PDA

View Full Version : Better for a QB: one star WR or a solid corps with depth?


still_life
01/29/06, 12:57 AM
I was thinking about this since I saw someone else bring up a pretty simple concept that never occured to me. Is a QB better off without the star WR, and is better with the solid group of guys?

I think the best example here would be comparing Brady and Delhomme. After looking at many stats for QB's when they use 4+ WR sets, I've noticed that Charlie Weis' offenses use them the most. Bledsoe wasn't doing it much in NE until Weis came. Vinny in Baltimore threw over 400 passes on year with 3 WR's on the field, that changed in 98 with the Jets and Weis as the OC. Tom Brady usually throws 150+ passes a season in situations where they spread out the defense with 4 or 5 WR's. And without the elite #1 WR, defenses have no one to double or be very concerned about. This means Brady sees a lot of single coverage (and not just in 4-5 WR sets), and can make some easy completions to wide open guys, since they have a solid bunch based on speed in NE.

Meanwhile since the departure of Mushin Muhammad, Jake Delhomme has Steve Smith, and that's it. They don't spread it out often, and they have a lot of plays designed just to get the ball to Steve Smith (the smoke screens). Like you saw against Seattle, this could sometimes be dangerous against a defense if they know exactly who you're looking for all the time. Some QB's can develop tunnel vision for one guy, and that's no good. You see it with Brees and the way he stares down Gates every play. Manning had this problem early on with Harrison, because that was his only good receiver for many years.

I think the way to be really successful in the NFL right now in the passing game is to get a solid group of receivers, mostly shorter guys with speed, and spread defenses out with 4-5 WR's. I like a lot of the things NE does playcalling wise, and I think this has been a huge part in their success. The Steelers are finally having success passing in the playoffs, and it's because they're using spread formations with 4-5 WR's. Before, you could just double Burress, and make Ward and Randle El beat you with Kordell/Maddox throwing. Didn't work. Now they put Ward, Wilson, Randle El, Washington, and Morey/Mays out there, and defenses have to consider anyone could catch it. The Colts almost never use more than 3 WR's, and they don't throw many check downs or short passes. That hurt against that Steeler blitz in the playoffs, because the receivers never had time to run their perfect routes down the field with the QB getting pressured. Meanwhlie Brady against a Denver blitz was able to get the ball out to the close receivers running the short routes.

still_life
01/29/06, 01:01 AM
I guess this is two questions for debate actually.

One being the corps of receivers, and the other is should teams try to run a spread offense more in the NFL? The numbers, while normally small in attempts for most teams, are very good in that formation.

itsjdiggity
01/29/06, 01:31 AM
Collins has Moss and Porter and he still finds a way to be horrible.

But then again, it's Kerry Collins

still_life
01/29/06, 02:02 AM
In a future non-cap year the Raiders could get Collins in addition to Moss: TO, Chad Johnson, Steve Smith, and he'd still complete well under 60% of his passes.

itsjdiggity
01/29/06, 02:14 AM
I don't know the Vikings that well, but I believe Burleson and Taylor are decent WR's. Culpepper couldn't do much with them like he did with Moss. I think Birk was hurt so that may have had something to do with it.

still_life
01/29/06, 02:20 AM
Burleson was a tease in 04, and pretty much stunk this year. Taylor is still a first round bust.

Culpepper is a QB that excells in spread formations.

225/337 (66.8%) for 2430 yards, 20 TDs, 8 INTs, 97.7 PR in 6 years

lesto17
01/29/06, 02:27 AM
I don't know the Vikings that well, but I believe Burleson and Taylor are decent WR's. Culpepper couldn't do much with them like he did with Moss. I think Birk was hurt so that may have had something to do with it.


That's partially because Culpepper is not a very good quarterback. With most receivers you have to throw them a decent pass. With Randy Moss all he had to do was put it up there and Moss would either come down with it or draw a pass interference penalty which is just as good as a catch.


I agree that a decent corps is very important, but I also wouldn't get rid of a star receiver just in order to get a couple decent ones.

I think not having a strong enough corps was the big problem for the 'Skins offense this year. Patten got hurt early, and Thrash had a bunch of problems with injuries, leaving Moss as the only deep threat. Luckily Cooley picked up a bunch of slack, and of course Portis was running the ball which is never a bad thing.

mikeford
01/29/06, 03:05 AM
yeah, i think the spread formation works best, coupled with a well rounded WR corps as opposed to the steve smith offense.

however, i will say you need a lot of small speed guys but at least 1 very tall/big WR or TE for goalline play (in NE this would be danial graham/ben watson)

Doug
01/29/06, 03:29 AM
many decent dudes works the best. but it depends on the quarterback and ability of the one star receiver.

if it's someone like randy moss, it might work. if it's someone like marvin harrison, it probabaly wouldn't.

FondestMemory
01/29/06, 06:39 AM
i like the spread a lot. keeps the defense guessing, spreads the field out to open up the run.

as far as receivers, i much prefer a group of good receivers over one star. i like the defense not knowing where the ball is going on 3rd and 6. i also like a mix of types of receivers. you know, like a tight end that can line up out wide. a quick shifty receiver who can take a five yard catch and break it for 50. a tough rugged possession receiver. and a tall, fast as hell deep threat.

and it's all about the hot routes.

you bring up a good point, and i think it's cool. seems like in general offensive cooridinators aren't as afraid to open things up across the league.

mcfly21
01/29/06, 09:47 AM
i think the sucess of the spread depends on the qb

4 decent recievers are harder to cover than 1 good one, though

Scott Weber
01/29/06, 11:18 AM
the depth thing works well for Seattle, and the one star reciever can be the life or death of your team (Carolina)