WikiProject American football (Rated Start-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject College football (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

## Attitude Problems

What's with the "Attitude Problems" section? At the very least, the name is absurd. Maybe this information belongs here, but certainly not under its own heading. I'm deleting this section until somebody sources it. Right now, it just goes back and forth between opinion and original research. --djrobgordon 05:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true. It's damn true.

I would opine a rating is imperfect if Rice doesn't come out CLEARLY on top. There are fewer factors applicable for a WR rating than the QB rating. I would propose the following rating formula which has 1.0 as its normalizing divisor ("perfect") for convenience.
${\displaystyle rating=k1*TG+k2*YG/100+k3*R/1000}$ where YG=yards per game, TG=TDs per game and R=receptions
k1,k2,k3=0.40,0.40,0.20 min. 100 games
Using the proposed rating on available stats gives the following (for some notable NFL receivers):
[1]

Examining the stats, the typical Hall of Fame receiver will exceed the following criteria:
catches>500, yards>8000, TDs>60, games>150 and rating>0.60. Often the HOF receiver has a HOF quarterback on the throwing end. The only eligible receivers listed above as of yet unselected (but all are nominees) who meet ALL criteria are Art Monk, Michael Irvin and Andre Reed. --Billymac00 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

## Hall of Fame

As of 2006, there are 17 modern era receivers elected to the Hall of Fame, alphabetically,
Alworth,Berry,Biletnikoff,Fears,Hirsch,Joiner,Largent,Lavelli,Lofton,Maynard,McDonald,Mitchell,Pihos,Stallworth,Swann,Taylor and Warfield.
Regarding potential members, there will be many strong candidates which may include in addition to the previous section names, M Harrison, R Moss, T Owens, and T Brown --Billymac00 22:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

## Culpepper's Contribution to Moss' Success.

Randy Moss didn't disappear after Daunte Culpepper left. As you recall, he had over 1000 yards receiving in Oakland.

Also, Randy Moss had previous successes with Jeff George, Randall Cunningham, Brad Johnson and even Gus Ferrotte of all people. Culpepper didn't make Moss. It's the other way around, Moss made Culpepper.

And Culpepper proved that during the 2005 season where he fumbled more times than he threw a touchdown.

## Importance to team

I have removed this section entirely, as the whole mess was WP:POV and WP:OR, and I considered it unsalvageable in present form. That said, I think there's a section to be written here. There's certainly plenty of football punditry out there to be cited. Going forward, however, I feel the goal should be to avoid citing Player-A-does-this wherever possible as that encourages fans of Team B to replace Player A with Player X, and Throw In the Comment about Player Z Who Really Sucks, which gets us right back to the mess I just removed. The only name-dropping I've left is Rice, as the most prolific NFL receiver, and Randal El/Ward as an example from a Super Bowl rather than Team A/Team B game of the week. Those are somewhat arbitrary decisions of notability on my part, but I think they're reasonable. — Lomn 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, trying to cite examples from the above list of modern-era HOF receivers might also be a good standard. — Lomn 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

## Glamour

"The wide receiver position is among the most glamorous in American football because wide receivers are often responsible for the biggest plays made by the offensive team." Who wrote this junk? Terrell Owens? It's more true that WRs are the player with the highest hype/value ratio on a football team. Anyway, i've removed this section as it's purely conjectural and essentially without value. rone (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

## What Two Players?

I notice: 'Since these two receivers begin play as the offensive players nearest the sidelines, they are referred to as "wide" receivers.' I am going to try this instead, since you don't have to have 2 AND ONLY 2 wide receivers in a formation (you could have 1 or none or even more than 2): 'The backs and ends who are relatively near the sidelines are referred to as "wide" receivers.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is in the 1st paragraph of the article. The sample formation in the diagram does have 2 and only 2 players who are wide receivers; there is also a tight end, and we see the QB and the other 2 backs lined up in "I" formation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

## The "lonesome end"?

I vaguely recall that term being used for split end (and this may go back a while, before some teams lined up a flanker-back just like a split end EXCEPT for being one step BACK OF the line of scrimmage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)