Re: Just How Important Are WRs?
posted at 3/20/2012 1:44 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Just How Important Are WRs?
[QUOTE]Texas that article is a little misleading, it's saying that you don't need a "superstar" WR not that the WR position isn't important. It makes sense usually when you have one super elite WR who is 33% of your entire passing offense 50% or more of your WR yards your team becomes one dimesional and usually a good def (like the kind you see in the playoffs) can shut down your one WR. I feel like that's what happen to us in the playoffs with Moss. Brady became moss dependent to a degree and NYG shut him down. If you look at some of the past SB winners though, most had really good WR corps though, GB, NO, Indy, even NE and pitt have a good group of WR if no one superstar.
Posted by quinzpatsfan[/QUOTE]
I would add ...
How many teams have won Superbowls with RBs who gained something analagous to that much, like 1500+?
Ladanian? Nope. Chris Johnson? Nope. Steve Jackson? Nope. In fact, every single one of the teams to win and go to a Superbowl the last five seasons used platoon RBs, IIRC. Sack leading defenders, InT leading corners, etc. Anyone who isn't a QB can fall into this kind of "hood ornament" area, where they are overpaid.
So 11 teams have won a superbowl without a 1000 yard reciever since 1978
(about 30%)... I bet almost all of those 11 had a guy with around 900, or they were the Bears or Ravens and had such somethering defense that it made up for one-dimensional/bad offense.
Yet still, getting a good RB is crucially important. As is having talent at WR.
That article needs to be framed in such a way that it is not overstating it's case, which right now is waaaay overstated.
In short, you spend the biggest bucks on a QB, and pick your spots around that. Unless NE goes overboard for Welker (I'd let him walk before that myself) they've done a good job trying to get at least "good" talent at various roster spots without splashing on "hood ornament" players at any position.