Who has the better WR corps?

[DavidSeven]

To be fair, Denver's receivers were considered "just guys" and "pedestrian" (or at least very green) before Manning showed up. Thomas was a late 1st-rounder and often injured his first two seasons. Decker was a 3rd rounder and hadn't done much statistically. They have good size, ok speed. Of course, the things they've learned from Manning are real and will now carry over to other QBs/systems. However, in terms of raw ability (before Manning), were they head and shoulders above where Tate and Baldwin are in a run-heavy offense? I would say no. It's also easy to see that Tate and Baldwin would catch for over 1,000 yards in Denver's system. They're at 800-900 in an offense that never passes.

 

[CANHawk]

It isn't something that can be compared statistically at least. The type of play from both teams doesn't make it a realistic comparison, too different.

Thinking the same thing over here. I suppose it's a fun exercise, but really there are just so many factors that go into how these stats were generated throughout the season that you can't really extrapolate the data that far. Really, we play a completely different style of offense than Denver does (in case you didn't notice), we have different quarterbacks and played different opponents who run different systems. If we did start to play their way, defenses would adjust to it. Part of that adjustment might very well cause our guys to make plays at a completely different pace than they did in our normal system. Advanced stats are fun, and a lot of the time quite useful, but in this case I think it's a little too much of a reach.

Really though, I think the moral of the story is that our recievers are grossly under-appreciated by the national media, and probably a portion of the 12th man. But really, our guys can flat out ball. And while there very well might be bigger, better, faster and more talented options out there, our guys have proven themselves to be more than capable of competing at this level and in no way do I see any of them as a liability to our offense. I think they're going to get the opportunity to show the world what they're made of. They live for that kind of thing, so I'm sure they're going to shine...

 

[nsport]

It's different systems so you can't make the argument...

I think you can rate/compare them by the eyeball test though.

1- Demaryius Thomas - really good WR. Probably as impactful as any WR we have. He is clearly #1 in the list.
2- Percy Harvin - Probably a clear #2. Hard to put him at 2 due to his injuries this year, but clearly a game changer.
3- Golden Tate - Multi-faceted game changer again - punts, RAC, high-point catches, effort, wiggle... yea he's good.
4- Wes Welker - Very experienced slot receiver - years of proof to back it up.
5- Doug Baldwin - Chip firmly planted on shoulder - toe taps like nobody's business.
6- Julian Thomas - He's very good... would he be this good if not for Peyton Manning?
7- Zach Miller - Been steady all year - man can catch, but his curse - he's also a good blocker in a run-first offense
8- Jermaine Kearse - Big plays... explosive dude - as we lose our WR's to free agency and/or injury, this guy will continue to climb the chart
9- Erik Decker - Nobody really - capitalizing on fame with a reality show and catches under Manning. Nada prior to Manning's arrival - if memory serves, the Broncos were considering cutting him.
** Not Listed: Caldwell, Lockette, Willson, Tamme **

So the point here is who would you want on your team to build a WR corps from. That is a dream team for the top 5 players. Miller/JThomas are not on anyone's "dream team" - but definitely get the job done.

 

[davidonmi]

Decker at 9? Really?

 

[Shadyhawk182]

ll take the Seahawks WRs over Broncos in the SB. Only because they have to deal with the L.O.B. But that's it. I'd keep a healthy Harvin, over any of their WRs, because a WR like him will make Russell better because of his play style. Other than Harvin, I'd be willing to take any of their WRs over ours.

 

[davidonmi]

Decker had nothing prior to Peyton cause he had fricken tebow throwing it to him, he's not the 9th best receiver in this game

 

[Smellyman]

Denver by far. This thread is embarrassing.

+1

 

[DavidSeven]

Decker had nothing prior to Peyton cause he had fricken tebow throwing it to him, he's not the 9th best receiver in this game

Of course that's fair, but he was also a nothing-receiver in his rookie year with Orton (who passed for about as many yards as RW). Granted, rookie years for receivers don't mean much, and I'm guessing he was buried on their bench. Still, just highlights the fact that these receivers are nearly impossible to compare because their situations are so different.

No one in this group is a blue-chip stud that was taken at the top of the draft and excelled with mediocre or average QBs (e.g. Calvin, Green, Andre Johnson, Julio, etc.).

 

[HawkWow]

ll take the Seahawks WRs over Broncos in the SB. Only because they have to deal with the L.O.B. .

Excellent point which should be a huge factor.

It doesn't matter how good Denver's receivers have been to date. What matters is how well they perform against the LOB.

I'm willing to bet our receivers will duplicate their averages vs. Denver...just as I am willing to bet Denver's receivers will perform less than average vs. our secondary.

If viewed this way, how much better will Denver's receivers be than ours?

 

[nsport]

Decker at 9? Really?

Decker had nothing prior to Peyton cause he had fricken tebow throwing it to him, he's not the 9th best receiver in this game

B-hurt with Decker at 9? Really? Look at who is on top of him - Kearse is faster and more explosive and the only guy I'd consider putting him ahead of - and surely you can't put him higher than the rest of his own team or our team - he's lesser than our top three for certain. On their official depth chart he's 3rd. So yeah - 9.

Easy to do a "Sherman-like" question (like he did about Crabtree). If you were drafting a fantasy team with these players regardless of who your QB was, would you seriously take Decker before any of these guys? Decker's fine - somebody has to be last in the list of players. I'm not saying last is bad, it's just not as good as the others.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

It's different systems so you can't make the argument...

I think you can rate/compare them by the eyeball test though.

1- Demaryius Thomas - really good WR. Probably as impactful as any WR we have. He is clearly #1 in the list.
2- Percy Harvin - Probably a clear #2. Hard to put him at 2 due to his injuries this year, but clearly a game changer.
3- Golden Tate - Multi-faceted game changer again - punts, RAC, high-point catches, effort, wiggle... yea he's good.
4- Wes Welker - Very experienced slot receiver - years of proof to back it up.
5- Doug Baldwin - Chip firmly planted on shoulder - toe taps like nobody's business.
6- Julius Thomas - He's very good... would he be this good if not for Peyton Manning?
7- Zach Miller - Been steady all year - man can catch, but his curse - he's also a good blocker in a run-first offense
8- Jermaine Kearse - Big plays... explosive dude - as we lose our WR's to free agency and/or injury, this guy will continue to climb the chart
9- Erik Decker - Nobody really - capitalizing on fame with a reality show and catches under Manning. Nada prior to Manning's arrival - if memory serves, the Broncos were considering cutting him.
** Not Listed: Caldwell, Lockette, Willson, Tamme **

So the point here is who would you want on your team to build a WR corps from. That is a dream team for the top 5 players. Miller/JThomas are not on anyone's "dream team" - but definitely get the job done.

ok.... let me try now

1) Demaryius Thomas
2) Wes Welker
3) Percy Harvin (Below Welker because of injury history)
4) Erik Decker
5) Golden Tate
6a) Doug Baldwin
6b) Julius Thomas (very close between him and Baldwin)
8 ) Zach Miller
9) Jermaine Kearse

 

[aulaza]

Its funny, when I saw the thread title? 'Who has the best WR's', I thought, I wonder who they are comparing because it can't possibly be Seattle and Denver. I read it and... lol. Honestly, Seattle's WR's are probably underrated, but lets be fair guys there's no contest here. And for all those who say Denver's receivers 'didn't do sh!t' before Manning, that's not really true. Just look at the wild card game vs Pittsburgh. They were young guys developing. Obviously Peyton has helped that greatly, but they're not rubbish receivers that are made to look good. The 'prorated' stats from the OP are also a bit meaningless.

To be fair though, I would say the media overrates Denver's WR's a bit. They aren't immune to drops and have tended to struggle with aggressive press coverage. DT and Decker constantly look for flags after contact as opposed to getting physical. That will be key in this game - I think we may see them use their size and get more physical. It will be interesting to see what happens. These concerns may be validated after the SB, or maybe the WR's will step up and show they are as good as (or better than) advertised.

 

[nsport]

Don't know how this turned into a "nsport hates Eric Decker" thread - but I think he's over-rated and when compared to the others in this game is not in the top 8 players catching the ball. Not a bad player, just not top tier as some seem to think. More news here: http://cbsprt.co/1aZ1XTV

 

[Lady Talon]

Denver has the better receivers. I'm not too envious of that fact. They don't hand out trophies for the best WR corps. Never seen one for the best offense and most points scored ever either. If there was one, it would keep changing hands every year as owners keep tying defenses hands with new rules, turning the NFL into arena football.

Fortunately, most times, there is a trophy for (near) historical disruptive physical defenses with middling but efficient offenses. They hoist the Lombardi more often then not.

 

[kearly]

I think if this question were posed to defensive coordinators they'd die of laughter. It's not that our receivers suck, it's that they don't scare anybody. Denver's fourth best pass catcher is a guy who basically averaged 1500 yards a season with Tom Brady.

That said, I actually expect Seattle's receivers to do better than Denver's in this game. One story that's going under the radar is the nerves the Broncos WRs will be playing with (other than Welker), and you couple that pressure with a scheme and defense they can't possibly prepare for? One that matches up almost perfectly from Seattle's standpoint? It's going to be tough for them, whereas I have a hard time seeing a 27th ranked secondary doing much on the other side. If Wilson plays a typical RW game, it will be pitch and catch just like the Atlanta playoff game last year or the MNF game vs. the Saints (both games where Lynch struggled and Wilson still ripped defenses a new one).

 

[dontbelikethat]

It's Denver. Not a slight on our receivers, cause they're better than perceived, but yeah...Denver by a decent margin, definitely.

 

[joeseahawks]

I think we should average their catches with the Tebow years ... lol

 

[dbsn2420]

All I care about is who is the better receiving group after this Sunday!

 

[TheRealDTM]

If we had Rice and McCoy it'd be closer. As it stands WR is a huge win for Denver.

 

[blazen2392]

it's not even close. the gap between the skill of our receving corps is almost as big as the gap between our secondaries.

In my opinion i still think the 49ers have the best receiving corp in the nfl just because they are a mis match nightmare for most teams. The broncos receiving corp benefits from having arguably the best QB in history. Nothing really all that special about the receivers themselves.