PDA

View Full Version : Why we should not take a WR in round 1



Da 'Fins
04-20-2006, 04:11 PM
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
04-20-2006, 04:16 PM
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
04-20-2006, 04:24 PM
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
04-20-2006, 04:33 PM
QB's don't produce in their rookie year either, it doesn't mean you should never use a 1st on one.

minus
04-21-2006, 11:18 AM
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
04-21-2006, 12:00 PM
Judging a draft pick by rookie year performance is just STUPID.

Jimmy James
04-21-2006, 12:03 PM
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
04-21-2006, 02:01 PM
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
04-21-2006, 03:39 PM
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
04-21-2006, 03:41 PM
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
04-21-2006, 03:46 PM
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
04-21-2006, 04:02 PM
Thers no question wr 3 is a need, so if the best player on our draft board is a wr u take him

Crowder52
04-21-2006, 04:21 PM
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
04-21-2006, 06:25 PM
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
04-21-2006, 06:28 PM
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

Troysif
04-21-2006, 06:29 PM
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.

Mike Williams Came of a year without playing and also played with 2 previious top 15 WR , and Braylon played for the Browns, BUT i really dont want to go WR in the 1st, if we do at all in the draft id say the 4th

MUCPhin
04-21-2006, 06:31 PM
If Holmes is available at 16, I'd prefer him over someone like Tye Hill at DB. He's got the speed to make plays right now, and the hands to go along with it. And definitely not Chad Jackson, he's the product of a good series of pre-draft workouts and is over-hyped right now.

Jimmy James
04-21-2006, 07:12 PM
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

Thank you. :)

Beyond that, Booker played the role the team asked him to play. Gus looked at him a criminally low number of times. That will change.

neuce
04-21-2006, 07:30 PM
If Chad Jackson is available when we pick at #16 then the Dolphins have to take him. He won't be so the question is should we take Holmes.

Crowder52
04-21-2006, 09:30 PM
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

Funny, I thought Chambers had Gus throwing to him also and he had a career year.

Crowder52
04-21-2006, 09:33 PM
Thank you. :)

Beyond that, Booker played the role the team asked him to play. Gus looked at him a criminally low number of times. That will change.

The offense improved and his numbers went down. I understand he was #1 on Chicago, I'm not saying he is gonna put up Pro Bowl numbers. But they went down before he even left Chicago, and have gone down further in Miami. I'm not hating on the guy, but he is not going to be a solid #2 a couple of years from now.

Jimmy James
04-21-2006, 09:53 PM
The offense improved and his numbers went down. I understand he was #1 on Chicago, I'm not saying he is gonna put up Pro Bowl numbers. But they went down before he even left Chicago, and have gone down further in Miami. I'm not hating on the guy, but he is not going to be a solid #2 a couple of years from now.

I'm not hating on you, but you don't know what you're talking about. That much is obvious.

Booker had a high ankle sprain in 2003. Look at Owens in 1999. What's amazing is that the proportional change in the numbers for each player is damned near identical for the season they struggled with their high ankle sprains. Check out the games Booker played at the end of the 2003 season. He put up 3 very nice games in the last 4 weeks. I am not going to crunch the numbers for the billionth time, but I do believe that if you average those last 4 games and project it out to a season, they are on par with his 2002 numbers.

If you are a Dolphins fan and were paying the least bit of attention in 2004, you need no explanation for that abortion of a year on any player's part.

Last year, it was feast or famine with Booker. When the team played like total crap from week 2 until week 9, his numbers were terrible. That's on Gus. He was playing like a jerk and did not look comfortable in the least. That's what happens when you bring in a streaky QB like Gus, though. It's obvious with the gooseggs in weeks 11 and 12 along with the game he sat in week 13 that he had another minor injury during that time. It's a shame because he might have been able to help turn that Cleveland game into a win. Who knows. With better QB play, Marty Booker will be just fine for a long time. He doesn't make circus catches that put his body in danger like Chambers does. He goes out and gets lost in the secondary. It's a thing of beauty.

Jimmy James
04-21-2006, 09:56 PM
Funny, I thought Chambers had Gus throwing to him also and he had a career year.

Did you miss week 13? Booker wasn't there to feast on a Buffalo team in collapse. Without the 15 catches for 238 Chambers had in that game, it's not a career year for him. If the shoe had been on the other foot and Booker had been the one to feast on that D, Booker would have actually had MORE yards than Chambers would have had last year (924 for Booker to 880 for Chambers).

Alex44
04-21-2006, 09:58 PM
Braylon Edwards actually played REALLY well towards the end of the season before he got hurt

Ask any Browns fan if they are excited and happy they took him, they will say yes

Jimmy James
04-21-2006, 09:59 PM
Braylon Edwards actually played REALLY well towards the end of the season before he got hurt

Ask any Browns fan if they are excited and happy they took him, they will say yes

I wouldn't go that far. From what I have seen of Browns fans, their reaction is a bit more mixed than that. They're optimistic due to the production you're talking about, but they would have still preferred to see a player they picked in the first round make it through a season.

Alex44
04-21-2006, 10:00 PM
Did you miss week 13? Booker wasn't there to feast on a Buffalo team in collapse. Without the 15 catches for 238 Chambers had in that game, it's not a career year for him. If the shoe had been on the other foot and Booker had been the one to feast on that D, Booker would have actually had MORE yards than Chambers would have had last year (924 for Booker to 880 for Chambers).


But Booker didnt have that game so whats your point :confused:

If Shaun Alexander played for us in 04 we wouldnt have finished 4-12, but he didnt......

Booker is one heck of a reciever, but every game counts, I guess we should discount every big game a guy has right?

Alex44
04-21-2006, 10:02 PM
I wouldn't go that far. From what I have seen of Browns fans, their reaction is a bit more mixed than that. They're optimistic due to the production you're talking about, but they would have still preferred to see a player they picked in the first round make it through a season.

Well not EVERY Browns fan, but most, I mean some Dolphin fans arent happy we took Ronnie Brown, but most are

He made some really big plays towards the end of the season, so they should be very optimistic, I know I would be

But I know what your saying there will always be mixed reactions, unless the guy you pick is named Peyton Manning or Dan Marino

Jimmy James
04-21-2006, 10:09 PM
But Booker didnt have that game so whats your point :confused:

If Shaun Alexander played for us in 04 we wouldnt have finished 4-12, but he didnt......

Booker is one heck of a reciever, but every game counts, I guess we should discount every big game a guy has right?

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.

Crowder52
04-21-2006, 10:39 PM
Did you miss week 13? Booker wasn't there to feast on a Buffalo team in collapse. Without the 15 catches for 238 Chambers had in that game, it's not a career year for him. If the shoe had been on the other foot and Booker had been the one to feast on that D, Booker would have actually had MORE yards than Chambers would have had last year (924 for Booker to 880 for Chambers).

Allright bro, we'll have to agree to disagree. 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. 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. In my opinion, Booker is a mediocre #2 WR on the decline and I'd love to see us bring someone in. 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.

tylerdolphin
04-21-2006, 11:15 PM
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.
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

Alex44
04-21-2006, 11:18 PM
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
04-21-2006, 11:25 PM
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
04-21-2006, 11:25 PM
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
04-21-2006, 11:28 PM
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
04-22-2006, 02:08 AM
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
04-22-2006, 02:42 AM
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
04-22-2006, 02:54 AM
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
04-22-2006, 02:56 AM
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
04-23-2006, 11:00 AM
I forgot one thing...MARTY BOOKER SUCKS! :wink:

:lol:

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
04-23-2006, 11:04 AM
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
04-23-2006, 12:42 PM
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.