St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiver

[Angry Ram]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

I stopped reading right after those stupid labels of "number one WR." Just shut up w/ the goddamn labels!

 

[Slappy967]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

It's a little early in the year to be suggesting WR as a problem area for this team. I wouldn't use the "vanilla" playcalling as a measuring stick for this group just yet. That being said in week 6 when we revisit this article we will have a good shot of proving or disproving this.

 

[-X-]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

So what's your definition of a number one receiver?
Is there a physical measurement or statistical benchmark you think needs to be met?

For me it is a guy that catches over 70% of targets
can catch 100 balls
can have 1000 yards
usually commands help in coverage freeing up other players to make plays
no physical measurement requirements

Cool. Thanks.

I like the 1000 yard receiving benchmark - that's usually a good indicator. And that can come from anywhere. Wes Welker (is he a #1?), or even Jimmy Graham (TE). A 100 balls is also a good one, but that can be hard to come by in offenses that have a lot of targets like New England, New Orleans and Green Bay. Commanding double coverage is, I think, the primary requirement. Receivers who are left on their own usually aren't feared unless there's a lockdown corner on them. And I don't care about physical attributes either. Steve Smith, Wes Welker, Amendola, Bruce, Holt, Cruz, DeSean, etc. None of them are tall or imposing.

So I'd go with 100 receptions, commands double coverage, and can run ALL of the routes.

 

[HitStick]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

IMO there are less number one receivers in this league than most people say.

I think a #1 is the type of receiver that, even when they are covered, you throw them the ball. They almost never get shut down and if they do, the passing game completly suffers.

 

[rdlkgliders]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

So what's your definition of a number one receiver?
Is there a physical measurement or statistical benchmark you think needs to be met?

For me it is a guy that catches over 70% of targets
can catch 100 balls
can have 1000 yards
usually commands help in coverage freeing up other players to make plays
no physical measurement requirements

Cool. Thanks.

I like the 1000 yard receiving benchmark - that's usually a good indicator. And that can come from anywhere. Wes Welker (is he a #1?), or even Jimmy Graham (TE). A 100 balls is also a good one, but that can be hard to come by in offenses that have a lot of targets like New England, New Orleans and Green Bay. Commanding double coverage is, I think, the primary requirement. Receivers who are left on their own usually aren't feared unless there's a lockdown corner on them. And I don't care about physical attributes either. Steve Smith, Wes Welker, Amendola, Bruce, Holt, Cruz, DeSean, etc. None of them are tall or imposing.

So I'd go with 100 receptions, commands double coverage, and can run ALL of the routes.

Ya I forgot route running definitely something not to be overlooked.
It's all conjecture anyway and fun conversation before we get to kicking some NFC West A$$, the real point in all of this is we have a great management team, stable ownership, top tier coach and a young team on the rise , hopefully sooner than later

 

[lockdnram21]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

So what's your definition of a number one receiver?
Is there a physical measurement or statistical benchmark you think needs to be met?

For me it is a guy that catches over 70% of targets
can catch 100 balls
can have 1000 yards
usually commands help in coverage freeing up other players to make plays
no physical measurement requirements

Cool. Thanks.

I like the 1000 yard receiving benchmark - that's usually a good indicator. And that can come from anywhere. Wes Welker (is he a #1?), or even Jimmy Graham (TE). A 100 balls is also a good one, but that can be hard to come by in offenses that have a lot of targets like New England, New Orleans and Green Bay. Commanding double coverage is, I think, the primary requirement. Receivers who are left on their own usually aren't feared unless there's a lockdown corner on them. And I don't care about physical attributes either. Steve Smith, Wes Welker, Amendola, Bruce, Holt, Cruz, DeSean, etc. None of them are tall or imposing.

I get what your saying.

So I'd go with 100 receptions, commands double coverage, and can run ALL of the routes.

Ya I forgot route running definitely something not to be overlooked.
It's all conjecture anyway and fun conversation before we get to kicking some NFC West A$$, the real point in all of this is we have a great management team, stable ownership, top tier coach and a young team on the rise , hopefully sooner than later

 

[lockdnram21]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

To me a number 1 is somebody you can throw to when there covered. Theres only 6 i can think of right now Megatron, Aj Green, Brandon Marshall, Dez Bryant, Larry Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson

 

[V3]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

Tavon will be explosive. Givens is a deep threat and is becoming more dangerous on intermediate routes. Stedman bailey AND Brian Quick have star potential, and Pettis has good hands. I don't see WR being the biggest weakness... but I guess to an outside eye it may be.

Quick can't even get on the field with the first team. He barely played last night. What makes you think he'll be a star? He's shown nothing. The same can be said about Bailey but at least he has an excuse. I won't say Bailey can't be a star player but he hasn't shown much to warrant such high expectations either. IMO, Quick is looking more like a bad pick than a future star. He was taken at the top of the second round over a year ago and he still can't get on the field. The coaches obviously still don't trust him enough to pLay. That's a big red flag in my book.

 

[Angry Ram]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

To me a number 1 is somebody you can throw to when there covered. Theres only 6 i can think of right now Megatron, Aj Green, Brandon Marshall, Dez Bryant, Larry Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson

Interesting...I heard yesterday in the Cowboys game (I think) that if you have a guy like that, he can be easily taken care of. Looking at the elite, and look at the team success.

Lions, Cowboys, Cardinals have gone to the playoffs a whopping 3 times since the earliest stud (Fitz) has been drafted. Has Brandon Marshall been to the playoffs? I don't think so...I could be wrong. Andre Johnson has been w/ the Texans since 2003 and is only now getting playoff games.

AJ Green is the exception.

There's a lot more than just a stud WR like that.

That's why I HATE labeling #1, #2...it's just not like that.

 

[lockdnram21]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

To me a number 1 is somebody you can throw to when there covered. Theres only 6 i can think of right now Megatron, Aj Green, Brandon Marshall, Dez Bryant, Larry Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson

Interesting...I heard yesterday in the Cowboys game (I think) that if you have a guy like that, he can be easily taken care of. Looking at the elite, and look at the team success.

Lions, Cowboys, Cardinals have gone to the playoffs a whopping 3 times since the earliest stud (Fitz) has been drafted. Has Brandon Marshall been to the playoffs? I don't think so...I could be wrong. Andre Johnson has been w/ the Texans since 2003 and is only now getting playoff games.

AJ Green is the exception.

There's a lot more than just a stud WR like that.

That's why I HATE labeling #1, #2...it's just not like that.

You still need a team the lions only had cj no other weapons . Cuttler has been inconsistent as a qb. Dez is just now getting to that level and his qb is Romo. Andre johnson has schab. You still have to have other pieces around them but when all else fails you can throw it up to these guys and they will make something happen

 

[-X-]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

To me a number 1 is somebody you can throw to when there covered. Theres only 6 i can think of right now Megatron, Aj Green, Brandon Marshall, Dez Bryant, Larry Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson

Interesting...I heard yesterday in the Cowboys game (I think) that if you have a guy like that, he can be easily taken care of. Looking at the elite, and look at the team success.

Lions, Cowboys, Cardinals have gone to the playoffs a whopping 3 times since the earliest stud (Fitz) has been drafted. Has Brandon Marshall been to the playoffs? I don't think so...I could be wrong. Andre Johnson has been w/ the Texans since 2003 and is only now getting playoff games.

AJ Green is the exception.

There's a lot more than just a stud WR like that.

That's why I HATE labeling #1, #2...it's just not like that.

You still need a team the lions only had cj no other weapons . Cuttler has been inconsistent as a qb. Dez is just now getting to that level and his qb is Romo. Andre johnson has schab. You still have to have other pieces around them but when all else fails you can throw it up to these guys and they will make something happen

True, but therein lies the rub. A "number one receiver" isn't enough - even if he's a phenom. Moss didn't do anything significant until he got to New England. He couldn't get the Vikings to the Super Bowl, couldn't help the Titans (or didn't want to), or the 49ers. Even Barry Sanders (arguably the best RB of all time) couldn't put the Lions on his back. I mean, a receiver like Andre Johnson would be awesome, but I don't think that's enough to get where you need to go. You need a solid defense, solid special teams, a running game, complementary receivers, and a decent QB. Otherwise, you could just trot your practice squad out there and Calvin Johnson.

 

[lockdnram21]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

To me a number 1 is somebody you can throw to when there covered. Theres only 6 i can think of right now Megatron, Aj Green, Brandon Marshall, Dez Bryant, Larry Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson

Interesting...I heard yesterday in the Cowboys game (I think) that if you have a guy like that, he can be easily taken care of. Looking at the elite, and look at the team success.

Lions, Cowboys, Cardinals have gone to the playoffs a whopping 3 times since the earliest stud (Fitz) has been drafted. Has Brandon Marshall been to the playoffs? I don't think so...I could be wrong. Andre Johnson has been w/ the Texans since 2003 and is only now getting playoff games.

AJ Green is the exception.

There's a lot more than just a stud WR like that.

That's why I HATE labeling #1, #2...it's just not like that.

You still need a team the lions only had cj no other weapons . Cuttler has been inconsistent as a qb. Dez is just now getting to that level and his qb is Romo. Andre johnson has schab. You still have to have other pieces around them but when all else fails you can throw it up to these guys and they will make something happen

True, but therein lies the rub. A "number one receiver" isn't enough - even if he's a phenom. Moss didn't do anything significant until he got to New England. He couldn't get the Vikings to the Super Bowl, couldn't help the Titans (or didn't want to), or the 49ers. Even Barry Sanders (arguably the best RB of all time) couldn't put the Lions on his back. I mean, a receiver like Andre Johnson would be awesome, but I don't think that's enough to get where you need to go. You need a solid defense, solid special teams, a running game, complementary receivers, and a decent QB. Otherwise, you could just trot your practice squad out there and Calvin Johnson.

Yea I understand but the question was what I thought a true number 1 receiver is. I know you need more then that to get where you want to go

 

[Ram Quixote]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

Tavon will be explosive. Givens is a deep threat and is becoming more dangerous on intermediate routes. Stedman bailey AND Brian Quick have star potential, and Pettis has good hands. I don't see WR being the biggest weakness... but I guess to an outside eye it may be.

Quick can't even get on the field with the first team. He barely played last night. What makes you think he'll be a star? He's shown nothing. The same can be said about Bailey but at least he has an excuse. I won't say Bailey can't be a star player but he hasn't shown much to warrant such high expectations either. IMO, Quick is looking more like a bad pick than a future star. He was taken at the top of the second round over a year ago and he still can't get on the field. The coaches obviously still don't trust him enough to pLay. That's a big red flag in my book.

But that's the thing about preseason; the rotation of the WRs isn't like the regular season. Fisher, in particular, seems to prefer them to get reps with where they've been penciled in on the depth chart. You can bet all the WRs will get PT in the regular season and reps in practice. As unsettled as the depth chart is, I wouldn't read too much into when Quick plays in preseason games.

 

[-X-]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

To me a number 1 is somebody you can throw to when there covered. Theres only 6 i can think of right now Megatron, Aj Green, Brandon Marshall, Dez Bryant, Larry Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson

Interesting...I heard yesterday in the Cowboys game (I think) that if you have a guy like that, he can be easily taken care of. Looking at the elite, and look at the team success.

Lions, Cowboys, Cardinals have gone to the playoffs a whopping 3 times since the earliest stud (Fitz) has been drafted. Has Brandon Marshall been to the playoffs? I don't think so...I could be wrong. Andre Johnson has been w/ the Texans since 2003 and is only now getting playoff games.

AJ Green is the exception.

There's a lot more than just a stud WR like that.

That's why I HATE labeling #1, #2...it's just not like that.

You still need a team the lions only had cj no other weapons . Cuttler has been inconsistent as a qb. Dez is just now getting to that level and his qb is Romo. Andre johnson has schab. You still have to have other pieces around them but when all else fails you can throw it up to these guys and they will make something happen

True, but therein lies the rub. A "number one receiver" isn't enough - even if he's a phenom. Moss didn't do anything significant until he got to New England. He couldn't get the Vikings to the Super Bowl, couldn't help the Titans (or didn't want to), or the 49ers. Even Barry Sanders (arguably the best RB of all time) couldn't put the Lions on his back. I mean, a receiver like Andre Johnson would be awesome, but I don't think that's enough to get where you need to go. You need a solid defense, solid special teams, a running game, complementary receivers, and a decent QB. Otherwise, you could just trot your practice squad out there and Calvin Johnson.

Yea I understand but the question was what I thought a true number 1 receiver is. I know you need more then that to get where you want to go

I know. I was just expanding on the conversation a little. Your definition is a guy who can win contested battles. That's a good criteria as well, but it does limit the candidates to guys with size advantages. Bruce and Holt weren't like that, because they were usually plenty open.

Interesting how many different ways there are to label a guy a number one receiver. It's an intriguing conversation.

.

sent via Tapatalk.

 

[fastcat]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

Imo, if u have a #1 wr, you handicap the offense becuase if he gets hurt then what do u do? Green bay, new england and the saints dont have a #1. But they have 3 or 4 more than capable recievers to get the job done... If one falls down one steps up. Look at what happens when Calvin Johnson or Andre gets hurt... The offense struggles. If u like it or not Givens is OUR #1 wr. And my definetion of a #1 is a guy u go to when u need a big play, rather its 4yds for a 1st down or 20 yards on 1st and 10.... A guy u can throw to and maybe 80% of the time he will be open or atleast make a tough catch if he isn't open... A dependable wr.

BTW, the guys in atl have like 3 #1 receivers.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[lockdnram21]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

To me a number 1 is somebody you can throw to when there covered. Theres only 6 i can think of right now Megatron, Aj Green, Brandon Marshall, Dez Bryant, Larry Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson

Interesting...I heard yesterday in the Cowboys game (I think) that if you have a guy like that, he can be easily taken care of. Looking at the elite, and look at the team success.

Lions, Cowboys, Cardinals have gone to the playoffs a whopping 3 times since the earliest stud (Fitz) has been drafted. Has Brandon Marshall been to the playoffs? I don't think so...I could be wrong. Andre Johnson has been w/ the Texans since 2003 and is only now getting playoff games.

AJ Green is the exception.

There's a lot more than just a stud WR like that.

That's why I HATE labeling #1, #2...it's just not like that.

You still need a team the lions only had cj no other weapons . Cuttler has been inconsistent as a qb. Dez is just now getting to that level and his qb is Romo. Andre johnson has schab. You still have to have other pieces around them but when all else fails you can throw it up to these guys and they will make something happen

True, but therein lies the rub. A "number one receiver" isn't enough - even if he's a phenom. Moss didn't do anything significant until he got to New England. He couldn't get the Vikings to the Super Bowl, couldn't help the Titans (or didn't want to), or the 49ers. Even Barry Sanders (arguably the best RB of all time) couldn't put the Lions on his back. I mean, a receiver like Andre Johnson would be awesome, but I don't think that's enough to get where you need to go. You need a solid defense, solid special teams, a running game, complementary receivers, and a decent QB. Otherwise, you could just trot your practice squad out there and Calvin Johnson.

Yea I understand but the question was what I thought a true number 1 receiver is. I know you need more then that to get where you want to go

I know. I was just expanding on the conversation a little. Your definition is a guy who can win contested battles. That's a good criteria as well, but it does limit the candidates to guys with size advantages. Bruce and Holt weren't like that, because they were usually plenty open.

Interesting how many different ways there are to label a guy a number one receiver. It's an intriguing conversation.

Yea it is a intriguing conversation, and yes theres different ways to lable number 1 receivers. Dont get me wrong I like the bruces and holts I use to think how are they so open. Imo they made warners job easy ithink they could have made a average qb good.
.

sent via Tapatalk.

 

[lockdnram21]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

Imo, if u have a #1 wr, you handicap the offense becuase if he gets hurt then what do u do? Green bay, new england and the saints dont have a #1. But they have 3 or 4 more than capable recievers to get the job done... If one falls down one steps up. Look at what happens when Calvin Johnson or Andre gets hurt... The offense struggles. If u like it or not Givens is OUR #1 wr. And my definetion of a #1 is a guy u go to when u need a big play, rather its 4yds for a 1st down or 20 yards on 1st and 10.... A guy u can throw to and maybe 80% of the time he will be open or atleast make a tough catch if he isn't open... A dependable wr.

BTW, the guys in atl have like 3 #1 receivers.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

I like givens and yes hes going to be good but right now I think our TE is going to be our number 1

 

[Mojo Ram]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

Premature analysis.
Lets wait until the playbook is fully opened before we decide that Cook and Givens are the only reliable options at receiver.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

Tavon will be explosive. Givens is a deep threat and is becoming more dangerous on intermediate routes. Stedman bailey AND Brian Quick have star potential, and Pettis has good hands. I don't see WR being the biggest weakness... but I guess to an outside eye it may be.

Quick can't even get on the field with the first team. He barely played last night. What makes you think he'll be a star? He's shown nothing. The same can be said about Bailey but at least he has an excuse. I won't say Bailey can't be a star player but he hasn't shown much to warrant such high expectations either. IMO, Quick is looking more like a bad pick than a future star. He was taken at the top of the second round over a year ago and he still can't get on the field. The coaches obviously still don't trust him enough to pLay. That's a big red flag in my book.

The coach, as in coacho, said that quick has been uncoverable in practice in the 15-20 yard range. I'll take note of that before whatever I see in preseason. Not sure why people get so worked up about what they see in preseason.

.

 

[A55VA6]

Re: St. Louis Rams: Biggest weakness still is at wide receiv

Tavon will be explosive. Givens is a deep threat and is becoming more dangerous on intermediate routes. Stedman bailey AND Brian Quick have star potential, and Pettis has good hands. I don't see WR being the biggest weakness... but I guess to an outside eye it may be.

Quick can't even get on the field with the first team. He barely played last night. What makes you think he'll be a star? He's shown nothing. The same can be said about Bailey but at least he has an excuse. I won't say Bailey can't be a star player but he hasn't shown much to warrant such high expectations either. IMO, Quick is looking more like a bad pick than a future star. He was taken at the top of the second round over a year ago and he still can't get on the field. The coaches obviously still don't trust him enough to pLay. That's a big red flag in my book.

I said Quick has star POTENTIAL. I'm not a huge fan of Quick. I didn't like the pick, and I still don't really know if I like the pick... but he just has the size and tools to become a potential star WR. He just needs to gain it all mentally, which is why we drafted him - the possibilities.

And I've just got this feeling about Stedman. If he gets the play time... he'll do damage. Look at his college production. Obviously the NFL is totally different, but this kid has his head constantly in the game to become better. I know he'll be one hell of a player.