The effect of a viable WR2 on stud WRs

[detlef]

When a team picks up a solid WR2 to line-up across from a proven stud, the popular opinion is that it's going to open things up for the stud WR. But why is that?

 

If the D was going to double him before, why not now? It's not like they're going to double the other guy instead. And it's not as if there's a WR in the league so bad that Ds are going to completely ignore him. So, assuming they're not playing zone, you're going to put one guy on everyone in the pattern and then put another on the main target. If you've now got two guys worthy of extra attention, I can't imagine it will come from taking any attention away from the main guy. You'd have to think that would come at the expense of another guy in the box or something.

 

So, I could certainly see adding a 2nd viable threat being good for a RB because he may have more room to run. I can obviously see it being good for a QB because he has a new toy. And I can obviously see the value of the WR2 himself because, while he may be nearly as good as the main target, he's going to draw the 2nd CB and likely not see the level of safety help that the other guys sees.

 

But I just don't see how this "opens things up" for the primary target. They've got to pick their poison and you have to think they're going to say, "If ATL is going to beat us, it's going to have to be Jones, because I don't care how good he is, we're still going to worry more about Roddy."

[Seahawks21]

To be honest, I don't recall many people saying that this is an advantage for fantasy football. It helps take pressure off of the stud on the field itself, as the defense can't roll coverage every single play anymore, like what happens to Steve Smith just about every play, but I think adding a good #2 lessens the overall and red zone targets of the stud. It's great for him on the field and for the team, not so great for fantasy football.

[Bronco Billy]

Pretty simplistic if you've coordinated a D before. A legit threat at the 2nd WR position (or the TE, for that matter) forces a float by the FS so that the CB2 doesn't get beaten deep by the WR2. That float is hugh to the WR1 - it gives him more room to operate underneath as the CB1 has to change his coverage without the deep help. Instead of the CB2 knowing he has his FS behind him and can tighten the screws underneath, now he's going to have to loosen to avoid getting beaten on a fly pattern or a double move like a hitch and go. In the NFL an extra 1 1/2 to 2 yards of freedom are a massive advantage for the top WRs.

 

If your WR2 is mediocre, he can be handled by most CB2s, allowing a distinctive shade and help over the top on the WR1 by the FS. You take your chances and risk the odds of getting beaten by a mediocre WR2. Even if he beats his man, he probably doesn't have the burst to maintain his separation, or he may drop a well thrown pass. You can't afford to do that with a good to very good WR2 - you'll lose games that way.

 

Why do you think the top cover corners draw so much attention and high pay in FA? It allows the D to play completely differently at the 2nd and 3rd levels.

 

The lines are very fine at the NFL level. Missing a coverage by as much as 6 inches can be the difference between an incompletion and a 20 yd gain.

[keggerz]

Pretty simplistic if you've coordinated a D before. A legit threat at the 2nd WR position (or the TE, for that matter) forces a float by the FS so that the CB2 doesn't get beaten deep by the WR2. That float is hugh to the WR1 - it gives him more room to operate underneath as the CB1 has to change his coverage without the deep help. Instead of the CB2 knowing he has his FS behind him and can tighten the screws underneath, now he's going to have to loosen to avoid getting beaten on a fly pattern or a double move like a hitch and go. In the NFL an extra 1 1/2 to 2 yards of freedom are a massive advantage for the top WRs.

 

If your WR2 is mediocre, he can be handled by most CB2s, allowing a distinctive shade and help over the top on the WR1 by the FS. You take your chances and risk the odds of getting beaten by a mediocre WR2. Even if he beats his man, he probably doesn't have the burst to maintain his separation, or he may drop a well thrown pass. You can't afford to do that with a good to very good WR2 - you'll lose games that way.

 

Why do you think the top cover corners draw so much attention and high pay in FA? It allows the D to play completely differently at the 2nd and 3rd levels.

 

The lines are very fine at the NFL level. Missing a coverage by as much as 6 inches can be the difference between an incompletion and a 20 yd gain.

[detlef]

Pretty simplistic if you've coordinated a D before. A legit threat at the 2nd WR position (or the TE, for that matter) forces a float by the FS so that the CB2 doesn't get beaten deep by the WR2. That float is hugh to the WR1 - it gives him more room to operate underneath as the CB1 has to change his coverage without the deep help. Instead of the CB2 knowing he has his FS behind him and can tighten the screws underneath, now he's going to have to loosen to avoid getting beaten on a fly pattern or a double move like a hitch and go. In the NFL an extra 1 1/2 to 2 yards of freedom are a massive advantage for the top WRs.

 

If your WR2 is mediocre, he can be handled by most CB2s, allowing a distinctive shade and help over the top on the WR1 by the FS. You take your chances and risk the odds of getting beaten by a mediocre WR2. Even if he beats his man, he probably doesn't have the burst to maintain his separation, or he may drop a well thrown pass. You can't afford to do that with a good to very good WR2 - you'll lose games that way.

 

Why do you think the top cover corners draw so much attention and high pay in FA? It allows the D to play completely differently at the 2nd and 3rd levels.

 

The lines are very fine at the NFL level. Missing a coverage by as much as 6 inches can be the difference between an incompletion and a 20 yd gain.

Seems like you're giving your CB1 entirely too much credit and your CB2 nowhere near enough. Assuming, say Detroit, picks up a better compliment to Megatron, you're basically telling your CB1 "You take care of Megatron because the safety is going to help double team this other guy who is not as good as him."

 

So, presumably, each team employs 2 among the best 75 men in the world at playing CB (allowing for some slack to make up for the fact that some teams may have 3 of the better ones). So, the CB2 is not going to be an entire stiff. Would you truly rather give your 2nd best guy help covering their 2nd best guy and leave your best all alone with a truly elite player at his position? Assuming you're not one of the 3-4 teams that has a CB at the level of Revis or whatnot.

 

In other words, two NFL caliber DBs would seem to be able to do a better job than one, even if that one is truly elite. Yet, you seem to be implying that Megatron gets single teamed if the other guy is good enough (but not as good as him) to essentially warrant a double team.

 

Now, maybe both guys do well because the safety now has to decide from play to play. But, of course, that may or may not be enough to make up for the fact that there is a guy on the other side of the field taking looks away from the WR1.

Edited August 13, 2011 by detlef

[tazinib1]

Reggie Wayne..and up to date, Julio Jones

[Seahawks21]

Pretty simplistic if you've coordinated a D before. A legit threat at the 2nd WR position (or the TE, for that matter) forces a float by the FS so that the CB2 doesn't get beaten deep by the WR2. That float is hugh to the WR1 - it gives him more room to operate underneath as the CB1 has to change his coverage without the deep help. Instead of the CB2 knowing he has his FS behind him and can tighten the screws underneath, now he's going to have to loosen to avoid getting beaten on a fly pattern or a double move like a hitch and go. In the NFL an extra 1 1/2 to 2 yards of freedom are a massive advantage for the top WRs.

 

If your WR2 is mediocre, he can be handled by most CB2s, allowing a distinctive shade and help over the top on the WR1 by the FS. You take your chances and risk the odds of getting beaten by a mediocre WR2. Even if he beats his man, he probably doesn't have the burst to maintain his separation, or he may drop a well thrown pass. You can't afford to do that with a good to very good WR2 - you'll lose games that way.

 

Why do you think the top cover corners draw so much attention and high pay in FA? It allows the D to play completely differently at the 2nd and 3rd levels.

 

The lines are very fine at the NFL level. Missing a coverage by as much as 6 inches can be the difference between an incompletion and a 20 yd gain.

I think the WR2 has to be darn good to have an impact on the way most NFL defenses cover a stud #1 WR. There are literally games out there against Calvin/Andre where the team rolls cloud coverage in his direction every single play. They're going to make that #2 WR prove that he can torch them consistently before they go to a cover 2 or give over the top help. Almost every good TE is given combination coverage from the SS and a LB, I don't know that even the best TE's have much impact on the WR1, except when safeties cheat to the middle in a cover 2. If an offense has a very good WR#2, as in Boldin/Fitz or Wayne/Harrison types, you typically will see teams play more man 2, allowing both receivers to catch underneath stuff, hoping their corners are good enough to stop some of this. These coverages are when you would see Marvin Harrison catch 12 balls. Other teams would roll up on Harrison, and Wayne would just torch them. Simply, there isn't a way invented yet to effectively stop these types of elite receiver combos, except by doing what Pittsburgh in particular does, doubling both outside receivers and making teams use their slots and TE's exclusively in single man with no help. This is when you see Dallas Clark catch 12 balls. Simply upgrading your WR#2 to a pretty good player from an average player essentially means very little to the defense. It allows your WR#2 to make a few more big plays, but doesn't effect the way teams will scheme, until that WR#2 starts torching teams regularly. K, I'm done mumbling.

[darin3]

Pretty simplistic if you've coordinated a D before. A legit threat at the 2nd WR position (or the TE, for that matter) forces a float by the FS so that the CB2 doesn't get beaten deep by the WR2. That float is hugh to the WR1 - it gives him more room to operate underneath as the CB1 has to change his coverage without the deep help. Instead of the CB2 knowing he has his FS behind him and can tighten the screws underneath, now he's going to have to loosen to avoid getting beaten on a fly pattern or a double move like a hitch and go. In the NFL an extra 1 1/2 to 2 yards of freedom are a massive advantage for the top WRs.

 

If your WR2 is mediocre, he can be handled by most CB2s, allowing a distinctive shade and help over the top on the WR1 by the FS. You take your chances and risk the odds of getting beaten by a mediocre WR2. Even if he beats his man, he probably doesn't have the burst to maintain his separation, or he may drop a well thrown pass. You can't afford to do that with a good to very good WR2 - you'll lose games that way.

 

Why do you think the top cover corners draw so much attention and high pay in FA? It allows the D to play completely differently at the 2nd and 3rd levels.

 

The lines are very fine at the NFL level. Missing a coverage by as much as 6 inches can be the difference between an incompletion and a 20 yd gain.

Well said, and before this turns into the eventual BB vs. detlef pee-pee match, let me add that WRs run straight ahead, DBs must backpedal before turning and running. Having a more capable WR2 keeps the #2 CB more honest and the #2 CB is "number 2" for a reason, and the FS therefore must pay attention to both sides.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Reggie Wayne

 

He's a perfect example of what Detlef is saying. Did the presence of Wayne make Harrison better? Or did he take away a lot of looks, yards and TDs from Harrison?

 

While there is likely some incremental increase in the the production of the entire offense when a solid WR2 is added, you'd think the preponderance of those stats the WR2 is piling up has to come at the expense of someone....

 

I'd love to see some stats on the impact to Harrison's performance when Wayne was added, Cris Carter's when Moss was added, Rice to when Owens was added....those are just off the top of my head.

[darin3]

He's a perfect example of what Detlef is saying. Did the presence of Wayne make Harrison better? Or did he take away a lot of looks, yards and TDs from Harrison?

 

While there is likely some incremental increase in the the production of the entire offense when a solid WR2 is added, you'd think the preponderance of those stats the WR2 is piling up has to come at the expense of someone....

 

I'd love to see some stats on the impact to Harrison's performance when Wayne was added, Cris Carter's when Moss was added, Rice to when Owens was added....those are just off the top of my head.

Those are unique/rare cases; where you're talking about two incredible talents on each side. I think the argument is that if you upgrade from say, Michael Jenkins to Julio Jones, then you may see a difference.

[detlef]

I think the WR2 has to be darn good to have an impact on the way most NFL defenses cover a stud #1 WR. There are literally games out there against Calvin/Andre where the team rolls cloud coverage in his direction every single play. They're going to make that #2 WR prove that he can torch them consistently before they go to a cover 2 or give over the top help. Almost every good TE is given combination coverage from the SS and a LB, I don't know that even the best TE's have much impact on the WR1, except when safeties cheat to the middle in a cover 2. If an offense has a very good WR#2, as in Boldin/Fitz or Wayne/Harrison types, you typically will see teams play more man 2, allowing both receivers to catch underneath stuff, hoping their corners are good enough to stop some of this. These coverages are when you would see Marvin Harrison catch 12 balls. Other teams would roll up on Harrison, and Wayne would just torch them. Simply, there isn't a way invented yet to effectively stop these types of elite receiver combos, except by doing what Pittsburgh in particular does, doubling both outside receivers and making teams use their slots and TE's exclusively in single man with no help. This is when you see Dallas Clark catch 12 balls. Simply upgrading your WR#2 to a pretty good player from an average player essentially means very little to the defense. It allows your WR#2 to make a few more big plays, but doesn't effect the way teams will scheme, until that WR#2 starts torching teams regularly. K, I'm done mumbling.

This

 

He's a perfect example of what Detlef is saying. Did the presence of Wayne make Harrison better? Or did he take away a lot of looks, yards and TDs from Harrison?

 

While there is likely some incremental increase in the the production of the entire offense when a solid WR2 is added, you'd think the preponderance of those stats the WR2 is piling up has to come at the expense of someone....

 

I'd love to see some stats on the impact to Harrison's performance when Wayne was added, Cris Carter's when Moss was added, Rice to when Owens was added....those are just off the top of my head.

and this

 

Again, unless you're one of the 4 DC who is fortunate enough to have an absolute stud at CB1, I can't see you putting him out on an island to cover a top WR so that the safety can help out on the lesser of the two WRs, even if he's pretty good in his own right.

 

Again, should both WRs be great, that's another thing but I would still see the D sacrificing something else to put another guy in coverage

[detlef]

Reggie Wayne..and up to date, Julio Jones

Isn't a bit early to discuss the positive effect Jones has had on Roddy's stats?

[Bronco Billy]

This

 

 

and this

 

Again, unless you're one of the 4 DC who is fortunate enough to have an absolute stud at CB1, I can't see you putting him out on an island to cover a top WR so that the safety can help out on the lesser of the two WRs, even if he's pretty good in his own right.

 

Again, should both WRs be great, that's another thing but I would still see the D sacrificing something else to put another guy in coverage

 

What you are willingly missing is the difference between double covering a WR - that means explicitly committing two players to him because he is that good, meaning you'll take your chances with the CB2 in single coveraage on the WR2, and being forced to only shade the FS to the WR1 side because the WR2 is competent enough that he warrants a look from the FS. It's the difference between playing the FS on one side of the field and having him playing a floating position between the hashmarks.

 

The differences in these type of coverages are distinct, and what it allows CBs to do is just as distinct. I think you're also willingly missing the way the NFL has progressively slanted rules to the WRs' favor to encourage more passing and quicker scoring, so that all but maybe 3 to 4 CBs are at a distinct disadvantage when matched against athletes equal to themselves.

 

However, I also recognize that you have convinced yourself of your postiion and would prefer to argue rather than discuss, and so I'll let it go at what I've posted so far. Think as you will.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[i_am_the_swammi]

Those are unique/rare cases; where you're talking about two incredible talents on each side. I think the argument is that if you upgrade from say, Michael Jenkins to Julio Jones, then you may see a difference.

 

Well, I think that's part of Det's point...if you add a stud at WR2, then yes, it should open things up more for the WR1.

 

But if you just add a solid WR2 that isn't going to draw significant coverage away from the WR1....then not a heck of a lot has changed then before that WR2 came to town.

 

With the Ravens' signing of Evans, I see Evans getting some decent looks in 1-on-1 coverage...but I don't see a whole lot of extra room created for Boldin. He's still the #1 who will draw the CB1 and the safety on long routes. He'll certainly get some room underneath when they send Evans long, but that could be said when any WR2 with speed goes long.

 

Many people are thinking that Dez Bryant is the Dallas WR to own this year...and that's for a reason. He'll be getting a lot of looks with Austin blanketed by the CB1. Many felt the same way about Maclin last year and this year.

 

I think that's more to Det's point.

[tazinib1]

Isn't a bit early to discuss the positive effect Jones has had on Roddy's stats?

 

Nope..real deal and prevelent to the topic at hand.

[MikesVikes]

It's called a complimentary receiver. Moss and Carter, Bruce and Holt come to mind.

 

Carter wasn't the fastest guy on the field. Moss played further downfield, obviously, and Carter was great coming across the middle and/or running a quick out. Nobody in the league was better at catching passes on the sidelines than Carter and Moss helped him do that.

[MikesVikes]

Well, I think that's part of Det's point...if you add a stud at WR2, then yes, it should open things up more for the WR1.

 

But if you just add a solid WR2 that isn't going to draw significant coverage away from the WR1....then not a heck of a lot has changed then before that WR2 came to town.

 

With the Ravens' signing of Evans, I see Evans getting some decent looks in 1-on-1 coverage...but I don't see a whole lot of extra room created for Boldin. He's still the #1 who will draw the CB1 and the safety on long routes. He'll certainly get some room underneath when they send Evans long, but that could be said when any WR2 with speed goes long.

 

Many people are thinking that Dez Bryant is the Dallas WR to own this year...and that's for a reason. He'll be getting a lot of looks with Austin blanketed by the CB1. Many felt the same way about Maclin last year and this year.

 

I think that's more to Det's point.

 

Evans is the first player that I thought of for this year. He's had years where is Yards per Reception was the best in the league. If he's running downfield, how does that not help Boldin?

Edited August 13, 2011 by MikesVikes

[Bronco Billy]

He's a perfect example of what Detlef is saying. Did the presence of Wayne make Harrison better? Or did he take away a lot of looks, yards and TDs from Harrison?

 

While there is likely some incremental increase in the the production of the entire offense when a solid WR2 is added, you'd think the preponderance of those stats the WR2 is piling up has to come at the expense of someone....

 

I'd love to see some stats on the impact to Harrison's performance when Wayne was added, Cris Carter's when Moss was added, Rice to when Owens was added....those are just off the top of my head.

 

So now we want to change the discussion from teams that have WR1/WR3 and changing to a WR1/WR2 attack, and instead discuss when teams end up with the rare WR1A/WR1B? Because there is a hugh difference in defending the latter, and it entails removing the SS from run support completely.

 

If you have a Moss or an Owens or a Wayne on the other side of the field and those guys are that good, why would you want to deny them their fair share of targets just to force the ball into the other guy relentlessly? As an OC, that makes no sense whatsoever.

[darin3]

OK maybe Julio Jones is a bad example.... but it proves exactly the point at hand, given the fact that Atlanta gave up serious booty to get a legit, potential superstar WR to pair up with one who is already both legit and a star.

 

There are countless other cases where a mild upgrade at WR2 has meant good things - fantasy and otherwise - for the WR1.

[Bronco Billy]

He'll certainly get some room underneath when they send Evans long, but that could be said when any WR2 with speed goes long.

 

Thank you. Exactly. And Evans working deep is very different than a ready-to-retire Mason working on the other side. The FS absolutely has to honor Evans' speed and ability, meaning he'll be playing between the hash marks even if he is shaded to Boldin's side rather than playing on the hash on Boldin's side, which in turn gives Boldin - as I explained earlier and you just reitereated above - more room to work into his area of strength, which is using his athleticism, size, and strength in short to midrange routes.

[Azazello1313]

in all cases, a stronger second WR draws some amount of coverage away from the WR1. from a fantasy perspective, it usually doesnt matter much....because in addition to drawing attention from the defense, he is also drawing attention (looks) away from the QB and OC. I'd say in general the effect is close to a wash.

 

but sometimes, depending on particular skill sets and such, a WR2 can really make things better for a WR1. I think the Boldin/Evans thing is a great example. Evans is one of the better deep threats in the game. He can make a big impact on a game without many looks. Boldin is a guy who thrives on finding space underneath and over the middle and getting a lot of looks. I see Evans' presence helping Boldin a lot without reducing his role in the offense at all.

[Seahawks21]

What you are willingly missing is the difference between double covering a WR - that means explicitly committing two players to him because he is that good, meaning you'll take your chances with the CB2 in single coveraage on the WR2, and being forced to only shade the FS to the WR1 side because the WR2 is competent enough that he warrants a look from the FS. It's the difference between playing the FS on one side of the field and having him playing a floating position between the hashmarks.

 

The differences in these type of coverages are distinct, and what it allows CBs to do is just as distinct. I think you're also willingly missing the way the NFL has progressively slanted rules to the WRs' favor to encourage more passing and quicker scoring, so that all but maybe 3 to 4 CBs are at a distinct disadvantage when matched against athletes equal to themselves.

 

However, I also recognize that you have convinced yourself of your postiion and would prefer to argue rather than discuss, and so I'll let it go at what I've posted so far. Think as you will.

Gotta get off work, but I'm going to come back to this one. If I understand what you're writing correctly, I don't think this is a scheme that used more than maybe a handful of times per game. I'm going to have to take some more time to visualize this. You don't see Man 1 with the single safety on the short side of the field, just about ever. I'm going to have to find my starting lineup figurines and lay them out on the floor, and I'll get back to you.

[i_am_the_swammi]

There are countless other cases where a mild upgrade at WR2 has meant good things - fantasy and otherwise - for the WR1.

 

Like....who?

[darin3]

Like....who?

 

Lee Evans wasn't a great WR, but he at least had downfield speed that the FS had to pay mind to. With Evans on one edge, Steve Johnson was able to do the things he did last year. I predict Steve Johnson will not approach his 2010 numbers in 2011.

 

Would Jeremy Maclin been fantasy relevant without the speedy DeSean Jackson on the other side? Hard to say. Last year, Jackson was out Week 7. Maclin went 5 for 42 with a score. Not Earth-shattering numbers, by any stretch. He did have a season-high 14 targets that week, but again, only 5 grabs. Wonder why.

 

Hakeem Nicks became a stud due in large part to the fact that he had a more-than-competent, precision route-runner in Steve Smith on the other side. If Mario Manningham can't produce like Smith, Nicks' value could take a hit.

 

I guess I could/should pull out examples from years other than last year to show where a WR has benefit - or in the case of my argument - developed to the point of fantasy studliness, based on a receiving option on the other side that was worth more than a damn.

[i_am_the_swammi]

 

Lee Evans wasn't a great WR, but he at least had downfield speed that the FS had to pay mind to. With Evans on one edge, Steve Johnson was able to do the things he did last year. I predict Steve Johnson will not approach his 2010 numbers in 2011.

 

Would Jeremy Maclin been fantasy relevant without the speedy DeSean Jackson on the other side? Hard to say. Last year, Jackson was out Week 7. Maclin went 5 for 42 with a score. Not Earth-shattering numbers, by any stretch. He did have a season-high 14 targets that week, but again, only 5 grabs. Wonder why.

 

Hakeem Nicks became a stud due in large part to the fact that he had a more-than-competent, precision route-runner in Steve Smith on the other side. If Mario Manningham can't produce like Smith, Nicks' value could take a hit.

 

I guess I could/should pull out examples from years other than last year to show where a WR has benefit - or in the case of my argument - developed to the point of fantasy studliness, based on a receiving option on the other side that was worth more than a damn.

 

You are kinda making my point, D.

 

Maclin is the WR2...Nicks (at the time) was the WR2....Steve Johnson was the WR2. The WR2 benefits far more from the WR1's presence then vice versa.

 

My (and Det's) point is, the addition of the WR2 doesn't always add to the value of the WR1. In fact, if you look at some of the more memorable seasons WR1's produced, they did it by the sheer volume of targets due in large part to NOT having a capable WR2. Look at Owens in Philly 7 years ago...he had Pinkston as his WR2, so the Eagles had to force-feed T.O a ton of balls. Same with Brandon Marshall in Denver the year he blew up....same with Moss in New England a couple years ago. With no other options, these stud WRs were fed an over-supply of targets. Add a decent WR2, and those excess targets (and stats) likely go away.

 

Point is, while having a solid WR2 may make life a little easier for the WR1 in some scenarios, it doesn't mean a boon to the WR1's fantasy value. I'd seriously like to see some stats where an already-studly WR1 got even better when they added a decent WR2. i can't think of one .