A true #1 WR; how necessary are they?

by Luke. on Jun 23, 2009 9:58 PM CDT Comment 30 comments

Do teams really need a big time #1 receiver outside the hash marks to be successful on offense? Can teams with other receiving options, say for example a great TE and some very good pass catching RB's, still be successful on offense if the WR doesn't put up big numbers or draw constant double teams? A look at some recent NFL history;

In 1996 the Denver Broncos leading receiver was TE Shannon Sharpe who had 80 catches for 1062 yards and 10 Td's. Their top 2 WR's were Anthony Miller (56 for 735 and 3 Td's) and Ed McCaffery (48 for 553 and 7 Td's). They were the #1 ranked Offense in the NFL.

In 1997 the Denver Broncos leading receiver was again Shannon Sharpe who had 72 catches for 1107 yards and 3Td's. Their top 2 WR's were Rod Smith (70 for 1180 and 12 Td's) and Ed McCaffery (45 for 590 and 8 Td's). They were the #1 ranked Offense in the NFL and won the Superbowl.

From 2001 to 2005 the Kansas City Chiefs were led in receptions by either the TE or the RB every year with the WR sometimes ranking in third place. Three out of the five years the TE also led the team in yards. Their offensive rankings from 2001 to 2005 were 5th, 4th, 2nd, 1st and 1st.

From 2004 to 2006 the San Diego Chargers were led in receptions, yards and Td's by the TE every year with the second place receiver being the RB two out of the three years also. Their offensive rankings from 2004 to 2006 were 10th, 10th and 4th.

In 2003 New England won the Superbowl without a 900 yard WR.

In 2004 New England had the 7th ranked offense and won the Superbowl without a 1000 yard WR.

In 2005 Pittsburgh won the Superbowl without a 1000 yard WR.

The Indianapolis Colts are the only real dynamic QB & WR offense that has won the Superbowl in the new century. Go look through the recent Superbowl winners WR list and you will be thoroughly underwhelmed. Of the 18 starters there's some good players but great statistical WR's are a rarity. Of the eighteen WR's who have started for winning Superbowl teams this decade only three had over 1100 yards that season (Harrison & Wayne 2006 and Troy Brown 2001). 11 of the 18 starting WR's failed to even reach 1000 yards for the season. That is more than half (61% to be precise).

Before the Colts, the last real prolific offense to win a Superbowl was the Saint Louis Rams back in 1999. Where are the Superbowls for Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Steve Smith, Andre Johnson, Chad Johnson etc. Most of the Superbowls in between have been won by good defensive teams with less than spectacular offenses (some were good rushing teams while other offenses ranked quite poor). While having a dynamic deep ball offense would be great and is fun to watch, not having one is by no means a death sentence for your teams Superbowl aspirations.

In fact Dallas' switch to a slightly more conservative (less turnovers) ball control (more running) offense like they've been claiming they're doing should actually increase our chances of success late in the season when it counts. It's not WR catches and yards that win games and Superbowls, it's usually strong defense and an offense that can hold onto the ball. We're headed in the right direction.

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.

5 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Another nice post Luke

Very interesting…lets just hope the DEF is on the right track.

by Boyz4Life on Jun 23, 2009 11:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks Boyz4life,

And I agree, the key to this season is the Defense.

by Luke. on Jun 24, 2009 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You do not need a Top 10 receiver to win in the postseason

Big Stat Wide Receivers by and large are eye-candy for the highlight reels but do not generally translate into post-season success. In the age of the mentally disfiguring scourge of fantasy football, a 1400+ yards WR is what everyone is shouting for. There are plenty of ways to win games in the NFL, and a big-time receiver is not on the list of must-haves.

Consider the following WR stats on play-off winning teams of the last 5 years:

Only 23% of teams with post-season wins in the last 5 years (7/31) have had at least one WR ranked in the NFL Top 10 in regular season receiving yards.
Only 1 of the last 5 SB winners had a WR ranked in the NFL Top 10 that season.
39% of winning post-season teams (12/31) had a top receiver with less than 1.000 regular season yards, proving that playoff games can be won without top-notch receiving talent.
Notably, two teams featured Tight Ends as their leading receivers, showing that the points Luke. made in his earlier post about Witten are valid.

2008 Playoff Winners
Team…………. Receiver…………….Yards……..NFL Rank
Cardinals……. Larry Fitzgerald……..1.431……..2
Chargers…….. Vincent Jackson……1.098……..11
Steelers……… Hines Ward…………1.043……..15……….SB Win
Ravens………. Derrick Mason………1.037……..17
Eagles……….. DeSean Jackson……..912……..28

2007 Playoff Winners
Patriots………..Randy Moss…………1.493……..2
Seahawks……. Bobby Engram……..1.147……..13
Packers………. Donald Driver……….1.048…….20
Giants………… Plaxico Burress…….1.025……..21……….SB Win
Chargers…….. Antonio Gates (TE)……984…….25
Jaguars……… Reggie Williams………629……..61

2006 Playoff Winners
Colts…………..Marvin Harrison……. 1.366……..2…………SB Win
Saints…………Marques Colston……1.038…….19
Seahawks……Darrell Jackson……….956……..23
Bears…………Muhsin Mohammed…..863……..30
Eagles………..Reggie Brown…………816……..33
Patriots……….Reche Caldwell……….760……..40

2005 Playoff Winners
Panthers………Steve Smith…………..1.563……..1
Redskins……..Santana Moss………..1.483……..2
Broncos……….Rod Smith…………….1.105……13
Patriots………..Deion Branch……………998……21
Steelers……….Hines Ward……………..975……22………..SB Win
Seahawks…….Bobby Engram………….778……35

2004 Playoff Winners
Rams………….Torry Holt………………1.372…….4
Colts……………Reggie Wayne………..1.210…….9
Eagles…………Terrell Owens…………1.200……11
Vikings…………Nate Burleson………..1.006……23
Steelers ………..Hines Ward…………..1.004……24
Patriots…………David Givens……………874……32……….SB Win
Jets……………..Santana Moss…………..838……34
Falcons…………Alge Crumpler (TE)……774……43

While imho this data disproves the notion that blue-chip WRs are a prerequisite for post-season success, it does demonstrate that a WR can have a great impact despite limited touches.

Keep in mind, your No. 1 WR will touch the ball five to ten times a game. On the other hand, the QB handles the ball every single play, and the RBs (even in Dallas) get at least twenty touches a game.

I’m not saying the WR is unimportant, it’s just he won’t be able to dominate every play like the QB or RBs can. Teams need a solid receiving corps with multiple targets and threats, not just one superstar.

Now if only someone would let me know how to format theses effing tables in my posts, I’d be much obliged :-)

by One.Cool.Customer on Jun 24, 2009 7:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

CoolCustomer,

Excellent work again mate. I think we’ve built a pretty strong case here. An elite, Top 10 type WR is not a necessity for playoff or Superbowl victory.

A strong Defense no doubt correlates much higher in Playoff/Superbowl success. Dallas’ key to success this year doesn’t rest in Roy Williams hands it rests on Wade Phillips Defense. If he can turn this good but inconsistent #8 ranked D into a consistent Top 3 ranked D we will kiss those December blues goodbye.

by Luke. on Jun 24, 2009 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

awesome stuff OCC!

"Grow where you are planted."

by Aaron Novinger on Jun 27, 2009 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you don't need a true #1 WR

but what you need is a #1 go to receiver that your qb trusts will be open in crunch time.

The Cowboys have that receiver in Witten.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 24, 2009 10:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

So only one TE has won the Super Bowl in the past 30 years as the #1.

Shannon Sharpe did it 3 times, and all of those other teams may not have met your subjective opinion of a #1 WR, but their top receiver was not their TE. To me that clearly illustrates the need to have a receiver as your top option.

Where are the Super Bowls for Jason Witten, Tony Gonzalez, Alge Crumpler, Antonio Gates, etc.? Most of the Super Bowls have been won by teams that didn’t have a TE as their top receiver.

by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 24, 2009 1:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

actually most SBs are won by teams

that have great or very good defenses. In reality, TEs and WRs aren’t nearly as important as having a championship caliber defense.

Pittsburgh won the SB last season not because Hines Ward or Santonio Holmes were true #1 WRs, they won because they had the very best defense in the league.

Don’t get me wrong, Ward and Holmes are good, but not true #1s.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 24, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A good defense is definitely important.

But a good offense is important, as well. A good D is essential, but you still have to score more points than the other team, and the Cowboys lost their top scoring option.

by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 24, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that doesn't mean he can't be replaced

not by one player, but by several players. I’m confident that as a whole, the current receiving corp can more than make up for T.O.’s lost production.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 24, 2009 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm confident as well, but I still have concerns.

None of these guys have ever actually stepped it up, so you can understand why people would question whether they are capable or not. No one currently on the Cowboys has had more than 8 TDs in a season, and only Roy Williams has had that many, but not since 2005.

But if Roy plays like he did in 2006, Witten and Crayton like they did in 2007, Barber like he has the past 2 years, Choice like he did last yeasr, Austin, Felix Jones, and Bennett play to their potential, and Hurd returns to form and continues to develop, this can be a dangerous, dangerous passing attack that would be even better than 2007’s, and probably the best in the league. Oh, and of course if Romo plays like he did prior to his injury.

by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 24, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That just means Romo and the boys will have to step it up!

by bad knees on Jun 24, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"In reality, TEs and WRs aren’t nearly as important as having a championship caliber defense."

So what youre saying is that onw player isnt moer important than an entire Defense?
That is like saying that having a great CB isnt as important as having a championship claiber offense.

And btw, Hines Ward is definately a #1 WR.

by aussie_cowboy on Jun 25, 2009 1:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

*"one player isnt more important"

by aussie_cowboy on Jun 25, 2009 7:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree, it's not the same at all

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 25, 2009 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

care to elaborate...

by aussie_cowboy on Jun 26, 2009 1:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

defense wins championships, offenses do not

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 26, 2009 7:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That being said.

You do need an offense that can move the chains. The Baltimore Ravens are the only team that I can think of, that had minimum offense.

It’s very seldom that just purely defense actually wins you championships IMO, but not having any can definitly lose you one.

it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.

by AirforceBat on Jun 26, 2009 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's true

and if you have a great defense, you definitely don’t need a true #1 receiver to move the chains.

Think 2001-2004 Pats

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 26, 2009 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I think the phenomenon we see is that by play-off time, with more at stake, poorer weather and more game tape available, offenses often become more tentative (from caution as well as weather) and defenses often focus on attacking the trends they’ve been able to piece together over the span of a season. So it’s maybe not that defenses win championships all season, but more that strong running games, and solid defenses are more useful in the late season vs the early season.

I also have a theory that defense is somewhat easier to play in general, in that you don’t have to succeed in a positive sense, you only have to cause the opposing offense to fail and conversely offense must have all things go right to succeed. For example, for a pass play to fail, all a defense needs is for the pass to not be completed for the necessary yardage. It can happen because of the pass rush, good scheme, good individual coverage, a mistake by the QB, a mistake by the receiver, a mistake by someone else in the pattern, a mistake by the lineman, a gust of wind…

Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.

by dunkman on Jun 26, 2009 8:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea thats a good point

Luke could make this post when it coes to any position on the field aide from qb, as it seems the same qbs year after year for a decade now are performin well in the playoffs (Brady, Warner, Roethlisberger, Manning somewhat)

by foyesboys on Jun 25, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's why I dislike the term

Number 1 receiver. It IS subjective.

Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.

by dunkman on Jun 26, 2009 5:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice work again Luke

Also Cool Customer, great work citing the examples backing the case Luke has made.

I don’t see anyone making nearly the compelling argument for why teams with a superstar WR are any better off than teams with average to good WR play and an upper echelon TE.

For the fans worried about TO’s production being filled, I think you need to realize Witten, Bennett and the RB’s will have increased roles in the offense. The WR corp just needs to keep defenses honest. I’m not putting down the WR corp either, I think they’ll be very good also. Roy, Austin, and Crayton are all capable of getting deep on defenses.

Training Camp '09 = Mega Thunder Dome....80 men enter, 53 men leave.

by APerfectStar on Jun 25, 2009 4:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

prerequisites to a SB

dominant defense.
good Running game
good, mistake free QB play

the rest is gravy and it determines the point differential in the games. but you do need a WR in the top 30, otherwise it stiffles your running game. but just adequate WR play would do. in contrast great WR play like AZ had doesn’t help the running game, key to ball control.

by CowboysFanatic on Jun 25, 2009 3:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Mistake-free QB?

Somebody wake me up when one is born…

Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.

by dunkman on Jun 26, 2009 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

true, I've seen Brady and Manning make their share of blunders

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 26, 2009 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I THINK YOU HAVE TO GO BEYOND A GREAT D

WITH A GREAT D..YES YOU WILL AT LEAST MAKE IT TO THE PLAYOFFS, BUT TO WIN IT ALL
YOUR OFFENSE HAS TO SCORE AND FOR YOUR OFFENSE TO SCORE YOU MUST HAVE A
BEAST OF AN OFFENSIVE LINE WHO CAN WEAR DOWN THE OPPOSING DEFENSE AND NOT
ALLOW A DEFENSE TO WEAR DOWN YOUR QB.
IT TAKES A GREAT DEFENSE, BUT UNLESS YOUR DEFENSE IS GOING TO SCORE 2 OR 3
TOUCHDOWNS FOR YOU, YOU BETTER HAVE AN OFFENSE THAT CAN GET YOU AT LEAST
17 POINTS AND SOME BREATHING ROOM FOR YOUR D TO DO THEIR THANG. NOTHING
IS WORSE THAN AN OFFENSE THAT (1) CAN’T SCORE (2) TURNS THE BALL OVER TOO MUCH
AND (3) WON’T GIVE YOUR GREAT D ANY TIME TO REST IN BETWEEN POSSESSIONS.
WITHOUT AN CONSISTENTLY GOOD OFFENSIVE LINE YOU GET ALL THREE PROBLEMS.
SEE LAST YEAR, THE END OF 07 WHEN INJURIES CREPT IN, AND ALL OF 06’

by cwby4lf on Jun 26, 2009 12:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Steelers proved that argument wrong last season

We definitely had a better OL, they definitely had a better defense.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 26, 2009 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you read what I said...

Unless your defense is going to score—-which Pitts did
Unless your offense can get you at least 17pts and
You do not turn the ball over too much

Pitt had a great D last year…we had an ok OL…only ok because of injuries which lead
to incohesiveness…Turnovers+no scoring+Defensive scoring off of a those turnovers = a lost game that we should have
won, even in Pitt. They did not impress me during that game. Their Defense did, but their offense was not a Superbowl
Offense. The D was. Their OL sucked, but without the help of the D they would have lost that game.

It really takes the whole team…Yes there have been exceptions (Baltimore and Pitts 1st with Rothlisberger for example)
But no OL = no scoring unless your D is doing it for you.

by cwby4lf on Jun 27, 2009 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs