Thread: ESPN's top 64 Receivers

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"C" wrote:

"Mr" wrote:

Oh yeah, we have two wide receivers in the top 50.

Going into last season, we didn't have one.

Nice, I didn't even see Rice on first glance at the list. I'm actually
fine with where he is on the list... he'll move up after teh '08 season.

But, in theory... shouldn't every team's #1 and #2 receivers be on this list? Hmmm...

In theory yes, but I was still happy just to see Rice on the list.
Berrian is right about where I figured he'd be.
Hell, this list almost makes our WR group look average...which is a huge upgrade from last year.

In theory no, that would be impossible. Since there are 32 teams only 25 could possibly have 2, and if every team has atleast 1 then only 18 teams could have 2 on the list. So I think it is safe to say the vikings have an elite group of recievers.

It was the top 64 WRs...not the top 50.
So in theory each team should have two WRs.
32 X 2 = 64

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"C" wrote:

"Mr" wrote:

Oh yeah, we have two wide receivers in the top 50.

Going into last season, we didn't have one.

Nice, I didn't even see Rice on first glance at the list. I'm actually
fine with where he is on the list... he'll move up after teh '08 season.

But, in theory... shouldn't every team's #1 and #2 receivers be on this list? Hmmm...

In theory yes, but I was still happy just to see Rice on the list.
Berrian is right about where I figured he'd be.
Hell, this list almost makes our WR group look average...which is a huge upgrade from last year.

In theory no, that would be impossible. Since there are 32 teams only 25 could possibly have 2, and if every team has atleast 1 then only 18 teams could have 2 on the list. So I think it is safe to say the vikings have an elite group of recievers.

It was the top 64 WRs...not the top 50.
So in theory each team should have two WRs.
32 X 2 = 64

Thanks dude... I thought I went crazy/dumb for a second.

"C" wrote:

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"C" wrote:

[quote author=Mr Anderson link=topic=43539.msg746658#msg746658 date=1206470043]
Oh yeah, we have two wide receivers in the top 50.

Going into last season, we didn't have one.

Nice, I didn't even see Rice on first glance at the list. I'm actually
fine with where he is on the list... he'll move up after teh '08 season.

But, in theory... shouldn't every team's #1 and #2 receivers be on this list? Hmmm...

In theory yes, but I was still happy just to see Rice on the list.
Berrian is right about where I figured he'd be.
Hell, this list almost makes our WR group look average...which is a huge upgrade from last year.

In theory no, that would be impossible. Since there are 32 teams only 25 could possibly have 2, and if every team has atleast 1 then only 18 teams could have 2 on the list. So I think it is safe to say the vikings have an elite group of recievers.

It was the top 64 WRs...not the top 50.
So in theory each team should have two WRs.
32 X 2 = 64

Thanks dude... I thought I went crazy/dumb for a second.
[/quote]

Jmcon00's post didn't really make sense to me either...I assume he thought the list was top 50.


Hey Jmcdon00 correct me if I'm wrong, or if you have some sort of special insight/logic.

"davike" wrote:

"seaniemck7" wrote:

"davike" wrote:

The only real knock on Wayne is that he has always been 1B to Marvin Harrison, who was 1A. That's no longer the case as he is Peyton Manning's top option now.

HA! The only reason he is Mannings top option is because Harrison was out last year
:
If Harrison returns to form like he was two seasons ago he will resume his spot as Mannings main target.

Some of the positions on this list are kinda wacko if you ask me. I really don't think Andre Johnson deserves to be #4 on this list yet. He hasn't put up big consistent numbers as some....say, Larry Fitzgerald or Chad Johnson or many others on that list.

Some of those rankings are some of the "experts" making a prediction...not current ranking based on past production.

Andre Johnson is a bonefide stud.
Look at the shitbox offense he has played in, and he has dominated games. But I still don't know what the basis of these rankings are.
The article lists a bunch of questions on how to rank em, doesn't answer them, then ranks the players.
I don't get it.


Are these rankings based on yardage, catches, TD's for the upcoming season? Is it on pure talent? Are these based on some FF criteria?
I can't take this seriously if you don't give me some basis of analysis.

I agree that Johnson is a stud, but at this point I don't think he deserves the #4 spot. Top ten perhaps, but not #4.

That's my point. On pure talent and what Andre has accomplished in the offense he has played in, I can see him in the top 5.
If its based on production, HTF can TJ Houz be a low as he is?

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"seaniemck7" wrote:

"davike" wrote:

The only real knock on Wayne is that he has always been 1B to Marvin Harrison, who was 1A. That's no longer the case as he is Peyton Manning's top option now.

HA! The only reason he is Mannings top option is because Harrison was out last year
:
If Harrison returns to form like he was two seasons ago he will resume his spot as Mannings main target.

Some of the positions on this list are kinda wacko if you ask me. I really don't think Andre Johnson deserves to be #4 on this list yet. He hasn't put up big consistent numbers as some....say, Larry Fitzgerald or Chad Johnson or many others on that list.

Some of those rankings are some of the "experts" making a prediction...not current ranking based on past production.

Andre Johnson is a bonefide stud.
Look at the shitbox offense he has played in, and he has dominated games. But I still don't know what the basis of these rankings are.
The article lists a bunch of questions on how to rank em, doesn't answer them, then ranks the players.
I don't get it.


Are these rankings based on yardage, catches, TD's for the upcoming season? Is it on pure talent? Are these based on some FF criteria?
I can't take this seriously if you don't give me some basis of analysis.

The superfine print says it's based off of precise caluclations regarding which direction the writer's jiggly butt hairs blow when grabbing his ankles and facing the wind.

Thats some funny poop right there... I wonder off what his RB rankings are based?
;D

I am pretty happy with this list. I like seeing Sidney Rice getting some love and definitely think that Berrian will be solid. I agree with a large majority of this list. Of course that is what lists are for ... you could have 50 people do this list and probably come back with 50 different lists.

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"C" wrote:

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

[quote author=C Mac D link=topic=43539.msg746661#msg746661 date=1206470272]
[quote author=Mr Anderson link=topic=43539.msg746658#msg746658 date=1206470043]
Oh yeah, we have two wide receivers in the top 50.

Going into last season, we didn't have one.

Nice, I didn't even see Rice on first glance at the list. I'm actually
fine with where he is on the list... he'll move up after teh '08 season.

But, in theory... shouldn't every team's #1 and #2 receivers be on this list? Hmmm...

In theory yes, but I was still happy just to see Rice on the list.
Berrian is right about where I figured he'd be.
Hell, this list almost makes our WR group look average...which is a huge upgrade from last year.

In theory no, that would be impossible. Since there are 32 teams only 25 could possibly have 2, and if every team has atleast 1 then only 18 teams could have 2 on the list. So I think it is safe to say the vikings have an elite group of recievers.

It was the top 64 WRs...not the top 50.
So in theory each team should have two WRs.
32 X 2 = 64

Thanks dude... I thought I went crazy/dumb for a second.
[/quote]

Jmcon00's post didn't really make sense to me either...I assume he thought the list was top 50.


Hey Jmcdon00 correct me if I'm wrong, or if you have some sort of special insight/logic.


[/quote]
Yeah thought it was top 50. Someone mentioned we had 2 in the top 50 and I got stuck on that. My bad.

i played ball with hackett in highschool and watched all his games. i think he would have been a great pick up for us

"vikings4life33" wrote:

i played ball with hackett in highschool and watched all his games. i think he would have been a great pick up for us

Really? Thats cool! You still keep in touch wtih him at all?

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"seaniemck7" wrote:

"davike" wrote:

The only real knock on Wayne is that he has always been 1B to Marvin Harrison, who was 1A. That's no longer the case as he is Peyton Manning's top option now.

HA! The only reason he is Mannings top option is because Harrison was out last year
:
If Harrison returns to form like he was two seasons ago he will resume his spot as Mannings main target.

Some of the positions on this list are kinda wacko if you ask me. I really don't think Andre Johnson deserves to be #4 on this list yet. He hasn't put up big consistent numbers as some....say, Larry Fitzgerald or Chad Johnson or many others on that list.

Some of those rankings are some of the "experts" making a prediction...not current ranking based on past production.

Andre Johnson is a bonefide stud.
Look at the shitbox offense he has played in, and he has dominated games. But I still don't know what the basis of these rankings are.
The article lists a bunch of questions on how to rank em, doesn't answer them, then ranks the players.
I don't get it.


Are these rankings based on yardage, catches, TD's for the upcoming season? Is it on pure talent? Are these based on some FF criteria?
I can't take this seriously if you don't give me some basis of analysis.

The superfine print says it's based off of precise caluclations regarding which direction the writer's ass hairs blow when grabbing his ankles and facing the wind.

ROTFLMFAO!
Excellent...