NFL 2012 Receiving Corps Power Rankings

[Rob0729]

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:



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!:



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.

I admit I didn't see that post. Your original posts that I posted seemed pretty clear you don't seem to want to even entertain the argument.

But even in this post, you state you are willing to accept people will make that argument, but you didn't say you were willing to actually accept that argument with any validity. Acknowledging that people will make that argument and actually accepting that that argument has any credibility are two different things.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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

That's where I think that you maybe, sorta come close to saying what Rob's accusing you of. In a more measured and fair way than he seems to be claiming, but the core argument is there.

When you say that you can't put the Patriots group ahead of any unit that finished above it last year, that's an implicit statement that you're unwilling to project improvement, or that what you're offering here isn't a projection at all. I don't have a problem with that, but it is what you're arguing.

Do you think that any of the other offenses in question made meaningful improvements to their passing games? In fact, given that they all lost their top offensive coaches (I consider Payton the de facto OC for New Orleans- just look at how badly the offense tanked when he was out with that freak knee injury last year), would you agree that it's reasonable to even project them to struggle a bit?

Also, on a completely unrelated topic that I haven't weighed in yet, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would try to evaluate these offenses, the Saints' in particular, without taking RB into account. You might as well evaluate the Pats' attack while arbitrarily ignoring Hernandez.

 

[Rob0729]

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.

I don't know. Just because WRs have washed out after leaving here, doesn't mean that they didn't struggle to learn the playbook. In fact, even the successful WRs who left here have not done much on other teams. See David Givens even before his injuries, David Patten (although he did have one good year with the Redskins three years after leaving the Pats), Reche Caldwell, etc.

There have been plenty of examples of players struggling to learn the playbook in this offense. A lot of them washed out of the league after leaving here for whatever reason. One reason could be that their confidence was shattered here for at least some of the younger players.

But even so, this team has gotten a lot of production out of broken or not very gifted WRs who could pick up the system. I would put Troy Brown his last few years in that former category. Deion Branch last year. Reche Caldwell.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's where I think that you maybe, sorta come close to saying what Rob's accusing you of. In a more measured and fair way than he seems to be claiming, but the core argument is there.

When you say that you can't put the Patriots group ahead of any unit that finished above it last year, that's an implicit statement that you're unwilling to project improvement, or that what you're offering here isn't a projection at all. I don't have a problem with that, but it is what you're arguing.

I was really clear with what I was saying:

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.

It's not much different from "they are the champs until someone beats them". I don't generally hold with that for entire teams, because there's always so much turnover. In this case, though, the Packers have remained essentially the same, the Saints changed just one receiver, and the Patriots are adding in the most unknowns. So, the two "better" squads have just one change between them, and we're not talking about major systemic changes.

Do you think that any of the other offenses in question made meaningful improvements to their passing games? In fact, given that they all lost their top offensive coaches (I consider Payton the de facto OC for New Orleans- just look at how badly the offense tanked when he was out with that freak knee injury last year), would you agree that it's reasonable to even project them to struggle a bit?

I think it's reasonable to project that the Saints offense has to replace one of its receivers. I think it's reasonable to say that Peyton's absence means a question mark, but not reasonable to assume that means the offense will struggle as a result of his absence.

Also, on a completely unrelated topic that I haven't weighed in yet, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would try to evaluate these offenses, the Saints' in particular, without taking RB into account. You might as well evaluate the Pats' attack while arbitrarily ignoring Hernandez.

People want to defend the article because it has a pro-Patriots take. Pointing out the absence of the RBs both weakens the argument for the rankings (RBs for Saints are huge in that team's passing game) and undercuts the article's foundation in general.

If this article was flipped around, with the Saints or Packers being the Patriots and some other team being the Patriots, the same people who are defending the article would be trashing it.

 

[Rob0729]

People want to defend the article because it has a pro-Patriots take. Pointing out the absence of the RBs both weakens the argument for the rankings (RBs for Saints are huge in that team's passing game) and undercuts the article's foundation in general.

I hope you aren't talking about me. I am defending it because I believe the truest term of receiving corp is WRs and TEs and that you can make a good case the Pats are the best even if you factor in the RBs. I have long been on the record that things like these rankings, power polls, and preseason predictions are basically useless and should only be used as entertainment only.

The author was breaking down position grouping and not the entire receiving game. If you ever go to training camp practice and the team breaks into position groupings, the WRs and TEs go in one area and the RBs go in another area. There is a clear divide between the two groups.

Also, the author did acknowledge that Sproles was a huge part of the Saints' passing game.

Again, I think there is good argument to say the Pats are the best receiving corp no matter how you define what a receiving corp is. But then again, I thought this time last year that Cam Newton was going to be a bust, defenses would be far better than offenses last year, the Packers would beat the Ravens in the Super Bowl, and that Miami would give the Pats the biggest challenge for the division last year. As I say, all this preseason stuff is more for entertainment purposes than anything else.

 

[Deus Irae]

I hope you aren't talking about me. I am defending it because I believe the truest term of receiving corp is WRs and TEs and that you can make a good case the Pats are the best even if you factor in the RBs. I have long been on the record that things like these rankings, power polls, and preseason predictions are basically useless and should only be used as entertainment only.

The author was breaking down position grouping and not the entire receiving game. If you ever go to training camp practice and the team breaks into position groupings, the WRs and TEs go in one area and the RBs go in another area. There is a clear divide between the two groups.

Also, the author did acknowledge that Sproles was a huge part of the Saints' passing game.

Again, I think there is good argument to say the Pats are the best receiving corp no matter how you define what a receiving corp is. But then again, I thought this time last year that Cam Newton was going to be a bust, defenses would be far better than offenses last year, the Packers would beat the Ravens in the Super Bowl, and that Miami would give the Pats the biggest challenge for the division last year. As I say, all this preseason stuff is more for entertainment purposes than anything else.

1.) It was a generality, not a specific, although I expect that you'd fall into the general category.

2.) And again, the author doesn't give the contextually nonsensical attempt at dismissing the RBs. He notes:

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.

 

[Sivy]

Pats have the best wr Corp in the league hands down

 

[Deus Irae]

Pats have the best wr Corp in the league hands down

Given that your position is that Welker is the game's best WR, I think I'll pass on the opportunity to find your position persuasive.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I was really clear with what I was saying:



It's not much different from "they are the champs until someone beats them". I don't generally hold with that for entire teams, because there's always so much turnover. In this case, though, the Packers have remained essentially the same, the Saints changed just one receiver, and the Patriots are adding in the most unknowns. So, the two "better" squads have just one change between them, and we're not talking about major systemic changes.



I think it's reasonable to project that the Saints offense has to replace one of its receivers. I think it's reasonable to say that Peyton's absence means a question mark, but not reasonable to assume that means the offense will struggle as a result of his absence.



People want to defend the article because it has a pro-Patriots take. Pointing out the absence of the RBs both weakens the argument for the rankings (RBs for Saints are huge in that team's passing game) and undercuts the article's foundation in general.

If this article was flipped around, with the Saints or Packers being the Patriots and some other team being the Patriots, the same people who are defending the article would be trashing it.

I don't really care about that one way or the other. In fact, the way in which I'm most disagreeing with the article benefits the Saints mostly. I understand why the author chose not to include RBs, but I pretty fundamentally disagree with it. Leaving the RBs out may make the comparison easier, but it also makes it basically meaningless, because you're not actually evaluating the Saints' receiving corps if you're evaluating it without Sproles.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't know. Just because WRs have washed out after leaving here, doesn't mean that they didn't struggle to learn the playbook. In fact, even the successful WRs who left here have not done much on other teams. See David Givens even before his injuries, David Patten (although he did have one good year with the Redskins three years after leaving the Pats), Reche Caldwell, etc.

There have been plenty of examples of players struggling to learn the playbook in this offense. A lot of them washed out of the league after leaving here for whatever reason. One reason could be that their confidence was shattered here for at least some of the younger players.

But even so, this team has gotten a lot of production out of broken or not very gifted WRs who could pick up the system. I would put Troy Brown his last few years in that former category. Deion Branch last year. Reche Caldwell.

But that's exactly the point. If they continued to suck after they went to a team with a simpler playbook, then blaming the playbook makes no sense. It's possible that it's at fault, and it's also possible that Belichick puts a voodoo curse on all of his departing wide receivers to ensure that they never make him look bad by succeeding elsewhere. In other words, it's no more plausible than about 100 other possibilities, and less plausible than most of them. In every case where a player didn't recover after leaving, the simplest and most likely explanation is that he just wasn't very good. If Ochocinco does well in Miami (and I think he may), he will be the first data point that legitimately supports your theory.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't really care about that one way or the other. In fact, the way in which I'm most disagreeing with the article benefits the Saints mostly. I understand why the author chose not to include RBs, but I pretty fundamentally disagree with it. Leaving the RBs out may make the comparison easier, but it also makes it basically meaningless, because you're not actually evaluating the Saints' receiving corps if you're evaluating it without Sproles.

Yeah, I don't consider you one of those who immediately jump to the defense but, rather, one of those who takes the time to think positions out first. I should probably have been clearer on that part of my post, so my apologies.

 

[goheels22002]

The takeaway for me from the receiving corps power rankings is what we should expect from the Pats' passing defense in 2012-13. The AFC East ran #1 Patriots, #28 Jets, #29 Bills, and #32 Dolphins.

If you include Denver at #26 and St. Louis at #30, the Patriots pass defense gets 50% of their games against five of the seven worst receiving corps in the NFL.

The schedule is actually easier than that for the pass defense when you consider that they get the Colts, the Seahawks and Jacksonville who don't have quarterbacks to go along with sub-par receivers.

The only teams on the schedule that should ring up some yards and points through the air are Houston, San Francisco and Arizona. Hmm. Anybody think those NFC West teams can keep up with the Patriots offense?

If the Pats don't rank in the top ten in every defensive passing category, they suck. We're not talking Air Coryell here. Belichick ought to really throw the gauntlet down to the pass rushers and the DBs.

P.S. Ochocinco was not included in Miami's last-place ranking which might have lowered their score if there were more teams in the league.

 

[Rob0729]

But that's exactly the point. If they continued to suck after they went to a team with a simpler playbook, then blaming the playbook makes no sense. It's possible that it's at fault, but no more possible than about 100 other possibilities, and less plausible than most of them. In every case where a player didn't recover after leaving, the simplest and most likely explanation is that he just wasn't very good. If Ochocinco does well in Miami (and I think he will), he will be the first data point that legitimately supports your theory.

My theory is a proven fact. There are plenty data points proving that certain players could never learn the playbook. That is indisputable because Scott Pioli, Donald Hayes, and Ochocinco admitted that. It is generally accepted that Galloway was cut because he refuse to put the effort into learning the playbook (similar allegations were thrown at Chad Jackson and Doug Gabriel). Now I never said it was the sole reason why they failed other than maybe Ochocinco.

The reason why this is even being discussed is because Deus compared Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth to Ochocinco. I said that you can't compare them because unlike Ochocinco they actually know the playbook and are successful in the system. Even the Pats believe that Ocho's failures were due to him not knowing the playbook and not a talent issue.

All these other guys are only relevant in the fact that they all struggled to grasp the playbook. Whether talent was a problem too is not relevant to my point. My point is that Ochocinco was an unknown in this system before coming in and proved to be a wrong fit because he couldn't learn the playbook and Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth won't have that issue. I used the other guys as documented proof of other guys who struggled with the playbook not proof that WRs only fail here because of the playbook.

I think Ochocinco failed here because he couldn't learn the playbook. The fact he couldn't learn the playbook at this point is fact. We will see this year if he has anything left (I bet he does although he is probably an average WR at this point). I never said that other players failed here exclusively because of the playbook. I just said other players struggled with the playbook and it was a contributor for the failure.

 

[Rob0729]

1.) It was a generality, not a specific, although I expect that you'd fall into the general category.

2.) And again, the author doesn't give the contextually nonsensical attempt at dismissing the RBs. He notes:

And funny I think you fall into the automatic contrarian category.

I am well documented of calling all these types of preseason predictions/rankings BS whether they are overly glowing about the Patriots or not. If he had the Pats in last place, I wouldn't change my position on what I consider WRs and TEs are the acceptable terms of a receiving corp.

Personally, when you say you generally said this and not to a specific person, you mean you directed it specifically at me and one or two others. But you are pretending to be the bigger man by alluding to us than calling us out by name.

BTW, feel free to block my posts at any time like you did last year.

 

[Deus Irae]

And funny I think you fall into the automatic contrarian category.

I am well documented of calling all these types of preseason predictions/rankings BS whether they are overly glowing about the Patriots or not. If he had the Pats in last place, I wouldn't change my position on what I consider WRs and TEs are the acceptable terms of a receiving corp.

Personally, when you say you generally said this and not to a specific person, you mean you directed it specifically at me and one or two others. But you are pretending to be the bigger man by alluding to us than calling us out by name.

BTW, feel free to block my posts at any time like you did last year.

1.) I'm not pretending anything. I noted that it was general, and I noted that it would probably apply to you. Unbunch your panties.

2.) I'll probably end up putting you back on ignore eventually. Your arguments haven't gotten better or less homerish, so you'll eventually post something ridiculous enough that you'll end up back on the list. However, watching you here has been high entertainment, as you're claiming that a theory you've had, which has been completely debunked, is a proven fact. That's worth the read.

3.) Once again, since you seem intent on demonstrating that you are in the general group I was talking about, the author isn't relying on your argument about the RBs, therefore it doesn't apply in a discussion about the article and why he didn't include the RBs.

4.) I tried keeping this civil. You've chosen to go another direction. Remember that when you try claiming that others are the posters starting things and not yourself. Also, you should feel free to put me on ignore rather than waiting for me to put you there. It's not a one way function, and I certainly won't miss out on many honest and balanced responses if you're not replying to my posts.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Agreed. However, I feel Gaffney is being overlooked here. I know he will be our #5th option, but he was 25th in receiving yards and 23rd in receptions for WRs, with 68 receptions for 947 yards. (With Grossman at QB) He's improved alot since he left here with his time in Denver and Wahington. He pretty much put up lower end WR1 stats and he's going to be our WR3/5th option. I'd take him over Moore, Henderson, Jones, and Driver, I'd still take Branch over Driver.

This is true, but I look at it like if Gaffney were to be on the Patriots or Packers last season what his production would be like, and it wouldn't be 947 yards. I know, it's tough to discredit the stats and I hate to do it but in this case, I'm using Gaff's last couple seasons here for reference when he was the 3rd or 4th option. Regardless, it's probably safest to call him and Driver a wash, or minimal edge either way as the 5th option.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

OK, let's take a broader look at this. Everybody seems to agree that NO, GB and NE have the three best QBs, in some order. And everybody seems to agree that NO, GB and NE have the three best receiving corps, in some order.

Pure coincidence? Obviously not. Compare Darren Sproles' numbers with the Chargers vs. the Saints, for instance. But surely players like Gronkowski, Graham, Jennings et al would have been successful anywhere, no? Those three teams have done a great job of surrounding their elite quarterbacks with elite talent.

So here's a question: Last year, 3 different NFL teams compiled outrageous passing numbers. The standard response was to lay this at the feet of rules changes which have favored the offense. How much of it was that, and how much was just that in terms of talent collection, we essentially had 3 versions of the 2004 Colts?

That's a tough one. I'm going to take the easy way and say it's a combination of both But probably leaning towards greatness of the 3 QB's and their supporting casts. I will say that ever since the rule changes after 2003, we've had just 3 super bowl winners out of 8 that you can honestly say passing was their clear strength ('06 Colts, '10 Packers, '09 Saints), and the '06 Colts won their playoff games with defense and running while Manning was horrible aside from the 2nd half of AFCC. So despite the rule changes, we are still seeing that defenses nowadays can thrive in the biggest moments. The 3 offenses being discussed in this thread would probably have success in any era IMO.

 

[Rob0729]

1.) I'm not pretending anything. I noted that it was general, and I noted that it would probably apply to you. Unbunch your panties.

2.) I'll probably end up putting you back on ignore eventually. Your arguments haven't gotten better or less homerish, so you'll eventually post something ridiculous enough that you'll end up back on the list. However, watching you here has been high entertainment, as you're claiming that a theory you've had, which has been completely debunked, is a proven fact. That's worth the read.

3.) Once again, since you seem intent on demonstrating that you are in the general group I was talking about, the author isn't relying on your argument about the RBs, therefore it doesn't apply in a discussion about the article and why he didn't include the RBs.

4.) I tried keeping this civil. You've chosen to go another direction. Remember that when you try claiming that others are the posters starting things and not yourself. Also, you should feel free to put me on ignore rather than waiting for me to put you there. It's not a one way function, and I certainly won't miss out on many honest and balanced responses if you're not replying to my posts.

Ok, Mr. I am too full of myself that I talk down to everyone and can never admit I am wrong, your passive aggressive and condescending posts set a lot people off, not just me. And then you act like victim.

Please let me speak for everyone and thank you for showing us how ignorant we are and how you view football is the only way to view football.

As for adding you to my ignore list, I don't use that thing. You are the one who likes to announce who you are adding to that list and how it is an one year "punishment". As if we are punished that you ignore us and don't post contrarian posts about everything we post.

 

[BradyFTW!]

My theory is a proven fact. There are plenty data points proving that certain players could never learn the playbook. That is indisputable because Scott Pioli, Donald Hayes, and Ochocinco admitted that. It is generally accepted that Galloway was cut because he refuse to put the effort into learning the playbook (similar allegations were thrown at Chad Jackson and Doug Gabriel). Now I never said it was the sole reason why they failed other than maybe Ochocinco.

The reason why this is even being discussed is because Deus compared Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth to Ochocinco. I said that you can't compare them because unlike Ochocinco they actually know the playbook and are successful in the system. Even the Pats believe that Ocho's failures were due to him not knowing the playbook and not a talent issue.

All these other guys are only relevant in the fact that they all struggled to grasp the playbook. Whether talent was a problem too is not relevant to my point. My point is that Ochocinco was an unknown in this system before coming in and proved to be a wrong fit because he couldn't learn the playbook and Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth won't have that issue. I used the other guys as documented proof of other guys who struggled with the playbook not proof that WRs only fail here because of the playbook.

I think Ochocinco failed here because he couldn't learn the playbook. The fact he couldn't learn the playbook at this point is fact. We will see this year if he has anything left (I bet he does although he is probably an average WR at this point). I never said that other players failed here exclusively because of the playbook. I just said other players struggled with the playbook and it was a contributor for the failure.

The fact is that there have been players who have struggled with the playbook. Of course there have been. Your presumption is that it contributed meaningfully to their failure, and there's virtually no evidence of that. Every WR that you cited failed to make anything resembling an impact in the NFL after leaving New England, which indicates pretty strongly that none of them were NFL-caliber football players. That is the reason why they failed, no other contribution necessary.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ok, Mr. I am too full of myself that I talk down to everyone and can never admit I am wrong, your passive aggressive and condescending posts set a lot people off, not just me. And then you act like victim.

First, you jumped on my post with the disagreement, not the other way around, which makes you the "contrarian" in this two person discussion. Second, I'm not playing any kind of victim.

Please let me speak for everyone and thank you for showing us how ignorant we are and how you view football is the only way to view football.

You're calling me passive aggressive and you're the one posting this crap. Irony noted. As for ignorance, some people here are obviously more knowledgeable than others, but the general difference between people here isn't knowledge as much as it is application of that knowledge.

As for adding you to my ignore list, I don't use that thing. You are the one who likes to announce who you are adding to that list and how it is an one year "punishment". As if we are punished that you ignore us and don't post contrarian posts about everything we post.

Actually, I "announce" it not as a punishment, but so it's understood why I don't respond to that person afterwards. I take people off the ignore because people change.

So, if you have a valid take on the thread subject, I'll be happy to deal with it. If you've got nothing more than this nonsense, or the silliness of the "No RBs" and "Playbook" arguments, there's really nothing more to be discussed in this thread.