| |
Definition of a Good receiver
|
|
|
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Feb 28, 2007
|
|
How many of us know what a top flight reciever is, or a #1 or #2 reciever is at that? Seems to me there is some confusion about this, and it needs some clarification. Which teams actually have these all of the above?
Definition of #1 Wr- Playmaker(gamechanger). One that excells under any circumstances, under pressure and provides a sure-handed target. Demands double coverage or a defense rolling to his side of the field. An natural overwheilming presence on the field that you have to gameplan for.
Definiton of #2 Wr- Playmaker. Dependable with good hands. Usually his ability is a few shades under the #1, but in some cases is just as gifted. Could serve as a #2 on any team, not just one to fill that role. He also, has to be a presence every second he's on the field.
Definition of #3 and #4's- Not too much seperation between the two, but the 3 usually is the best fit. To play the slot effectively and at times fill the role of the #2 wr. Not too many #3's should and are not suited to become natural #2's. Should possess good hands and vision.
Some teams are very talented in this area and have great 1-2 punches, but some people get the teams system or style of play and account it for how great their wr's are. Here are the teams with the best WR corps and depth. (no order)
Bengals, Colts, Lions, Cardinals, Giants. In the Mix are: Wash, Pitts, N.E, Clev.
There is a difference between great, good, average and mediocre. Any team not listed fit in catergories avg. to mediocre.
Thoughts?
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Reputation:92
Level:All-Star
Since:Apr 19, 2007
|
|
The Giants? You must be joking. Plax is it..Cleveland has a #1, a potential #2 in Winslow, although he is a tight end, and possibly a 3 in Stallworth.We all know New England has Moss, but past that, Welker? He's a solid 3. I don't think #2 quality. I agree with Cincy, Detroit potentially, although Calvin didn't exactly live up to the best player in the draft hype. Really I think the Bengal,s Colts and Cardinals might be the only 3 teams with sure-fire #1's and #2's.
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Reputation:88
Level:All-Star
Since:Mar 30, 2008
|
|
I have to totally diesagree with you on Welker being a solid 3. He was the 2nd option in the Patriots passing attack and absolutely dominated teams. Also the reason the Pats picked him up was because no matter how much Belichek(?) schemed against him twice a year, he would still light them up. I would go out on a limb and say that I think Welker could be successful as the top receiver in an offense. The only thing his game lacks is height. He makes up for that by having supreme quickness, speed, route running, and catching ability.
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 19, 2006
|
|
Wait didnt Walker sign with the Raiders and then get knocked out by Floyd Mayweathers enterouge? Bum
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Reputation:92
Level:All-Star
Since:Apr 19, 2007
|
|
LOL to Welker being a top receiver in an offense. Why was he so successful in NE? One word. MOSS! He was the running game, those little dump offs. NE didnt run much but they were pretty successful when they did that too, not to mention they have the best QB in the game. LOL once again to your comment. Welker is at best a 2 in a system where there is a Moss. As far as Denver, Marshall is a stud, I agree there, but stokley? Hes at best a 2 also, not to mention hes pretty much past his prime. And walker? He did battle injuries but he definitely was NOT the player, when he did play, that he was in GB. Bust.
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Definition of a Good receiver
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Feb 28, 2007
|
|
