Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

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 "[I]change of pace back"[/I] 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.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

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.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

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

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=12thMan;676407]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

True no. 1 receiver? Larry Fitzgerald?

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

Randy Moss between 1998-2009 .

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

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

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

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=12thMan;676403]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, [B]the recent emergence of Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly[/B] 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.

[/quote]
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.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

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.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

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 [B][I]still[/I][/B] be able to produce when doubled facing a double team

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

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

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

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.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

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.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

I think the criterion set forth in just the few posts already pretty much define a true #1 WR.

Where I strongly differ in opinion is our WR corp in that we have NOT had a #1 WR under the Snyder era. Moss has great hands part of the time, good hands most of the time, and downright awful hands the other part of the time. Specifically in our last playoff appearance Moss couldn't catch a cold, but truth is he gets the dropsies at least a few games every season. True #1 WRs miss a ball here and there but overall they have to be very dependable. Also a true #1 WR, like GTripp said, must be able to make plays running a variety of routes. Moss rarely makes a catch in heavy traffic, partly due to his size but then you look at Steve Smith about the same size and see him making huge leaping grabs. Moss for all his speed doesn't seem to have much burst to get in the air and fight for the ball.

So the lesson is w/o a #1 WR it's very hard to have a dominant offense. Moss never has been and never will be that guy, though working out of the slot I could see him lead the team in catches and have his best season ever. But for that to happen Thomas or Kelly have to emerge as the #1 possession WR. Based on sheer ability Thomas easily has the edge but he has to become a student of the game and master his routes to really breakout. I wonder if he's working w/ any of the greats during the off-season?

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

A go to guy whom you can rely on making the big catch or a play with the ball in his hands; a guy who will catch pretty much any ball no matter where it is.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitz, ect...you can probably throw Marshall in that mix...but I'd take those 3 ahead of him. And pretty soon to be AJ Green and Julio Jones in that mix...next years draft will have 2 great WR's in it.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

Can make big plays
Can run all of the routes
If he's single covered the announcers ask why the safety missed his assignment or the D play call was wrong
Very consistent catcher

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

my idea is an Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald. These guys can get open even if the D knows they are the #1 guys and try to double, try to play one under/one over. We haven't had that since Gary Clark. I have said for years Santana is NOT a #1 receiver in the NFL. He is a decent #2, but with our talent at WR now, Thomas, Kelly, Mitchel, I would trade his ass. I think we could get something for him. Someone still sees some value in him. We haven't won a damn thing with him, so i'd get rid of him and let the younger guys play and develop. This obviously isn't a one year fix, he isn't in our future plans so I'd get something now

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

You have to demand the ball, insist on a new contract in the midst of your current contract, show creativity an excess in your touchdown celebrations and have your own reality show, otherwise don't talk to me

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=SmootSmack;676488]You have to demand the ball, insist on a new contract in the midst of your current contract, show creativity an excess in your touchdown celebrations and have your own reality show, [B]otherwise don't talk to me[/B][/quote]

Sorry SmootSmack is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=tryfuhl;676491]Sorry SmootSmack is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.[/quote]

You don't have to ignore me...I'll just ignore you :)

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

To me a number one receiver is not an acheivement honor like the Pro Bowl. It jsut means you are the first reciever targeted by the QB.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

There's probably only a handful of guys in the league that are true #1's using the criteria some are laying out.

Hate to be vague, but speaking very generally your #1 is simply your best receiving option on the team. :)

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=SmootSmack;676494]You don't have to ignore me...I'll just ignore you :)[/quote]

mod ethics! :cussing:

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

Above all wear a jersey with the #1 on it. ;)

I mean why sell yourself short if your a number 1 WR then wear the number. ;) but if the NFL won't let them wear the number then a decent back up is #81. However if said number is retired then .... we are just left with out a #1 WR.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=SmootSmack;676488]You have to demand the ball, insist on a new contract in the midst of your current contract, show creativity an excess in your touchdown celebrations and have your own reality show, otherwise don't talk to me[/quote]

LOL 100% true. Usually the most talented players at any one position, and it doesn't matter if it's RB, CB, S, WR, TE, or whatever their cocky and think they deserve better or more money. So no matter who you bring in they will be prima dona's.

All joking aside if you are looking for a #1 at any position but since we are talking WR your gunna get a prima dona, some one cocky, and as most have said someone who is the go to guy when a 1st down or TD is needed. It's not guarenteed they will make the play but again other teams have to build their whole defensive scheme around your WR maybe even double teaming him to allow other players to be put one-on-one. Another example would be AH. Although some people feel he didn't do much I look at him and say he did his job. He took on double teams all year allowing other lineman to be either free or man-to-man to creat sacks. AH did that.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

Maybe Marco Mitchell is our guy? He's got the size he just needs to build some body mass and perfect his route running and he's a shoe in. Laugh all you want I still see T.O. as a #1. He's not a #1 at the high end but he's still a #1 and most teams would have to game plan around him if we picked him up and had a decent passing scheme. The Bills sucked as well as their passing scheme. So T.O. didn't look so good last year. But double teaming T.O. would open up the field for Moss or DT or Kelly and Mitchell.

I'm not advocating for or against T.O. simply put all the FA #1 WR's are taken and T.O. is the last that would not require us to throw in a draft pick or a bunch of players. Unfortunatly he's the best of the last. Pick him up for a 2 year deal and heavily coach up DT, Kelly, and Mitchell.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=Longtimefan;676438]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.....[B]The player DC's have to specifically game plan for to combat the threat they pose[/B].[/quote]That's the single criteria for being a true #1.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

A #1 WR is someone that makes the defense shift it's coverages. If you don't have a WR that requires a double team then the defense can play it straight up and they have the advantage. All the yardage, pro bowls and TD's requirements are nonsense...basically the defenses decide who is really a #1 WR based on how they play you. Moss was probably a #1 briefly in 2005 but other then that I would guess you have to go all the way back to Gary Clark to find a true #1 WR on the Redskins.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

Okay, committ to cover Moss one on one and guess what's gonna win that game.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

I think what most are defining qualifies more as a "star WR" vs. a #1.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=Mattyk;676561]I think what most are defining qualifies more as a "star WR" vs. a #1.[/quote]

probably

of course you can argue "true number one" vs "number one" too and the lines blur through each

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=12thMan;676403]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 "[I]change of pace back"[/I] 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. [B]Now that Randel El is gone, the recent emergence of Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly[/B] 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.[/quote]

12th are you looking at the same games that I'm looking at? These guys haven't done shit in two years....except steal from Snyder. Well, at least Thomas plays teams so he has value. But Thomas has had only one big game. Big deal. He's got to do it week in and week out. IMO Kelly just can't play in the NFL. The definition of a true #1 wr is Brandon Marshall and he's available. And I know everyone is going to bitch and moan about his character but IMO he's what our offense needs. Give up the #1 and try and make a deal w/ Denver, draft a linemen in the 2nd, try and trade Cooley for a draft pick and pick up another linemen and we're halfway in business.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

He's the dude they throw to all the time.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;676568]He's the dude they throw to all the time.[/quote]

That my friend is the number one answer.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=skinsfan69;676567]12th are you looking at the same games that I'm looking at? These guys haven't done shit in two years....except steal from Snyder. Well, at least Thomas plays teams so he has value. But Thomas has had only one big game. Big deal. He's got to do it week in and week out. IMO Kelly just can't play in the NFL. The definition of a true #1 wr is Brandon Marshall and he's available. And I know everyone is going to bitch and moan about his character but IMO he's what our offense needs. Give up the #1 and try and make a deal w/ Denver, draft a linemen in the 2nd, try and trade Cooley for a draft pick and pick up another linemen and we're halfway in business.[/quote]

Kelly looked pretty good against SD, just sayin'.

I'm eager to see how he and Thomas look in Shanny's offense.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

I think Thomas as our "#1" with the better of Kelly/Mitchell at "#2" and Moss is the would make the best use of the personnel we have, for 3WR sets, atleast. if Shanny wants to really take advantage of having two stud TEs by putting them on the field at the same time, we may see alot more 2WR sets.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;676568]He's the dude they throw to all the time.[/quote]

No point entering the discussion after this one. :D

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

A guy that can get you 60+ catches and 1000+ yards year in and year out.

Re: Please Define A "True Number One" Receiver
 

[quote=Mattyk;676577]Kelly looked pretty good against SD, just sayin'.

I'm eager to see how he and Thomas look in Shanny's offense.[/quote]

I'm eager too. But chances are we're not looking at guys we can count on week in and week out. Thomas seems to have more upside. And Kelly played against San Diego's freakin' back ups. lol.