• SPORTS
    AND
    GAMING
  • Welcome Guest!
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
  • Sports & Gaming Moderators: ghostfreak

the best wide receiver corp. in all of football?

alasdairm

alasdairm

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
68,708
Location
south lake tahoe, ca
hi

let's try to put this to bed once and for all. axl blaze made the claim that the pittsburgh steelers "WR corp looks like the best in the NFL".

if we define "wr corp" as the top 6 receivers on the team (i chose 6 because it adds enough extra players to even out a team with 1 or 2 exceptional receivers but manages the diminishing return of the stat. drop-off on most teams after 6 players in such a category).

if we agree that the two most important things a receiver can do is add yards (improving field position, setting up redzone and goal-line plays for running backs and setting up field goals) and score touchdowns, we'll look only at those two categories.

i selected the 12 teams currently in the nfl playoffs and calculated the total yards and total touchdowns for the top 6 receivers on each team. the standings for each - yards and touchdowns - are as follows:

Patriots 4943
Saints 4913
Lions 4456
Packers 4434
Giants 4292
Falcons 3995
Steelers 3838
Ravens 3448
Bengals 3168
Texans 3125
49ers 2545
Broncos 1989

the steelers are 7th in yards.

Packers 46
Saints 42
Patriots 39
Lions 37
Falcons 26
Giants 26
Ravens 21
Bengals 20
Texans 18
Steelers 18
Broncos 18
49ers 17

the steelers are 9th in touchdowns.

i averaged out the positions in each table for each team and the order is:

Patriots 2
Saints 2
Packers 2.5
Lions 3.5
Falcons 5.5
Giants 5.5
Ravens 7.5
Bengals 8.5
Steelers 8.5
Texans 9.5
49ers 11.5
Broncos 11.5

the steelers are joint 7th in football for yards and touchdowns. i propose that the suggestion that the steelers have the best wr corp in football is laughable - the saints, packers and patriots blow them out of the water completely. the lions, falcons and giants beat them handsomely. three teams scored twice as many receiving touchdowns as the steelers!

what's that you say? you shouldn't include tight ends in the receiving corp. because that gives your hated patriots an unfair advantage? ok, i ran the numbers without including figures for tight ends in the calculation (the position was filled by the next best wr on the team).

when i do that, in yards the steelers rise to 5th place, in touchdowns the steelers rise to 6th place and their average standing rises one place to 6th overall.

so let's put it to bed - the steelers have the 6th best wr corp in football. on that we can agree :)

alasdair
 
While I agree that the Steelers are definately not the best WR corp in football, I have to agree with axl that stats are not everything.

Game situation is a big part of playcalling. If you are ahead in a game you will run the ball more and your talented WR's will be sitting on the sidelines. So its logical that teams with bad defenses will have WR's that accumulate more stats. You can also have the case of great WR's with bad QB's that dont get them the ball (Larry Fitzgerald).

I think the best way to judge WR's is the "eye test" an other non cumulative stats. How impressive do they look on average when the ball is thrown their way? What % of the time do they catch the ball? Whats their average yards after chatch? Do they compete with DB's for bad passes that would have been interceptions?

All these things are relevant and aren't necessarily reflected in their stats. Off the top of my head ill list some units that are candidates for best in football.

NYG- Nicks, Cruz and Manningham are all good receivers. Nicks has especially good hands and Cruz is a yards after catch monster.

Falcons- Roddy White, Julio Jones, Tony Gonzalez. All three are bona-fide super-stars. Jones might be the best playmaker on the team with his impressive althetic ability and youth.

Packers- Jennings, Jones, Nelson and are all high % reception receivers. FInley is a good tight end who has had a disappointing year overall. It definitely helps that they have a great QB.

Saints- Another unit made better by their great QB. There are so many viable receiving weapons on this team its silly.

Patriots- Hernandez, Gronkowski, Welker. You can argue that their "receiving corp" is bad because 2 of their top 3 options are tight ends, but in reality the league is showing a major shift towards using tight ends these days. They create big matchup issues and can make big plays after the catch. Also great in the redzone. I think we will see more teams using multiple receiving tight ends going forward.

That is probably all the top tier units IMO, although i might be forgetting some.
 
Care said:
Game situation is a big part of playcalling. If you are ahead in a game you will run the ball more and your talented WR's will be sitting on the sidelines. So its logical that teams with bad defenses will have WR's that accumulate more stats. You can also have the case of great WR's with bad QB's that dont get them the ball (Larry Fitzgerald).

I think the best way to judge WR's is the "eye test" an other non cumulative stats. How impressive do they look on average when the ball is thrown their way? What % of the time do they catch the ball? Whats their average yards after chatch? Do they compete with DB's for bad passes that would have been interceptions?
Click to expand...
i know hypotheticals rarely help advance a discussion but how do these 'intangibles' or soft skills you describe impact a game in a meaningful way?

i know that if i was managing an nfl franchise, i wouldn't give two shits if a receiver looked inelegant or poor (or whatever negative you choose) on average when the ball is thrown their way if he's racking up 1500 yards and 15 touchdowns in a season...
Care said:
NYG- Nicks, Cruz and Manningham are all good receivers. Nicks has especially good hands and Cruz is a yards after catch monster.

Falcons- Roddy White, Julio Jones, Tony Gonzalez. All three are bona-fide super-stars. Jones might be the best playmaker on the team with his impressive althetic ability and youth.

Packers- Jennings, Jones, Nelson and are all high % reception receivers. FInley is a good tight end who has had a disappointing year overall. It definitely helps that they have a great QB.

Saints- Another unit made better by their great QB. There are so many viable receiving weapons on this team its silly.

Patriots- Hernandez, Gronkowski, Welker. You can argue that their "receiving corp" is bad because 2 of their top 3 options are tight ends, but in reality the league is showing a major shift towards using tight ends these days. They create big matchup issues and can make big plays after the catch. Also great in the redzone. I think we will see more teams using multiple receiving tight ends going forward.

That is probably all the top tier units IMO, although i might be forgetting some.
Click to expand...
the stats i gave above pretty much agree completely with what you say here.

so, you feel the steelers have about the 6th best wr corp in football. again, that agrees with my analysis.

thanks for the considered reply.

alasdair
 
This thread could get messy! Why bother with the yards and tds lists you posted if they include TE's? The patriot seem very high on those list

Patriots scored 15 WRs receving TDs. Calvin Johnson scored more TDs than Patriots whole WR corp.
 
For the sake of the title of the thread, im still going with the Packers. They are clearly the best, the numbers they put are ridculous as yes mainly cos of Rodgers. 37 TD's from 4 guys is incredible
 
suburu said:
This thread could get messy! Why bother with the yards and tds lists you posted if they include TE's? The patriot seem very high on those list
Click to expand...
alasdairm said:
what's that you say? you shouldn't include tight ends in the receiving corp. because that gives your hated patriots an unfair advantage? ok, i ran the numbers without including figures for tight ends in the calculation (the position was filled by the next best wr on the team).

when i do that, in yards the steelers rise to 5th place, in touchdowns the steelers rise to 6th place and their average standing rises one place to 6th overall.
Click to expand...
:\
suburu said:
where do the patriots end up overall out of interest?
Click to expand...
removing the te position, the patriots drop from 1st to 7th in yards, from 3rd to 9th in touchdowns and from joint 1st to 8th overall.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
i know hypotheticals rarely help advance a discussion but how do these 'intangibles' or soft skills you describe impact a game in a meaningful way?

i know that if i was managing an nfl franchise, i wouldn't give two shits if a receiver looked inelegant or poor (or whatever negative you choose) on average when the ball is thrown their way if he's racking up 1500 yards and 15 touchdowns in a season...
the stats i gave above pretty much agree completely with what you say here.
Click to expand...

If said receiver is only catching 30% of the balls thrown their way then they are hurting the team more than helping, regardless of accumulating high overall numbers in a season.

An "impressive looking" receiver will make plays that other receivers aren't capable of making, which leads to less incompletions and more first downs or 2nd/3rd and manageable.
 
Care said:
If said receiver is only catching 30% of the balls thrown their way then they are hurting the team more than helping, regardless of accumulating high overall numbers in a season.
Click to expand...
while i agree that i'd rather coach a receiver who catches 10 of 10 for 100 yards and a touchdown, his net impact on the game from a results point of view is exactly the same as a receiver who catches 10 of 25 for 100 yards and a touchdown. indeed, you could argue that many coaches might prefer the latter as he's delivering the same contribution as the other guy but can also improve.
Care said:
An "impressive looking" receiver will make plays that other receivers aren't capable of making, which leads to less incompletions and more first downs or 2nd/3rd and manageable.
Click to expand...
all other things being equal...

an impressive looking catch for 15 yards and a touchdown is worth exactly the same to a team as an ugly catch for 15 yards and a touchdown.

at the end of a football game, there's no committee which sits down and says "well, green bay won by 4 points but, hell, that catch by calvin johnson was the prettiest thing we saw all day so we'll give the win to detroit".

i agree that the things you're describing have an untangible effect but i'd argue that effect is negligible when it comes to measurable things such as those i'm discussing. i'd also argue it's almost irrelevant in the wash of a season-long campaign across all teams in all divisions.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
while i agree that i'd rather coach a receiver who catches 10 of 10 for 100 yards and a touchdown, his net impact on the game from a results point of view is exactly the same as a receiver who catches 10 of 25 for 100 yards and a touchdown. indeed, you could argue that many coaches might prefer the latter as he's delivering the same contribution as the other guy but can also improve.
all other things being equal...

an impressive looking catch for 15 yards and a touchdown is worth exactly the same to a team as an ugly catch for 15 yards and a touchdown.
Click to expand...
In fantasy football, yes its all the same. In real football however those 15 missed catches turn into lost downs and punts/interceptions.

Also, threatening receivers force opposing defenses to double team them constantly (calvin johnson) making them unable to stack the box against the run, or leave another receiver open. Just because Calvin Johnson is constantly drawing double and triple coverage doesnt make him any less of a great receiver, even though he might catch no balls in the game because of it. Things like this are what makes football so dynamic a team sport, and so much fun to watch for me.
 
Last edited:
Something that I consider to be a big factor in these stats is the running game. If a team has a great running game, then it may be passing less, which can lower the stats of the WR's. But then you have to think, do they run more because the WR's (or QB in some cases, like the Jets) are not good, or do they run less because they just have a bad running game, and therefore pass a lot more, inflating passing stats.

When deciding which WR corp is the best, I think you need to consider if they would be good on other teams as well. Some teams and QBs are better at throwing the deep ball, whereas other teams may rely on slot receivers, or making screen passes to receivers that can make something out of nothing.

So what are the skill sets we should use in deciding who is the best?
  • Speed
  • Deep ball threat
  • Hands
  • Yards after the catch [further divided into power, and "moves" (footwork, jukes)]
  • Route running ability
  • "Ups"
 
^ so using your criteria, who's the best?

you think total yards and touchdowns are completely irrelevant when grading receivers? that seems crazy.

alasdair
 
Not completely irrelevant, but not the only relevant thing either. You have to look at each player/unit on a case by case basis. It makes this topic have a lot of room for discussion. :D

Wes Welker has had a monster year this year stats wise, but if Larry Fitzgerald was in the same situation I think he would be even better than Welker, despite only putting up modest stats this year.

I suppose it comes down to what your definition of "the best" is.
 
Care said:
In fantasy football, yes its all the same. In real football however those 15 missed catches turn into lost downs and punts/interceptions.

Also, threatening receivers force opposing defenses to double team them constantly (calvin johnson) making them unable to stack the box against the run, or leave another receiver open. Just because Calvin Johnson is constantly drawing double and triple coverage doesnt make him any less of a great receiver, even though he might catch no balls in the game because of it. Things like this are what makes football so dynamic a team sport, and so much fun to watch for me.
Click to expand...
good points. thanks.

in terms of yards after the catch, none of pittsburgh's top 6 receivers is in the top 50 (source: yahoo sports)

in terms of catch rate (the proportion of passes targeted to a receiver that are caught), pittsburgh is around 3rd across their top receivers. the figures are skewed a little as hines ward has a high percentage (2nd in the league behind colston) but he has far fewer targets than most elite receivers (welker, white and johnson have 2.5 to 3 times as many targets as ward). but we'll let that slide for now :) (source: advancednflstats.com)
Care said:
Not completely irrelevant, but not the only relevant thing either.
Click to expand...
tommyboy's list of criteria for deciding "who is the best" included neither yards nor touchdowns...

alasdair
 
Care said:
I suppose it comes down to what your definition of "the best" is.
Click to expand...
it absolutely does - that's what i'm trying to discuss. how would you define it. what criteria would you use? which teams come out on top when you aply those criteria?

one thing is emerging as people add in their criteria - with the exception of axl's stubborn, yellow-and-gold tinted view there's little or no support for the claim that the steelers wr corp. is the best in football :)

alasdair
 
Last edited:
alasdairm said:
^ so using your criteria, who's the best?

you think total yards and touchdowns are completely irrelevant when grading receivers? that seems crazy.
Click to expand...

My "Best WR skills list" was open to interpretation, and/or adding to it. I didn't sit on the idea that long before posting it. I think that stats can help with the decision, but I don't find them to be all that relevant.

I think that the Jets have had a top-5 WR corp over the last 2 years, but since they have a horrible QB the receiving stats are nowhere near what they would be with a good QB. This is why I don't think that the stats are that relevant, considering that Holmes and Burress' stats rank them 62 and 70, repectively. You have very different styles between Burress and Holmes which I like, but last years WRs (Edwards, Holmes and Cotchery) were better as a whole, and had a great balance in styles. They don't have a 3rd big name receiver this year though, so I wouldn't put them on top.

The Giants are up there, but I feel like Cruz, Nicks, and Manningham are all very similar, which isn't necessarily a bad thing since they are all good, but they are lacking variety in something like a tall receiver that can win the jump-ball 9/10 times, and they also don't have that great of hands.

I wouldn't pick Green Bay's WR's as the best, because it is their system that has been the best. In the same way that they could have a back-up QB step in and the team not miss a beat, I think that a lot of WRs could step in and take the place of the current Packers receivers, and those replacements would have great stats as well. I still think that Jordy Nelson is a hell of a WR, but I think that a lot of average WRs could have stepped into that system, lined up in his position, and had a great year as well.

Dallas is my pick for having the best WR corps this year. Having a solid running game, bad play calling, and some big injuries made them not stand out as much. Dez Bryant is easily a top-10 receiver, and maybe a top-5 if he is put on the right team. Miles Austin is a solid receiver, and has had big years in the past, but was injured most of this season. Laurent Robinson had a good season, and you also have to consider how many catches their TE Witten has, which may take away from the WR stats a bit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top