Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver

[12thMan]

With so much draft chat going on, I wanted to shift gears just a bit and discuss something more generic, yet relevant to where the 'Skins are headed this year.

I've found that in the heat of a game day thread we're all guilty of throwing around certain buzz words, but the definition may vary depending on which fellow Warpather you're actually talking to. For instance, the words "change of pace back" comes to mind and is often used when referring to the different running styles of two different running backs for the same team. Clinton Portis is pounding the rock, we bring in Betts or Rock for a few downs and like clockwork someone will say, Betts is a good change of pace back. Fine. No problem. Now this isn't a critique nor a criticism, just an observation.

So I want to get some consensus, at least around here, on what's considered a number one wide receiver. Now that Randel El is gone, the recent emergence of Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly and the likelihood that Santana Moss' role, at a minimum, will be changing there isn't a clear cut number one wide receiver on this roster in my opinion.

I understand the temptation is to say it's unequivocally Santana because, well, for a lot of reasons quite frankly. But I think it's helpful to get this out in the open and sort of say what it is and what it isn't.

[12thMan]

I don't want to split hairs, but I'm just interested to see what the responses are.

For me I think it's important to distinguish play maker from a number one wide receiver. I think what we've had in Moss is a play maker that has filled the role of number one receiver. Sometimes I think the two can overlap, but by definition --and this is just me-- a number one wide receiver does three things well:

a) He can run a variety of routes very well. Not just the slant or the fly pattern. (see Roy Williams)

b) usually commands double coverage

c) frankly, he's dependable. He catches the damn ball.

I could add maybe one or two more things to that list, but that's how I pretty much sum it up. I'll add, I think your play maker could end up with more touchdowns and still not be your number one receiver.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I don't want to split hairs, but I'm just interested to see what the responses are.

For me I think it's important to distinguish play maker from a number one wide receiver. I think what we've had in Moss is a play maker that has filled the role of number one receiver. Sometimes I think the two can overlap, but by definition --and this is just me-- a number one wide receiver does three things well:

a) He can run a variety of routes very well. Not just the slant or the fly pattern. (see Roy Williams)

b) usually commands double coverage

c) frankly, he's dependable. He catches the damn ball.

I could add maybe one or two more things to that list, but that's how I pretty much sum it up. I'll add, I think your play maker could end up with more touchdowns and still not be your number one receiver.

I agree with your criteria. I would add that, in terms of criterion b, he not only commands double coverage, he also sometimes beats double coverage.

[12thMan]

Haha..I didn't mean this to be parking lot!! Can we move this the main board. Doesn't matter though.

[Ruhskins]

True no. 1 receiver? Larry Fitzgerald?

[skinsfaninok]

Randy Moss between 1998-2009 .

Most explosive Rookie WR in Nfl history and still has really good size and speed

[skinster]

A true number one reciever is someone that the opposing team HAS to double team if they want a hope at stopping him.

[Longtimefan]

One that values the quality of receptions equal to quantity. Has a complete understanding of both offenses' and defenses'.... Proficient at reading the defense and running precise patterns with deception as well as speed, complete and absolute concentration on making the catch.

Being the receiver in the mix that commands the maximum attention from the defense, and be able to alter the outcome of games with their sheer natural abilities.....The player DC's have to specifically game plan for to combat the threat they pose.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

Being the receiver in the mix that commands the maximum attention from the defense, and be able to alter the outcome of games with their sheer natural abilities.....The player DC's have to specifically game plan for to combat the threat they pose.

That's the single criteria for being a true #1.

[jamf]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

So I want to get some consensus, at least around here, on what's considered a number one wide receiver. Now that Randel El is gone, the recent emergence of Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly and the likelihood that Santana Moss' role, at a minimum, will be changing there isn't a clear cut number one wide receiver on this roster in my opinion.

Where did they emerge from? Devin Thomas had a fluke 100 yard game and never did atleast half of that again. Malcolm Kelly had a season high of 50 yards in a game.

Back On Topic:
A number one WR is a guy who consistently beats single coverage requiring double coverage.
An AllPro WR is a guy who consistently makes beats double coverage.

I think Santana Moss is a #1 but not of the caliber of Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson.
In my opinion, Santana can light up 9 out of 10 corners in the league. Unforunately, he has a tough time beating double coverage.

The same goes for Steve Smith. They had identical stats this year because of how poorly their teams played. With solid Olines and QB play, They are probowl WRs which they have proven in the past.

[30gut]

There are very few true No.1 receivers

Imo a No.1 must:

o Must destroy any CB whenever he gets a 1-on-1 match-up without safety help

o Must still be able to produce when doubled facing a double team

[dirtythirty]

Andre Johnson the last 2 years. I feel he is the true definition of a #1 wideout.

[GTripp0012]

A true number one receiver must be highly effective in all areas of the field and on all routes, with an added emphasis on vertical concepts. He must also catch 64%, IMO, of passes intended for him.

Just two criteria.

[Defensewins]

The obvious must beat a CB one on one.
Must not be one-dimensional. Be great at at the #1, 2 or slot position.
Not afraid to go over the middle. Fast enough to stretch defenses. Great run blocker. Run all out even when playing decoy. Good at running reverses and taking hand offs on running plays. Physical player, not afraid to mix it up with bigger players.
A great combination of speed and power.
Biggest one of all is being in incredible synch with his QB. They could complete a pass in the pitch black darkness. Meaning, they know exactly where they are going to be and the ball is thrown before the receiver makes the cut.
Incredible hands.
On a side note, I agree with Jamf, thomas and Kelly have not done squat.
Their time is running out and they better come in hitting on all cylinders in 2010. They need to do more thatn just catch a handful passes in a game. They need to start to show signs of dominating their opponents, something that has been seriously lacking and is worrisome for me as a Redskin fan.

[Beneil (diehard since 87)]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

The obvious must beat a CB one on one.
Must not be one-dimensional. Be great at at the #1, 2 or slot position.
Not afraid to go over the middle. Fast enough to stretch defenses. Great run blocker. Run all out even when playing decoy. Good at running reverses and taking hand offs on running plays. Physical player, not afraid to mix it up with bigger players.
A great combination of speed and power.
Biggest one of all is being in incredible synch with his QB. They could complete a pass in the pitch black darkness. Meaning, they know exactly where they are going to be and the ball is thrown before the receiver makes the cut.
Incredible hands.
On a side note, I agree with Jamf, thomas and Kelly have not done squat.
Their time is running out and they better come in hitting on all cylinders in 2010. They need to do more thatn just catch a handful passes in a game. They need to start to show signs of dominating their opponents, something that has been seriously lacking and is worrisome for me as a Redskin fan.

Okay, although you want all these things in a receiver, SOME of these attributes have nothing to do with being the #1 receiver. with this criteria, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, Marvin Harrison and other greats were not #1 receivers. I remember laughing my ass off watching a game where the 49ers were playing and it was muddy as hell and everyone looked like they were playing in the mud, but in the 4th quarter, after over 100 yards receiving, Jerry Rice's jersey was immaculate! He hadn't done a thing but make catches and go out of bouds or make touchdowns! He didnt' get tackled, throw blocks, do any reverses, or anything beyond catch and celebrate. Would it have been nice if he did? i guess so, but as long as he makes the big catches when needed. I mean, Art Monk is my favorite receiver of all time, but he was hardly the #1 guy. yeah, ht caught the tough passes up the middle, in traffic, and had perfect connections with ever QB that he had, but the number one guy was Gary Clark. Art was like Hines Ward. Not the fastest, but the toughest. Not the biggest threat, but changes the game just the same.