Testify!

 

What would be better, four or five "good" receivers or one good #1 receiver? A speedy and consistant #1 is a good threat and weapon but a group of "good" receivers who are all threats are a better weapon but thats JMO.

 

I'm not sure. I think the rules are set up where a #1 WR gets Jordan like calls. If you don't have that and your opponent does then you are at a disadvantage. It may not be impossible to overcome but it's still a disadvantage.

 

I wish Chris Chambers was back ...

 

Still wouldn't have a #1 receiver. :wink2:

Teams can win without #1's. Take a look at New England 2001, 2003, 2004. Honestly I don't view Hines Ward as a #1 receiver either so take a look at 2005 and 2008 Pittsburgh as well, and 2002 Tampa Bay too while you're at it.

You have to have a bunch of #2's and #3's and a Quarterback who can get it done when it matters most and make the best out of what he has.

 

they all had established wide receivers.. hines ward is a beast of a wide receiver that doesnt get the respect he deserves. trust me im a ravens fan i know this. the pats had deion branch troy brown tampa had galloway

 

I thought Tampa had Keyshawn and Joe Jurevicious?

 

I hate to mention them but Patsies never really had a #1 receiver during their superbowl championships. They had several good WRs. Kinda like we have now.

 

good to see you codizzle.

i will pull out another teams example. the eagles last year largely got stuff done without a #1. all the way to the NFC championship game.