Rob0729

I stand corrected on Galloway. I still don't see this as a valid proof that the reason why some WRs fail here aren't because of the playbook and inability to read defenses. Even players like Hayes and Ochocinco have admitted as much.

There are plenty of reasons why a player can be good one place, fail the next, and never recover. Look at Eugene Wilson, the guy lost his nerve after a couple of injuries and was never the same player again because he lost his edge. Maybe the same thing happened to many of the WRs who failed here since most WRs are head cases to begin with. Without knowing the entire situation after they leave here, it is possible to say that since no WR performed well elsewhere it means that no WR failed here because they couldn't learn the system.

patsfaninpittsburgh

Yup

Agrees with the disagreement the Douche has with the author.

There can be no better confirmation that the article is 100% correct.

Send that author a Mensa membership.....NOW!!!

patfanken

I don't understand the vehemence of the argument over the subtle distinctions between the Pats receiver corps and the other top receiving teams. Does it really matter if the Pats have the best receiver corps or 2nd best, or the third, etc. Its not going to add a single W to our total. What really matters is that the Pats have ONE of the better receiver groups in the league, and when you add a competent RB group, plus an elite QB, you have the makings of an offensive juggernaut. Not the only one, but a juggernaut nevertheless.

BSR

Where does it end? It ends with players that aren't catching balls as receivers. I'm really not sure what the argument is. I think the only reason that RBs weren't considered is that RBs like Sproles aren't the norm and for most teams the pass catching RB isn't going to change the corps' ranking.

I am also not sure why you say they are not part of a receiving corp in most NFL groupings. Its not like the RB comes off the field on most passing plays. Typically they will either block, run a receiving pattern or block then run a receiving pattern, similar to a TE. They are part of a QBs progressions.

patsfaninpittsburgh

RB's are in the "passing game".

WR's and TE's are in the "recieving corps". As the pherein pointed out, kudos to the author to expand this with the TE's....because these two groups now tend to go out for passes exclusively and have overlapped 'receiving" responsibilities

TE's and WR's can be considered separate because they tend to not get the ball handed to them in the backfield.

Should an article on the offensive line now include WR's because they can also block?

BTW, like the author did mention Sproles.

Deus Irae

Hayes and Johnson have not admitted that. You're taking what's been said and extrapolating from it. Again, there is not one instance of a receiver being good before coming to the Patriots, "struggling with the playbook" in New England, and then moving on elsewhere and becoming good again. There are, however, instance of players who improved significantly upon arriving in New England. Do we just assume that was because the playbook was so easy that they had an extra jump on the opposition?

Of course not.

The bottom line is that not once has it happened because of the playbook, despite your claim that the playbook has been a barrier.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

Rob0729

By NFL definitions, the only positions that are part of the "receiving corp" are WRs and TEs. This is the way it has been since the beginning of the NFL. I don't get why people don't get that. What is considered the "receiving corp" in football is a position not a function. A RB can be a receiver, but by the strict definition of a receiving corp, he is never part of it.

As for saying Sproles is not the norm, of course he isn't. He is easily the best all purpose back in the league right now. But how many catches does a RB have to have to be considered part of the receiving corp? One? 50? 30? 10? If you say 30 is the cut off, does that mean a RB who catches 29 balls isn't considered part of the receiving corp. Basically, either RBs as a whole are part of the receiving corp or they aren't. When you start saying Sproles is and say Ridley isn't, you just start to put an arbitrary value on what is considered an receiving corp.

Deus Irae

The author's justification for not including the RBs is instructive, I think:

He's acknowledging the flaw in his system at the beginning. I don't buy the excuse about it making things too difficult, but we see that he's not using the "RBs aren't part of a receiving unit" argument. It's just another layer to judge, nothing more. Sproles/Thomas v. RBa/RBb and added into the TE/WR grading numbers, etc... So, really, it's either a laziness issue or an agenda being played out. I chose agenda based upon how it conveniently guts a team at the top like the Saints. Others may choose laziness.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

pherein

Im fixated on this. For one Henderson jersey cost more than Gaffney's which should make him the clear winner.

Other than that Henderson is 4.35 speed, deep threat that everyone forgets about. I like Hendersons Y/R 18.2 and Y/G 37.6 over Gaffney's. If I had to draft one I think Id pick Henderson, because he has a clear singular deep threat role, and can out run most CB's or safeties, great hands, and the secondary has to account for his speed. Thats just me though.

__________________
Time to make the DOMENuts!!!!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BSR

Where are you getting this definition for receiving corps? RBs are eligible receivers and have specific routes they need to run in passing downs. There is no sensible reason to exclude them from the receiving corp, especially those RBs like Sproles which are an equal receiving threat and running threat. Sproles had the 7th most catches in the league last year and more then any TE not named Gronk. It makes absolutely zero sense to exclude them.

And you wouldn't consider WR's blocking when assessing an oline but it would be pretty stupid to not consider them or the TE when assessing a team's overall ability to run block.