WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[Bob Sacamano]

As do I. I'm all for drafting a WR in the 2nd or 3rd round.

I get the feeling that many here will be very upset if we don't draft a WR with our #1 pick, though.

not me

 

[tomson75]

cuz only Alan Branch is a NT worthy of a 1st round pick, and after him it's Paul Soliai and then a huge drop-off

At this point, its looking like Branch might not even be deemed a first rounder. His laziness is costing him millions. Most scouts are scared to death of his bust potential. But you're right, NT is a position that can pay off in the late rounds...its just not chic to take them early as it is for recievers.

I'll take Soliai in the fourth in a heartbeat.

 

[theogt]

Many teams are able to have productive offenses without a great WR. I'm all for balance. I'm all for drafting a WR in the 2nd or 3rd round. I get the feeling that many here want to draft a WR at #22, no matter what. I don't think that lends itself to balance.

There are all sorts of routes to being a productive team. Some can be productive with an undrafted QB.

And I certainly would not be unhappy if we drafted an OLB in the first.

 

[Hostile]

Does it strike anyone as odd that four out of the five teams that won 12+ games last year didn't have a 1,000 yard WR on the roster? Indianapolis seems to be the exception and not the rule. Someone brought up the Bengals earlier as a model that we ought to emulate. The Bengals went 8-8 last year and didn't make the playoffs. Just like we had two 1,000 yard WR's and barely sneaked into the playoffs. So how big of a difference does being dominant at that position really make? The fans certainly put a lot of stock into the position,

I dunno, when I see a franchise that puts a lot resources into the WR position ... Al Davis, Matt Millen, the Falcons, the Cardinals ... I tend to look at them as a bush league franchise. I remember when the Lions drafted Mike Williams a lot of people were talking about how "sick" that offense was, as if they envied the Lions. I just thought "Wow, that franchise is going to be bad for a really, really long time."

I guess Michael Irvin didn't make much of a difference here either huh?

 

[Crown Royal]

Still haven't read the whole thread. But I see that there are those bringing up how you don't need a pro-bowl WR to be a winner. Nobody debates that.

I also think you don't need:

A probowl QB
A probowl RB
A probowl Center
A probowl Guard
A probowl Tackle
A Probowl DE
A Probowl DT
A Probowl MLB
A Probowl OLB
A Probowl CB
A Probowl Safety

(I do think you need a probowl kicker :-D)

Anyway - that doesn't mean you don't try to get good players at every position.

I feel that you could possibly take a WR in the mid or later rounds and hit, but that doesn't mean if there is a value in the first that you think can play, you don't take him.

 

[Concord]

At this point, its looking like Branch might not even be deemed a first rounder. His laziness is costing him millions. Most scouts are scared to death of his bust potential. But you're right, NT is a position that can pay off in the late rounds...its just not chic to take them early as it is for recievers.

I'll take Soliai in the fourth in a heartbeat.

Take Antonio Pittman from Ohio St...in the Fourth.

 

[InmanRoshi]

I guess Michael Irvin didn't make much of a difference here either huh?

Sure he did. On the other hand, the New England Patriots won three out of four Superbowls without anything close to a Michael Irvin. There are many different recipes for a Championship caliber ball club. I just haven't found WR to be a vital ingredient as compared to others.

 

[Crown Royal]

Sure he did. On the other hand, the New England Patriots won three out of four Superbowls without anything close to a Michael Irvin. There are many different recipes for a Championship caliber ball club. I just haven't found WR to be a vital ingredient compared to other positions.

There have been plenty of championships with scrubs at every position. The WR position is no different.

 

[InmanRoshi]

There have been plenty of championships with scrubs at every position. The WR position is no different.

You can find a lot of Superbowl winners without dominant WR's. I don't think you'll find many Superbowl winners without a great pass rush or offensive line.

 

[theogt]

You can find a lot of Superbowl winners without dominant WR's. I don't think you'll find many Superbowl winners without a great pass rush or offensive line.

The Colts certainly didn't have a great pass rush. The Patriots always have a bunch of scrubs on the O-line.

 

[Crown Royal]

You can find a lot of Superbowl winners without dominant WR's. I don't think you'll find many Superbowl winners without a great pass rush or offensive line.

Looking at the last several superbowl winners, the only team I see without excellent WRs is New England and Baltimore.

Indianapolis had 2 great WRs
Pittsburgh has Hines Ward
Tampa Bay had Keenan McCardell & Keyshawn
St. Louis had Bruce & Holt
Denver had Rod Smith & Sharpe
Green Bay - forget his name
Then there is Dallas, San Fran, etc.

That's a lot of good WRs.

 

[tomson75]

Take Antonio Pittman from Ohio St...in the Fourth.

So let me get this straight...

RD 1 - Ted Ginn Jr.

RD 2 - Anthony Gonzales

RD 3 - Troy Smith

RD 4 - Antonio Pittman

Got any ILB's? When does Laurinaitis come out? Now THAT is a buckeye I want on the cowboys.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Looking at the last several superbowl winners, the only team I see without excellent WRs is New England and Baltimore.

Indianapolis had 2 great WRs
Pittsburgh has Hines Ward
Tampa Bay had Keenan McCardell & Keyshawn
St. Louis had Bruce & Holt
Denver had Rod Smith & Sharpe
Green Bay - forget his name
Then there is Dallas, San Fran, etc.

That's a lot of good WRs.

Out of that group, the only ones I would label as an outstanding group of WR's is St. Louis and Indianapolis. Pittsburgh put up the lowest amounts of passing attempts for a Superbowl winner in the history of the NFL. They had Hines Ward and nobody. I don't think McCardell or Keyshawn even went to a Pro Bowl while at Tampa. Rod Smith was certainly good, but Shannon Sharpe was a tight end. I can't remember the Green Bay WR either, that's how great he was.

Again, whether its through watching Sportscenter highlight reels or fantasy football, I just think fans greatly overvalue the positions impact.

 

[Alexander]

The Colts certainly didn't have a great pass rush. The Patriots always have a bunch of scrubs on the O-line.

Add the Colts to that list on the offensive line also.

Outside of Tarik Glenn, they have undrafted free agents and mid-round draft choices.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Roshi has a point, you don't need great WRs to win a championship

but what's the harm in having them?

 

[Crown Royal]

Roshi has a point, you don't need great WRs to win a championship

but what's the harm in having them?

I don't disagree with that point, but I do agree with your's. You don't need great QBs to win a championship either.

 

[Alexander]

I don't disagree with that point, but I do agree with your's. You don't need great QBs to win a championship either.

The only "bus driver" we have seen in recent years was Trent Dilfer.

Other than that, you have had great QBs on world champions.

 

[Crown Royal]

The only "bus driver" we have seen in recent years was Trent Dilfer.

Other than that, you have had great QBs on world champions.

Like Roethlisberger?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't disagree with that point, but I do agree with your's. You don't need great QBs to win a championship either.

ask Tony Romo and Jason Garrett, and I'm sure they would disagree w/ Roshi's notion

 

[Crown Royal]

ask Tony Romo and Jason Garrett, and I'm sure they would disagree w/ Roshi's notion

Or ask teams like Jacksonville, Atlanta, Philadelphia, or New England who suffered last year because they could get no production from their WRs.