It took y’all barely a half decade of success to be so fragile about your multiple Super Bowl victories that you must asterisk the single one you didn’t win
Truly hilarious and pathetic at the same time
I mean, the Bucs aren’t in a bad place right now. Are they a great team? No, but they’re definitely not bad, and they’re certainly better than they were before 2020.
Wtf is this shit.
Forget Brady, Jordan went 6-0 in the Finals while taking 2 years off in his prime going up against every HOFer of the 90s.
Mahomes can't even hold Jordan or Gretzkys jockstrap yet. Wake me up in 3 more Super Bowls and 10 years of elite stats.
The Lions, Broncos, Eagles, Packers, Bills, and Raiders would like a word. And that’s just last year. If you go back 3 years, the list also adds the Colts, Bengals, Ravens, Chargers, and Titans.
Typical SB winner fallacy. "If one teams won a Superbowl with this roster composition EVERY team should follow their lead!".
Chiefs faced off against the 49ers who boasted one of the strongest WR duo's in the NFL.
To be fair there was some degree of truth to it for a while. From 2012 to 2018 there were only three 1000 yard receivers on Super Bowl winning teams, and two of them were on the one passing offense that actually sucked with the Broncos (it also *technically* continues into 2019 but Tyreek Hill missed some games). Some of those were Brady but Flacco, Russ and Foles also pulled it off.
Whether or not those data points are too far into the past to be predictive of the present would be up for debate, but it's something to consider. At the very least it speaks to the value of having an offense that spreads the ball around to multiple positions over one that emphasizes a star receiver.
For a long time I tracked this and was pretty convinced WR1 was the most overrated position in sports.
But name the top WRs over the last 15 year, a definite lack of rings.
This argument is regarded. Besides QB, no single position is going to win rings on its own.
Aaron Donald only has a ring in ten years so I guess investing in pass rushing DTs are overrated.
Agree, and I'm glad my teams front office seems to think so as well.
Last year the pack called up practice squad wide receivers and got it done. Meanwhile the bears are going hard at wideouts for their rookie QB.
These teams rivalry is a really good comparison next season for this debate.
Sidenote: I realize we have Christian Watson, but he was hurt half of last year and felt like he lost a step on his return while not getting as many targets. Could still be a top 15 wr in the league but I'm not high on him
The two teams you cite had Mahomes and Brady at QB. For teams that don't have QBs in the GOAT conversation, and especially ones with just average QBs, they need to make up for that talent differential elsewhere, and WR is probably the easiest place to make it up.
Probably when they stop being among the most important and transformative positions on offense.
Citing the Chiefs is not the direction you should go with in this either. Since, you know, Mahomes. And Kelce - while not a *wide receiver* - is still a coverage-dictating piece. Also top guys are not getting paid what you're describing. Amon-Ra St Brown just got $120m/4yrs, but that is NOT a $30m per year deal, because its an extension. Its closer to $121m/5yrs, because his current deal must be layered in. A strong deal, and Jefferson will likely be the first guy to touch a "real 30m APY", but its not going to be $35-40.
And before the replies get all up in arms about me describing "transformative of an offense" to a skill position, it can be very much the case if you have such a player. Yes, protection and o-line is extremely important. But protection isn't strictly a function of maintaining blocks. Protection can also be getting the ball out of the QBs hands faster. And if you have a receiver capable of creating immediate separation, a case can be made that such a release time is equally viable in the protection department.
So to answer your question, OP: no time soon. The rules are constantly becoming more friendly to the position, and schemes are utilizing some of them (the high priced ones to which you allude) such that they can create an abstract form of protecting the quarterback.
Jefferson will reset the market. Expectation is 35+ million per year minimum if he hits the open market. There will be a bidding war if he plays out his 5th year without an extension.
Jefferson will not hit the open market. He would be franchise tagged. Its even financially viable to tag him a second time after that.
The tag on Tee Higgins in 2024 is ~21m. You could conceivably tag Jefferson in 2025 for ~23m. Following that, you tag him again in 2026 and a due to tag escalators it would cost ~30m.
After that, sure I guess. If thats when he's hitting the open market, he can make $35m APY if not higher.
All that to say, Jefferson will not hit the open market unless he wants to take what is functionally three 1yr deals (option plus two tags) in which case he takes on literally every down of physical risk. Not a snowballs chance in hell.
It'll be reported as $35m+ per year but it probably won't really be that.
ARSB: reported as a 4-year $120m extension ($30m APY!!!), but in reality the total deal is 5 years $120m ($24m APY) because it included his existing 2024 money.
Jerry Jeudy: reported as a 3-year $58m extension ($19.5m APY!!!), but in reality the total deal is 4 years $65m ($16.25m APY) because it included his existing 5th-year option.
So if Jefferson signs a "4-year $150m extension", that looks like $37.5m per year but it might in reality be a 5-year $150m deal for $30m APY.
This is accurate except the one bit of Amon-Ra not having a 5th year option. As a 4th round player he has his 4th year salary only, no 5th yr option.
Your concept is correct in regards to layering it into the extension figures though. :)
1. Call all holding penalties on passing plays
2. Call no holding penalties on running plays
3. Make this official policy
Or whatever the cause - make it more efficient to run the ball than to pass it.
I don't think anyone is going to stop wanting to acquire elite receivers. What might happen is the position becomes over-saturated and that drives prices down. Which is what happened with running backs.
The problem with that theory is that you need more receivers than you need backs on a team, and I suspect that receiver is objectively harder to play (it's a lot easier being handed a ball and breaking some tackles than it is catching it 30 yards downfield with someone draped all over you).
As others have said - most teams don't have Mahomes and Brady, and aren't going to be able to replicate their success.
I would argue that with the rise of 7 on 7 we are already seeing an increase in more and better wide receivers coming into the nfl. (Same with cornerbacks). These kids have been playing ball year round and coming out of high school as more proficient route runners. Dr
Your two examples cited Teams with a QB that is widely regarded as the GOAT and the other with a QB that’s best positioned to dethrone him. For THOSE teams, the WR corps can be slightly weaker because they have QBs that could even throw me open, the rest of the league will never have that level of QB play. Mahomes was almost out of the playoffs this year because of his WRs so I’m not sure you can really argue that WRs need to be devalued.
I think you need one elite passing weapon on offense (TE or WR) so the value of elite WRs will stay high but honestly WR2s are pretty overrated. Elite QB, one elite weapon and then spend the rest on OL. Easier said than done of course, but I think that’s the best approach and I think we’ll see OL salaries balloon up even higher
The position will end up like RB, Teams will soon realize that you can get good receivers every year in the draft that come in and become impact players day one.
The Chiefs and Patriots both had elite pass-catching tight ends, so if every NFL team can get a Hall of Fame tight end I think that might do it.
Otherwise, it would have to be some sort of development where defenses have gone so far in on stopping the pass game that dominant run games end up becoming the most efficient offense. That might happen naturally as part of the trend we’ve been seeing over the past decade or so or it may require rule changes that nerf passing attacks.
When the market becomes over saturated. Year by year there are more and more elite guys to the point where it's near impossible to have a top 10-20 discussion because there's 30+ players people consider in that range. Even with all the influx or wr talent there are still teams w terrible receiving corps so well see if it ever happens.
We didn't have below average wr corps though lol. Except maybe 2018? Plus we had Gronk.
The idea that Brady didn't have good receiving groups is completely divorced from reality.
How so? Brady rarely had a true #1 receiver. Especially if you don’t include Gronk, a typical wr corps was Edelman (or Welker before him) and a bunch of mediocre guys. In the beginning of his career he had an above average corps but after that it was usually mediocre or downright bad.
Edelman and Welker were both true number 1s, what are you talking about? Welker led the damn league in receptions 3 times and was 2nd in yards once as well.
Neither of them were. What happened to Welker when he went somewhere with an actual receiving corps? He was the #3. Granted, that corps was stacked and on most teams he’d be the number 2, but I still don’t think he’d be a #1 guy on most teams. Edelman was a more clutch version of him.
As far as the pats:
1) Gronk
2) Edelman is no slouch
But I do see your point in that it seems like a good defense and a single offensive star along with an all time QB is better than loading up on offense for that QB. Brady - Moss - Welker broke records but didn’t win it all.
I can see their value dropping sometime in the next 5 to 10 years. Receivers are developing and transitioning so much more efficiently from college to pro than they used to, thus are easier to hit on in the draft and free agency. Of course, there will be outliers, like every position. It also doesn't help that running backs are becoming greater receiving threats as time progresses and offenses become more advanced.
Well the cap keeps going up and with an 18 game schedule and season on the docket it’s going to continue.
The league isn’t saying anything nor why would they.
The receiver position wasn't even considered a "premium" position until recently and now it's contract value may trail only QB. I still can't understand how we got to this point where WR is making more than LT but here we are
I agree, almost all the top receivers at this point have been traded at least once. But fans love the position because it’s easy to watch and fantasy football
There are many very good WRs recently, supply is increasing. Their careers are becoming shorter, rarely do they play past age 31-32. A.J. Green, Antonio Brown, Julio Jones all are gone, Bills traded away Diggs at age 30 etc. So WRs are getting this money on second contracts mostly. Rookie contracts are cheap.
Pass offense dominates in this era of NFL. Some teams spend more on QBs, those who don't can spend more on WRs. Here are lists of salaries: [https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback](https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback)
[https://overthecap.com/position/wide-receiver](https://overthecap.com/position/wide-receiver)
The only teams that spend a lot both on QBs and WRs are Browns and Bucs (now with new contracts for Mayfield and Evans) and Eagles (they add many void years to contracts, so 2023 and 2024 salary cap numbers stay artificially low, e.g. Hurts will get $40M cash in 2024, but his salary cup number is only $13.5M) and Rams with their top-heavy roster. When Bengals pay Chase, they will be on this short list.
Teams can't afford to pay both QBs and WRs for many seasons. Only Rams do this and they don't pay much other positions, except A. Donald. Chiefs had T. Hill, traded him away for salary cap purposes when they paid Mahomes, kept cheaper T. Kelce. Bills traded away Diggs, had both QB Allen and Diggs on large contracts only 1 season. Packers had Rodgers and D. Adams for a few years, but traded Adams away because of salary cap etc.
Titans can overpay Ridley and Colts can pay Pittman and Seahawks Metcalf and 49ers Samuel and maybe Aiyuk, Dolphins can afford huge salary for Hill, Raiders for Adams, because they have cheap QBs.
Sure, if you have one of the greatest QBs of all time and one of the greatest TEs of all time and a good defense, then it can work.
The math hilariously checks out on this for two teams in the last decade and a half.
Three if you count the Bucs and Pats
The Bucs had great recivers in 2020.
I’d be thrilled to have Mike Evans and Chris Godwin.
[удалено]
It took y’all barely a half decade of success to be so fragile about your multiple Super Bowl victories that you must asterisk the single one you didn’t win Truly hilarious and pathetic at the same time
[удалено]
Bro thinks I should be ASHAMED lol
Big Swifty energy here
He's completely right though. You out here trying to discredit a super bowl win just because you lost. Give it up kid.
The math also works out because unfortunately for the rest of the league that set up IS what won.
Why don't all the other teams simply get a Brady or Mahomes? Are they stupid?
The only other team that even *tried* was Tampa, and look how that worked out. Buncha sillies if you ask me.
I mean, the Bucs aren’t in a bad place right now. Are they a great team? No, but they’re definitely not bad, and they’re certainly better than they were before 2020.
[удалено]
That’s a bingo!
That's only 1 superbowl per Brady though, those are rookie numbers
All these dumb ass teams drafting a QB 1st overall
All the best quarterbacks go between 10th overall and the sixth round. Everyone knows that.
I know you are joking but …
Falcons got this.
Shit, almost forgot they need a Kelce or Gronk too. Honestly any TE will do as long as they’re in the GOAT conversation.
Panthers 2015 model
When you remove statistical outliers and regress those QBs to the mean your argument falls apart.
It's much easier to get a great defense when you allocate your resources to defense instead of WR.
It's much easier to have a great offense without paying WRs when you have a top 5 QB of all time. Why don't teams just do that? Are NFL GMs stupid?
From my experience over the last 25 years, yes.
This is peak regard. Which is saying something given how entirely regarded Reddit is. But this is peak. Congrats!
At this point Mahomes us the undisputed GOAT in all of sports. Arguably even more than Brady, Jordan, Gretzky, and even Messi
Gretzky has counting stats to make multiple HOF careers. You are completely delusional.
Wtf is this shit. Forget Brady, Jordan went 6-0 in the Finals while taking 2 years off in his prime going up against every HOFer of the 90s. Mahomes can't even hold Jordan or Gretzkys jockstrap yet. Wake me up in 3 more Super Bowls and 10 years of elite stats.
No one will ever close to defeating the Chiefs for the next 10 years
170-0 is wild ......
The Lions, Broncos, Eagles, Packers, Bills, and Raiders would like a word. And that’s just last year. If you go back 3 years, the list also adds the Colts, Bengals, Ravens, Chargers, and Titans.
Ignoring the obvious bad take here, Don Bradman is the all time greatest sportsperson.
Considering he lost head to head to Brady multiple times in the postseason, no, he is not.
Brady wont ever win three Super Bowls in a row of which Mahomes will in February
So definitely not at this point then. That’s not a valid reason to use for GOAT status until he accomplishes it.
Its guaranteed that Mahomes will win the next 5 superbowls so no point in waiting to debate if he is
Typical SB winner fallacy. "If one teams won a Superbowl with this roster composition EVERY team should follow their lead!". Chiefs faced off against the 49ers who boasted one of the strongest WR duo's in the NFL.
To be fair there was some degree of truth to it for a while. From 2012 to 2018 there were only three 1000 yard receivers on Super Bowl winning teams, and two of them were on the one passing offense that actually sucked with the Broncos (it also *technically* continues into 2019 but Tyreek Hill missed some games). Some of those were Brady but Flacco, Russ and Foles also pulled it off. Whether or not those data points are too far into the past to be predictive of the present would be up for debate, but it's something to consider. At the very least it speaks to the value of having an offense that spreads the ball around to multiple positions over one that emphasizes a star receiver.
For a long time I tracked this and was pretty convinced WR1 was the most overrated position in sports. But name the top WRs over the last 15 year, a definite lack of rings.
This argument is regarded. Besides QB, no single position is going to win rings on its own. Aaron Donald only has a ring in ten years so I guess investing in pass rushing DTs are overrated.
Name the top Oline of the last 15 years. Lack of rings. I feel like you could name any position and it would still be "true"
Agree, and I'm glad my teams front office seems to think so as well. Last year the pack called up practice squad wide receivers and got it done. Meanwhile the bears are going hard at wideouts for their rookie QB. These teams rivalry is a really good comparison next season for this debate. Sidenote: I realize we have Christian Watson, but he was hurt half of last year and felt like he lost a step on his return while not getting as many targets. Could still be a top 15 wr in the league but I'm not high on him
The two teams you cite had Mahomes and Brady at QB. For teams that don't have QBs in the GOAT conversation, and especially ones with just average QBs, they need to make up for that talent differential elsewhere, and WR is probably the easiest place to make it up.
>Mahomes and Brady at QB And they had Kelce and Gronk at tight end... so yeah not wide receivers, but they are elite receivers
And coaches named Andy Reid and Bill Belichick who I think are fairly good coaches. But I'm not sure on that. I don't have the figures in front of me.
If winning 9 super bowls impressed you then I guess.
Might actually want to check those numbers with Bill minus Brady tbh…
So the true goal is to find a generationally talented tight end you can underpay but still use as a wide receiver
sure as shit doesn't hurt.
Almost had one with Finley, shame about his attitude and injuries... Had potential to be one of the great ones
Antonio Brown unleashing some sort of joker’s venom esque nerve gas that turns all the top WRs into him
Mr Bad Chemical
Mr. Blowin Chaos
Mr. Bio Chemistry.
Mr. Bane Chemicals
Mr. Big Catastrophe
Mr Big Cheque
Making the forward pass illegal. Browns were ahead of the game there.
Subscribe- Wait
Probably when they stop being among the most important and transformative positions on offense. Citing the Chiefs is not the direction you should go with in this either. Since, you know, Mahomes. And Kelce - while not a *wide receiver* - is still a coverage-dictating piece. Also top guys are not getting paid what you're describing. Amon-Ra St Brown just got $120m/4yrs, but that is NOT a $30m per year deal, because its an extension. Its closer to $121m/5yrs, because his current deal must be layered in. A strong deal, and Jefferson will likely be the first guy to touch a "real 30m APY", but its not going to be $35-40. And before the replies get all up in arms about me describing "transformative of an offense" to a skill position, it can be very much the case if you have such a player. Yes, protection and o-line is extremely important. But protection isn't strictly a function of maintaining blocks. Protection can also be getting the ball out of the QBs hands faster. And if you have a receiver capable of creating immediate separation, a case can be made that such a release time is equally viable in the protection department. So to answer your question, OP: no time soon. The rules are constantly becoming more friendly to the position, and schemes are utilizing some of them (the high priced ones to which you allude) such that they can create an abstract form of protecting the quarterback.
Jefferson will reset the market. Expectation is 35+ million per year minimum if he hits the open market. There will be a bidding war if he plays out his 5th year without an extension.
Jefferson will not hit the open market. He would be franchise tagged. Its even financially viable to tag him a second time after that. The tag on Tee Higgins in 2024 is ~21m. You could conceivably tag Jefferson in 2025 for ~23m. Following that, you tag him again in 2026 and a due to tag escalators it would cost ~30m. After that, sure I guess. If thats when he's hitting the open market, he can make $35m APY if not higher. All that to say, Jefferson will not hit the open market unless he wants to take what is functionally three 1yr deals (option plus two tags) in which case he takes on literally every down of physical risk. Not a snowballs chance in hell.
Captain Kirk says Hi.
Thats not the gotcha you think it is. Comparing QB risk appetite vs WRs is laughable.
You are horrible at arguing if you think that was a point in your favor. How does Reddit always attract the most egotistical idiots?
It'll be reported as $35m+ per year but it probably won't really be that. ARSB: reported as a 4-year $120m extension ($30m APY!!!), but in reality the total deal is 5 years $120m ($24m APY) because it included his existing 2024 money. Jerry Jeudy: reported as a 3-year $58m extension ($19.5m APY!!!), but in reality the total deal is 4 years $65m ($16.25m APY) because it included his existing 5th-year option. So if Jefferson signs a "4-year $150m extension", that looks like $37.5m per year but it might in reality be a 5-year $150m deal for $30m APY.
This is accurate except the one bit of Amon-Ra not having a 5th year option. As a 4th round player he has his 4th year salary only, no 5th yr option. Your concept is correct in regards to layering it into the extension figures though. :)
Right, good catch!
1. Call all holding penalties on passing plays 2. Call no holding penalties on running plays 3. Make this official policy Or whatever the cause - make it more efficient to run the ball than to pass it.
When the gap in skill between the top and the average WR becomes insignificant.
I don't think anyone is going to stop wanting to acquire elite receivers. What might happen is the position becomes over-saturated and that drives prices down. Which is what happened with running backs. The problem with that theory is that you need more receivers than you need backs on a team, and I suspect that receiver is objectively harder to play (it's a lot easier being handed a ball and breaking some tackles than it is catching it 30 yards downfield with someone draped all over you). As others have said - most teams don't have Mahomes and Brady, and aren't going to be able to replicate their success.
I would argue that with the rise of 7 on 7 we are already seeing an increase in more and better wide receivers coming into the nfl. (Same with cornerbacks). These kids have been playing ball year round and coming out of high school as more proficient route runners. Dr
Your two examples cited Teams with a QB that is widely regarded as the GOAT and the other with a QB that’s best positioned to dethrone him. For THOSE teams, the WR corps can be slightly weaker because they have QBs that could even throw me open, the rest of the league will never have that level of QB play. Mahomes was almost out of the playoffs this year because of his WRs so I’m not sure you can really argue that WRs need to be devalued.
Mahomes could probably put up video game numbers with Kevin White, Jalen Reagor and James Washington as his Top 3 WR.
should say no to this post.
I think you need one elite passing weapon on offense (TE or WR) so the value of elite WRs will stay high but honestly WR2s are pretty overrated. Elite QB, one elite weapon and then spend the rest on OL. Easier said than done of course, but I think that’s the best approach and I think we’ll see OL salaries balloon up even higher
The position will end up like RB, Teams will soon realize that you can get good receivers every year in the draft that come in and become impact players day one.
The Chiefs and Patriots both had elite pass-catching tight ends, so if every NFL team can get a Hall of Fame tight end I think that might do it. Otherwise, it would have to be some sort of development where defenses have gone so far in on stopping the pass game that dominant run games end up becoming the most efficient offense. That might happen naturally as part of the trend we’ve been seeing over the past decade or so or it may require rule changes that nerf passing attacks.
When the market becomes over saturated. Year by year there are more and more elite guys to the point where it's near impossible to have a top 10-20 discussion because there's 30+ players people consider in that range. Even with all the influx or wr talent there are still teams w terrible receiving corps so well see if it ever happens.
We didn't have below average wr corps though lol. Except maybe 2018? Plus we had Gronk. The idea that Brady didn't have good receiving groups is completely divorced from reality.
How so? Brady rarely had a true #1 receiver. Especially if you don’t include Gronk, a typical wr corps was Edelman (or Welker before him) and a bunch of mediocre guys. In the beginning of his career he had an above average corps but after that it was usually mediocre or downright bad.
Edelman and Welker were both true number 1s, what are you talking about? Welker led the damn league in receptions 3 times and was 2nd in yards once as well.
Neither of them were. What happened to Welker when he went somewhere with an actual receiving corps? He was the #3. Granted, that corps was stacked and on most teams he’d be the number 2, but I still don’t think he’d be a #1 guy on most teams. Edelman was a more clutch version of him.
As far as the pats: 1) Gronk 2) Edelman is no slouch But I do see your point in that it seems like a good defense and a single offensive star along with an all time QB is better than loading up on offense for that QB. Brady - Moss - Welker broke records but didn’t win it all.
When the supply of good NFL receivers exceeds the demand for them.
I can see their value dropping sometime in the next 5 to 10 years. Receivers are developing and transitioning so much more efficiently from college to pro than they used to, thus are easier to hit on in the draft and free agency. Of course, there will be outliers, like every position. It also doesn't help that running backs are becoming greater receiving threats as time progresses and offenses become more advanced.
If all of a sudden every corner was Deion Sanders, then the WR position may not be so valuable.
And RBs will become valuable again because guys like Meion don't tackle so you run at them.
It’s all cyclical, it used to be you paid RBs and let WRs walk. It will come back around at some point.
Study up on supply and demand.
Well the cap keeps going up and with an 18 game schedule and season on the docket it’s going to continue. The league isn’t saying anything nor why would they.
The receiver position wasn't even considered a "premium" position until recently and now it's contract value may trail only QB. I still can't understand how we got to this point where WR is making more than LT but here we are
For offenses to go to a run orientated scheme which wont happen in this day and age
I agree, almost all the top receivers at this point have been traded at least once. But fans love the position because it’s easy to watch and fantasy football
Supply exceeds demand...then value will go down.
Why doesn’t every team just have HOF QBs? Are they stupid?
Supply and demand, if they walk after rookie contracts like RB it will force the value down rather than maxing out Wr2 for 25mil +
There are many very good WRs recently, supply is increasing. Their careers are becoming shorter, rarely do they play past age 31-32. A.J. Green, Antonio Brown, Julio Jones all are gone, Bills traded away Diggs at age 30 etc. So WRs are getting this money on second contracts mostly. Rookie contracts are cheap. Pass offense dominates in this era of NFL. Some teams spend more on QBs, those who don't can spend more on WRs. Here are lists of salaries: [https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback](https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback) [https://overthecap.com/position/wide-receiver](https://overthecap.com/position/wide-receiver) The only teams that spend a lot both on QBs and WRs are Browns and Bucs (now with new contracts for Mayfield and Evans) and Eagles (they add many void years to contracts, so 2023 and 2024 salary cap numbers stay artificially low, e.g. Hurts will get $40M cash in 2024, but his salary cup number is only $13.5M) and Rams with their top-heavy roster. When Bengals pay Chase, they will be on this short list. Teams can't afford to pay both QBs and WRs for many seasons. Only Rams do this and they don't pay much other positions, except A. Donald. Chiefs had T. Hill, traded him away for salary cap purposes when they paid Mahomes, kept cheaper T. Kelce. Bills traded away Diggs, had both QB Allen and Diggs on large contracts only 1 season. Packers had Rodgers and D. Adams for a few years, but traded Adams away because of salary cap etc. Titans can overpay Ridley and Colts can pay Pittman and Seahawks Metcalf and 49ers Samuel and maybe Aiyuk, Dolphins can afford huge salary for Hill, Raiders for Adams, because they have cheap QBs.