Oooooh. This should be fun.
I think our receivers are pretty overrated on these boards. If 50 means average for a starter
, than Branch should be thought of as 50-60. Almost every team in the NFL has at least one receiver better than him, and many have two. He obviously benefits a lot from a rapport for Brady. If 50 were average for a player rather than a starter, then yeah, maybe 70 would be about right.
As for Welker, maybe he was a 90 when he was playing his best ball in 2009, but now? Going into 2011, I think there's at least 10 receivers I'd be significantly more confident in, and then 10 more that are about equal. Solely off his play last year, he'd be about a 60. I think he'll be better, so for me, that puts him around 70-80. Good, but nowhere near top tier.
Ocho... at his best, he would have been a 90 maybe. I'm hoping he can be a 70 type receiver for us. There's very little to go off. I guess he performed better than could be expected last year given his situation.
I think I'll split up my thoughts thusly:
90s: Wilfork, McCourty (for real), Vollmer (for RT), Mankins
80s: Haynesworth, Mayo, Gronk
70s: Welker, Chung, Merriweather, Bodden, Wright, Ochocinco, Hernandez, Light
60s: Spikes, Cunningham, Branch, Koppen, Connolly
I kind of look at it like this: 90s is All-Pro, top 5 type player. 80s is someone who should make some pro bowls. 70s is a good player, someone who will make a couple pro bowls with some luck or if the team overperforms. 60s is someone you don't have have qualms with being on the field. 50s is someone you'd rather replace. Anything below is an obvious weakness, someone who's going to hurt you if they're a starter.