Jump to content

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


RaidersAreOne

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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).

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...