Grading the receiving units (1 Viewer)

[Despyzer]

TSN grades each unit in their annual preview guide. Here are the receiving units (TEs included):

A

Bengals

Browns

Texans

Chargers

Cardinals

Cowboys

A-

Colts

Patriots

B+

Lions

Packers

Giants

B

Jets

Steelers

Falcons

Vikings

Saints

Redskins

B-

Panthers

C+

Ravens

Bills

Jaguars

Chiefs

Eagles

Rams

Seahawks

C

Raiders

Titans

49ers

Buccaneers

C-

Broncos

Bears

D

Dolphins

 

[Winning IS Everything]

WOW, Vikings the SAME grade as the Steelers????? I would MUCH rather have Holmes/Ward and backups than Berrian/Rice and backups.

Bears at C- is very nice to them too.....

Add to this, Redskins as a B? Were talking Santana Moss, not Randy........

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

SF is getting no love, only because Bryant Johnson isn't a big name receiver. Bruce / BJohnson / Battle isn't that bad.

I'm assuming that BMarshall is presumed OUT in Denver????? Otherwise Denver is WAY low.

Seahawks are underrated with both Engram and Nate Burleson, plus some younger guys and the outside (very outside) chance of Branch coming back.

Lots of love for MIN. I hope that is correct. I like Rice and Berrian there - Tarv is a sleeper QB.

Giants are overrated.

Patriots at B+? Hard to argue them as that high, but how does a team with Moss and Welker not rate as the top tier?

Colts - Marvin Harrison healthy? I agree. Otherwise? Too high.

Texans? TEXANS?????

Chargers - see TEXANS????

Cleveland - someone loves Donte Stallworth here...... not so sure on that one. Are we including TEs???

HOU and SD are way out of whack.

 

[Jeff Haseley]

No way should the Panthers be listed below the Jets, Falcons, Vikings and Redskins.

 

[sholditch]

The more I see of these the less stock I put into them.

 

[Despyzer]

Are we including TEs???

Yes. I almost included that in the first post, but I figured that almosteveryone considers them part of the receiving unit rather than the offensive line.

HOU and SD are way out of whack.

Does that change your impression of the Chargers somewhat?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

No way should the Panthers be listed below the Jets, Falcons, Vikings and Redskins.

at the Falcons - missed that one. No way they are that high.Redskins improved just by getting rid of Lloyd. That's worth an entire letter grade.I think the TEs are included here (Cooley).Jets/Vikings/Panthers are about equal.

 

[Despyzer]

The more I see of these the less stock I put into them.

I'm not exactly sure how they come up with these grades. TSN usually relies on a single "expert" that regularly covers each team. I do know that they interviewed coaches within the same division for additional input. Now whether these grades were complied by comparing them against other teams or in isolation, I don't know.

 

[FUBAR]

Are we including TEs???

I'd assume so, otherwise SD, Houston, and Dallas can't be A's.But if they are, Denver is WAY too low, which they are anyway, but even more so. San Fran too.Redskins seem right with Cooley, Moss, ARE, and the rookies. Potentially higher. Someone needs to explain how the Texans are above the Patriots.

 

[David Yudkin]

These threads are amusing me, as the Cowboys are basically head of the class in every category while the Pats are above average and not at the top of anything.

 

[Despyzer]

Someone needs to explain how the Texans are above the Patriots.

They mention that Andre Johnson was having a career year before an injury caused him to miss 7 starts. They like the depth the Texans have at WR with Kevin Walter, Andre Davis, and Jacoby Jones, and at TE with Owen Daniels, Mark Breuner, and Joel Dreesen. Even with the bump for depth, I can't see how they would be rated above the Colts and Patriots.As for the Patriots, they basically state that they can't expect this unit to continue to produce the way they did last year. I'm starting to believe these grades were produced in isolation though because they also say that even if they drop back to earth this still should be the league's top-producing unit. Depth might also be a concern.

 

[Boston]

Putting the Texans over the Pats (and Colts) is a complete and utter joke. As soon as I saw that this list became a moot point. Seriously, how can you even begin to argue that point without suddenly breaking into laughter. Also, with Jennings, Driver an up and coming Jones and another solid prospect in Nelson I can't see how Green Bay isn't right near the top as well.

 

[FUBAR]

Someone needs to explain how the Texans are above the Patriots.

They mention that Andre Johnson was having a career year before an injury caused him to miss 7 starts. They like the depth the Texans have at WR with Kevin Walter, Andre Davis, and Jacoby Jones, and at TE with Owen Daniels, Mark Breuner, and Joel Dreesen. Even with the bump for depth, I can't see how they would be rated above the Colts and Patriots.As for the Patriots, they basically state that they can't expect this unit to continue to produce the way they did last year. I'm starting to believe these grades were produced in isolation though because they also say that even if they drop back to earth this still should be the league's top-producing unit. Depth might also be a concern.

considering how well lesser talented WRs have produced there before, I don't see the concern.

 

[Andy Herron]

Favoritism is spewing all over these rankings.

Among other things, they love the Cowboys and hate the Broncos.

ETA: ALL of TSN's rankings we're seeing here today, not just with the receiving units.

 

[David Yudkin]

Someone needs to explain how the Texans are above the Patriots.

They mention that Andre Johnson was having a career year before an injury caused him to miss 7 starts. They like the depth the Texans have at WR with Kevin Walter, Andre Davis, and Jacoby Jones, and at TE with Owen Daniels, Mark Breuner, and Joel Dreesen. Even with the bump for depth, I can't see how they would be rated above the Colts and Patriots.As for the Patriots, they basically state that they can't expect this unit to continue to produce the way they did last year. I'm starting to believe these grades were produced in isolation though because they also say that even if they drop back to earth this still should be the league's top-producing unit. Depth might also be a concern.

IMO, they should have looked more closely at the team totals/results and then ranked from there with minor adjustments.

 

[jurb26]

I think I'll just stop reading these TSN threads.....

 

[sfl49er]

SF is getting no love, only because Bryant Johnson isn't a big name receiver. Bruce / BJohnson / Battle isn't that bad.I'm assuming that BMarshall is presumed OUT in Denver????? Otherwise Denver is WAY low.Seahawks are underrated with both Engram and Nate Burleson, plus some younger guys and the outside (very outside) chance of Branch coming back.Lots of love for MIN. I hope that is correct. I like Rice and Berrian there - Tarv is a sleeper QB.Giants are overrated.Patriots at B+? Hard to argue them as that high, but how does a team with Moss and Welker not rate as the top tier?Colts - Marvin Harrison healthy? I agree. Otherwise? Too high.Texans? TEXANS?????Chargers - see TEXANS????Cleveland - someone loves Donte Stallworth here...... not so sure on that one. Are we including TEs???HOU and SD are way out of whack.

Yes, you're whole reply is right on the money. I dont like Seattle, but hey, you have to give credit where its due. And they deserve a better grade

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I just looked at where the Patriots and Colts were and saw a bunch of teams ahead of them. That's all I need to see that there's no validity in this.

You're telling me there more than a handful of teams with a better receiving unit than a guy who caught 23 td's and then there's another guy who caught over 100 balls?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I know they're not the Colts or Pats, but how in the world are the Ravens receivers ranked below Minnesota & friggin Atlanta? How many Vikes & Falcons fans wouldn't trade their entire receiving corps for the Ravens?