We don't need a so-called "No. 1"

[DKphin]

I do not know where this line of thinking originated, but I would much rather have a complement of WRs that could attack a team in a variety of different ways. WRs up until the '90s were thought of as a group and not an individual. Sure we had Clayton, but we also had Duper, Cefalo, Moore, McDuffie, etc. There was always Swan and Stallworth; Branch, Blientnokoff, and Casper; Rice and Taylor-and the list goes on. We have 6 recievers that should be on the roster for the opening game: Bess, Camarillo, Ginn, Hartline, London, and Turner. Ginn was getting it toward the end of last season(although I was disgusted everytime he ran out of bounds). He can stretch the field and loosen up the defense(now if we can get Henne in there to exploit his abilities:D). Turner, if he turns out to be the player I think he can be based on his measurables, and London give us our big guys that can shield and out muscle the CBs for the ball. Lastly, we are blessed with two outstanding SWR in Bess and Camarillo(Hopefully he is fully recovered from his injury). With CP, we should be able to utilize everyone and be able to attack the defense(although I don't think Ginn will be utilized effectively until we get someone that can complete the deep ball over 20yards). I detest the thought that you have to have a WR that is above the rest. Give me a group that are reliable and can confound the defense. I will take the latter over the aforementioned everyday and twice on Sunday.:up:

 

[72champagne]

yeah but... we need a #1.

 

[BobDole]

we don't now but if you think henne will succeed without a #1 you are sadly mistaken.

 

[SnakeoilSeller]

I do not know where this line of thinking originated, but I would much rather have a complement of WRs that could attack a team in a variety of different ways. WRs up until the '90s were thought of as a group and not an individual. Sure we had Clayton, but we also had Duper, Cefalo, Moore, McDuffie, etc. There was always Swan and Stallworth; Branch, Blientnokoff, and Casper; Rice and Taylor-and the list goes on. We have 6 recievers that should be on the roster for the opening game: Bess, Camarillo, Ginn, Hartline, London, and Turner. Ginn was getting it toward the end of last season(although I was disgusted everytime he ran out of bounds). He can stretch the field and loosen up the defense(now if we can get Henne in there to exploit his abilities:D). Turner, if he turns out to be the player I think he can be based on his measurables, and London give us our big guys that can shield and out muscle the CBs for the ball. Lastly, we are blessed with two outstanding SWR in Bess and Camarillo(Hopefully he is fully recovered from his injury). With CP, we should be able to utilize everyone and be able to attack the defense(although I don't think Ginn will be utilized effectively until we get someone that can complete the deep ball over 20yards). I detest the thought that you have to have a WR that is above the rest. Give me a group that are reliable and can confound the defense. I will take the latter over the aforementioned everyday and twice on Sunday.:up:

I understand what you are saying, A fantastic number one WR cannot do it alone. It is much better to have 2 or 3 really good WR's, that's what wins championships. But those teams still had a true #1. Swann was the #1. Rice without a doubt was the #1. Blientokof was probably the #1. I think when you are really talking about a #1 WR, at least in a coaches mentality, is who is your go - to guy. When it is 3rd & 8 in the 4th quarter who is your QB looking for. Who can you count on when you need to score. It doesn't mean that he leads in receptions, but you damn well better lead in TD's. Ginn showed that a little with the catch in the back of the end zone against the Jets last game of the season. I agree that it can be overrated, and I think the fans idea of a #1 is different, but I think you still need that to be a winner in the NFL.

 

[Denny]

I totally agree with the thread starter. The New England Patriots won a few titles without a #1 WR. They just pestered you with Branch, Patten, and Troy Brown. I like our WR squad and with a very accurate QB like Penny, we can be very dangerous. The thread starter nailed it!

 

[72champagne]

actually i think Branch was the #1, though my favorite was Belitnikoff(sp?).

 

[napsndreds]

i wouldnt say number 1 as much as I would goto guy.. we really need a game changer that can change the game any minute.. someone that can put up touchdowns and burn defenders for a quick score..We can argue that ginn does this but he hasnt shown to be a consistent deep threat yet.. We tend to use his speed more on reverses and slant routes more.. If ginn or patrick can step or or even london in becoming a deep threat we can change the game easily in one play

 

[cafinfan408]

Its been said before. Pennington is the type of QB who can do very well without a number 1 WR. But look around the league almost every team has a true #1. Thats why this gets talked about. While Pennington does very well without a number 1 Henne might struggle most qb's need a security guy that one 3rd and 6 they dont care what route he is running he is going to stare him down and go to him

 

[romio]

we dont need a no 1
click here why
http://www.finheaven.com/forums/f2/merged-the-official-davone-bess-thread-219896.html

 

[finfanatic13]

#1 wr's DONT WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS!! They may get you there but you DEFENSE wins you the big games!

See NE's dynasty, pittsburg's SB last year, ravens, bucs, etc... what did all those teams have in common? Defense and no big name #1 reciever. Plain and simple.

 

[ArmyFin7]

Look at some of the lists people have compiled around the net of the "top 10 WR's in NFL history".....with the exception of Jerry Rice, the majority do not have any rings.....

 

[ryanENGLISH0]

I totally agree with the thread starter. The New England Patriots won a few titles without a #1 WR. They just pestered you with Branch, Patten, and Troy Brown. I like our WR squad and with a very accurate QB like Penny, we can be very dangerous. The thread starter nailed it!

Patriots already knew the play the defense was doing so i would imagine you can spread the ball out no problem.

 

[richied06]

Our system does not require a true number one, just a cast of reliable, consistent players with the right chemistry.

 

[Phinja]

A true #1 can do alot for a team. Look at Fitzgerald. There are 75,000 people within 100 yards of that guy at any given time, and every one of them know he's getting the ball.

Does that ever stop him from actually catching it?


We dont have a guy like that, and I think the general concensus is that if we are going to develop Henne properly a guy like that would do wonders.

 

[richied06]

...I think the general concensus is that if we are going to develop Henne properly a guy like that would do wonders.

General consensus? So everyone is saying that Henne needs a true number to succeed. New to me. I thought the general consensus was that he has already been appointed our saviour for the next decade. That is according to what I've seen.