NFL 2012 Receiving Corps Power Rankings

[pherein]

NFL 2012: Receiving Corps Power Rankings | Football Nation

1. New England Patriots (A+)
The Patriots head into 2012 with a receiving corps that is head and shoulders above all others in the NFL.

Not only do the Patriots have the best slot receiver in the league in Wes Welker and arguably the most dangerous tight end in Rob Gronkowski, they also have incredible depth. Perhaps the best way to understand their depth is just to consider out that they had to cut Chad Ochocinco. He’s not the player he once was, but there are very few teams out there that would cut him after taking a chance on him.

The Patriots had one of the toughest wideout groups to sort through in terms of who will be cut and who will stick around for the regular season. I really couldn’t narrow it down past six receivers, and I think it’s feasible that they head into the season with that number.

Even if Donte’ Stallworth and Deion Branch don’t contribute on special teams as much as Bill Belichick would normally look for out of his fourth and fifth wide receivers, I can’t see either of these players being cut.


The Patriots probably had the best receivers in football before the addition of Brandon Lloyd. Adding him was just overkill.

Wide Receivers
1. Wes Welker A+
2. Brandon Lloyd B+
3. Jabar Gaffney B-
4. Deion Branch C+
5. Donte’ Stallworth C+
6. Julian Edelman C-

Tight Ends
1. Rob Gronkowski A+
2. Aaron Hernandez B+
3. Daniel Fells D

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

I wish those ranking were true. Maybe they will be by the end of the year.


There's no way I'd put the Patriots above the Saints or Packers right now, though, just to look at the next two teams on the list.

 

[Salva135]

These ratings/rankings are pretty awful. That said, the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins are ranked 28, 29, and 32, respectively.

 

[Rob0729]

I wish those ranking were true. Maybe they will be by the end of the year.


There's no way I'd put the Patriots above the Saints or Packers right now, though, just to look at the next two teams on the list.

I disagree. We are talking about receiving corp which excludes one of the best Saints receivers in Darren Sproles because he is a RB. The Pats' receiving corp is definitely better than the Saints' receiving corp without Sproles.

 

[patchick]

I wish those ranking were true. Maybe they will be by the end of the year.


There's no way I'd put the Patriots above the Saints or Packers right now, though, just to look at the next two teams on the list.

The Packers have a tremendous WR corps, but unless you accept Jermichael Finley's self-image, the Patriots have a legitimate claim to the top spot. They have two legitimate difference-makers in Welker and Gronk, and Lloyd and Hernandez are impressive as #3 and 4 options.

(Obviously, Lloyd's impact is yet to be seen, but I think it's a lot more reasonable to project from available evidence than to pretend he's not on the roster, or to just use last year's roster -- as the author clearly did in listing Jake Ballard as the Giants' #1 TE. )

 

[Deus Irae]

I disagree. We are talking about receiving corp which excludes one of the best Saints receivers in Darren Sproles because he is a RB. The Pats' receiving corp is definitely better than the Saints' receiving corp without Sproles.

First, I think we can admit that the author rigged the game by excluding the RBs. Second, you're right. We disagree.

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, and I'd even be tempted to lower the group in the face of other competition that's remained together. There are too many variables, as the Chad Johnson experiment should have taught us all.

Or, to put it in a way that's more Patfans.com specific, last year, people were talking about Welker being redundant because of the TEs (I disagreed, for the record), yet this year we shouldn't think about how all the new players will work together?

Further, that line

The Patriots probably had the best receivers in football before the addition of Brandon Lloyd. Adding him was just overkill.

was really, really stupid, and demonstrates why we should be ignoring this article for the trash it is.

 

[Rob0729]

First, I think we can admit that the author rigged the game by excluding the RBs. Second, you're right. We disagree.

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, and I'd even be tempted to lower the group in the face of other competition that's remained together. There are too many variables, as the Chad Johnson experiment should have taught us all.

Or, to put it in a way that's more Patfans.com specific, last year, people were talking about Welker being redundant because of the TEs (I disagreed, for the record), yet this year we shouldn't think about how all the new players will work together?

Further, that line



was really, really stupid, and demonstrates why we should be ignoring this article for the trash it is.

I don't think he rigged the game. RBs are not part of a receiving corp. Never will be even if you have an excellent receiving RB. Any team's receiving corp only consists of two groups - WRs and TEs.

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.

Lastly, I don't think the Ochocinco comparisons to Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth is valid. Ochocinco failed because he couldn't grasp the Pats' system and read defenses. We know for a fact that Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth all know the Pats' system intimately and can read defenses. Ochocinco failed because the Pats misjudge whether he would be able to grasp the Pats' system, not because his skills eroded. There is not a single receiver on the roster right now where the Pats have that worry.

 

[patchick]

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, and I'd even be tempted to lower the group in the face of other competition that's remained together. There are too many variables, as the Chad Johnson experiment should have taught us all.

I can't get on board with that approach, because it creates a consistent bias of undervaluing teams that made additions. This is a PROJECTION, which requires making some guesses about the future. Given all available information, we can reasonably expect the Patriots' slot receiver, TE & H-back positions to be among the very best in the league, and their top two wideout slots to be at least respectable out of the group of Lloyd, Gaffney, Branch and Stallworth.

That said, I agree with you that leaving out RBs creates another kind of unacceptable bias, underrating offenses like NO's. But the Patriots' backfield stacks up pretty well there, too; Woodhead is no Sproles, but he's in the next tier.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't think he rigged the game. RBs are not part of a receiving corp. Never will be even if you have an excellent receiving RB. Any team's receiving corp only consists of two groups - WRs and TEs.

Of course he rigged the game. He took 86 catches out of the argument in the case of Sproles, and another 50 in the case of Thomas. That's 136 catches getting pulled out of the Saints passing game, right there.

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.

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

Lastly, I don't think the Ochocinco comparisons to Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth is valid. Ochocinco failed because he couldn't grasp the Pats' system and read defenses. We know for a fact that Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth all know the Pats' system intimately and can read defenses. Ochocinco failed because the Pats misjudge whether he would be able to grasp the Pats' system, not because his skills eroded. There is not a single receiver on the roster right now where the Pats have that worry.

Johnson failed. The reason is irrelevant to the point being made.

 

[TyronePoole]

There isn't a GM in the league that wouldn't trade their receiving corps in a heartbeat for Gronk, Welker, Hernandez, Lloyd, Gaffney etc.

It's not really even close

 

[BSR]

I agree with Deus that Sproles should be counted as a receiver. It seems silly not to count one of the biggest weapons in the passing game as a receiver. In that offense, he is a receiver.

 

[Deus Irae]

I can't get on board with that approach, because it creates a consistent bias of undervaluing teams that made additions. This is a PROJECTION, which requires making some guesses about the future. Given all available information, we can reasonably expect the Patriots' slot receiver, TE & H-back positions to be among the very best in the league, and their top two wideout slots to be at least respectable out of the group of Lloyd, Gaffney, Branch and Stallworth.

I don't think undervaluing. I think it's acknowledging that there's really no fair way we can project with such a significant turnover in the cast, because neither Lloyd nor Gaffney is a Randy Moss in his prime or some stiff who's barely in the league. 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.

That said, I agree with you that leaving out RBs creates another kind of unacceptable bias, underrating offenses like NO's. But the Patriots' backfield stacks up pretty well there, too; Woodhead is no Sproles, but he's in the next tier.

Woodhead's catch numbers in his 3 years: 8, 34, 18. I love the potential of the little guy, and I was calling him the team's best RB in 2010, but let's not go crazy here. He's not shown himself to be on a tier even with Thomas, nevermind with Sproles.

 

[Rob0729]

Of course he rigged the game. He took 86 catches out of the argument in the case of Sproles, and another 50 in the case of Thomas. That's 136 catches getting pulled out of the Saints passing game, right there.

So when he ranks the RBs they must exclude him. He can't be a RB if he is a receiver. Facts are facts. The receiving corp consist of only WR and TEs. When you group them, that is how it is grouped.

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

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).

Johnson failed. The reason is irrelevant to the point being made.

Seriously?!? Johnson failed because of the one factor that has plagued WRs who have come to NE forever - the complexity of the playbook. Players like Donald Hayes, Doug Gabriel, Joey Galloway, etc. have all failed in the Pats' system because they couldn't get the playbook. It is a common theme with WRs who fail in NE. That makes the reason why very relevant.

We know for a fact that this issue will not be a factor with Lloyd, Stallworth, or Gaffney. None of these guys are particularly that old that age is a factor. We know pretty much what we are going to get from these guys unlike with Ochocinco.

 

[Deus Irae]

So when he ranks the RBs they must exclude him. He can't be a RB if he is a receiver. Facts are facts. The receiving corp consist of only WR and TEs. When you group them, that is how it is grouped.

Nonsense

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).

Yes, seriously.

Seriously?!? Johnson failed because of the one factor that has plagued WRs who have come to NE forever - the complexity of the playbook. Players like Donald Hayes, Doug Gabriel, Joey Galloway, etc. have all failed in the Pats' system because they couldn't get the playbook. It is a common theme with WRs who fail in NE. That makes the reason why very relevant.

We know for a fact that this issue will not be a factor with Lloyd, Stallworth, or Gaffney. None of these guys are particularly that old that age is a factor. We know pretty much what we are going to get from these guys unlike with Ochocinco.

Again, yes, seriously, and the playbook thing has been debunked already. If Johnson goes on to good success after failing to "get the playbook" in New England, he'll be the very first WR in the league to have done it.

 

[Rob0729]

I agree with Deus that Sproles should be counted as a receiver. It seems silly not to count one of the biggest weapons in the passing game as a receiver. In that offense, he is a receiver.

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.

 

[patchick]

I don't think undervaluing. I think it's acknowledging that there's really no fair way we can project with such a significant turnover in the cast, because neither Lloyd nor Gaffney is a Randy Moss in his prime or some stiff who's barely in the league. 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.

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.

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.

 

[Rob0729]

Nonsense



Yes, seriously.



Again, yes, seriously, and the playbook thing has been debunked already. If Johnson goes on to good success after failing to "get the playbook" in New England, he'll be the very first WR in the league to have done it.

You can't be serious about the learning playbook thing being garbage. In the Super Bowl, did Deion Branch have to tell Ochocinco where to line up because Ochocinco lost a step or that he didn't know where he was supposed to line up on that play? In fact, the Patriots have said they feel that Ochocinco has a lot of talent, but he couldn't learn the system. Or how about when Brady had to chew Joey Galloway out on the sidelines of a game because he couldn't make the proper adjustments. It isn't just the playbook it is the adjustment for the presnap reads and knowing the play adjustments based on that.

If you want to argue that guys like Ochocinco, Donald Hayes (who admitted that his problems had to do with him not being able to grasp the playbooks), Galloway, etc. failed because they didn't know the playbook or understand how to read the defense and make the adjustments, it doesn't matter. It is a common theme among failed veteran WRs in New England and something we don't have to worry about with the current crop of receivers.

 

[Kontradiction]

I wish those ranking were true. Maybe they will be by the end of the year.


There's no way I'd put the Patriots above the Saints or Packers right now, though, just to look at the next two teams on the list.

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

 

[Rob0729]

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.

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.

Yeah, based on that logic about half the teams in the league get an incomplete and they can realistically rank about 12 teams who pretty much have their entire receiving corp in tact. All these preseason rankings are based on past history of players and what people expect out of these players all season.

Last year there wasn't a huge difference between the Pats' and Saints' receiving corps. The Pats were more top heavy and the Saints had more quality depth. The Saints were definitely better, but not worlds better. This offseason the Pats improved the top of the roster (Lloyd over Ochocinco or actually Branch who was WR #2) and improved the depth (Galloway over Ochocinco, Branch or Stallworth over whoever the #4 WR that week was). The Saints' receiving corp is virtually the same other than they lost Robert Meachum.

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.

 

[Rob0729]

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

I would agree with you about San Fran. I don't know how you could give Moss a B- grade at this point. The last time he played, he was awful.