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.