Bucs could be in the market for a sure handed receiver come April, after the teams receiving corps failed to deliver in '09
Just how bad was the Tampa Bay Buccaneers receiving corps in 2009? The simple answer, is they were horrendous. A group that largely consisted of veterans, failed to deliver the necessary production on the field. For a multitude of different reasons the teams passing attack never materialized. Whether you want to place blame on the play caller, scheme, quarterbacks or the receivers the Bucs group of wide receivers were down right putrid, evident by the 28th ranking they garnered in YAC percentage and 30th ranking they garnered in drop percentage.
By breaking down each of the 32 NFL teams receiving corps, We are able to isolate which teams receiving corps aided there respective quarterbacks.
By taking YAC (only for receivers) and total passing yards by a quarterback to his receivers, we are able to effectively determine which teams receiving corps were actually able to produce after the catch. To see which team had the best sets of hands we used drops by the receivers and attempts by quarterbacks to his receivers to determine a drop percentage for each team.
The stats that are being used were taken from Profootballfocus .com and NFL.com.
The first chart is YAC percentage.
| TEAM | YAC | YARDS | PERCENTAGE | RANK |
| Green Bay | 1128 | 1934 | 58.32% | 1 |
| Washington | 1059 | 2145 | 49.37% | 2 |
| Dallas | 1233 | 2756 | 44.74% | 3 |
| New England | 1506 | 3386 | 44.48% | 4 |
| Denver | 1127 | 2641 | 42.67% | 5 |
| St. Louis | 733 | 1798 | 40.77% | 6 |
| San Fransisco | 583 | 1564 | 37.28% | 7 |
| Chicago | 860 | 2334 | 36.85% | 8 |
| New York Jets | 636 | 1757 | 36.20% | 9 |
| Arizona | 1169 | 3233 | 36.16% | 10 |
| Indianapolis | 984 | 2733 | 36.00% | 11 |
| Minnesota | 1000 | 2835 | 35.27% | 12 |
| Seattle | 805 | 2376 | 33.88% | 13 |
| Pittsburgh | 1077 | 3195 | 33.71% | 14 |
| New York Giants | 1061 | 3157 | 33.61% | 15 |
| Philadelphia | 924 | 2755 | 33.54% | 16 |
| Detroit | 597 | 1824 | 32.73% | 17 |
| Houston | 995 | 3046 | 32.67% | 18 |
| Cleveland | 442 | 1376 | 32.12% | 19 |
| Kansas City | 705 | 2200 | 32.05% | 20 |
| New Orleans | 867 | 2755 | 31.47% | 21 |
| Atlanata | 656 | 2130 | 30.80% | 22 |
| Miami | 685 | 2272 | 30.15% | 23 |
| Carolina | 518 | 1795 | 28.86% | 24 |
| Cincinnati | 647 | 2304 | 28.08% | 25 |
| Jacksonville | 631 | 2254 | 27.99% | 26 |
| Buffalo | 468 | 1765 | 26.52% | 27 |
| Tampa Bay | 422 | 1595 | 26.46% | 28 |
| Baltimore | 503 | 2086 | 24.11% | 29 |
| San Diego | 563 | 2376 | 23.70% | 30 |
| Tennessee | 383 | 1779 | 21.53% | 31 |
| Oakland | 278 | 1363 | 20.40% | 32 |
| NFL AVERAGE | 789 | 2297 | 33.83% | |
The second chart is drop percentage.
| TEAM | DROPS | ATTEMPTS | PERCENTAGE | RANK |
| Jacksonville | 6 | 273 | 2.20% | 1 |
| Carolina | 6 | 251 | 2.39% | 2 |
| Minnesota | 10 | 309 | 3.24% | 3 |
| Arizona | 13 | 396 | 3.28% | 4 |
| Indianapolis | 11 | 331 | 3.32% | 5 |
| Baltimore | 10 | 259 | 3.86% | 6 |
| San Diego | 10 | 244 | 4.10% | 7 |
| Philadelphia | 13 | 290 | 4.48% | 8 |
| Atlanata | 13 | 289 | 4.50% | 9 |
| New York Jets | 10 | 222 | 4.50% | 10 |
| Chicago | 14 | 296 | 4.73% | 11 |
| New York Giants | 18 | 358 | 5.03% | 12 |
| New England | 21 | 410 | 5.12% | 13 |
| Denver | 18 | 349 | 5.16% | 14 |
| Houston | 17 | 317 | 5.36% | 15 |
| St. Louis | 16 | 297 | 5.39% | 16 |
| Cincinnati | 17 | 310 | 5.48% | 17 |
| New Orleans | 15 | 262 | 5.73% | 18 |
| Seattle | 20 | 349 | 5.73% | 19 |
| San Fransisco | 13 | 223 | 5.83% | 20 |
| Dallas | 17 | 288 | 5.90% | 21 |
| Detroit | 18 | 289 | 6.23% | 22 |
| Pittsburgh | 21 | 335 | 6.27% | 23 |
| Miami | 20 | 302 | 6.62% | 24 |
| Buffalo | 16 | 240 | 6.67% | 25 |
| Cleveland | 17 | 235 | 7.23% | 26 |
| Tennessee | 17 | 232 | 7.33% | 27 |
| Washington | 20 | 265 | 7.55% | 28 |
| Green Bay | 24 | 305 | 7.87% | 29 |
| Tampa Bay | 20 | 245 | 8.16% | 30 |
| Oakland | 21 | 237 | 8.86% | 31 |
| Kansas City | 32 | 314 | 10.19% | 32 |
| NFL AVERAGE | 16 | 291 | 5.57% | |
As previously stated, many draft niks, media pundits, fans and even scouts are projecting the Bucs to select a defensive player with the third overall selection in the draft. But based on the data, the performance of the Bucs receiving corps and the contract status of Antonio Bryant and Maurice Stovall don’t be surprised to see the team pull the trigger on an offensive weapon to help aid in the development of quarterback Josh Freeman.
A player that could potentially peak the interest of the Bucs is Oklahoma State wide receiver Dez Bryant. The problem is many don’t view him as a top five pick, But whats not to like about a 6-foot-2, 220-pound sure handed receiver that has natural leaping ability and is a legitimate play maker?
In three games before he was suspended by the NCAA for improper contact with Deion Sanders, Bryant hauled in 17 passes for 323 yards and four touchdowns. He posted 147 receptions, 2,425 yards and 29 touchdowns in his collegiate career. He was also sparingly used as a punt returner with 25 returns for 431 yards and 3 touchdowns for an average of 17.25 yards per punt return. With the Bucs looking to speed up the development of Freeman, giving him a reliable number one option would greatly aid the process.
Loading ...
