Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
Perhaps ignorance to one person is perception to another. If I'm not mistaken Boldin had his issues, Fitzgerald had someone ahead of him who had issues prior to this year... wait wasn't that Boldin? Dallas may have meant for Austin to be their #1 but Dez Bryant or Roy Williams would be my #1 and they have issues. Steve Smith wouldn't be the #1 with the Giants if Buress was still on the team, Buress = issues.
I think a lot of the names given are teams in the same boat as the Skins, we have a bonified #2 WR, like S.Moss, but not a #1. Any of the teams with a Rookie WR need to be given time for their play to swell their heads. As with any player who is one of the best at what they do, they have issues of some type.
|
This all boils down to what our definitions of #1 wideouts are. You apparantly believe a #1 wideout is a mythical being, that is consistently awesome week in and week out. I believe a #1 wideout is a guy who is just consistent. If he catches the majority of the targets thrown at him, and is always there on Sundays, well he's a #1 in my book. So by my definition Moss is a #1. And there's more names that could probably be added to that list. Roddy White is an elite wideout whose' name could go in there with the Andre Johnsons, and Dwayne Bowe/Steve Smith of the Panthers could probably join the T.O.'s of the list.
All I'm saying is that just because a select few #1 wideouts (they are #1 in my book, I'm not gonna debate that with you) have that I want the ball mentality, it doesn't make it right to generalize all wideouts like that. I'm sure there are plenty of guys on that list that would take the ball less if their teams won games.