(03-09-2018, 04:31 PM)Etdavis2006 Wrote:

(03-09-2018, 04:21 PM)JackCity Wrote: Why do we have to use "dominant" as our value? Why not just use "very good". How many teams have won a super bowl without at least one very good WR?    

Yep. You know what also effects QB performance? Having really good receivers. Hence why they get paid what they do. NFL teams don't just do it for the sake of it.  

And yes Calvin Johnson was an HOF caliber reciever. They aren't the only WRs that are valuable. Just look at the contracts teams pay, that will tell you where they value each position.

Okay look at the last super bowl. None of those receiver would be considered in the top 20 best wideouts. It’s about what do you need to win. You can win with subpar wideouts. They get big contract because they score tds and you can quantify that into value. Give me Ramsey over any wideout you can name. Ramsey will have more impact on the game than that wideout. Von Miller will have more impact on the game than any wideout you can name. Hell Yannick had more impact on the game than Antion Brown. But it’s hard to quantify pressures and tackles for loss. Tds on the other had can be accumulated and valued. Cambell has more impact than deandre Hopkins but who gets paid more? Unfortunately contract cost does not mean more importance. But tds sell tickets so....

Yep Eagles won with meh WRs. Pats had Cooks. Go down through through the list of SBs and see how many very good receivers took part.  I'm not even sure what you are arguing against? 


Well yeah? Course Ramsey is more valuable? Of course Von Miller is more valuable? You're arguing with yourself here. This isn't news to me.

Contract cost does directly show value. Read through the positions that get paid the most and you will also see they are the most valuable.

---