The case against a first round WR

SugarWalls · Dec 13, 2017

Mongo_76 said:
The case against a 1st round WR is pretty straight forward and can be described in 2 words: Kevin White

Ohhh come off it should we avoid OL because Gabe carimi or Kyle Long?

Should we avoid pass rush because of Shea Mac???

BNB · Dec 13, 2017

In regards to the OP-

Saying that since there's only been 9 "Franchise level" WR's taken in the last 11 drafts, we shouldn't draft one, is a weak argument, in my opinion. Look at other positions. How many franchise QB's have been taken in the 1st round in the last 11 drafts? I'd bet less than 9. On top of my head, there's Luck, Newton, Matt Ryan, Stafford, and Wentz. Some borderline one's include Winston, Mariota, and Goff. But even these last 3 have a a couple of more years to prove if they're really franchise level QB's. However, that wouldn't have been a good reason to not draft Trubisky last season.

It's rare to draft a franchise level player regardless of position in the first round. If the Bears really like Calvin Ridley or James Washington, or whichever other WR they have on their radar, and they fill a need, take him.

napo55 · Dec 13, 2017

SugarWalls said:
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.

Agreed. There are other teams like San Francisco that have much more cap space than the Bears who are desperate for wide receivers, so it is unrealistic to expect we can sign 2. It will be stiff competition to sign even one of the elites. I also wonder what the prospects are for high first round picks at other positions to be stars. The OP fails to document that. Finally, it makes sense to consider the probable impact of any particular pick. If a good WR would improve the team more than a "very" good OG, then you have to seriously consider the decision.

Unlike those totally opposed to taking a WR with a top 10 pick, I'm open to taking an edge rusher if his skill set merits the pick. Let's just keep an open mind.

Mongo_76 · Dec 13, 2017

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

Don't know if you are unaware but QB =/= WR

Mdbearz · Dec 13, 2017

Development of a WR takes a couple of year, and ideally you have the same QB developing with him, sooo...if we want Trubisky to develop along with a WR, then we will need to draft one, if he is the BPA, then you can't be gun shy because of the White situation.

I like the ideal of spending some cash on a WR that has been in the NFL and can help Trubisky and the rest of the WR room get better. Draft a second tier WR with potential.

Washington · Dec 13, 2017

IMHO, good WRs are found all over the draft, more so than most other positions. GB seems to get good ones regularly without using their #1 on them. If TT can do it, surely Pace can do it too. I am opposed to using our #1 on a WR. I'd like to see Pace get one of the best available in FA and then take one after the 1st. Actually, I'd like to see Pace get 2 of the best available in FA.

Teddy KGB · Dec 13, 2017

nc0gnet0 said:
How many "legit" number 1's are there in the league right now?

Hard to say without taking a look.

Really what is going on is we are splitting hairs over semantics.

If we are being strictly technical, then all 32 teams have a "#1 WR", but this argument would be made in bad faith by anyone trying to attempt it, as we all know of situations on NFL teams where backup level players have started for teams.

I give my definition as a Baseline And I think it is a fair one, although I do accept your caveat that it is possible in some cases for a number one wide receiver to be covered by a single cornerback if that cornerback is also on the same level at their position.

But when we get to that point, we are talking about the best in the game. You kind of know it when you see it, like the famous battles between Megatron and peanut. Most cases are not that.

I do think in general, however, that's when most people talk about a legit number one wide receiver, they are talking about the rare handful of pro bowler / future hall of fame wide receivers who can take over a game. And not just one game once in awhile, but almost every game, game in and game out. I think for most people, when they say a legit number one, that is what they think.

However by that definition, that also means there are very few of those in the league, much like the same standard of franchise quarterback. For instance, Andy Dalton can be considered Cincinnati's franchise quarterback. However Andy Dalton is not a household name and therefore in most people when they hear franchise quarterback, they do not think of Andy Dalton. Similarly, I think when people hear number one wide receiver in most cases, they are not thinking of starting number ones but the best wide receivers in the game.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

napo55 · Dec 13, 2017

MojoRisin said:
IMHO, good WRs are found all over the draft, more so than most other positions. GB seems to get good ones regularly without using their #1 on them. If TT can do it, surely Pace can do it too. I am opposed to using our #1 on a WR. I'd like to see Pace get one of the best available in FA and then take one after the 1st. Actually, I'd like to see Pace get 2 of the best available in FA.

Check out the cap space numbers for 2018. Other teams that are desperate for wide receivers have much more money available to sign them. SF has 117 million; Cleveland has 116 million; Indianapolis has 90 million. And so on. The Bears are no. 12 and have 47 million. True they can save some by cutting players, but they also have one of the lowest number of players signed for 2018 and will have to spend more just to fill the rooster.

So the idea that they can sign an elite WR in FA is questionable. By the way, you can also find very good players at other positions in later rounds in the draft. So if the WR you want is there in the first round, and you have the worst WR group in the league, pull the trigger!

PolarBear · Dec 13, 2017

I continue to be of the opinion that WR's are extremely overvalued based on how much you have to pay for a "#1 WR".

People are talking about giving Jarvis Landry 10-12 million...A pure slot receiver who is physically limited and who is great between the 20's but will not help you in the RZ.

nc0gnet0 · Dec 13, 2017

Teddy KGB said:
Hard to say without taking a look.

Really what is going on is we are splitting hairs over semantics.

If we are being strictly technical, then all 32 teams have a "#1 WR", but this argument would be made in bad faith by anyone trying to attempt it, as we all know of situations on NFL teams where backup level players have started for teams.

I give my definition as a Baseline And I think it is a fair one, although I do accept your caveat that it is possible in some cases for a number one wide receiver to be covered by a single cornerback if that cornerback is also on the same level at their position.

But when we get to that point, we are talking about the best in the game. You kind of know it when you see it, like the famous battles between Megatron and peanut. Most cases are not that.

I do think in general, however, that's when most people talk about a legit number one wide receiver, they are talking about the rare handful of pro bowler / future hall of fame wide receivers who can take over a game. And not just one game once in awhile, but almost every game, game in and game out. I think for most people, when they say a legit number one, that is what they think.

However by that definition, that also means there are very few of those in the league, much like the same standard of franchise quarterback. For instance, Andy Dalton can be considered Cincinnati's franchise quarterback. However Andy Dalton is not a household name and therefore in most people when they hear franchise quarterback, they do not think of Andy Dalton. Similarly, I think when people hear number one wide receiver in most cases, they are not thinking of starting number ones but the best wide receivers in the game.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

Your touching on the point I was trying to make. Legit WR does not equal Elite WR, or Franchise level WR. Suffice it to say I think the top 20 or so WR's are Legit number 1 WR's. Elite is a whole different discussion. If Kevin White was producing at Sammy Watkins level, we wouldn't be calling him a bust.

Bear in mind that I am staying true to the OP, which was specifically targeted at WR taken in the first round. Others have tried to make this about taking a WR in the top ten, or at 8, etc. That is a different discussion.

Personally, I would like to see the Bears trade down and then take a WR in the first. But, that would depend on FA as well.

BNB · Dec 13, 2017

MojoRisin said:
IMHO, good WRs are found all over the draft, more so than most other positions. GB seems to get good ones regularly without using their #1 on them. If TT can do it, surely Pace can do it too. I am opposed to using our #1 on a WR. I'd like to see Pace get one of the best available in FA and then take one after the 1st. Actually, I'd like to see Pace get 2 of the best available in FA.

That's because GB has Aaron Rodgers, and he can make even average WR's look amazing. The stronger the QB, the less need there is for a great WR. But when you do pair a great QB with a great WR, they usually set records.... like Brady and Moss.

nc0gnet0 · Dec 13, 2017

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.

I find this interesting because MJ is currently 12th on the season in yards. By comparison, Alshon is 26th, and most Bears fans consider him a legit #1.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...Category=RECEIVING&d-447263-s=RECEIVING_YARDS

Hammer · Dec 13, 2017

Depending if Bears win 1 or possibly even 2 games, they'll have their 1st round pick in #8-14 range.
Bears biggest needs in the Offseason will be WR, RT, OLB and CB.

Now, lets focus on best draft prospects at those positions and how they fit in the Bears draft range.

WR - my impression is that Ridley hasn't shown enough to be drafted in Top 15 (no elite physical traits and no college production), and Sutton would be just a huge reach (especially if he becomes the hyped Combine hero)

RT - my biggest question is - could Nelson possibly switch to tackle, not sure if LT prospects like Williams, Brown or McGlinchey fit in the Top 15 range (though Williams could be hyped enough to go there)

OLB - Chubb and Key (if he interviews well) are legit blue chip prospects and Ferrell is just on the outside of Top 15 range

CB - key question, does Fitzpatrick have enough athleticism for projected shutdown CB, Jackson is close to Top 15 range, on the other hand Ward seems kinda undersized for a legit #1 CB

Runruffshod75 · Dec 13, 2017

I'd take Ridley in a heartbeat. Ridley is going to be a fantastic WR.

Les Grossman · Dec 13, 2017

Mdbearz said:
Development of a WR takes a couple of year, and ideally you have the same QB developing with him, sooo...if we want Trubisky to develop along with a WR, then we will need to draft one, if he is the BPA, then you can't be gun shy because of the White situation.

I like the ideal of spending some cash on a WR that has been in the NFL and can help Trubisky and the rest of the WR room get better. Draft a second tier WR with potential.

Ideally you’d want a QB who is already developed that way he can help the new WR develop, run routes, what to look for, etc.

doctorbear · Dec 13, 2017

You can make a thread like this about every position in the nfl

Hammer · Dec 13, 2017

Young inexperienced QB can definitely benefit from a high quality go-to receiver (think Watson - Hopkins combo), on the other hand, young WRs can benefit from veteran QBs (think every single young/average receiver Brady and Rodgers had).

That's why Bears should probably go after a legit go-to receiver in FA (like Robinson or Landy), and not in 1st round of Draft (although they could draft one WR in 2nd or later rounds, to develop alongside a legit receiving threat, like they already did with Jeffery alongside Marshall).

ZOMBIE@CTESPN · Dec 13, 2017

Good analysis but this is pussy logic. A gm that is making a pick should be confident enough they got the best they could at their pick. Backing down cause other gms picked bums doesn’t work for me.

And I’m not advocating for a first round wr I think we need a pass rusher and wr should be a free agent fix.

tgmxd · Dec 13, 2017

BNB said:
That's because GB has Aaron Rodgers, and he can make even average WR's look amazing. The stronger the QB, the less need there is for a great WR.

To add onto this point which I think is a good one.

It took a while before Rodgers reached the point where he could drag any group of WR's to the playoffs.

The Packers set the table for Rodgers to learn how to be Rodgers by giving him Donald Driver, Greg Jennings, and Jordy Nelson. Success breeds success and he got better every single game. Goff, Wentz, and Watson are all enjoying the same benefits right now.

Because of this, I think it's crucial we over-invest in weapons for Trubisky now while he is young to help get him to that same point where later in his career he can hopefully be one of the few elite QB's in the league who can drive a team to the playoffs every year.

So like the Packers, we need to set the fucking table for Trubisky.

Because of this, I am in on a round 1 receiver like Calvin Ridley. It doesn't matter what happened before or the hit rate, its too small a samples size to draw any real conclusions.

I have also changed my opinion of late of Jarvis Landry being worth the cash because he can have a huge effect on the offense.

Landry. Ridley. Meredith. Shaheen. Howard. Cohen.

Chicago Staleys · Dec 13, 2017

Do we get a comp. pick for losing Alshon? If so it can change the way Pace approaches the draft.

The case against a first round WR

Well-known member

Moderator

My favorite teams

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Cultural Icon

Well-known member

Well-known member

CCS Donator

Moderator

My favorite teams

CCS Donator

Active member

.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Realist