Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RaidersAreOne

Raiders release WR JJ Nelson; re-sign WR Marcell Ateman

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dante9876 said:

Doesnt qb play factor into that. 

Yes and no. Some players will still produce and dominate if left on an island they’ll get open and most QBs will get the ball to them. I mean OBJ had a bottom ten Qb am still looked good enough to get 2 firsts. But on the flip side you got moss with Walter/Brooks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Chali21 said:

Yes and no. Some players will still produce and dominate if left on an island they’ll get open and most QBs will get the ball to them. I mean OBJ had a bottom ten Qb am still looked good enough to get 2 firsts. But on the flip side you got moss with Walter/Brooks. 

Moss didn’t play hard here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, OG_C2X said:

For me a #1 WR can be the focal point of a passing attack and consistently produce, despite DC's preparing for them and facing bracketing and/or double coverage. I think I complied a list pre season and I had 16 #1 WR in the NFL. 

16 sounds about right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again we have a bottom 3 WR core in the NFL and there are still homers saying it's all Carrs fault.  Our only WR worth anything is Williams and he is a number 2 who is forced into the #1 slot #clueless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chali21 said:

Yes and no. Some players will still produce and dominate if left on an island they’ll get open and most QBs will get the ball to them. I mean OBJ had a bottom ten Qb am still looked good enough to get 2 firsts. But on the flip side you got moss with Walter/Brooks. 

This is what I was thinking. A top WR is good with any QB. Just look at Hopkins and all the QBs he has had. He may be best with Watson, but he got his with scrubs too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, oakdb36 said:

Consistent production.

Guys like Kupp, Landry give you consistent production, I would define them as #1 WRs, would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Geezy said:

Moss didn’t play hard here

No he didn’t but you’d be fool to say he isn’t a #1. My point is that production can change based on QB play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy Moss tried for the first 4 games in 2005. Then he realized that the team was terrible and gave up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chali21 said:

No he didn’t but you’d be fool to say he isn’t a #1. My point is that production can change based on QB play. 

If he played hard he would have had better numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, agarcia34 said:

Randy Moss tried for the first 4 games in 2005. Then he realized that the team was terrible and gave up. 

He got hurt in the San Diego game and that was that he was leading the nfl in YPC before that and then 2006 happened lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Guys like Kupp, Landry give you consistent production, I would define them as #1 WRs, would you?

Nah. #1 guys are rare in the NFL. They are guys who can separate from/produce against #1 corners consistently and win in a variety of ways. 

I don't know how many #1's there are in the game right now, but it's certainly a lot less than 32 (the number of teams with a "#1" option).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Guys like Kupp, Landry give you consistent production, I would define them as #1 WRs, would you?

Kupp has played like a #1 so far this year but it takes more than 5 games to be labeled consistent.

Landry hasn't been consistent for the Browns (11 games with 4 or less catches out of 21). That's a number 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Nah. #1 guys are rare in the NFL. They are guys who can separate from/produce against #1 corners consistently and win in a variety of ways. 

I don't know how many #1's there are in the game right now, but it's certainly a lot less than 32 (the number of teams with a "#1" option).

We should really use a different name because every team has a #1 option, nobody can agree on what it is we are talking about, and nobody's definition holds true all the time.  Sorry but until someone can come up with a clear definition of the type a player we are discussing that most agree about we are not going to get anywhere in this discussion.  Not saying it is your fault or anyone else's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×