Its not talked about much, but Sammy Watkins is a bust.

[BayRaider]

Just now, jrry32 said:

DeMaryius Thomas was a nonfactor on the 2015 Broncos? What?

Bad teams abide by silly rules like this.

I’m looking at results. Purely champions. WR has had the least impact on SB Champions across 53 seasons, and even more so if you go back further. When it comes to a Championship team it is proven to be the least impactful position. And by far. 
 

That doesn’t mean a 1st Round WR team can’t win a title. I’m even hoping the Raiders draft a first round WR this year like Henry Ruggs III. 

[Buckweath]

Obviously a big disappointment for where he was drafted but he's not what you usually call a bust.

He is obviously fragile and injury prone. Always good to miss a few games every year.

He also does not seem to have the drive at all or strive to be great. I don't think he's one of those players who absolutely love the game.

He's also obviously overpaid.

This being said, he is definitly a fine #2 WR even when taking into account the fact that he is injury prone. He will look like a WR1 at times and he will look invisible other times.

The Chiefs are done with him after this season because of his salary. He does not do enough even when he is healthy.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Buckweath

[Bolts223]

I'm not sure you can full on call him a bust because he hasn't actually been a bad NFL player, just insanely average.

He's more just a huge disappointment.

[jrry32]

47 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

I’m looking at results. Purely champions. WR has had the least impact on SB Champions across 53 seasons, and even more so if you go back further. When it comes to a Championship team it is proven to be the least impactful position. And by far. 
 

That doesn’t mean a 1st Round WR team can’t win a title. I’m even hoping the Raiders draft a first round WR this year like Henry Ruggs III. 

If you're looking purely at champions, you're looking at a small subset of teams. And you're not even arguing that WRs didn't matter in Super Bowls. You're just saying that first round WRs haven't had a massive impact. It's a pretty silly argument. Great WRs matter in Super Bowls. And your chances of drafting a great WR are best in the first round. Jerry Rice played in what 5 Super Bowls and won 4?

[J-ALL-DAY]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

If you're looking purely at champions, you're looking at a small subset of teams. And you're not even arguing that WRs didn't matter in Super Bowls. You're just saying that first round WRs haven't had a massive impact. It's a pretty silly argument. Great WRs matter in Super Bowls. And your chances of drafting a great WR are best in the first round. Jerry Rice played in what 5 Super Bowls and won 4?

*Played in 4, won 3.

But yeah, I'm not getting the argument that top WRs don't have on teams. I wouldn't take a RB high in the draft, but no problem taking a OBJ caliber WR. Three of the top four offenses per DVOA were Dallas, KC and NO. They all had a stud #1 caliber WR. The other team was Baltimore but they are a complete anamoly. 

To say the recent SB winners have not needed a true #1 WR or first round WR is a flawed argument. That's like saying three of the last four SB winning QBs were non-1st rounders so you don't need or should not take a QB early in the draft. 

[jrry32]

2 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

*Played in 4, won 3.

But yeah, I'm not getting the argument that top WRs don't have on teams. I wouldn't take a RB high in the draft, but no problem taking a OBJ caliber WR. Three of the top four offenses per DVOA were Dallas, KC and NO. They all had a stud #1 caliber WR. The other team was Baltimore but they are a complete anamoly. 

To say the recent SB winners have not needed a true #1 WR or first round WR is a flawed argument. That's like saying three of the last four SB winning QBs were non-1st rounders so you don't need or should not take a QB early in the draft. 

Ah yes, the Super Bowl played in 85 was before the draft.

(And I would take the right HB highly in the draft. I'll draft any full-time position highly in the draft if it's the right player.)

Edited January 1, 2020 by jrry32

[rocky_rams]

He is overpaid and has not lived up to his draft status but he’s still someone who can be dangerous. 

I think injuries and his ego held him back

Edited January 1, 2020 by rocky_rams

[BayRaider]

31 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

If you're looking purely at champions, you're looking at a small subset of teams. And you're not even arguing that WRs didn't matter in Super Bowls. You're just saying that first round WRs haven't had a massive impact. It's a pretty silly argument. Great WRs matter in Super Bowls. And your chances of drafting a great WR are best in the first round. Jerry Rice played in what 5 Super Bowls and won 4?

Ahh the Rice/Irvin argument. A very small sample of 7 Super Bowls. 
 

I’m just stating facts Jrry. I’m not saying WR is a useless position. It’s not. What position is lesser important on a championship team than WR??
 

And 53+ years of Championship History is a small sample size...? I’m literally looking at CHAMPIONS across FIVE DECADES. No better examples than that. 

[BayRaider]

27 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

*Played in 4, won 3.

But yeah, I'm not getting the argument that top WRs don't have on teams. I wouldn't take a RB high in the draft, but no problem taking a OBJ caliber WR. Three of the top four offenses per DVOA were Dallas, KC and NO. They all had a stud #1 caliber WR. The other team was Baltimore but they are a complete anamoly. 

To say the recent SB winners have not needed a true #1 WR or first round WR is a flawed argument. That's like saying three of the last four SB winning QBs were non-1st rounders so you don't need or should not take a QB early in the draft. 

Since 1996, almost all Super Bowl Winning teams haven’t had a 1st Round WR. The ones who usually did were ones like Nelson Aghoular who had very little impact during the season and playoffs. That’s 23 seasons. WR is important but it is the least impactful position on a Super Bowl Championship team. If you disagree, please list the position less important than WR for a Championship team. 

[SkippyX]

TE must not be important because Gronk was not a first round pick, right?

Brees, Foles, Brady x6, Montana x4, Brad Johnson, Hostetler, Wilson, Warner, etc. you don’t need a 1st round QB either.

Do you count Plunkett, Young, Dilfer, and Peyton #2 who were not draft picks of the teams that won? Does Keyshawn count in Tampa? 

Did the Falcons lose to Brady because of Julio Jones?

Did the Cardinals lose at the end because of drafting Fitzgerald?

[jrry32]

12 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Ahh the Rice/Irvin argument. A very small sample of 7 Super Bowls. 
 

I’m just stating facts Jrry. I’m not saying WR is a useless position. It’s not. What position is lesser important on a championship team than WR??
 

And 53+ years of Championship History is a small sample size...? I’m literally looking at CHAMPIONS across FIVE DECADES. No better examples than that. 

You're not stating facts. You're stating an opinion. You're stating a theory. And I don't care about what was true 50 years ago. The current NFL is not the NFL of the 1970s, 80s, 90s, etc. If we just look at Super Bowls from the past decade, your argument has some massive flaws.

2010 - Indy v. NO (Wayne and Clark for Indy v. Colston for NO)

2011 - GB v. Pit (Jennings for GB v. Wallace for Pit)

2012 - NYG v. NE (Cruz and Nicks for NYG v. Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez for NE)

2013 - Bal v. SF (Smith, Boldin, and Pitta for Bal v. Crabtree and Davis for SF)

2014 - SEA v. Den (Baldwin and Tate for Sea v. Thomas, Decker, Welker, and Thomas for Den)

2015 - NE v. SEA (Gronk and Edelman for NE v. Baldwin for SEA)

2016 - Den v. Car (Thomas and Sanders for Den v. Olsen for Car)

2017 - NE v. Atl (Edelman, Gronk, and Bennett for NE v. Jones for Atl)

2018 - PHI v. NE (Ertz and Jeffery for PHI v. Gronk and Cooks for NE)

2019 - NE v. LAR (Edelman and Gronk for NE v. Cooks, Woods, and Kupp for LAR)

I know you'll complain that TEs aren't WRs, but in the passing game, they serve an identical role. What's significant to me is how many of the teams that have made Super Bowls this decade had a very talented and diverse group of receiving weapons. And frankly, I didn't even include all. I didn't include talented players who had not yet broken out (like Jordy Nelson on GB) and were still playing secondary roles.

As anybody would expect, to make the Super Bowl, you generally need a strong passing attack. To have a strong passing attack, you generally need a legit QB, quality pass protection, and good weapons. So if I see a great weapon sitting there in Round 1, I'm taking him.

You ask what position is of lesser import on a championship team? My answer is that it depends on the team. Teams are different. That's why there isn't a one size fits all philosophy to team building. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

17 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Since 1996, almost all Super Bowl Winning teams haven’t had a 1st Round WR. The ones who usually did were ones like Nelson Aghoular who had very little impact during the season and playoffs. That’s 23 seasons. WR is important but it is the least impactful position on a Super Bowl Championship team. If you disagree, please list the position less important than WR for a Championship team. 

Just off the top of my head from 96, SB winners with first rounder WRs who had good amount of impact:

Tory Holt

Marvin Harrison

Santonio Holmes

Reggie Wayne

Hakeem Nicks

Demaryius Thomas

Percy Harvin (Though more in return game)

You cut it off at 96, but obviously before that Rice/Irvin were huge factors on their SB winning teams. 

Now, Julio Jones, Randy Moss, Demaryius Thomas (2013), Larry Fitzgerald, Marvin Harrison/Reggie Wayne and Michael Crabtree all were on the losing ends, but they were huge contributors in getting their teams to the SB, and in most cases almost winning it all. 

But if you just want to talk recent, no secret the league has trended towards being more of an offensive league. Last year the final four consisted of NO/LAR/KC/NE. Three of the four teams had a dominant or near dominant #1 type of WR eclipsing the 1,200 mark. Three of the top four offensive teams this year had a legitimate #1 WR. I don't think there is any issue taking a WR in the first round. Some positions may be more valuable, sure, but I don't think anyone is arguing that. Just the part about almost all SB winning teams haven't had a #1 WR was false and how dominant WRs in general don't have solid value...They clearly do. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

Ah yes, the Super Bowl played in 85 was before the draft.

(And I would take the right HB highly in the draft. I'll draft any full-time position highly in the draft if it's the right player.)

Maybe I'm just biased after seeing Shanahan have success with these undrafted RBs, but that RB would need to be heads and shoulders above the next rated player for me to take him. 

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Maybe I'm just biased after seeing Shanahan have success with these undrafted RBs, but that RB would need to be heads and shoulders above the next rated player for me to take him. 

This goes to my point about team building not being one size fits all. If you have a Shanahan as your HC, you can find HBs anywhere. They're not important. The same is true for the Patriots with Brady at his best and WRs. Brady + the system + what they value at WR allows them more leeway than most teams. The same is true of Seattle and Pete Carroll with CBs. But most teams don't have that sort of luxury.

[SkippyX]

Philly 2017 had 3 WRs who were drafted in rounds 1, 2, and 2

Peyton Manning had 2,2,1,1 first round WRs in his 4 Super Bowls.

 

WR is like Guard in the draft. Only a very few go in the top 10-15 picks but 20-50 is loaded with them. Any premise that the WR position is unimportant has been 100% proven false.