The case against a first round WR

nc0gnet0 said:

They took 4 WR's at number one over a period of 5 years. Calvin Johnson was not part of the consecutive three. Two of those were complete busts. One was arguably the greatest receiver ever to play the game, and another, Roy Williams, had fairly decent stats when at Detroit, before falling off a cliff after he got traded to Dallas for a number 1 pick (which made him a break even prospect at worse).

So, as laughable as it sounds, using Detroit as an example, you still have a 50% chance of hitting a true number 1 WR.

Click to expand...

As an aside, I think Megatron a bit overrated in terms of the best WR ever.

I’m going to thrown it out there that I think Antonio Brown will have a better overall career than Megatron.

First off, treating all first round picks in an evaluation of player selection is crazy. Taking Calvin Johnson or Carlos Rogers at #3 is drastically different than taking Dez Bryant, DeAndre Hopkins, or Kelvin Benjamin in the mid/late 20s.

Secondly, to either draft or not draft a prospect based on how his position did in previous drafts is literally meaningless. The two players are not the same. The reasons guy X did or did not work are likely not analogous to why the guy you're drafting will or will not work. Calvin Johnson is worthy of the #3 pick or whatever pick you want to make with him regardless of any other player and Ted Ginn Jr was always going to be a reach at #7 because of the Hester/PR value that teams thought was super high at the time.

IMO I have one rule for top 10 picks: the player has to be a difference maker to what your team does. He needs to not just be a starter or a solid player but he has to be the type of player that either expands your gameplan or forces other teams to gameplan and take notice of his position on the field. If he's a corner/safety he has to be a crock pot type where you basically set him on the field and simply forget about having to do anything to help him; if he's a DL then he has to be the type of guy who can get after the passer and force teams to change protections. If he's a WR/RB then he has to be the type of guy who is a danger to break any play from 5-10 yards to a TD with one missed tackle. He's the type of guy every coordinator notices when he's on the field. If it's an O-Lineman, he has to drastically change what you do and protect and make other players around him better. You don't have to spend on RB or blocking TE because he's basically an island.

If you don't feel that guy exists with the pick, then you should trade down and accumulate depth and future assets.

HawkBear said:

I'm with you on the 2016/2017 thing, but I wanted them included just to show who was drafted. If I had to guess, 1 turns out to be a WR1 while two others are serviceable. Yes, it's pretty subjective in determining what a WR1 is, but I think I hit them all. Since we're likely drafting in the top 10, there will be future pro bowlers on the board when we pick, I want one of those guys. I'm curious, who do you think are not bolded that are legit number 1s? I gave an Honorable mention for the borderline WR1/2 guys.

If I had more time, it would be interesting to look at all of the positions and their bust rate.

Click to expand...

How do you define "legit #1 WR"?

Crabtree, Maclin, Boye, *Watkins, *Cooks, *Benjamin, could quite easily be #1's some would require a good #2 however. Let me ask you this, is Marvin Jones a "legit" #1? And how many NFL teams have legit #1's? Long story short, I am not considering any of them to be a bad pick in the first round, maybe not top ten, but mid late first rounders for sure.

Ummmmmmmmmm are you guys not paying attention?? The Bears don't need any WR's cause the guys we got now are 7-11 baby....always open.


Tell them K.Wright

Les Grossman said:

As an aside, I think Megatron a bit overrated in terms of the best WR ever.

I’m going to thrown it out there that I think Antonio Brown will have a better overall career than Megatron.

Click to expand...

I did say arguably, And AB might, Megatron left the game a few years early. Different skill sets, Megatron was a beast in the redzone.

PeterMbangala said:

If we're at 8-10 then I don't want to take a WR there. I suspect Pace would have to be a bit gun shy after Kevin White anyway.

Assuming Chubb and Fitzpatrick are off the board by then, I'd be OK with trading back and taking someone in the 15-20 range but I'd be worried about it.

I think that list from the OP is a timely reminder of how these things work out. Remember that of those 9-12 receivers that turned into true WR1s, probably half of them were sure fire stars or as close to it as possible. Green, Jones, Megatron even Cooper to an extent were can't miss prospects. There are none of those in this draft.

Click to expand...

This is really interesting.. I think there is a good chance one of these guys are there.

Browns Josh Rosen
Giants Sam Darnold
Colts Nelson / Brown who ever is the best Oline talent
Browns Saquon Barkley
Buccneers Derwin James / Fitzpatrick
Broncos QB 3
49ers ?? Trade down with the bears?? Or Best WR Sutton?
Jets Offensive Line
Bengals OT / TE / QB
Bears Chubb / Landry / Fitzpatrick


In the top 5 there is sure to be Rosen, Darnold, Barkley, and a OLineman.

satchice said:

This is really interesting.. I think there is a good chance one of these guys are there.

Browns Josh Rosen
Giants Sam Darnold
Colts Nelson / Brown who ever is the best Oline talent
Browns Saquon Barkley
Buccneers Derwin James / Fitzpatrick
Broncos QB 3
49ers ?? Trade down with the bears?? Or Best WR Sutton?
Jets Offensive Line
Bengals OT / TE / QB
Bears Chubb / Landry / Fitzpatrick


In the top 5 there is sure to be Rosen, Darnold, Barkley, and a OLineman.

Click to expand...

Bronco's won't go QB in the 1st round, I really think they will look to FA to fill that need.

nc0gnet0 said:

How do you define "legit #1 WR"?

Crabtree, Maclin, Boye, *Watkins, *Cooks, *Benjamin, could quite easily be #1's some would require a good #2 however. Let me ask you this, is Marvin Jones a "legit" #1? And how many NFL teams have legit #1's? Long story short, I am not considering any of them to be a bad pick in the first round, maybe not top ten, but mid late first rounders for sure.

Click to expand...

Defining a WR1 is pretty subjective. Everyone seems to have a different idea of what that is. Another poster somewhat alluded to it. He has to be a game changer, someone who makes the defense scheme around. Someone who can take over the game when needed. Gotta be reliable. A player that can be the teams only receiving threat, draw double coverages and still produce great numbers.

To your Marvin Jones comment, I'd say no. He's a really solid WR2 though and a great 5th round pick. Pair him with Golden Tate and he's pretty good. If he had to operate as a teams WR1 and not much else around him, he probably struggles.

I'm on board with improving OL/DB/OLB in the first round, but if WR is that you love then why not.

A true bonafide #1 like Hopkins, A brown, julio, megatron, or OBJ can really transform an offense much more than an OG. Everyone keeps saying this team need more playmmakers... I like cohen and howard but there are NO WR's on this team that are play makers. If the bears pick around 8-12 it is likely that guys like chubb, fitzpatrick, barkley and others will be off the board. The bears are more likely to be looking at a top WR or a top OG/OT. If you are looking at top O line you can make very similar comments about being able to find talent in later rounds, just think whitehair.

Also, a lot of people seem to be banking on Pace signing AT LEAST 1 FA WR. I'm hopeful for a big name guy like watkins, allen robinson, or landry... but thinking he will land two is a bit much imo.

HawkBear said:

Defining a WR1 is pretty subjective. Everyone seems to have a different idea of what that is. Another poster somewhat alluded to it. He has to be a game changer, someone who makes the defense scheme around. Someone who can take over the game when needed. Gotta be reliable. A player that can be the teams only receiving threat, draw double coverages and still produce great numbers.

To your Marvin Jones comment, I'd say no. He's a really solid WR2 though and a great 5th round pick. Pair him with Golden Tate and he's pretty good. If he had to operate as a teams WR1 and not much else around him, he probably struggles.

Click to expand...

Read this article, it is more aligned with what I consider a number 1 to be. By your definition, there is only a handful of #1's in the league. For instance, I think MJ is a number one, not a top #1 by any stretch, but a legit number 1.


https://www.turfshowtimes.com/2012/4/13/2945073/a-nagging-issue-what-is-a-1-wide-receiver

HawkBear said:

Defining a WR1 is pretty subjective. Everyone seems to have a different idea of what that is. Another poster somewhat alluded to it. He has to be a game changer, someone who makes the defense scheme around. Someone who can take over the game when needed. Gotta be reliable. A player that can be the teams only receiving threat, draw double coverages and still produce great numbers.

To your Marvin Jones comment, I'd say no. He's a really solid WR2 though and a great 5th round pick. Pair him with Golden Tate and he's pretty good. If he had to operate as a teams WR1 and not much else around him, he probably struggles.

Click to expand...

I do agree that number one wide receiver is pretty subjective across the board. What my suggestion would be for a Baseline in terms of what makes a receiver a number one receiver is if they are someone who commands a double team from opposing defenses.

I think if defenses have to be aware of where you are on the field and have to assign more than one player to cover you as a wide receiver, that makes you a legitimate number one wide receiver.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

nc0gnet0 said:

Read this article, it is more aligned with what I consider a number 1 to be. By your definition, there is only a handful of #1's in the league. For instance, I think MJ is a number one, not a top #1 by any stretch, but a legit number 1.


https://www.turfshowtimes.com/2012/4/13/2945073/a-nagging-issue-what-is-a-1-wide-receiver

Click to expand...

a number one is a receiver who opens up the field for the less receivers on the field by getting special attention from the defense. He's a decoy but also a player that can take on the double coverage and still get his numbers.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Very similar to what I said as well.

satchice said:

In the top 5 there is sure to be Rosen, Darnold, Barkley, and a OLineman.

Click to expand...

What makes you think this?? The last few years there has been an absolute premium put on the top pass rushers, and we have seen OL falling a bit in the draft. I’d guess without a doubt that the top rated d lineman and maybe a second could go as early as top 5.

I do agree that Barkley will be gone, and possibly as many as 2 QB’s considering the Giants situation. No reason to think Fitzpatrick will be there by that 8-12 range though as well.

Teddy KGB said:

I do agree that number one wide receiver is pretty subjective across the board. What my suggestion would be for a Baseline in terms of what makes a receiver a number one receiver is if they are someone who commands a double team from opposing defenses.

I think if defenses have to be aware of where you are on the field and have to assign more than one player to cover you as a wide receiver, that makes you a legitimate number one wide receiver.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

HawkBear said:

Pretty much this. Very similar to what I said as well.

Click to expand...

Well, a lot of that will have to do with who your cornerbacks are as well. Even some of the "legit" WR1's you listed were covered man to man when facing great corners.

Teddy KGB said:

I do agree that number one wide receiver is pretty subjective across the board. What my suggestion would be for a Baseline in terms of what makes a receiver a number one receiver is if they are someone who commands a double team from opposing defenses.

I think if defenses have to be aware of where you are on the field and have to assign more than one player to cover you as a wide receiver, that makes you a legitimate number one wide receiver.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

HawkBear said:

Pretty much this. Very similar to what I said as well.

Click to expand...

How many "legit" number 1's are there in the league right now?

The case against a 1st round WR is pretty straight forward and can be described in 2 words: Kevin White

xer0h0ur said:

Sorry if I offended. I have a habit of using shitty wordings that come off dickish. I'm basically agreeing with you we shouldn't go first round on a wide receiver.

Click to expand...

We've noticed.

Mongo_76 said:

The case against a 1st round WR is pretty straight forward and can be described in 2 words: Kevin White

Click to expand...

Just because we drafted a WR in the first round who was a bust doesn't mean we should never draft one again in the 1st round. If we used that line of thinking, we'd be trading away our first every year, because we've drafted 1st round busts in all different positions.

The arguments against drafting a WR in the first sound a lot like many of the arguments we heard against drafting a QB in the first. At least that's how it sounds to me. I say if a WR is the best available guy at a position of need, draft him and let history vindicate the selection.

I want Ridley, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. That in mind, we have absolute shit at WR. If the best receiver in the draft is available at our pick, and we don't anticipate him to be available with a trade down, then I'm all for picking him. Sure, they seldom light the world on fire as rookies, but the only weapon we have that scares other teams as a receiver is a gadget RB.

If we invest heavily in WR in free agency, that's another story entirely. But Ridley looks to me like someone who is likely to grow to be a difference maker. I'd do back flips if we ended up drafting him. Even if he doesn't make a splash next year, if he can put up just 700 yards then he'd outperform everyome who we have on the roster right now.

That's just my 2 cents. I'm open to other players in the first round, but to write off first round receivers is foolish.

Mongo_76 said:

The case against a 1st round WR is pretty straight forward and can be described in 2 words: Kevin White

Click to expand...

So because the bears drafted Cade McNown they should never draft a QB in round 1 again according to your shity logic....