NFL 2012 Receiving Corps Power Rankings

[BSR]

patfaninpittsburgh is having trouble understanding this continual display of clueless.

You seem hell bent on re-reverse contradicting yourself.

Let's recap.

An article is posted on an individual's opinion of the NFL "receiving corps".

The author defines "receiving corps" as WR's/TE's.

The author ranks New Orleans second but acknowledges the importance of Sproles but doesn't include him in the rankings because RB's are part of the author's "receiving corps" criteria.

Numbnuts naturally hiijacks the thread whining about RB's being excluded.
Had the author included RB's...the same "contrarian" would have hiijacked the thread complaing RB's should be excluded.

You have both whined about RB's being excluded and are whining to patsfaninpittsburgh that RB's are included.

Reread the bold paragraph to understand the concept of the article.

Amazing that someone could directly contradict themselves and be even more wrong.

BTW, did it ever occurr to you that utilizing a RB likes Sproles is essential because the author defined "receiving corps" isn't as good?

Bottom line: You have no argument to those that say RBs should be included in the discussion so you throw a tantrum claiming that the subject is off topic. The reality is that it is very much on topic because the point questions the thoroughness and completeness of the authors analysis. If you disagree, go find a mod and ask them to intervene. Otherwise, stop acting childish attacking other forum members and try to put forth a cogent argument as to why RBs shouldn't be included in the definition of Receiving Corps when they traditionally have.

 

[JJDChE]

Lloyd nearly had 1,000 yards last year (966 yards to be exact) even though he didn't play one game and spent the first month in Denver with no real QB. Also, although only playing 11 games in St. Louis, he led the team in receptions by 9 receptions, yards by 252 yards, and TDs by 3 TDs over the second place guy in each category. Don't forget that 6 of the games he played for St. Louis that he had either AJ Feeley or Kellen Clemmens throwing to him. Sam Bradford was already injured by the time Lloyd got to St. Louis and they didn't even play together until Lloyd's third game as a Ram. So he actually had a pretty good year last year considering the talent he had around him.

The last two years, Lloyd has played very well for McDaniels. Last year wasn't the elite WR year of the year before, but it was outstanding when you consider he was having the likes of Feeley, Clemmens, and Kyle Orton throwing to him most of the year. And when Bradford actually played with Lloyd, he was a shell of himself because of injuries.

If he has a similar season as last year, this receiving corp at worst is top three. Especially if Gaffney turns into a solid #3 WR. I expect Lloyd to be better than last year because he was constrained by having some horrible QBs throwing to him. He might not make a huge increase in numbers from last year, but he will make a big difference on the field. He is going to force safeties to play deeps and open up the center of the field. Something that was missing last year. Even if his numbers are down, he will open things up for guys like Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez to make more plays.

Lloyd was the unquestioned #1 option in both offenses he played on last year. He was getting the ball forced in to him because there were virtually no other options, especially in St. Louis. Here, he'll rarely be Brady's first option. Our 2nd TE out produced him last year.

Look, I'm probably as big a Brandon Lloyd fan as there is out there. I've drafted him in FFB way ahead of where he should be more times than I'd like to admit, but it's a bit of a stretch at this point to assume that he'll even match last year's numbers. He's going from having no competition for balls to having 3 top tier receiving threats to compete with.

Of course, being a Lloyd fan, I believe if he develops a chemistry with Brady that he can surpass his 2010 production and make this, probably, the most potent offense ever fielded. Having Gronk, Welker, Hernandez and 2010 Lloyd all lined up out there will give NFL DCs convulsions.

Kind of interesting analysis I did. The number below is the average Y/G of the top 5 receiving threats (including RBs) for the team's listed. New England comes out ahead, regardless of Lloyd being in the mix. I would have guessed the spread would be that high. Maybe the writer has a point.

Tm Y/G
new 71.44 w/Lloyd, 62.24 w/Ocho
nor 58.3
nyg 56.9
gb 53.46
det 52.4
sdg 52.3
dal 51.68
atl 50.5
phi 48.86
pit 46.98
ari 28.94

 

[Rob0729]

Lloyd was the unquestioned #1 option in both offenses he played on last year. He was getting the ball forced in to him because there were virtually no other options, especially in St. Louis. Here, he'll rarely be Brady's first option. Our 2nd TE out produced him last year.

Look, I'm probably as big a Brandon Lloyd fan as there is out there. I've drafted him in FFB way ahead of where he should be more times than I'd like to admit, but it's a bit of a stretch at this point to assume that he'll even match last year's numbers. He's going from having no competition for balls to having 3 top tier receiving threats to compete with.

Of course, being a Lloyd fan, I believe if he develops a chemistry with Brady that he can surpass his 2010 production and make this, probably, the most potent offense ever fielded. Having Gronk, Welker, Hernandez and 2010 Lloyd all lined up out there will give NFL DCs convulsions.

Your original premise was that Lloyd would have to have a 1,400 yard season for this receiving corp to be considered the top or even a top 5 receiving corp. Even though both Welker (2) and Gronk (6) were in the top 6 in receiving yards (in fact the Pats were the only team with two receivers in the top 10). Even though Hernandez had 910 yards himself. In fact, I think the Pats were the only team to have three receivers in the top 30 in terms of yards.

If Lloyd can reproduce last year's production of around 950-1,000 yards without much of a drop off from Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez; this receiving corp is easily in the top 3 and probably the best receiving corp in the NFL. The Pats already have two other receivers capable of putting up the numbers Lloyd put up in 2010. They don't need Lloyd to do that.

Lloyd is going to improve this offense in many ways. The Pats have a legitimate outside/deep threat which will stop defenses from crowding the center of the field. That means Lloyd can put up rather average numbers for the starting outside threat and still make this receiving corp one of the best or the best.

As for last year, yes he was the unquestioned #1 option last year, but your premise was that he wasn't all that good. My premise is that he played 15 games last year and only 5 or so of them with a starting quality QB and even then he was a shell of himself because of injuries. I think if he had the 2010 version of Kyle Orton throwing to him with McDaniels calling the offense in Denver last year or a healthy Sam Bradford, his numbers would have been far closer to 2010 last year.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Bottom line: You have no argument to those that say RBs should be included in the discussion so you throw a tantrum claiming that the subject is off topic. The reality is that it is very much on topic because the point questions the thoroughness and completeness of the authors analysis. If you disagree, go find a mod and ask them to intervene. Otherwise, stop acting childish attacking other forum members and try to put forth a cogent argument as to why RBs shouldn't be included in the definition of Receiving Corps when they traditionally have.

LOL

Logic from a gal who complains RB's are excluded and included.

Real posting genius.

Obviously an appeal to intelligence has zero hope.

How about simple human courtesy?

If an article is posted, discuss within the contents of the article. If you want to have different content....write an article and have it posted.

Not that anyone would have any interest but it's a start.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Your original premise was that Lloyd would have to have a 1,400 yard season for this receiving corp to be considered the top or even a top 5 receiving corp. Even though both Welker (2) and Gronk (6) were in the top 6 in receiving yards (in fact the Pats were the only team with two receivers in the top 10). Even though Hernandez had 910 yards himself. In fact, I think the Pats were the only team to have three receivers in the top 30 in terms of yards.

If Lloyd can reproduce last year's production of around 950-1,000 yards without much of a drop off from Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez; this receiving corp is easily in the top 3 and probably the best receiving corp in the NFL. The Pats already have two other receivers capable of putting up the numbers Lloyd put up in 2010. They don't need Lloyd to do that.

Lloyd is going to improve this offense in many ways. The Pats have a legitimate outside/deep threat which will stop defenses from crowding the center of the field. That means Lloyd can put up rather average numbers for the starting outside threat and still make this receiving corp one of the best or the best.

As for last year, yes he was the unquestioned #1 option last year, but your premise was that he wasn't all that good. My premise is that he played 15 games last year and only 5 or so of them with a starting quality QB and even then he was a shell of himself because of injuries. I think if he had the 2010 version of Kyle Orton throwing to him with McDaniels calling the offense in Denver last year or a healthy Sam Bradford, his numbers would have been far closer to 2010 last year.

The addition of Lloyd is multiplication by addition. If Stallworth sticks, it's even more.

Based on current formatting, what exactly is the known defense that would counter the talent in this offense?

The 2012 offense could attack at every level, sideline to sideline, with endless varying personnel and formations, at breakneck spead.

 

[Rob0729]

Additionally, even if we granted that the playbook was an insurmountable barrier for some guys... so what? There's no shortage of receivers who can come in and pick up the offense right away, so the drawbacks aren't huge. Provided that there are a lot of benefits to running an offense with so many WR reads (and I think that there are, especially when you have a QB like Brady), these benefits surely outweigh the drawbacks.

At most, we're looking at a couple of guys over the course of a decade who couldn't figure the playbook out. OTOH, there have been plenty of guys like Givens, Branch, Welker, Moss, Gaffney, etc., who have demonstrated the ability to step in and get the job done in their first season with the team. It's an overstated problem, to say the least.

There has been more than a couple of guys who failed to pick up the playbook (I count Ocho, Hayes, Galloway, Gabriel, Jackson, and Price off the top of my head but there are probably a bunch lesser ones that I can't remember or weren't as well publicized), but there are plenty of intelligent WRs with great football smarts who pick up the playbook with no problem.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm just not going to buy that this group is better than the other elites until I see it on the field.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I also think it is a reasonable opinion to have. Where you go off the reservation is when you say adamantly that no one can make a legitimate point that this team is the best receiving corp with or without RBs included in the discussion.

Whether you agree with it or not, there is a strong case to be made that the Pats do have the best receiving corp in the NFL even with RBs. That doesn't change the fact that there are one or two other teams that a just a strong of case could made for them.

At this point it is all speculation and educated guessing. Just like preseason predictions, it is all just theory and conjecture. For all we know, the Jets could end up having the best receiving corp in the NFL (ok, maybe not the Jets).

 

[BSR]

LOL

Logic from a gal who complains RB's are excluded and included.

Real posting genius.

Obviously an appeal to intelligence has zero hope.

How about simple human courtesy?

If an article is posted, discuss within the contents of the article. If you want to have different content....write an article and have it posted.

Not that anyone would have any interest but it's a start.

Again you resort to pointless name calling because you don't have any counterargument. There is no obligation to conform to obviously incomplete definitions set by the author. This is not a matter of posting etiquette. Debating whether or not RBs should be included in the definition is on topic as the author even puts forth the the question himself. Sorry if that upsets you, although I can't understand why you are taking it so personally.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Lloyd was the unquestioned #1 option in both offenses he played on last year. He was getting the ball forced in to him because there were virtually no other options, especially in St. Louis. Here, he'll rarely be Brady's first option. Our 2nd TE out produced him last year.

That argument works both ways IMO for Lloyd and Gaffney. Sure, they were the main target out there so they got the most looks, but that also means they were facing other team's #1 CBs, and sometimes double teamed. Lloyd is going to make #2 CBs look like fools in single coverage.

 

[Rob0729]

That argument works both ways IMO for Lloyd and Gaffney. Sure, they were the main target out there so they got the most looks, but that also means they were facing other team's #1 CBs, and sometimes double teamed. Lloyd is going to make #2 CBs look like fools in single coverage.

There may be times Lloyd faces the opposing team's #3 CB with the #1 on Welker and the the #2 on Gronk or Hernandez. Gaffney is gonna go from the #1 or #2 CB last year to the #3 or #4 this year.

I think Lloyd would do much better against a Cromartie (especially since Cromartie struggles against route runners) than a Revis.

 

[patsinthesnow]

There may be times Lloyd faces the opposing team's #3 CB with the #1 on Welker and the the #2 on Gronk or Hernandez. Gaffney is gonna go from the #1 or #2 CB last year to the #3 or #4 this year.

I think Lloyd would do much better against a Cromartie (especially since Cromartie struggles against route runners) than a Revis.

Agreed and that's why I can't wait to see this offense in action. Cromartie even struggled with Branch from time to time, there is no way he can cover a much better WR and route runner in Lloyd.

Also to the Gaffney point, thats why if we go spread in some games I could see him having a solid impact , something like 5-6 catches 80 yards 1 TD, teams might forget to cover him with four other studs on the field.

 

[patsfan13]

Let's put it this way....

In a year where Tom Brady threw for over 5,000 yards, the Patriots still finished more than 250 yards behind the Saints in total passing yardage.

"But what about average per pass, where the Patriots were actually better than the Saints? What about that, huh?"

Brees of course plays most of his games in domes and most of his outdoor games are in warm weather sites, Brady plays very few games in domes and has a good number of 'bad' weather games each year worth 300 yards easy, same for A Rogers BTW.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

There may be times Lloyd faces the opposing team's #3 CB with the #1 on Welker and the the #2 on Gronk or Hernandez. Gaffney is gonna go from the #1 or #2 CB last year to the #3 or #4 this year.

I think Lloyd would do much better against a Cromartie (especially since Cromartie struggles against route runners) than a Revis.

In the end, the reality is what team will have 4/5/6/7 "pass defenders" that can cover 5 Pats skill position players and get a pass rush and defend the run?

In the end, it will probably be arbitary because the only real hope will be to try and confuse TB. It would seem to be very specious to adopt a "set piece" defensive strategy.

The one stat that will be interesting in the percentage of drives that end in scoring and TD's.

 

[Salva135]

In the end, the reality is what team will have 4/5/6/7 "pass defenders" that can cover 5 Pats skill position players and get a pass rush and defend the run?

In the end, it will probably be arbitary because the only real hope will be to try and confuse TB. It would seem to be very specious to adopt a "set piece" defensive strategy.

The one stat that will be interesting in the percentage of drives that end in scoring and TD's.

Well, technically, the best hope is to deliver a crazy pass rush up the middle. The Pats could have 100 WRs and spread 50 wide on each side and it won't matter if JPP gets up in Brady's grill in time. It's the solution to any offense the Pats put on the field.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Well, technically, the best hope is to deliver a crazy pass rush up the middle. The Pats could have 100 WRs and spread 50 wide on each side and it won't matter if JPP gets up in Brady's grill in time. It's the solution to any offense the Pats put on the field.

If an opposing team gets a pass rush ofcourse.

The problem is:

A healthy Gronk and the Patriots win SB XLVI by a healthy 2-3 scores. In the end, not having your most important weapon by definition means the offense will not be as good.

That just seems to always need to be overlooked.

What people (those fixated by "pass rushers") seem to wontanly ignore is the offense was minus 2 inturnovers, gave up 2 points, was effectively missing it's most important weapon, and still should have won going away but for an inexplicable, unforced breakdown of simple execution.

If this offense evolves as possible, the elevation of proficiency and the inherent redundancy will make JPP a footnote.

 

[Rob0729]

Well, technically, the best hope is to deliver a crazy pass rush up the middle. The Pats could have 100 WRs and spread 50 wide on each side and it won't matter if JPP gets up in Brady's grill in time. It's the solution to any offense the Pats put on the field.

That's where the addition of Lloyd and possibly Stallworth really help the Pats. Last year and the year before, teams could bring the house a lot easier because they weren't concerned about protecting the outside lanes or deep. They didn't have keep a safety over the top much allowing them to free up an extra rusher on certain downs.

This year they are going to have to keep a safety or two deep (if both Lloyd and Stallworth are on the field). That means that that either Welker or Gronk are likely to get a much more favorable mismatch when Brady has to dump the ball quickly on a pass rush.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I also think it is a reasonable opinion to have. Where you go off the reservation is when you say adamantly that no one can make a legitimate point that this team is the best receiving corp with or without RBs included in the discussion.

Whether you agree with it or not, there is a strong case to be made that the Pats do have the best receiving corp in the NFL even with RBs. That doesn't change the fact that there are one or two other teams that a just a strong of case could made for them.

At this point it is all speculation and educated guessing. Just like preseason predictions, it is all just theory and conjecture. For all we know, the Jets could end up having the best receiving corp in the NFL (ok, maybe not the Jets).

1.) I repeatedly made it a point of noting that it was my take:

There's no way I'd put the Patriots above the Saints or Packers right now

Until I see this Patriots group in action, there's no way I can put it above any team that was above it last year

I love the signings, and I love the potential. I just acknowledge that it might not be quite what it's cracked up to be.

The closest I came to your "you say adamantly" claim is this:

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.

So I haven't gone off the rails, as you put it. You're putting up a strawman with that.

 

[Rob0729]

1.) I repeatedly made it a point of noting that it was my take:







The closest I came to your "you say adamantly" claim is this:



So I haven't gone off the rails, as you put it. You're putting up a strawman with that.

Look at post #9. You responded to my post of:

Also, even with Sproles you can make a good argument for the Pats' receiving corp being better than the Saints especially with the Pats adding Lloyd and Gaffney and the Saints losing Meachum.

and you responded:

No, you can't, because you're still ignoring Thomas.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ing-corps-power-rankings-chf.html#post3065900

And the I responded:

Seriously?!? Brees passed for about 250 more yards and seven more TDs than Brady last season. The Pats' receivers are significantly better than last year and the Saints' receiving corp is slightly worse with or without the RBs. So you don't think that replacing Ochocinco with Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth gives you any realistic argument that the Pats' receiving corp has made the jump to overtake the Saints' receiving corp? C'mon. That is ridiculous. I think you can make a strong argument for either corp if you go by your standards and count the RBs (don't forget that Addai has proven himself to be a pretty good receiving RB and Woodhead has proven to be a pretty good one).

Which you responded:

Yes, seriously.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...rps-power-rankings-chf-page2.html#post3065912

So I stand by my original post that you adamantly said there is no way to make an argument that the Pats' receiving corp is better than the Saints.

 

[Deus Irae]

Look at post #9. You responded to my post of:



and you responded:



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ing-corps-power-rankings-chf.html#post3065900

And the I responded:



Which you responded:



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...rps-power-rankings-chf-page2.html#post3065912

Yes, and they have nothing to do with the strawman you created. The first quote notes that you've ignored another 50 catches (Thomas) while making your claim.

The second one is asking me about my take on something you asked:

So you don't think that replacing Ochocinco with Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth gives you any realistic argument that the Pats' receiving corp has made the jump to overtake the Saints' receiving corp?

I answered it simply, and without confrontation. I've actually taken precisely the opposite approach from what you're claiming, as demonstrated in my response to BradyFTW!:

...While I'm certainly mindful of the significance of the Patriots having 5 900+ yards receivers and a 700 yards receiver on the roster all in the very next season, I just can't put the Patriots above that until I see it on the field, because The Saints and Packers have stayed relatively intact and we're looking at truly elite offensive groupings here. If others want to preach on about the Patriots group a bit earlier than myself, that's their call and I understand it even if I don't agree with it...

Meanwhile, you were cracking out the "That's ridiculous", when it's clearly not ridiculous given the position I'm taking about, which is simply not being able to jump them over a couple of really elite offenses without seeing it on the field.

In other words, the only one saying anything "adamantly" about the other side is you.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There has been more than a couple of guys who failed to pick up the playbook (I count Ocho, Hayes, Galloway, Gabriel, Jackson, and Price off the top of my head but there are probably a bunch lesser ones that I can't remember or weren't as well publicized), but there are plenty of intelligent WRs with great football smarts who pick up the playbook with no problem.

Galloway had a grant total of 12 receptions for 173 yards after leaving New England- his problem, first and foremost, was that he wasn't any good. Likewise, after being cut by the Patriots, Gabriel's career totals were 5 receptions for 84 yards. He, also, wasn't a good football player.

With Price and Jackson, what makes you inclined to assign their failure to their inability to grasp the playbook? I thought Jackson actually did fairly well as a rookie, right up until he tore his ACL. Once that happened, he just couldn't cut it at the professional level anymore, as evidenced by his one career reception (and one career fumble) after leaving the Pats. With Price, who knows, but he has done nothing to indicate that he belongs in the NFL. We'll just have to wait and see.

Ocho was the first meaningful example that I've seen of a player who clearly still had the athleticism to do the job, but simply lacked the intellect to grasp the offense. There probably were others, and there may be others again in the future, but again: does it really matter? Do you think that this negative is worse than all of the positives that this particular passing offense brings to the table? Is the opportunity cost of not being able to use a guy like Ochocinco great enough that the Pats should consider dumbing down their offense? I don't think that it is.