The Mythical #1 Receiver

I've never liked the #1 receiver term. I don't think there is a greater misnomer in football than the #1 receiver. Who started it? Why? It's never made sense to me, so it was probably the media. It's gained such traction that you even hear it from coaches and scouts now. You never hear runningbacks labeled as such. If there is no main back carrying the ball the majority of the time, you have the increasingly popular running back by committee. Not having a #1 back results in a scheme shift. Not having a #1 receiver is a fault. The team is supposedly lacking a critical component. This inconsistency is ridiculous. A strong passing game is fueled by a group of receivers, tight ends and backs too. One receiver can be taken out of a game. The New England Patriots won three Super Bowls without that #1 receiver. They had a bunch of guys that could make plays, and a QB that could find them. Tom Brady hadn't experienced that #1 type of receiver until Randy Moss. It wouldn't be fair of me to point out that situation brought no title, but I just did. The supposed #1 receiver typically fits an ideal. In today's NFL, that ideal is big and fast. Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Roddy White. Type casting any position to an ideal is a mistake. It rules out too many excellent football players. They come in far too many shapes, sizes and speeds. If a receiver can get open and catch the ball, he can make plays, get first downs, score touchdowns, win football games. It takes all the receivers getting open and catching the ball, a QB to get the ball to them, an offensive line giving the QB time, to make a passing game work. It's not a #1, it's a team that makes it all work.