Why we should not take a WR in round 1

[Alex44]

Have you been reading this thread? If you have, it shouldn't be difficult to see the point. I'll lay it out for you, though:

The point is that there is no objective reason to say that Marty Booker has 2 years left if you're not going to say that Chambers only has 4 years left.

There is a favoritism toward Chambers here. I don't know precisely why. It may be because he makes circus catches. It may be because he was a Dolphin from day 1. It may be because Marty Booker was bitter about the Bears stabbing him in the back and some of the worst homers on this board decided that meant Booker was the scum of the Earth. I'm not entirely sure anybody knows what it is.

This prejudice against Booker is justified by the type of inappropriately casual glance at statistics that the poster I was responding to did. Statistics are great, but you have to look a little deeper than just the numbers. You have to ask yourself about injury and the situation the players in question were in.

In this case, we have the difference between Chambers and Booker in terms of receiving yards as less than the swing in yardage from the Buffalo game. The casual observer would project that 500 yards or so out over 16 games and think Chambers was consistently better. That's not the case. Chambers had a monster game (and good for him -- I LIKE Chambers a lot). If Booker had been playing that game, the stats probably would have been split and the two of them would look closer. If Chambers had been the one out (and he gets hurt just as much as Booker does -- let's be truthful about that), Booker probably gets the same sort of performance because the Bills were letting Miami throw all over them.

I love Marty Booker and he is a great player but I dont think he is as good as Chambers. thats all im saying

 

[Jimmy James]

Allright bro, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Where's the fun in that?

If you want to take out a player's best game of the season, or extrapolate another player's 4 best games over the course of a season then you are going to find what you want to find.

Did you look at the 1999 season for Owens? It's the same injury Booker had with similar results. You can trust me, or you can check it for yourself.

That 200+ yard game Chambers had wasn't just his best game of his season -- I do believe it was his career best game and just so happened to come because Booker happened to be out that one game. I'm not trying to take anything away from Chambers, but you have to take that into consideration just like you have to take injuries into consideration. More on that below...

Injuries are just that, injuries, those are something I take into account when I judge a player. I don't give them a free pass for an injury.

All injuries aren't the same, though. Beyond that, a history of minor injury is not necessarily an indication that a receiver is done. Look at Muhammad. Look at Bruce. Booker's most serious injury was the high ankle sprain. If we're talking a guy like Boston who cannot get healthy from tendon tears, that's one thing. That isn't what we're talking about here, though.

In my opinion, Booker is a mediocre #2 WR

Mediocre? What do you expect from a #2?

on the decline

How do you figure? His 2005 was superior to his 2004. Where's the decline?

and I'd love to see us bring someone in.

For what purpose? I agree we need some depth, but you're not going to find somebody better than Booker right now if that's what you think you're buying.

If you feel different that's all good man, we're all Phins fans after all and I hope you are right that he will bounce back this year.

Very true. Respond if you like. It's a long offseason, and arguing can be fun. :)

 

[Roman529]

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.

Excuse me but why exactly does he have to produce in YEAR ONE? We have Chambers and McMike...but they are not going to be around forever so why not draft a receiver and build for our future? Chad Jackson can be our future.

 

[Jimmy James]

I love Marty Booker and he is a great player but I dont think he is as good as Chambers. thats all im saying

I frankly disagree with that. I suspect Booker is every bit what he was as a Pro Bowler and that he would be more productive if he had the #1 WR looks. I think this in large part because Chambers seems miscast as a #1 if you ask me. He's the prototypical awesome #2 in my book.

With all of that said, I think this is a great argument to have to have. I love our starting WRs.

 

[Crowder52]

Where's the fun in that?



Did you look at the 1999 season for Owens? It's the same injury Booker had with similar results. You can trust me, or you can check it for yourself.

That 200+ yard game Chambers had wasn't just his best game of his season -- I do believe it was his career best game and just so happened to come because Booker happened to be out that one game. I'm not trying to take anything away from Chambers, but you have to take that into consideration just like you have to take injuries into consideration. More on that below...



All injuries aren't the same, though. Beyond that, a history of minor injury is not necessarily an indication that a receiver is done. Look at Muhammad. Look at Bruce. Booker's most serious injury was the high ankle sprain. If we're talking a guy like Boston who cannot get healthy from tendon tears, that's one thing. That isn't what we're talking about here, though.



Mediocre? What do you expect from a #2?



How do you figure? His 2005 was superior to his 2004. Where's the decline?



For what purpose? I agree we need some depth, but you're not going to find somebody better than Booker right now if that's what you think you're buying.



Very true. Respond if you like. It's a long offseason, and arguing can be fun. :)

I forgot one thing...MARTY BOOKER SUCKS! :wink:

 

[Crowder52]

In all seriousness though, I don't know how to quote your individual sentences but I'll address them.

I looked at Owens' '99 season. You are right about that. Thing is, the guy came back the next 2 years and had career seasons. Booker didn't do that, so the comparison seems to end right after the production drop-off. Note I am not comparing Booker to Owens as that wouldn't be fair, but pre-injury Booker to post-injury Booker.

What do I expect from a #2? More than 39 catches, I'll tell you that much. There are plenty of successful #2 WRs around the league, being #2 doesn't mean you automatically put up sub-par numbers. Booker had fewer catches in '05 than '04. He had less than 50 more receiving yards. And 3 TDs compared to 1...meh. Neither of those totals is impressive.

Why bring someone in? Like I said, I'm scared that Booker's production is dropping off now, and I shudder to think of him as our #2 WR 3 years down the road. That's why I'd like to bring someone in as a #3 right now and groom them as our future #1/#2, depending on Chambers future. And no, I don't think a rookie would be better than Booker right now. But then, that's not why I wanted one in the first place. It's for the future. The learning curve for WRs is usually steep, so I think this would be a wise move.

Finally, I am not disputing that Booker will be more productive this year, because I absolutely think he will. I think everyone will with Pepper at QB. I expect him to post better numbers this year, but I don't see this guy in our future as a #2 WR.

 

[dlockz]

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.

No offense but this is the same crap that was used to justify not taking a QB for the past 6 years. If you want instant gratification maybe its not the position to draft but every year at every position there are many guys that don't produce as rookies.

Vernon carey T did squat as a rookie, Matt Roth DE did more squat but not a major factor last year. Chris Chambers 48 catches as a rookie.

Mark Clayton and Mark Duper caught 10 combined passes thier respective rookie years and guess what they did after that. A positions history should have little or no impact on how we should pick just the talent of the guy being picked.

 

[dlockz]

I frankly disagree with that. I suspect Booker is every bit what he was as a Pro Bowler and that he would be more productive if he had the #1 WR looks. I think this in large part because Chambers seems miscast as a #1 if you ask me. He's the prototypical awesome #2 in my book.

With all of that said, I think this is a great argument to have to have. I love our starting WRs.

I love them as starters but if we draft someone we will have a replacement in the wings that can contribute as a 3rd receiver. I doubt we keep Booker much longer just because he makes 3 million a year but he ia very underrated and has not lost anything yet, he is just not the main option.

 

[Jimmy James]

I forgot one thing...MARTY BOOKER SUCKS! :wink:

As to your other points, I'm just not that worried. This team did fine with James McKnight as the second option. I think everyone can agree that Marty is far superior to the likes of him and will be for some time.

If this is as far as you want to take it, I can respect that. How can I dislike anybody whose screen name is Crowder52? :)

 

[Jimmy James]

I love them as starters but if we draft someone we will have a replacement in the wings that can contribute as a 3rd receiver. I doubt we keep Booker much longer just because he makes 3 million a year but he ia very underrated and has not lost anything yet, he is just not the main option.

I agree with bringing in depth. Further, I understand that depending on where things go, Marty might not be with the team past this year. He makes $4 million next year as of right now. I think the team could probably extend him for $2.5 million a year, but I could be wrong about that. He might be all about the money, want to go somewhere he could be a #1 (and I think he can be), or Nick may just not want to spend that much money on any #2 WR. We'll see how it goes.

 

[dlockz]

Edwards was coming on nicely at the end of last year before he blew his knee out. I think he will be big this year.
Mike Williams did not produce much, I will give you that.
Wasn't Williamson picked ahead of Mike Williams though? Only a couple of bombs on the year for him

Williamson was taken ahead of Williams because of the idiotic overempahasis
on the combine that some teams now have. Williams will be a very good receiver in this league although Detroit will draft another receiver this year.