Williams?”
Assuming the 2008 season still plays out the way it did…
- Terrell Owens is still a Cowboy.
- With the 20th pick, the Cowboys select someone like Michael Oher, Parcy Harvin, Peria Jerry, Hakeem Nicks, etc.
- They trade up from 51 to somewhere around 42-48 to take a guy they really coveted (I think it was Max Unger). Let’s say it costs them their 51st pick, and a 5.
- The rest of the draft pretty much unfolds the way it did.
Would you rather have the above, or Roy Williams? Do you see it playing out differently, and if so, what happens?
He did have to play for the lions...
Just let the season play out and we’ll see if Jerry made the right move with Roy. If he stays healthy in this offense there’s no way he wont produce. We certainly gave up a lot of draft picks for him, but if we have a good season and win a playoff game nobody is going to be complaining. Especially if Roy and Romo develop a nice chemistry throughout the year that can be carried into the future.
Roy
I can honestly say I believe Roy will put up number between 70 to 80 and 1,000 with around 10 TD’s which would be great .
by ~~banditwolf~~ on Jun 19, 2009 12:58 AM CDT reply actions
I hope he DOESN'T put up big numbers
because that would probably mean we’re behind and/or throwing too much,
and that other guys aren’t getting enough throws.
I’d like our RB’s to total 80+ catches, Witten to hit 70+, and here’s to hoping Crayton plays well and Austin actually performs, and they make a total 60-70. Add in Bennett and others, and I wouldn’t mind RW getting just 60 or so catches.
(Assuming around 300 receptions.)
I wonder two things
First, is the term “Number 1 Receiver” the same kind of thing as “Shut Down Corner”? In other words, a media invented concept?
The second thing I wonder is why CAN’T teams do receptions by committee like they do with running backs? Sure, you have one lead dog, but he’s not the only one pulling the sled.
I’m just sayin…
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
I wouldn't call "Number 1 Receiver" a media invented concept......
take Michael Irvin and Alvin Harper as examples. Michael Irvin was undoubtedly the #1 Receiver. As most know, when Alvin Harper left and went to Tampa he was supposed to be this great #1 WR. Well, of course, he didn’t have the same offense as Dallas’ but he never was the #1 Receiver there or anywhere else. Truth be told, was because of Irvin, Harper was able to draw single coverage and just go long. It worked didn’t it? Another good example is Peerless Price. He was the #2 receiver in Buffalo-had great numbers there. He left and went to Atlanta to be the go to guy (#1). Didn’t work out there. My definition of #1 Receiver is that he is good enough to make the defense respect him to give him double coverage. This in turn opens it up for your secondary receiver to draw single coverage. Does all my rambling make sense?
What I mean is
there is no real definition. If teams used the term, they’d have a real definition for it. That’s pretty much my whole point. In one system a guy might draw double covereage een if he doesn’t fit the bill as a No 1. Jason Witten adn Tony Gonzales come to mind.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
I'm not a fantacy football fanatic but,...
I found this Mcheal Fabiano opinion encouraging:
Williams’ numbers decreased across the board last year, when his season was split between the Lions and Cowboys. But after Terrell Owens’ offseason release, Williams is once again a top wideout. He is extremely talented and possesses great hands, and an increased role in a productive Cowboys’ offense bodes well for his draft value. In fact, it would be a shock if he didn’t post 70 receptions, 1,000-plus yards and 7-9 TDs in 2009. He has had injury problems and comes with some risk, but it will be hard to pass on him once the truly elite receivers are off the board. Bye: Week 6
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blogging The Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
