Criteria of a "#1" WR

Originally posted by jersey49er:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by jersey49er:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by jersey49er:

Originally posted by Krampus49:
Shoot we don't even have a number 2 reciever

I disagree, Goodwin and Pettis to me are considered very good number 2s, you add anyone from that list for number 1s and their stats will go up just of the fact the field would open up so much with a number 1 and Kittle, that's why I think AB in this offense would make it top 5

How can you say a guy who has played 12 career games (half of which starts) and a guy who misses an average of 5 games a season are "very good number 2s?"

I feel like Pettis is going to be a very good number 2 and Goodwin when healthy and given the opportunity has shown he's a nice WR..I think a lot will agree but obviously not you 🤷🏻‍♂️

I think Pettis is going to be a good #2 as well. But you declaring him that now is not something I can get behind. He has not proven that he is already a "very good #2" like you claim. I like Pettis a lot. But he needs to prove something before we anoint him.

Goodwin as a "very good #2" I find to be absolutely ridiculous though. He has had one fully healthy season in 6 years. Hope he can put it together and stay on the field. But to count on him as a very good #2 right now is crazy IMO.

You say a lot will agree.....I dont know that anyone will agree. Both could prove to become very good #2s, but they absolutely are not at this very minute.

Fair enough about Goodwin, health is his major problem and as for Pettis I love his chances to become a very good WR for this team hopefully for a long time, my point was that a true number 1 added and I feel this WR group along with Kittle will be a problem for defenses..

Right there with you. If we had a true #1, Pettis and Goodwin as the #2 and # (along with Kittle) would be deadly as hell.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by jersey49er:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by jersey49er:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by jersey49er:

Originally posted by Krampus49:

Shoot we don't even have a number 2 reciever

I disagree, Goodwin and Pettis to me are considered very good number 2s, you add anyone from that list for number 1s and their stats will go up just of the fact the field would open up so much with a number 1 and Kittle, that's why I think AB in this offense would make it top 5

How can you say a guy who has played 12 career games (half of which starts) and a guy who misses an average of 5 games a season are "very good number 2s?"

I feel like Pettis is going to be a very good number 2 and Goodwin when healthy and given the opportunity has shown he's a nice WR..I think a lot will agree but obviously not you 🤷🏻‍♂️

I think Pettis is going to be a good #2 as well. But you declaring him that now is not something I can get behind. He has not proven that he is already a "very good #2" like you claim. I like Pettis a lot. But he needs to prove something before we anoint him.

Goodwin as a "very good #2" I find to be absolutely ridiculous though. He has had one fully healthy season in 6 years. Hope he can put it together and stay on the field. But to count on him as a very good #2 right now is crazy IMO.

You say a lot will agree.....I dont know that anyone will agree. Both could prove to become very good #2s, but they absolutely are not at this very minute.

Fair enough about Goodwin, health is his major problem and as for Pettis I love his chances to become a very good WR for this team hopefully for a long time, my point was that a true number 1 added and I feel this WR group along with Kittle will be a problem for defenses..

Right there with you. If we had a true #1, Pettis and Goodwin as the #2 and # (along with Kittle) would be deadly as hell.

Yes sir, and McKinnon or Breida in the back field, crazy how close this offense is to being absolutely sick

To me a #1 WR is a person who can not be covered 1v1(exceptions being a few corners) and can routinely beat double teams.

They can be >6ft, slow, skinny, and any other non important detail.

I'd say the only requirements are that a #1 WR must be able to consistently beat single coverage anywhere on the field.... and must be someone you can count on to make difficult catches.

A WR that is mostly a deep threat, or mostly a redzone target, etc. does not qualify. Those guys are role players. A #1 you want on the field regardless of the field position or down/distance.

Reliable hands and being good with contested catches is also a factor that separates many average WRs from the best.

We don't need a #1. We need a guy who can score TDS in the red zone.

Originally posted by Joecool:
We don't need a #1. We need a guy who can score TDS in the red zone.

Like a #1 WR

Originally posted by Garce:

Originally posted by Joecool:

We don't need a #1. We need a guy who can score TDS in the red zone.

Like a #1 WR

Similar to a #1.

#1-esque

I think it really comes down to the depth chart

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

A little guy is not a #1 WR. A slow guy is not a #1 WR. Maybe a #2 or #3. But not a #1.

A prime Steve Smith was a monster and he never had a Joe or Steve throwing him the ball

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Garce:

Originally posted by Joecool:

We don't need a #1. We need a guy who can score TDS in the red zone.

Like a #1 WR

Similar to a #1.

#1-esque

Double teamed is my only criteria

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

A little guy is not a #1 WR. A slow guy is not a #1 WR. Maybe a #2 or #3. But not a #1.

A prime Steve Smith was a monster and he never had a Joe or Steve throwing him the ball

1) He is a super rare example.

2) He fits one of the criteria. He was super fast on timed speed. So he had one of those things I mentioned to a very high degree.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

A little guy is not a #1 WR. A slow guy is not a #1 WR. Maybe a #2 or #3. But not a #1.

A prime Steve Smith was a monster and he never had a Joe or Steve throwing him the ball

1) He is a super rare example.

2) He fits one of the criteria. He was super fast on timed speed. So he had one of those things I mentioned to a very high degree.

Dude was also the most aggressive I have seen at going after the ball.

Originally posted by jdt84_2:
To me a #1 WR is a person who can not be covered 1v1(exceptions being a few corners) and can routinely beat double teams.

They can be >6ft, slow, skinny, and any other non important detail.

This is my favorite description in the thread.

It's not just being double-teamed, it's being able to beat double-teams as well.

Originally posted by Garce:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Garce:

Originally posted by Joecool:
We don't need a #1. We need a guy who can score TDS in the red zone.

Like a #1 WR

Similar to a #1.

#1-esque

Miles Boykin baby.