The Perils of Drafting WRs

Schneed10 · 04-08-2005, 11:46 PM

I've been harping on it, and harping on it, and harping on it. Finally, someone came out with an article that said the same thing.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=2032581

Paraphrasing Pastabelly: Rookie WRs RARELY make an impact in their first season. Since 1990, exactly 12 rookie FIRST ROUND WRs went over the 750 yard mark in their rookie season, and only 4 of those players went over 1000 (Anquan Boldin also did it as a 2nd rounder).

Only eight of those 54 first rounders had more than 60 catches.

The averages for the first-round wide receivers from the last 15 draft classes: 7.5 starts, 34.0 catches, 474.4 yards and 3.1 touchdowns.

So, for all those proponents of drafting Mike Williams or other WRs, just realize that you're not likely to get much out of them this year. And that's not my cup of tea when you're paying 9th pick type of money.

PS Too bad that the person who finally agreed with me on this had to be Pastabelly. I hate that MFer.

That Guy · 04-09-2005, 04:24 AM

um, got stats on the other positions (like QB or DE)? if not those stats you're flinging are completely meaningless...

Redskins8588 · 04-09-2005, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

um, got stats on the other positions (like QB or DE)? if not those stats you're flinging are completely meaningless...

Why are those stats meaningless?? He is making a point that it normally takes a WR 3 years to develope in the NFL. In other threads people claim that a rookie WR can have an imediate impact in there rookie season.
I also have heard that it takes atleast 3 years for QB's also to develope. Sure you always have your players that go against the rule of thumb (Roethlisberger, Boldin) but more times than not the first and second season are usually developing years for most WR's and QB's....

Schneed10 · 04-09-2005, 09:58 AM

QB is obviously the toughest position on rookies, in my memory the only rookie QBs in the last 15 years to have a good rookie year would be Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. But everyone knows QBs are like that, I'm not sure it's common knowledge with WRs.

As for DEs, I can think of a lot of rookies who had good seasons. Julius Peppers, Jevon Kearse, Dwight Freeney, Terrell Suggs, Simeon Rice, Shaun Ellis, John Abraham, Jason Taylor, etcetera. And these are only in the last few years, nevermind the last 15. And, just about any DE who is any good today had great sack numbers by their 2nd year. It's just an easier position to hit on in the draft.

Coaches think WR is tough because rookies have so much to learn about coverage schemes and reading the defense. WRs have to have the ability to know what the QB is going to do if he gets blitzed, if he doesn't get blitzed, if he rolls out etcetera. Plus he needs to know how to run routes when pressed in coverage, when double-teamed, etcetera. When a WR comes to the line of scrimmage, he has a basic route in mind. But when the play starts he has to be able to change it on the fly based on what the defense shows him. Rookie QBs have a hard time deciphering NFL defenses and get confused, the same goes for WRs because they're expected to learn so much.

It takes time for a WR to figure out the NFL in most cases.

MTK · 04-09-2005, 01:50 PM

I'm still in favor of taking someone like Williams if he falls to us, and I read somewhere yesterday that the Skins are possibly interested in taking Williamson too.

Should be interesting to see what the Skins do, seems like there are so many options available and so many different ways they could go. It's not like last year where the two most likely targets were Taylor and KWII.

CB, WR, or maybe even someone like Merriman all seem like realistic options.

Schneed10 · 04-10-2005, 12:58 AM

Matty, I'm fine with taking a WR, so long as we realize that it's a pick that's really designed to make us a better team down the road. I like a long term plan, so I would be happy if we ended up with Mike Williams. I just think that if we take a WR, we need to be ready for him to be disappointing in his first season.

That Guy · 04-10-2005, 03:48 AM

we got gardner, moss, patten, jacobs, mccants right now, so hopefully we'll be alright either way, even without gardner...

FRPLG · 04-10-2005, 10:20 AM

I was initially in the same frame of mind but when you look at the players likely to be available to us at 9 there isn't a guy who jumps out as an absolute big difference maker in the first season. I think Williams will be the best receiver in the draft when everyone looks back in a couple years. I like him a lot and we could do much worse with the 9th pick.

BossHog · 04-10-2005, 05:49 PM

A lot of fans and experts are still sweet on Mike Williams. I'm not. Just as Maurice Clarett is hopefully the same football player he was two years ago, you can't disregard his time away from the game. That's the risk; for a young player with weight control issues to be drafted in the top 10. Answer these two questions. If Clarett was allowed to enter the draft years ago how high would he have been drafted? Why doesn't that hold true for this years draft? At number 9, I like Shawne Merriman, Antrel Rolle or Adam Jones. And they're others. There's even more value if we trade down into the 20s. Carlos Rodgers, Matt Jones (yes, I'm now a believer), and possibly Erasmus James (unlikely).

That Guy · 04-10-2005, 06:25 PM

if they got in last year, MW would have been around 10-15th i think and MC would have gone in the 3rd round.

MTK · 04-10-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Matty, I'm fine with taking a WR, so long as we realize that it's a pick that's really designed to make us a better team down the road. I like a long term plan, so I would be happy if we ended up with Mike Williams. I just think that if we take a WR, we need to be ready for him to be disappointing in his first season.

I agree, and I think our staff would bring a young WR along slowly much like we did last year defensively with Taylor.

TheMalcolmConnection · 04-10-2005, 08:15 PM

Here's a question: Would you guys prefer immediate impact in say, a DE or CB, or long-term plan of a WR?

FRPLG · 04-10-2005, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossHog

A lot of fans and experts are still sweet on Mike Williams. I'm not. Just as Maurice Clarett is hopefully the same football player he was two years ago, you can't disregard his time away from the game. That's the risk; for a young player with weight control issues to be drafted in the top 10. Answer these two questions. If Clarett was allowed to enter the draft years ago how high would he have been drafted? Why doesn't that hold true for this years draft? At number 9, I like Shawne Merriman, Antrel Rolle or Adam Jones. And they're others. There's even more value if we trade down into the 20s. Carlos Rodgers, Matt Jones (yes, I'm now a believer), and possibly Erasmus James (unlikely).

Not exactly sure what you are saying here.. I don't think there are many people who are comparing Williams and Clarett in any regard. The differences are staggering in terms of both talent and maturity. I am not sure if the weight comment was meant for Williams or Clarett either but I don't know of Williams having any weight issues.
When you trade down you are going to get a player with some blemishes. Sometimes these blemishes are overblown and they end up being great players but more often than not the blemishes turn out to be issues that prevent them from being a stud. The question is whether we can get a stud player at 9. I believe Williams is but that's only my perception. I say Williams first then trade down second.

FRPLG · 04-10-2005, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Here's a question: Would you guys prefer immediate impact in say, a DE or CB, or long-term plan of a WR?

Are there going to be any "impact" players availabale when we pick at either DE or CB. At this point it seems that there are no DEs who are major "impact" type guys. The only one even mentioned at 9 right seems to be Merriman who has elicits major concerns(this guy is a prototypical workout warrior) and either Rolle or Jones both of whom look like good CBs but maybe not first year impact type guys. I don't think there is anyone who we might get who can be an "impact" right away. At least no one we can count on.

Beemnseven · 04-11-2005, 05:11 PM

If they draft a wide receiver, then someone in the current crop would have to go. Thrash or McCants would be my guess. Joe Gibbs' offense doesn't regularly use multiple wideout formations involving more than 3 receivers. In fact, most of the 4-wide formations have an H-back or TE that motions out.

Then there's simple mathematics with regard to the active roster. Gibbs needs more tight ends than most offenses. That's why you saw Cooley, Robert Royal and Rasby-Koslowski a whole lot more than you saw McCants on the field last year.

Taking a wideout at #9 only to have him sit on the bench for most of the season catching 10 to 20 passes would be absurd. Unless they plan on relegating Taylor Jacobs to the 4th slot again this upcoming season.

04-08-2005, 11:46 PM	#1
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,421	The Perils of Drafting WRs I've been harping on it, and harping on it, and harping on it. Finally, someone came out with an article that said the same thing. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=2032581 Paraphrasing Pastabelly: Rookie WRs RARELY make an impact in their first season. Since 1990, exactly 12 rookie FIRST ROUND WRs went over the 750 yard mark in their rookie season, and only 4 of those players went over 1000 (Anquan Boldin also did it as a 2nd rounder). Only eight of those 54 first rounders had more than 60 catches. The averages for the first-round wide receivers from the last 15 draft classes: 7.5 starts, 34.0 catches, 474.4 yards and 3.1 touchdowns. So, for all those proponents of drafting Mike Williams or other WRs, just realize that you're not likely to get much out of them this year. And that's not my cup of tea when you're paying 9th pick type of money. PS Too bad that the person who finally agreed with me on this had to be Pastabelly. I hate that MFer.

04-09-2005, 04:24 AM	#2
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs um, got stats on the other positions (like QB or DE)? if not those stats you're flinging are completely meaningless...

04-09-2005, 09:58 AM	#4
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,421	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs QB is obviously the toughest position on rookies, in my memory the only rookie QBs in the last 15 years to have a good rookie year would be Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. But everyone knows QBs are like that, I'm not sure it's common knowledge with WRs. As for DEs, I can think of a lot of rookies who had good seasons. Julius Peppers, Jevon Kearse, Dwight Freeney, Terrell Suggs, Simeon Rice, Shaun Ellis, John Abraham, Jason Taylor, etcetera. And these are only in the last few years, nevermind the last 15. And, just about any DE who is any good today had great sack numbers by their 2nd year. It's just an easier position to hit on in the draft. Coaches think WR is tough because rookies have so much to learn about coverage schemes and reading the defense. WRs have to have the ability to know what the QB is going to do if he gets blitzed, if he doesn't get blitzed, if he rolls out etcetera. Plus he needs to know how to run routes when pressed in coverage, when double-teamed, etcetera. When a WR comes to the line of scrimmage, he has a basic route in mind. But when the play starts he has to be able to change it on the fly based on what the defense shows him. Rookie QBs have a hard time deciphering NFL defenses and get confused, the same goes for WRs because they're expected to learn so much. It takes time for a WR to figure out the NFL in most cases.

04-09-2005, 01:50 PM	#5
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,504	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs I'm still in favor of taking someone like Williams if he falls to us, and I read somewhere yesterday that the Skins are possibly interested in taking Williamson too. Should be interesting to see what the Skins do, seems like there are so many options available and so many different ways they could go. It's not like last year where the two most likely targets were Taylor and KWII. CB, WR, or maybe even someone like Merriman all seem like realistic options. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

04-10-2005, 12:58 AM	#6
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,421	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs Matty, I'm fine with taking a WR, so long as we realize that it's a pick that's really designed to make us a better team down the road. I like a long term plan, so I would be happy if we ended up with Mike Williams. I just think that if we take a WR, we need to be ready for him to be disappointing in his first season.

04-10-2005, 03:48 AM	#7
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs we got gardner, moss, patten, jacobs, mccants right now, so hopefully we'll be alright either way, even without gardner...

04-10-2005, 10:20 AM	#8
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs I was initially in the same frame of mind but when you look at the players likely to be available to us at 9 there isn't a guy who jumps out as an absolute big difference maker in the first season. I think Williams will be the best receiver in the draft when everyone looks back in a couple years. I like him a lot and we could do much worse with the 9th pick.

04-10-2005, 05:49 PM	#9
BossHog Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Norfolk, Va Posts: 665	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs A lot of fans and experts are still sweet on Mike Williams. I'm not. Just as Maurice Clarett is hopefully the same football player he was two years ago, you can't disregard his time away from the game. That's the risk; for a young player with weight control issues to be drafted in the top 10. Answer these two questions. If Clarett was allowed to enter the draft years ago how high would he have been drafted? Why doesn't that hold true for this years draft? At number 9, I like Shawne Merriman, Antrel Rolle or Adam Jones. And they're others. There's even more value if we trade down into the 20s. Carlos Rodgers, Matt Jones (yes, I'm now a believer), and possibly Erasmus James (unlikely).

04-10-2005, 06:25 PM	#10
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs if they got in last year, MW would have been around 10-15th i think and MC would have gone in the 3rd round.

04-10-2005, 08:15 PM	#12
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,225	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs Here's a question: Would you guys prefer immediate impact in say, a DE or CB, or long-term plan of a WR? __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

04-11-2005, 05:11 PM	#15
Beemnseven Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 50 Posts: 5,311	Re: The Perils of Drafting WRs If they draft a wide receiver, then someone in the current crop would have to go. Thrash or McCants would be my guess. Joe Gibbs' offense doesn't regularly use multiple wideout formations involving more than 3 receivers. In fact, most of the 4-wide formations have an H-back or TE that motions out. Then there's simple mathematics with regard to the active roster. Gibbs needs more tight ends than most offenses. That's why you saw Cooley, Robert Royal and Rasby-Koslowski a whole lot more than you saw McCants on the field last year. Taking a wideout at #9 only to have him sit on the bench for most of the season catching 10 to 20 passes would be absurd. Unless they plan on relegating Taylor Jacobs to the 4th slot again this upcoming season.

The Perils of Drafting WRs

Locker Room Main Forum