What is a "true #1 WR"??

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
blackbart

blackbart

Montana goat roper
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
6,400
ROD Credit 2025
309
Name
Tim
And is there one in the Ram's plans for this offense?

I do not believe there is such a thing in this offense and trying to fit one in would be a mistake.

The Rams offense is going to be one that is built on a balanced attack running and throwing and distributing the ball to multiple players throughout the year.

3 main WRs with 5 per game Cook 5 per game other TEs 3-5 per game other WRs 3-5 per game and RBs 3-5 per game. That would be throwing the ball 30-35 times a game which is the way I believe is most likely to produce wins.

There may be games where individuals are better match up s and the game plan is to get them the ball more but there is no indication that this team wants to throw the ball to the same guy 10-12 times every game.
 
i'll settle for a receiver who can consistently get open and catch the ball - don't see one of those on this roster
 
  • Like
Reactions: brokeu91 and Boffo97
It is the best WR on any given team. Every team has a #1 WR...its just that most of them aren't very good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yamahopper
blackbart said:
And is there one in the Ram's plans for this offense?

I do not believe there is such a thing in this offense and trying to fit one in would be a mistake.

The Rams offense is going to be one that is built on a balanced attack running and throwing and distributing the ball to multiple players throughout the year.

3 main WRs with 5 per game Cook 5 per game other TEs 3-5 per game other WRs 3-5 per game and RBs 3-5 per game. That would be throwing the ball 30-35 times a game which is the way I believe is most likely to produce wins.

There may be games where individuals are better match up s and the game plan is to get them the ball more but there is no indication that this team wants to throw the ball to the same guy 10-12 times every game.
Click to expand...
No we dont have a true #1 WR on this team.... I propose we trade the whole 2007 rams draft for Calvin Johnson or Andre Johnson or somebody with a Johnson last name.. What say you?
 
The Rammer said:
No we dont have a true #1 WR on this team.... I propose we trade the whole 2007 rams draft for Calvin Johnson or Andre Johnson or somebody with a Johnson last name.. What say you?
Click to expand...
LOL I would rather stay with using multiple players catching the ball and a strong running game
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angry Ram and The Rammer
The NFL definition of a #1 WR is one who has to be accounted for on every play....a WR that dictates coverages...defenses roll coverage to his side every time. It's not about stats, it's about how defenses have to adjust to defend him. There aren't 32 #1 WR's in the NFL.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: brokeu91, CGI_Ram and Memphis Ram
blackbart said:
LOL I would rather stay with using multiple players catching the ball and a strong running game
Click to expand...
Not saying I didn't like the GSOT days at all but I agree I prefer a Pounding and punishing running game coupled with a Defense that doesn't play nice. That is my kind of football!!! ha
 
  • Like
Reactions: RamFan503 and blackbart
RamBill said:
The NFL definition of a #1 WR is one who has to be accounted for on every play....a WR that dictates coverages...defenses roll coverage to his side every time. It's not about stats, it's about how defenses have to adjust to defend him. There aren't 32 #1 WR's in the NFL.
Click to expand...


To quote Mr. Iced this is what my take of a #1 WR is:

iced said:
A Go-to receiver that consistently separates, wins 1 on 1 coverage, and catches the ball.. When the games on the line and everyone knows the ball is going to him, he can still make the play.
This team does not have a receiver in that mold. Size, measurables are irrelevant when talking about the niches of the wide receiver position - you don't have to be a world track star or a giant to get open and catch the ball
Click to expand...

Reminds me of watching Lions-Cowboys game last year and Lions needed to drive ball down field and everybody knew ball was going to Calvin and he still came away with 1v1 or 1v3 matchups on that drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brokeu91
RamBill said:
The NFL definition of a #1 WR is one who has to be accounted for on every play....a WR that dictates coverages...defenses roll coverage to his side every time. It's not about stats, it's about how defenses have to adjust to defend him. There aren't 32 #1 WR's in the NFL.
Click to expand...
Right. So its a WR thats very good...and every team wants a WR thats very good. Until we get one who is elite...Tavon Austin or maybe J.Cook is our #1 WR.
 
Amendola had to be accounted for on every play.
Amendola consistently separated.
Amendola won 1 on 1 coverage and caught the ball.
When the game was on the line everyone knew the ball was going to him and he still made plays.

Perhaps the Rams should bring back Amendola after the Patriots cut him. Or maybe the should let the young guys already on the roster develop as few go-to or #1 WRs get that title within their first couple of NFL seasons. Not even Amendola.
 
Last edited:
Memphis Ram said:
Amendola had to account for on every play.
Amendola consistently separated.
Amendola won 1 on 1 coverage and catch the ball.
When the game was on the line everyone knew the ball was going to him and he still made plays.

Perhaps the Rams should bring back Amendola after the Patriots cut him. Or maybe the should let the young guys already on the roster develop as few go-to or #1 WRs get that title within their first couple of NFL seasons.
Click to expand...
I'd be open to that. Bring him back on a cheap contract, already has a great rapport with Bradford, also allows us to use Tavon on the outside where some have speculated he's most effective.
 
Memphis Ram said:
Amendola had to account for on every play.
Amendola consistently separated.
Amendola won 1 on 1 coverage and catch the ball.
When the game was on the line everyone knew the ball was going to him and he still made plays.

Perhaps the Rams should bring back Amendola after the Patriots cut him. Or maybe the should let the young guys already on the roster develop as few go-to or #1 WRs get that title within their first couple of NFL seasons.
Click to expand...
o me the #1 has to be a X or a Z. Not a slot. When Amendola was in the slot . . .yes, what you say is true. But when he tried to play Z . . . he was not as effective, couldn't get off good CBs.

The #1 WR Rams had was Gibson, from 2010-2012. And he was not a #1 talent. But to be a #1 WR you have to do more than play slot, when you off the line and don't have to face as many double teams or bump corners. Gibson simply couldn't beat good corners. He could beat the average ones.
 
Blue and Gold said:
o me the #1 has to be a X or a Z. Not a slot. When Amendola was in the slot . . .yes, what you say is true. But when he tried to play Z . . . he was not as effective, couldn't get off good CBs.

The #1 WR Rams had was Gibson, from 2010-2012. And he was not a #1 talent. But to be a #1 WR you have to do more than play slot, when you off the line and don't have to face as many double teams or bump corners. Gibson simply couldn't beat good corners. He could beat the average ones.
Click to expand...
So Victor Cruz and T.Y. Hilton aren't no.1 receivers?
 
Blue and Gold said:
o me the #1 has to be a X or a Z. Not a slot. When Amendola was in the slot . . .yes, what you say is true. But when he tried to play Z . . . he was not as effective, couldn't get off good CBs.

The #1 WR Rams had was Gibson, from 2010-2012. And he was not a #1 talent. But to be a #1 WR you have to do more than play slot, when you off the line and don't have to face as many double teams or bump corners. Gibson simply couldn't beat good corners. He could beat the average ones.
Click to expand...

Count me in with the personnel executives that point out that there aren't really that many #1 NFL talents in the entire league. But, I'll just add that having one is not necessary to score a buttload of points, yet I'm perplexed as to why so many seem to believe this team can't succeed without one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Faceplant
I believe it is a guy that has to be covered by the number 1 corner, he draws extra attention by involving other defensive players. A number 1 guy is versatile, running routes on the outside and over the middle creating mismatches. He wins nearly all 1 on 1 battles. Most of all defenses game plan around him.
 
I know one when I see one.
 
Memphis Ram said:
Count me in with the personnel executives that point out that there aren't really that many #1 NFL talents in the entire league. But, I'll just add that having one is not necessary to score a buttload of points, yet I'm perplexed as to why so many seem to believe this team can't succeed without one.
Click to expand...
Of course a team CAN succeed without one, but even in a more conservative offense, it gives you a huge advantage.
 
Boffo97 said:
Of course a team CAN succeed without one, but even in a more conservative offense, it gives you a huge advantage.
Click to expand...

An advantage? Sure. Huge Advantage? That still depends upon the quality of the player and if his OC and QB can get him the ball. Again, most consider Larry Fitzgerald to be a #1 WR. But, he hasn't been a HUGE advantage for the Cardinals when that wasn't the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back