NFL 2012 Receiving Corps Power Rankings

[BlueThunder]

If Vereen is healthy this season, I'd expect him to add a few yards to the Pats passing game, especially having Josh back as OC.

The above is just an opinion....

"Vereen has nice soft hands and shows a good ability to catch the ball. He caught 74 passes in his career at Cal, including 6 for touchdown. He adjusts to throws pretty cleanly, and doesn’t drop a lot of passes. He secures the ball well before making a move. Vereen ran quite an array of different routes at Cal, more than your typical back. He understands the passing game and will be effective right away in this area in the NFL. "

 

[patchick]

Again, I can see a valid argument for either corp if you add RBs as receivers. The Pats probably have the most improved receiving corp in the league or at least in the top three and they had arguably the second best receiving corp last year.

That's pretty much where I am. By the rules of the article, which didn't consider RBs as pass catchers, I'd rank the Patriots #1. They were probably #3 last year with bubkes at wideout; replace bubkes with Brandon Lloyd and Jabar Gaffney and they eke out a lead in the OIFL (Offseason Imaginary Football League). But factor in pass-catching RBs and the Saints take the crown. They're the best in the league in that department hands down, though I do predict more production in the passing game from the Pats backfield this year, with BJGE out and McDaniels in.

Once fall comes and the NFL replaces the OIFL, of course, lots could change for both teams. E.g. how will the coaching change and defensive suspensions affect the Saints' offense?

 

[Deus Irae]

But even if you're projecting "not quite what it's cracked up to be," that's still a projection! You can't just write in a zero for any player who wasn't with the team last year.

And I'm not doing that. It's not as if I'm saying that we can only rate the Patriots corps in the absence of Lloyd/Gaffney/Johnson/Stallworth. I'm simply saying that we can't assume, or even fairly argue, a leap over other great receiving groups at this time.

To give an example, we can actually look to Lloyd. Brady is on record as having said that he kept looking away from Lloyd because Lloyd wasn't open in his time window. When he went back and looked at the film, he found that Lloyd was, in fact, getting open on his routes, it was just not in the same speed/manner that Brady was looking for. So, how do we determine that will mesh well? I think it's a great sign, and I've said so. But, what if it becomes Chad Johnson part 2, and we never get past hearing about how close they are?

The way I figure it, even a "not quite what it's cracked up to be" for Lloyd + Gaffney should be a major step up from the 2011 offering of injured-Branch + Ocho.

I agree, and I think time will tell, but there are too many unknowns right now to be ranking them over the Saints and Packers, IMO. If the Patriots are running 2/2/1 all the time, for example, the only significant difference is going to be Lloyd.

 

[Deus Irae]

You can't be serious about the learning playbook thing being garbage.

Of course I can, and history shows it. The playbook is talked about as being difficult, and by players in the league, so I'm not saying it's not. That's not what you're arguing, though. I've asked this question before. So far, nobody's found a single example:

Give examples of a WR who thrived before getting to NE (BB era), struggled with the playbook in NE, and then went on to thrive elsewhere in the league.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

NFL 2012: Receiving Corps Power Rankings | Football Nation




Interesting where Pittsburg is #4 on this list. SF is ranked above NYG and Lions, and that the power team rankings that are out, are not more reflective of WR core stats.
Seeing that QB ratings are all the rage.

Prime Numbers: the stats that win and lose NFL games
Prime Numbers: the stats that win and lose NFL games | Football Nation

Love the new term being used "pass catchers". Seen that used here before as well. Seems appropriate to the new age of football.

Thanks pherein.

patsfaninpittsburgh wasn't Edgar Cayce in a past life...but did consider staying at a Holiday Inn this past week while on business.

 

[Rob0729]

Of course I can, and history shows it. The playbook is talked about as being difficult, and by players in the league, so I'm not saying it's not. That's not what you're arguing, though. I've asked this question before. So far, nobody's found a single example:

Give examples of a WR who thrived before getting to NE (BB era), struggled with the playbook in NE, and then went on to thrive elsewhere in the league.

Talk about rigging the system. That isn't exactly a fair question. Many of the veterans who failed in this system never played for another team after the Pats like Donald Hayes and Joey Galloway. Bethel Johnson arguably had his best year with the Vikings after he left, but he still sucked with the Vikes. Ochocinco could prove you wrong this year.

The problem with your theory is that many of the players regardless the system after they leave the Pats for poor play never play again in the league -see Adalius Thomas and Shawn Springs. Many teams feel that if a player can't fit in with Brady and Belichick, they cannot fit in anywhere.

But who said that is the only standard you can use to prove that many WRs struggle with the playbook. Donald Hayes came out and said he did. It was clear that Ochocinco had problems with the playbook, but he still had the talent level. Joey Galloway was cut because Brady and Belichick were frustrated that Galloway wasn't putting in the effort to learn the plays.

The fact of the matter is that the Patriots strategy of taking older and unheralded free agents works against the free agents that work out. They basically become poison to a lot of teams and many never get another chance. It happens with a lot of other teams too.

 

[Frezo]

All of the Saints WR are under 30 except one who is 30.
The Pats have 5 WR that are over 30.
So this means that the Pats will be better because they have more experience.
Or...
The Saints will be better because they are less likely to be injured and will recover faster if they are.
It's all POV.

Projections are amusing, but only accurate in a very general sense.
Of course I'm totally biased towards the Pats and project them to be amazing.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I see the Pats and Saints as 1a and 1b. Kinda like a Ferrari and a Lambo.

 

[Deus Irae]

Talk about rigging the system. That isn't exactly a fair question. Many of the veterans who failed in this system never played for another team after the Pats like Donald Hayes and Joey Galloway. Bethel Johnson arguably had his best year with the Vikings after he left, but he still sucked with the Vikes. Ochocinco could prove you wrong this year.

The problem with your theory is that many of the players regardless the system after they leave the Pats for poor play never play again in the league -see Adalius Thomas and Shawn Springs. Many teams feel that if a player can't fit in with Brady and Belichick, they cannot fit in anywhere.

But who said that is the only standard you can use to prove that many WRs struggle with the playbook. Donald Hayes came out and said he did. It was clear that Ochocinco had problems with the playbook, but he still had the talent level. Joey Galloway was cut because Brady and Belichick were frustrated that Galloway wasn't putting in the effort to learn the plays.

The fact of the matter is that the Patriots strategy of taking older and unheralded free agents works against the free agents that work out. They basically become poison to a lot of teams and many never get another chance. It happens with a lot of other teams too.

I'm not rigging the system at all. You made a claim. I'm asking you to back it up with examples. You've come up with none. Also:

Galloway played after the Patriots, Rob (10 games, 4 starts, 12 catches with the Redskins in 2010).

Bethel started with the Patriots, so he clearly doesn't apply since there's no 'control' element of pre-Patriots time.

The number of examples remains at "0". Johnson seems poised to become the first, and the reports are that he struggled with 'the playbook' with the Bungles, too, but they worked around it, so this isn't something that's exclusive to Mr. Johnson's time with the Patriots.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Go ahead and count sproles.


1. Welker
2. Gronkowski
3. Hernandez
4. Lloyd
5. Gaffney

vs.

1. Graham
2. Sproles
3. Colston
4. Moore
5. Henderson

Here's my biased look at it.

Welker is a better #1 WR than Colston.
Lloyd is a better #2 WR than Moore.
Gronkowski is a better #1 TE than Graham.
Gaffney is a better #3 WR/5th option than Henderson.

Than it's Hernandez vs. Sproles, take your pick.

The stats back that up too.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm not rigging the system at all. You made a claim. I'm asking you to back it up with examples. You've come up with none. Also:

Galloway played after the Patriots, Rob (10 games, 4 starts, 12 catches with the Redskins in 2010).

Bethel started with the Patriots, so he clearly doesn't apply since there's no 'control' element of pre-Patriots time.

The number of examples remains at "0". Johnson seems poised to become the first, and the reports are that he struggled with 'the playbook' with the Bungles, too, but they worked around it, so this isn't something that's exclusive to Mr. Johnson's time with the Patriots.

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]

Same here. And there's no way that I'd put San Fran above the Giants and Lions.

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]

I wouldn't.

First as I stated, based on standard NFL groupings, RBs are not part of a receiving corp.

Second, where does it end? We will have to count Woodhead and Ridley as receivers too. They both caught passes last year. You have to then add any RB who caught a ball last year or is capable of catching a ball this year. You can't use a subjective rule that one RB is part of a receiving corp because he caught X number of balls or gained Y number of yards. Then the rankings because even more arbitrary than you and Deus think.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Rob0729]

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.

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]

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.

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

I am power ranking NFL receiving units, but running backs are not part of my grading criteria. It just would have made the rankings too difficult to sort out.

If I did mention really good receiving running backs in my descriptions, it just didn’t factor into the actual rankings.

Tight ends did carry significant weight in my rankings, however. This certainly muddied the water as far as sorting the teams, but it makes more sense to analyze all receivers rather than just emphasizing wide receivers.

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.

 

[pherein]

Gaffney is a better #3 WR/5th option than Henderson.

.

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.

 

[BSR]

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?

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.