Why we should not take a WR in round 1

[Da 'Fins]

I've been saying this for years - but a team cannot expect a WR to make a big impact in year one (or even in year two) - even if the player has 1st round talent. Good article by Len Pasquarelli on ESPN.com on this. Here's a partial quote:

"It hasn't exactly been much of a 'return on investment' position," said one NFC general manager whose team has, for the most part, managed to ignore the annual siren song that tempts franchises into investing on first-round wide receivers. "But every year, it seems, teams fall into the trap. There aren't many years where there haven't been, like, four, five, six wide receivers in the first round. And most of them simply do not produce as rookies. You wonder if teams even look at the numbers."


The first-year numbers from the six wide receivers chosen in the first round of the 2005 draft are thus: An average of 5.5 starts, 32.3 receptions, 430.5 yards and 2.7 touchdowns.

 

[Motion]

I'm not saying we should take one in the 1st round but we could definitely use another quality WR. We wouldn't need an impact in year 1, we'd need one when age and contract catch up to Booker in 2-3 years.

 

[Bowl_Bound]

With a fair amount of holes on D, a fair number of above average WRs still in FA and an aging D line, I dont want to go anywhere but D on day one. Unless a stud O lineman falls in our lap.

 

[MiamiMan147]

QB's don't produce in their rookie year either, it doesn't mean you should never use a 1st on one.

 

[minus]

Anquan Boldin ring a bell???Randy Moss?? I don't see any first round QB having as much success as those two did in their rookie seasons.

 

[jimthefin]

Judging a draft pick by rookie year performance is just STUPID.

 

[Jimmy James]

I'm not saying we should take one in the 1st round but we could definitely use another quality WR. We wouldn't need an impact in year 1, we'd need one when age and contract catch up to Booker in 2-3 years.

If you're going to say that about Booker, I think it's only fair to point out that the same problem will be present with Chambers within 4-5 years. Chris is only 2 years younger than Marty.

ETA -- I will say these things:

- The numbers don't lie. It takes most WRs 2-3 years to reach their NFL potential. That's a long time compared to some positions.

- I do agree that if Miami doesn't want to get caught up short, it would be a good idea to have a capable #3 guy right now who could be ready for 2007 or 2008. You never know what is going to happen between then and now. By drafting a guy this year (I prefer in the 3rd), he should be ready to step in later without having to press him into service.

- There are probably worse picks than Holmes at 16. I do strongly prefer Bobby Carpenter at that position, though.

 

[RonnieB23]

It's true that rookie WR rarely do any good, but i saw apiece on WR on NFL network, and one thing that i realized is that rookie WR need to learn from good veteran to fufill their potential, there's a lot of exemple out there :Holt had Bruce, Moss had Carter, TO had Rice. I think this year should be a good year to bring in a rookie WR since we have 2 quality veteran ahead of him.

 

[Crowder52]

Anquan Boldin ring a bell???Randy Moss?? I don't see any first round QB having as much success as those two did in their rookie seasons.

Boldin was a 2nd rounder.

 

[Crowder52]

I've been saying this for years - but a team cannot expect a WR to make a big impact in year one (or even in year two) - even if the player has 1st round talent. Good article by Len Pasquarelli on ESPN.com on this. Here's a partial quote:

"It hasn't exactly been much of a 'return on investment' position," said one NFC general manager whose team has, for the most part, managed to ignore the annual siren song that tempts franchises into investing on first-round wide receivers. "But every year, it seems, teams fall into the trap. There aren't many years where there haven't been, like, four, five, six wide receivers in the first round. And most of them simply do not produce as rookies. You wonder if teams even look at the numbers."


The first-year numbers from the six wide receivers chosen in the first round of the 2005 draft are thus: An average of 5.5 starts, 32.3 receptions, 430.5 yards and 2.7 touchdowns.

You are absolutely right. Expecting big production out of a rookie WR isn't logical. I think, though, that some people want us to go the WR route not necessarily for first year production, but because they realize Booker is getting older and we need someone to step in in about a year or two down the road.

 

[Jimmy James]

You are absolutely right. Expecting big production out of a rookie WR isn't logical. I think, though, that some people want us to go the WR route not necessarily for first year production, but because they realize Booker is getting older and we need someone to step in in about a year or two down the road.

So do you also think Chambers only has 3 or 4 years left?

 

[blakeypremer]

Thers no question wr 3 is a need, so if the best player on our draft board is a wr u take him

 

[Crowder52]

So do you also think Chambers only has 3 or 4 years left?

Chambers' numbers having been going up, Booker's have been going down. Booker's 39 catches last year was his lowest total since 1999. Chambers' catches have gone up every year since his rookie season. Chambers is entering his prime, Booker's prime has passed. I'm not arguing dates of birth, I'm arguing production.

 

[MustangFinFan]

the big receivers in last year's draft were Mike Williams and Braylon Edwards.....were they big name guys in the NFL this year??? NOPE.

 

[Troysif]

Chambers' numbers having been going up, Booker's have been going down. Booker's 39 catches last year was his lowest total since 1999. Chambers' catches have gone up every year since his rookie season. Chambers is entering his prime, Booker's prime has passed. I'm not arguing dates of birth, I'm arguing production.

Booker used to be a #1 probowl WR thats why is numbers went down, hes now a #2 and he did have Gus throwing to him