Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 372260" data-attributes="member: 4300">IMO the fact that multiple formations and situational personnel changes have become much more prolific in the NFL doesn't change the common usage of the term "starting wide receiver". And neither does the fact that McCarthy has the Packers open games in three WR sets on occasion. For example, read an article about James Jones' impending free agency and you'll see speculation that he wants, or that some team may be willing to offer him, "starters money". In-season check the depth chart of the Packers and every other team in the league - I'll bet almost every team lists two WRs as "first team". Ask any knowledgeable fan of any NFL team who the starting WRs are on his team and I'll wager fewer than 5% would answer with something like, 'there's no such thing…' The huge majority of them will answer with the names of two players.  Now which players are the starters may not matter as much as it previously did for prolific passing attack teams like the Packers, but even the players themselves recognize who the starters are: Players like Nelson and Jones aspire to be starting WRs, they aren't yet. Jennings and Driver were the starting WRs for the 2010 Packers. If you doubt that, ask yourself this question: During 2010, when all the wide receivers were healthy and the Packers began the game in a 2 WR formation, who started at WR?</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 676 (members: 0, guests: 676)