Eddie Royal could fit Bucs' profile

[bucsquad]

I see Royal going to the Redskins, He could return to the coach that he had his success with and went to VT for college, but I wouldn't mind adding him.

[chace1986]

Giants didnt have a true #1 last year with all the injuries(Cruz stepped up for sure), Saints dont have a true #1, Packers no longer have a true #1(was Jennings for awhile), Steelers didnt have a true #1 when they won the SB, Patriots havent had a #1 in awhile......most SB winners(or even the SB losers) in the last decade havent had a true #1.


So why is a true #1 needed again? It seems a good stable is more valuable than a true #1 in todays NFL. Id love to hear a legitimate explanation explaining differently.

While I will agree that a #1 is not needed to win a championship...having one certainly helps..

I highly disagree with a few of your examples.

Giants had a 1a. Nicks and 1b. Cruz. To say that Nicks is not a top tier legit #1 receiver..well that tells me that he must have slept with your sister..or ran over your dog..but yes..the Pats this year..no Legit #1
Greg Jennings was absolutely a #1 when they won it two years ago....and is still a top 10 WR
Mike Wallace was playing at a #1 receiver level and is now considered a top 10 receiver by many.
Yes, the saints had no top tier WR...but the Colts...Reggie Wayne..legit #1 that season.
The year before..both the Steelers and the Cards had legit #1s...Holmes and Fitzgerald
07...Same story..Plax #1...Moss #1.

Just because a receiver doesn't play at the other-worldly level that Megatron plays...doesn't mean they aren't a legit #1.

So. I think you are..for the most part...incorrect.

[tatmanfish]

Wallace wasnt a #1 then.

Giants have become like the Saints and Packers with a stable of good WRs and any given week any of their WRs shows up as a number 1, not necessarily the same guy week in and week out. Jennings has fallen in the Packers scheme with the emergence of other WRs and the abilities of Rodgers.

Holmes has had 1 good/great year, but Ive never seen him as  true #1.

Wayne and Fitzgerald are the two exceptions

Im waiting for you to explain differently as youve provided the examples that are begining to be shown as an exception. Todays NFL is proving a stable is more important that 1 good/great WR. Also, guys like Royal and Garcon are often the types of #2/3 WRs that take the top off of the defense and allow #1s to have greater success. The only other way is a top 5 QB. Freeman may get ther one day, but he is not right now.

[chace1986]

Wallace wasnt a #1 then.

Giants have become like the Saints and Packers with a stable of good WRs and any given week any of their WRs shows up as a number 1, not necessarily the same guy week in and week out. Jennings has fallen in the Packers scheme with the emergence of other WRs and the abilities of Rodgers.

Holmes has had 1 good/great year, but Ive never seen him as  true #1.

Wayne and Fitzgerald are the two exceptions

Im waiting for you to explain differently as youve provided the examples that are begining to be shown as an exception. Todays NFL is proving a stable is more important that 1 good/great WR. Also, guys like Royal and Garcon are often the types of #2/3 WRs that take the top off of the defense and allow #1s to have greater success. The only other way is a top 5 QB. Freeman may get ther one day, but he is not right now.

#1 receiver by your definition must need to be putting up HOF numbers to get that tag from you...

Wallace was definitely the #1 in 2010...because he followed up his ROY performance by solidifying himself as an excellent weapon for Ben R and he had pretty good #s to boot..
Plax and Moss were top 10 WRs in 2007..so add those two names to the exceptions.
Yes Greg Jennings is now in more of the stable Wr...but in 2011 he was a monster and carried that receiving core.

Overall...I agree with the "stable of WRs" is where things look to be headed...but to say teams with a bonafide #1 have had less success recently than the teans with a stable of wrs, is: 1. Not factual and 2. an attempt to modify history to fit your argument.
One thing I think can't be denied is that we need a guy brought in that is better than MW19...whether you want to call that WR a #1...is entirely up to you...at the end of the day..#1 WR is a label that is subjective so this who's is who isnt could go on forever.

[Dolorous Jason]

Eddie sucks Royally.

[xBuCsX_4_XeVax]

with a better OL and Freeman getting his crap together i think Benn can be a #1 WR cuz he has the physical tools and he has a full year under his belt

[Dolorous Jason]

with a better OL and Freeman getting his crap together i think Benn can be a #1 WR cuz he has the physical tools and he has a full year under his belt

Benn needs to get his crap together more so than Freeman. He can start by learning how to properly run routes.

[xBuCsX_4_XeVax]

with a better OL and Freeman getting his crap together i think Benn can be a #1 WR cuz he has the physical tools and he has a full year under his belt

Benn needs to get his crap together more so than Freeman. He can start by learning how to properly run routes.

ok even with him not running proper routes was still our best option at WR...and just like any other sport you have to get players involved so that they can play harder...so that they don't feel like they're running routes in vain

[xBuCsX_4_XeVax]

Freeman couldn't hit open targets all year long.. don't know if it was because of his thumb but whatever the situation was he was god awful

[Dolorous Jason]

Freeman couldn't hit open targets all year long.. don't know if it was because of his thumb but whatever the situation was he was god awful

Freeman did struggle with accuracy at times . It probably did have to do with his thumb , and his mechanics get sloppy sometimes ( Sullivan will fix that hopefully) .

 But there were also times when Wr's could not get open , or get any seperation , or stretch the field.  Then we would fall behind and Freeman would have to force the ball into those tight situations to try and make a play . It wasn't all his fault .

[BTownBucFan]

I'd prefer taking a chance on Royal to overpaying for Manningham.  Royal can be the deep ball threat the team is looking for.

agreed.

[ALong13]

I wouldn't mind bringing Royal in....Fast, reciever. Ran a 4.39 at the combine just a few years ago, is young, and in my opinion much better than manningham. If We can't get Garcon or Jackson...Royal would be okay with me.

[Bucfan40]

Eddie Royal can't catch.

[The Anti-Java]

Eddie Royal can't catch.

Besides being pretty fast, he is a good return guy also.

[chace1986]

Eddie Royal can't catch.

Besides being pretty fast, he is a good return guy also.

$3 mil a year...at most.