Experience at WR Not Always a Must
Everyone talks about the Rams inexperience at WR, but in reality, based on history, that position, along with running back seem to be the least affected by lack of NFL playing time.
The Rams have two second year receivers, and a third year one, and will add a couple good rookies.
Impossible to win it all with that lack of veterans.
Tell that to the 1974 Steelers, led by two ROOKIE WR named Swann and Stallworth, and two very young TE.
The 1986 Giants won with two youngsters in Bobby Johnson and Stacy Robinson as their top WR, and a second year TE named Mark Bavaro.
Of course those teams had a lot going for them other than the passing game, but receivers can make big impacts immediately, as Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt and Az Hakim and even Eddie Kennison did for the Rams
Re: Experience at WR Not Always a Must
I'll take it a step further than that Barry.
Originally Posted by Barry Waller
Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald were all considered "arguably" the best receiver in the game at one point within 3 years from their draft dates. And a host of others are declared among the best within 2 or 3 years.
So I'd say, not only is "experience" not always a must, but rarely ever is.
Most great receivers are great very early in their careers.