WR Depth Chart/Labels

[Lucky Colts Fan]

I've seen this come up a number of times in the forum.  There have been some hangups about WR1 vs WR2 vs WR3.  And I've noticed Funchess and Campbell both being called Slot WRs.  It's also come up whether Campbell will be used more for short routes, or as a deep threat as well.

 

I'd like to discuss an example play using the following formation:

 

WR  WR  WR  LT  LG  C  RG  RT  TE

(TY) (PC) (DF)

 

How do we label the WRs in this formation?  There aren't two "wideouts" and one "slot" because they're all on the same side.  Aren't Campbell and Funchess both "slot receivers" in this formation?  If we assume TY is WR1, is there any distinction between PC and DF as WR2 or WR3?  Is the distinction between WR1/2/3 just stat-based?  If Campbell has more receptions and yards, but Funchess has more TDs, who is WR2 behind TY?  And if a WR is equally successful from the slot or lined up out wide, and also at short routes and deep routes, how are they labeled?

 

Labeling WRs or ranking them in a depth chart seems very convoluted to me because it can be based on who has better stats, where they line up, and/or what routes they're most successful at.

[MFT5]

it really doesn’t matter ppl get hung up on nothing. Reich will scheme plays for each accordingly based on matchups & tendency breakers

 

WR  WR  WR  LT  LG  C  RG  RT  TE

(TY) (PC) (DF) 

 

Trips one of my favorite formations btw has almost limitless possibilities. 

 

Parris can motion into the backfield or run jet sweep, leaving 6’4” Funch on a Lb or smaller corner to work the seams and middle as Ty goes deep or my perfered drags or deep ins behind Funchess. 

 

We could be unstoppable on O this year

 

imagine Parris motioning for jet sweep action leaving Funchess, AC and Nelson blocking for a Ty screen

[Lucky Colts Fan]

7 minutes ago, MFT5 said:

Trips one of my favorite formations btw has almost limitless possibilities.

 

Me too.  It can be a zone killer with the flood concept or it can be a man-to-man killer with crossing routes.

 

And now having basically two TYs and two Ebrons by adding Campbell and Funchess... Reich is gonna %$&# up some defenses this year with all the possible mismatches.

 

[MFT5]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Me too.  It can be a zone killer with the flood concept or it can be a man-to-man killer with crossing routes.

 

And now having basically two TYs and two Ebrons by adding Campbell and Funchess... Reich is gonna %$&# up some defenses this year with all the possible mismatches.

 

 

Yea Reich got no excuses this year bc that KC gameplan was trash but i’m glad KC happened so this team understands to kill at all times

 

i cant wait for madden to drop i just wish Parris was listed as a HB 

[Smonroe]

8 minutes ago, MFT5 said:

 

Yea Reich got no excuses this year bc that KC gameplan was trash but i’m glad KC happened so this team understands to kill at all times

 

i cant wait for madden to drop i just wish Parris was listed as a HB 

 

The KC game is painful to rewatch, and there’s plenty of blame to go around.  You have to give KC credit, their D played out of their minds.  Totally opposite of how the played throughout most of their season.  

 

And, it obviously influenced our draft.  If we could have at least taken Kelce out of the game it would have been close.  Yes, NE held him to 3 catches and still had to go to OT, but he was running wild in our game.  

 

I hope TY, Parris, Funchess, and Hines show them we can run away from them next time.  

[EastStreet]

3 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

I've seen this come up a number of times in the forum.  There have been some hangups about WR1 vs WR2 vs WR3.  And I've noticed Funchess and Campbell both being called Slot WRs.  It's also come up whether Campbell will be used more for short routes, or as a deep threat as well.

 

I'd like to discuss an example play using the following formation:

 

WR  WR  WR  LT  LG  C  RG  RT  TE

(TY) (PC) (DF)

 

How do we label the WRs in this formation?  There aren't two "wideouts" and one "slot" because they're all on the same side.  Aren't Campbell and Funchess both "slot receivers" in this formation?  If we assume TY is WR1, is there any distinction between PC and DF as WR2 or WR3?  Is the distinction between WR1/2/3 just stat-based?  If Campbell has more receptions and yards, but Funchess has more TDs, who is WR2 behind TY?  And if a WR is equally successful from the slot or lined up out wide, and also at short routes and deep routes, how are they labeled?

 

Labeling WRs or ranking them in a depth chart seems very convoluted to me because it can be based on who has better stats, where they line up, and/or what routes they're most successful at.

WR1-3 is just really ranking your guys on production. WR1 if your alpha. Anyone (X, Z, slot) could be a WR1. I've learned not to talk WR# on this board lol. TY as it stands is WR1, and he's a Z. For Funchess's early career, he was WR1 at X. In short, best to talk X, Z, and slot so folks don't get confused.

 

In the trip set above, couple issues. Typically your widest WR is on the line, unless your in bunch formation where the second widest is on the line. TY is the guy who is typically off the line. If you're in bunch, that would put Parris on the line (he didn't run wide a lot on the line either). The more realistic with that personnel in standard trips or trips bunch is DF on the line (he's typically on the line as X). If TY or PC can smack a CB off, it's not an issue anyway.

 

But to echo others, if Cain comes back strong, Parris pans out, we're going to be sick on O. We could attack so many ways it's not even funny. PC and DC seriously up our speed, and DF ups our size. Scary possibilities.

[MFT5]

Feel like Funchess will be en the slot a lot like Marques Colston 

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, MFT5 said:

Feel like Funchess will be en the slot a lot like Marques Colston 

I hope so. He could kill it there. I like him a lot more there than at X.

If Cain comes back ready, I'm pretty sure it will happen.

[Coffeedrinker]

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

I've seen this come up a number of times in the forum.  There have been some hangups about WR1 vs WR2 vs WR3.  And I've noticed Funchess and Campbell both being called Slot WRs.  It's also come up whether Campbell will be used more for short routes, or as a deep threat as well.

 

I'd like to discuss an example play using the following formation:

 

WR  WR  WR  LT  LG  C  RG  RT  TE

(TY) (PC) (DF)

 

How do we label the WRs in this formation?  There aren't two "wideouts" and one "slot" because they're all on the same side.  Aren't Campbell and Funchess both "slot receivers" in this formation?  If we assume TY is WR1, is there any distinction between PC and DF as WR2 or WR3?  Is the distinction between WR1/2/3 just stat-based?  If Campbell has more receptions and yards, but Funchess has more TDs, who is WR2 behind TY?  And if a WR is equally successful from the slot or lined up out wide, and also at short routes and deep routes, how are they labeled?

 

Labeling WRs or ranking them in a depth chart seems very convoluted to me because it can be based on who has better stats, where they line up, and/or what routes they're most successful at.

I don't know how they do it in the NFL but in my youth league and in the high school and college teams I have seen, they don't refer to players as wideouts or slots, they are X, Y and Z.  In a simple offense, X is always out wide on the left, Z is always out wide on the right and Y is the somewhere between X and Z.  In more complicated offenses like in high school, college and the NFL then they move X, Y and Z all around but typically X will be the furthest left receiver, Z will be the furthest right receiver and Y will be someone in between them.

 

So in your example above

WR  WR  WR  LT  LG  C  RG  RT  TE

(x)   (y)     (z)

 

But if they were trips to the right it would be

TE  LT  LG  C  RG  RT  WR  WR  WR 

                                       (X)    (Y)   (Z)

 

As far as WR1, 2 is mainly for the fans but to a lesser extent will determine who sees the most snaps.  So, for the most part WR1 will be on the field even if the formation only has 1 WR.  But when that WR is on the field, depending on the formation, he could be the X, Y or Z

[Lucky Colts Fan]

12 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

WR1-3 is just really ranking your guys on production. WR1 if your alpha.

 

So how do you label/rank guys on a "run-first" team when there isn't really an "alpha" WR and their production is all about the same?

 

Like WAS or JAX or BAL.

 

And can a team have multiple WR1s?  Like the Rams with Woods and Cooks.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

This might seem like an off-the-wall topic ( @LJpalmbeacher2 and @Nesjan3 ) especially talking about where WRs line up and if they're on the line or off it, etc.

 

I was just thinking about WRs in the depth chart compared to positions like QB, LT, FS, etc.  The depth chart is pretty straight-forward when it comes to the OLine:  the best LT always lines up at LT.

 

But WR is such a "multiple" position.  They line up all over the field, and the WRs on the field depend on their skill-set and the goal of the play.  There were plays last year where we only had one WR on the field and it was Pascal, not TY.  Traditionally, the "WR1" is always on the field because they're the WR1, so why is a guy that some would call our "WR5" the one on the field instead of the 4 guys ahead of him on the depth chart?

 

The depth chart for WRs, or the labeling of WRs, seems so arbitrary nowadays compared to when it was Harrison as the WR1 always lined up at the Z, Wayne as the WR2 always lined up at the X, and Stokely as the WR3 lined up in the slot. 

[indyagent17]

Most receivers will play many spots. Wide out, Slot, Wingback and so on. They idea is to confuse the defense so labeling them is really outdated 

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

So how do you label/rank guys on a "run-first" team when there isn't really an "alpha" WR and their production is all about the same?

 

Like WAS or JAX or BAL.

 

And can a team have multiple WR1s?  Like the Rams with Woods and Cooks.

WR1, etc. is all subjective. WR1s get passed all the time and new ones emerge. Just like the hand offs we had from Marvin to Reggie, to TY. The Rams are really interesting. Both guys are mid 20s and both are pouring it on. Not sure who is the alpha, but perhaps Woods is as he got there earlier. Talk about two great FA adds. And both for 5 year deals (both locked up to 2022 when Woods is up, and Cooks is up 2025.

 

Wash, Jax, and Balt all have had QB problems lol.... Jax did well upgrading with Foles though and Washington did good drafting Haskins. I don't have a lot of confidence in Balt though.  

 

At least Wash and Balt recognize the fact that they needed to upgrade (both took 2 WRs this year in the draft). Wash took two good WRs in the draft in McLaurin and Harmon. Balt took Hollywood with their first pick, and Boykin with their 3rd. 

 

I feel a bit sorry for Foles. Not doubt he will make the existing WRs better, but they should have done more for him this year instead of just taking Conley in FA. They've taken 3 WRs early (1st or 2nd) in the last 6 years, so it's not like they haven't tried to upgrade.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

7 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

This might seem like an off-the-wall topic ( @LJpalmbeacher2 and @Nesjan3 ) especially talking about where WRs line up and if they're on the line or off it, etc.

 

I was just thinking about WRs in the depth chart compared to positions like QB, LT, FS, etc.  The depth chart is pretty straight-forward when it comes to the OLine:  the best LT always lines up at LT.

 

But WR is such a "multiple" position.  They line up all over the field, and the WRs on the field depend on their skill-set and the goal of the play.  There were plays last year where we only had one WR on the field and it was Pascal, not TY.  Traditionally, the "WR1" is always on the field because they're the WR1, so why is a guy that some would call our "WR5" the one on the field instead of the 4 guys ahead of him on the depth chart?

 

The depth chart for WRs, or the labeling of WRs, seems so arbitrary nowadays compared to when it was Harrison as the WR1 always lined up at the Z, Wayne as the WR2 always lined up at the X, and Stokely as the WR3 lined up in the slot. 

 

Well someone might make a similar case about pass rushers. If there's a Edge that the coach don't care to see him play against the run he's mostly in passing situations. Where would he be in the depth chart? Not too good vs the run but your best pass rusher.

Same for the TE position. A all around TE may be #1 on depth chart but your Big play vertical TE is your impact player.

[EastStreet]

20 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Well someone might make a similar case about pass rushers. If there's a Edge that the coach don't care to see him play against the run he's mostly in passing situations. Where would he be in the depth chart? Not too good vs the run but your best pass rusher.

Same for the TE position. A all around TE may be #1 on depth chart but your Big play vertical TE is your impact player.

I'd say that WR, DB, DL (both DE and DT) have the most combos. OL and TE are pretty clear. LB will flex off of the DL and DB sets, but not near the complexity of WR, DB, and DL.

 

Specifically on TE, have your catching TE and your blocking TE. If one can do both, awesome. Aside from goal line and short yardage where you might sub and OL, not a lot of change. 

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

I'm not really sure it really matters when you have so many guys that do so many different things. Their roles are clear, and Reich will design things specifically for each guy. I'm not sure it needs to be, or is ever discussed, as a textbook X, Y, Z in offseason preparation or weekly or pregame preparation...I'm sure they just know their roles, and they know the scheme and designs within each play. X, Y, Z is for fans and teaching kids, imo. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

13 hours ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

X, Y, Z is for fans and teaching kids, imo.

 

I was thinking more about the depth chart that the team releases and who they decide to cut.

 

During the offseason, people have traditionally expected the WRs to be labeled 1,2,3,4,5, etc. and players have to work their way up into the top 5/6 to stay on the team.

 

But like you said, so many guys do so many different things, how do they rank them in the depth chart and how do they decide who to cut?

[EastStreet]

7 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I was thinking more about the depth chart that the team releases and who they decide to cut.

 

During the offseason, people have traditionally expected the WRs to be labeled 1,2,3,4,5, etc. and players have to work their way up into the top 5/6 to stay on the team.

 

But like you said, so many guys do so many different things, how do they rank them in the depth chart and how do they decide who to cut?

IIRC, Indy only list two WR lanes on their depth chart, and 2 TE lanes. We're in 3 WR sets a lot more than 2 TE sets, so not sure why. They typically list the Xs in one lane, and Zs and slot in the 2nd.

 

I'd just stay away from WR1,2,3 etc. unless you are talking about pure production or snap counts.

For instance, we all know who is our WR1. But who was 2 and 3? Rogers actually had the second most yards and snaps last season?

 

I can assure you though, while Os differ from team to team and scheme to scheme, Indy looks at it as X, Z, and Slot. It's just a way teams stack them for consistency sake going down to college, HS, and even little league lol. But sure, all Os are a little different, and some don't fit perfectly into a slot.