FalcFans Forums

2003 - Andre Johnson
2004 - Larry Fitzgerald
2005 - Roddy White
2006 - Brandon Marshall
2007 - Calvin Johnson - "A once in a generation receiver."
2009 - Michael Crabtree
2010 - Dez Bryant
2011 - A.J. Green
2012 - Alshon Jeffery/Justin Blackmon

Don't get me wrong, I do think Green is a great receiver prospect. It just seems like every year there seems to be an elite receiver prospect. All except '08, where we were forced to "settle" for DeSean Jackson.

It's interesting to note that not a single one of those players except for Roddy White is on a relevant team.

I read an article a few weeks ago on ColdHardFootballFacts.com about how it was stupid to draft wide receivers in the 1st round because it doesn't make your team better, and initially I thought their analysis was weak. As they were basically saying look at the Dolphins and Cowboys seasons tanking because they picked up Marshall and Bryant, respectively.

But the more I think about it, the more I think they have a point even if they didn't do a good job explaining it. Out of all the 24 players on the roster, what position is more overvalued than a wide receiver? Everyone keeps saying the Rams need a WR? Why? Because Sam Bradford was so mediocre without one? Did it help Alex Smith become a great pro because they got Crabtree? Jay Cutler doesn't need a WR to be a competent starter and keep the Bears winning. Sure, you could certianly say that if Brandon Marshall was on the Bears, they would be a lot scarier offensively.

But I think CHFF.com has a point, if you're in the business of winning, you really don't need that bright shiny new hood ornament to make the car run.

It's hard to count Roddy and Marshall, because they weren't elite prospects. They turned out to be elite, but so did Brady, and you wouldn't use him as an example of elite QB prospects.

However, your point is taken that roughly every other year there is a "once in a generation" WR. I don't think Green is all that. I mean, I think he's very good, but I feel like top 10, top 15 good, not top overall pick good. I don't think he's anywhere near the prospect Fitzgerald or CJ were.

I'd rather, in general, have a lot of 2nd round receivers who are versatile but have their specialties, and I can use them for mismatches.

I think it ends up being about balance. The Falcons have taken only one offensive skill guy in the draft in the top 160 picks since they got here (HD). I think they definitely need to add to that, as it just leaves you with old talent in places, and most good teams spend a lot of effort supplying young potential franchise QBs with weapons. That said, I wanted one in the 3rd last year and one in the 2nd this year....and would have preferred that to taking a first rounder. I think the first should generally be reserved for the lines, when at all possible. Always need upgrades there.

I think top 10 receivers don't make much difference to teams, because it's the position that is most dependent on the rest of the team. Everything that affects a QB affects the WR, because the QB is who gets the ball to the WR. I'd hardly ever draft one if I were picking in the top 10...whereas if I had someone else's top 10 pick from a trade (like New England did with Oakland), I would. An elite WR can put a good team over the top, but they can't make a bad team good.

Hmm, well I think a good receiver can help if you already have alot of the pieces to a winning team like the Falcon's. Now if your a struggling team a high pick receiver it seems really doesn't help that much. There's a reason teams like Cincy,Cleveland seems to lose every year and thats not knowing how to build their team.

Put green on the Falcon's he could open it up for other players thus making it more difficult to defend the whole offense. I don't want to start the thread of Green to the Falcon's because Ledbetter already wrote an article thinking we can trade up which I think wouldn't be a good move in the amt of compsentation given up to get him.

Just read the article on coldhardfootballfacts, and they went a bit overboard, claiming WRs were almost irrelevant. As in it was stupid for Baltimore to get weapons for Flacco because they didn't play well in one game. It was stupid for Dallas to take Dez because Romo got hurt and they tanked. Flawed logic in that article...but their overall point is probably true...that you need a solid team before top WRs are going to make a difference.

I think this and what Scout said pretty much sum up how I feel too. I've always heard Michael Lombardi quote Bill Walsh, in that you don't go get a franchise/potential first round wr unless most of your team is built. I agree. Ie. If you're weak at QB, Oline, esp at the weak side T, a sweet WR doesn't do you much good at all. The ex they keep bringing up is the Browns, who could be a Green target b/c they need a dynamic O weapon so badly, but they wouldn't be a team in Walsh's position to do this. Same for Cincy with no Palmer in the holdout standoff.

What this makes me think is we are a team in Walsh's position in some respects, minus the neon glaring hole at DE. Huge minus tgh. 27th obviously removes Green/JJones, so we'll see what TD cooks up, as a Randolph at TE may be lurking in the 2nd rd too. I pretty much wanna go DE in the first if TD thinks whoevers there is worthwhile, and then go O in the 2/3rd for WR/TE. And later I still want another RB, Locke/Hunter/Rodgers as scat or an DEvans for a hammer, his sparc time was pretty good and depending on where he goes is great platoon value at some pt.