The value of wide receivers

[Balljim55]

When I look at the top teams in the NFL at the halfway mark, one thing sticks out to me. Very few over-paid diva wide receivers.

New England
Philly
Dallas (OK - Dez probably fits but he doesn't seem to be key to their winning)
The Saints
The Chiefs
The Seahawks
Pittsburgh ( AB fits the mold)
The Rams
The Panthers
Minnesota
Tennessee
Jacksonville

So the question is: Should someone who gets 6-10 touches a game get $15+ million a year? I realize that teams have to account for them which could open up other opportunities but still....

I see more success happening by spreading the ball around on offense, running the ball effectively, playing good defense, solid special teams and winning the turnover battle. It doesn't seem that you have to have a top flight - go to number 1 receiver. Particularly since the tight end is becoming more and more important.

Over the next few years I see the WR group getting a smaller share of the pie. More will go to both sides of the line and if you can get a top flight QB, TE, CB or Safety - pay them.

 

[Rock Strongo]

When I look at the top teams in the NFL at the halfway mark, one thing sticks out to me. Very few over-paid diva wide receivers.

New England
Philly
Dallas (OK - Dez probably fits but he doesn't seem to be key to their winning)
The Saints
The Chiefs
The Seahawks
Pittsburgh ( AB fits the mold)
The Rams
The Panthers
Minnesota
Tennessee
Jacksonville

So the question is: Should someone who gets 6-10 touches a game get $15+ million a year? I realize that teams have to account for them which could open up other opportunities but still....

I see more success happening by spreading the ball around on offense, running the ball effectively, playing good defense, solid special teams and winning the turnover battle. It doesn't seem that you have to have a top flight - go to number 1 receiver. Particularly since the tight end is becoming more and more important.

Over the next few years I see the WR group getting a smaller share of the pie. More will go to both sides of the line and if you can get a top flight QB, TE, CB or Safety - pay them.

what about martavius bryant?

 

[Balljim55]

what about martavius bryant?

He fits the diva part, but not the highly paid, top flight receiver part

 

[Rock Strongo]

He fits the diva part, but not the highly paid, top flight receiver part

he wants to be tho, thats why he wanted out.

 

[Iggloo]

I think it has been clear for some time that if you have a good QB and good line play, you can get by with mediocre wide receivers.

That said, if the Eagles of the 2000s had had even decent receivers, and not Freddie Mitchell, James Thrash, Todd Pinkston and Greg Lewis, they would have won multiple rings.

The one year they had TO, they made it to the Super Bowl, and if he hadn't gotten hurt on a horse collar tackle, who knows, maybe they win it. While he miraculously came back to play in the bowl game, he was clearly not 100%.

Bottom line: Investing in a marquee wideout over a marquee QB or left tackle is dumb. Investing in some decent NFL caliber wideouts is not dumb.

 

[DHoey]

Seahawks, Cowboys, Falcons and Steelers all have receivers in the top 10 salary wise according to OTC.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Generally no. Better be an elite talent to get my attention as far as big contracts go.

WR is probably my least important position group as far as offense goes.

 

[Balljim55]

Generally no. Better be an elite talent to get my attention as far as big contracts go.

WR is probably my least important position group as far as offense goes.

OBJ is elite - talent wise - Injuries aside, would you want him to be a Chief @ $16 to $18 MM a year (If you could even get him for that)?

 

[Fountain City Blues]

OBJ is elite - talent wise - Injuries aside, would you want him to be a Chief @ $16 to $18 MM a year (If you could even get him for that)?

OBJ maybe without rechecking the cap numbers. Dez Bryant is a hard pass though.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Most of the contending teams have at least one really good pass catcher

Steelers would be lost without AB
Chiefs have become a different animal with Hill and Kelce
Baldwin is better than people realize
Pats have looked less effective with Edelman
Diggs and Michael Thomas are very good

But the diva that disrupts like TO and Odell can do as much damage as great things for sure

 

[Balljim55]

OBJ maybe without rechecking the cap numbers. Dez Bryant is a hard pass though.

His cap is manageable now but he is wanting top dollar - Top QB like dollars.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

His cap is manageable now but he is wanting top dollar - Top QB like dollars.

Meh- he’ll talk big and get top WR money like Le’Veon bell at RB. Maybe he sets a new high as far as %of the cap goes, but QB money he will not see.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I think my willingness to pay contracts on offense goes as follows

QB
LT
TE
RT
C
RB
WR1
LG
RG
WR2
TE2
WR3
WR4


I am assuming these are all quality players. Not a fan of paying offense in general outside of QB.

 

[Clayton]

So the question is: Should someone who gets 6-10 touches a game get $15+ million a year? I realize that teams have to account for them which could open up other opportunities but still....

Its absolutely crazy how those 6-10 touches can totally make or break a game, though. Those 3rd and 7 or 2nd and 13 grabs for a first down totally swing games.

I'd rather have 2 good receivers than 1 great receiver, though. Every once in awhile you'll see a great receiver performance but what you really want to do is have 2 or 3 threats and challenge the other teams 2nd or 3rd best CB who is likely a bum. Thats the exact reason the Chiefs have lost 3 of 4 (although in the Chiefs case they sometimes put their lesser CBs on guys like Antonio Brown so maybe its all situational).

 

[Clayton]

I think my willingness to pay contracts on offense goes as follows

QB
LT
TE
RT
C
RB
WR1
LG
RG
WR2
TE2
WR3
WR4


I am assuming these are all quality players. Not a fan of paying offense in general outside of QB.

TE is definitely too high and RB shouldn't be above WR1 imo.

The issue with TE, C and RB isnt importance. Its that they are more prone to injuries than WR1 for the most part if I had to guess.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

When I look at the top teams in the NFL at the halfway mark, one thing sticks out to me. Very few over-paid diva wide receivers.

New England
Philly
Dallas (OK - Dez probably fits but he doesn't seem to be key to their winning)
The Saints
The Chiefs
The Seahawks
Pittsburgh ( AB fits the mold)
The Rams
The Panthers
Minnesota
Tennessee
Jacksonville

So the question is: Should someone who gets 6-10 touches a game get $15+ million a year? I realize that teams have to account for them which could open up other opportunities but still....

I see more success happening by spreading the ball around on offense, running the ball effectively, playing good defense, solid special teams and winning the turnover battle. It doesn't seem that you have to have a top flight - go to number 1 receiver. Particularly since the tight end is becoming more and more important.

Over the next few years I see the WR group getting a smaller share of the pie. More will go to both sides of the line and if you can get a top flight QB, TE, CB or Safety - pay them.

WR's are falling the way of RB's. It used to be a great weapon to find a back who could tote it 25-30 times a game and run for over 1,000 yards in a season. Over the last decade this isn't such a big deal. Decent backs are a dime a dozen and teams employ a stable of them depending on specialty needs (i.e. 3rd down specialist, blocking specialists)

 

[Ricky Roma]

I'd have no problem with paying a freakish-good receiver like a Rice or a Moss insane-type money but I think a lot of that has to do with the structure of the rest of the team. I wouldn't want that player being too much of a dominant, 'me-first' guy. The QB has to be able to use him accordingly - Matt Stafford continuously forced balls to Calvin Johnson, but really it was at the expense of the team. It was only when he retired when Stafford had to spread the ball around and he's become a better player.

The QB is the be-all position...obviously. I think I'd rather have a multi-talented RB than a dominant wideout (on the same talent level) because he too draws coverages and more mismatches. In certain offensive schemes, a dominant TE can be nearly as impactful as the receiver.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

I would rather have 2 above avg. WRs (with good hands) over an Elite WR & a just an avg. #2.

 

[PhoenixEagles1]

I think my willingness to pay contracts on offense goes as follows

QB
LT
TE
RT
C
RB
WR1
LG
RG
WR2
TE2
WR3
WR4


I am assuming these are all quality players. Not a fan of paying offense in general outside of QB.

You'd rather have Travis Frédrick and Alex Mack over Antonio Bowne and Julio Jones. Not me. Ant TE needs to be further down the list.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

You'd rather have Travis Frédrick and Alex Mack over Antonio Bowne and Julio Jones. Not me. Ant TE needs to be further down the list.

no team will ever have AB & Julio on the same team. While dominating the trenches gets you a lombardi.

besides could you imagine paying that payroll for those 2 WRs. The rest of your team would suck! (not enough money to go around)