JavaScript must be enabled to use this chat software. On the topic of Wide Receivers (why the Rams don't need a true #1)

Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    evil disco man's Avatar
    evil disco man is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Rep Power

    Lightbulb On the topic of Wide Receivers (why the Rams don't need a true #1)

    A lot of fans during the offseason have been clamoring for a #1 wide receiver. Understandable. Sam Bradford is a young quarterback and could use a dominant option, and none of the receivers the Rams have seem to show the qualities of a #1. But is a dominant #1 WR really needed to make an offense efficient?

    Let's start with the two coaches who will oversee how this offense operates: Steve Spagnuolo and Josh McDaniels. Their coaching philosophy is important to understand. While Spags got most of his recognition with his work on the Giants, he often attributes Andy Reid as his main coaching influence, having worked with the Eagles from '99-'06. McDaniels' main influence is obviously the Patriots ('04-'08).

    Now, we all know those were some successful teams. Let's look at their leading receivers each year and their offensive ranks:

    99 - Torrance Small, 655 yds - Offense: #25 pts, #30 yds
    00 - Chad Lewis, 735 - Offense: #12, #17
    01 - James Thrash, 833 - Offense: #9, #17
    02 - Todd Pinkston, 798 - Offense: #4, #10
    03 - Todd Pinkston, 575 - Offense: #11, #18
    04 - Terrell Owens, 1200 - Offense: #8, #9
    05 - Terrell Owens, 763 - Offense: #18, #19
    06 - Reggie Brown, 816 - Offense: #6, #2
    Average: 797 yds, #11.6, #15.25

    04 - David Givens, 874 - Offense: #4, #7
    05 - Deion Branch, 998 - Offense: #10, #7
    06 - Reche Caldwell, 760 - Offense: #7, #11
    07 - Randy Moss, 1493 - Offense: #1, #1
    08 - Wes Welker, 1165 - Offense: #8, #5
    Average: 1058 yds, #6, #6.2

    Those numbers speak for themselves - plus, if you take away Owens and Moss, two exceptions for those teams, they'd look just as good or better. It's obvious that a truly dominant #1 wasn't needed for those offenses to succeed.

    This doesn't even consider defensive performances, which I'm sure Spags is intent on building as a strength for the Rams.

    It might be sexier to have a big-name #1 Wide Receiver, but given the coaches we have and the systems they believe in, it's not necessary for a successful offense/team. I like the fact that they're building receiving depth for Bradford, allowing him to spread the ball around.

  2. #2
    Azul e Oro is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Rep Power

    Re: On the topic of Wide Receivers (why the Rams don't need a true #1)

    I think you make a strong well-supported argument,EDM, but I think you also have to acknowledge the contribution of the RBS on these teams. There was a year-I forget which- in that period when Philly scored 23 rushing TDs. 23!! That's more than The 2010 Rams combined.The Giants were similarly adept at running the ball into the EZ.And huge contributions from RBs in the pass game typified both teams,too. Important to note that guys like Westbrook and Barber always had help back there as well; Staley, Jacobs, et al.

    I've never been a fan of the one star WR fix theory for an offense. I think whenever you see a supposed example, a harder look reveals a strong & multifaceted supporting cast.It wasn't even true for GSOT so why should it be true now?
    Last edited by Azul e Oro; -05-28-2011 at 07:46 AM.

  3. #3
    mikhal5569's Avatar
    mikhal5569 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Rep Power

    Re: On the topic of Wide Receivers (why the Rams don't need a true #1)

    I think some good points are made in the article, but not enough to convince me that the Rams do not need a #1 WR. When I think of a true #1 WR, I envison a player that has to be held accountable by the teams best past defender, if not two in many cases, on every play. Doing so creates opportunities for other players to have more favorable match ups and oppurtunities in the offense. (A speedy WR might be covered by a slower SS or a LB for example.) etc.

    Also, let me point out that the teams used in the above example are both well established teams with a lot of weapons, meaning they have a playe maker at almost every position, TE, RB, the O-line is probably a well oiled machine, you get the point. (They have options.)

    This will be McD's first year in a offense that is being rebuilt/created. There will be bumps and hick up's and a #1 WR sure as hell does not hurt.

  4. #4
    SLSG Guest

    Re: On the topic of Wide Receivers (why the Rams don't need a true #1)

    One stud WR commands double teams and opens up the field for many options.

Similar Threads

  1. Rams Expect Wide Receivers To Improve
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -03-27-2011, 04:54 PM
  2. Survivor: Rams Wide Receivers Edition
    By Dr. Defense in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: -12-22-2009, 10:01 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: -06-17-2009, 01:35 PM
  4. Wide Receivers
    By RockinRam in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: -04-17-2009, 07:29 PM
  5. Simply put, the Rams wide receivers get it
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -08-30-2004, 09:45 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts