While I think the Packers corps is terrific, I have to say I think the Lions group is better. Too much of the quarterback play is getting mixed into the analysis. Does anyone really think that Calvin Johnson wouldn't have insane seasons if his QB was Rodgers? Nelson is one of the best receivers in the NFL but he's not Calvin Johnson. Golden Tate, in the Packers offense, could do what Cobb does (receiving, he did have 1,300 yards last season). People are down on Ebron (I never understand the push for first round TEs, rookie TEs NEVER make an impact) but he did have a better season than Rodgers with a worse QB. Adams will be good but he's a projection at this point.
And please don't take the above as a knock against the Packers. It's not. It's an acknowledgement that the Lions have the best receiver in the game and another receiver who is also a legitimate number one guy, just like the Packers do. The gap between Nelson and Johnson is just a little larger than the gap between Tate and Cobb. Remember, Aaron Rodgers is making a large difference in receiving numbers. I would have zero issues with the Packers corp being tied for second with the Broncos and Colts (Colts have better TEs than Packers).
Finally, am I crazy to think that the Patriots should be ranked in the top-5 solely based on Gronk? I mean the guy is uncoverable AND he makes a HUGE difference in the running game. Johnson might be the best receiver in the NFL but I think Gronk is probably the best non-QB offensive weapon in the NFL.
I don't take it as a knock at all. i think it is an honest and fair assessment. For a time I would have said the Packers had the best group. Even after Jennings left and Driver retired I would have said they were #1 top to bottom with Nelson, Cobb, Jones et al. After Jones left though it was too much of a drop off and several other teams crept into the mix. I don't know who the other top teams have top to bottom but I would say arguably 5 (Packers, Lions, Colts, Cowboys, Giants) teams could make the claim and yes, not surprisingly all of them have pretty good QBs. Then you have teams like the Bengals, Bucs, Cards, Falcons and a few others who would round out the top 10 and even push for a top 5 spot.
The thing the Packers and and maybe to a lesser extent the Lions have going for them are their relatively young established #2 guys. The Packers with Cobb and the Lions with Tate. I have a difficult time putting that much faith in 2nd year guys and in some cases even third year guys. Yes, Bryant may be the best WR in the game in Dallas but I still have doubts about Williams. The same holds for the Steelers. Brown is a stud and Wheaton and Bryant look great but they are both still very young. Give them 1 more year and they may rise to the top of lists like this. They are certainly close right now.
Then you have teams like the Bucs, Cards, and Colts, where one of their top two guys is probably past his prime (Jackson, Fitzgerald, Johnson) which doesn't mean they are not good and can't post great numbers just that they are on the decline. If you argue that Hilton is the #1 in Indy would you take Johnson over Cobb? I wouldn't.
I think the Colts, with Johnson, Hilton, Moncrief and now Dorsett (if you want to bank on potential) look really good as do the Steelers and Cardinals.
One thing I didn't do is factor in the TEs because beyond Gronk and Graham any one of maybe 10 TEs in the league could end up at#3 and I don't really think the WRs in New England or Seattle are good enough to push their receiving corps into the mix.
I really don´t get all the negativity about Adams. He had a solid rookie season with some big games against New England and Dallas while making a heads-up play late in the Miami game.
I don't see all the negativity you are talking about. I see cautious optimism. There are a ton of rookies last year who had better numbers than Adams. Obviously you have Beckham, Evans, Cook, Benjamin, Watkins who everybody knows about but then you had Landry, Matthews, Hurns, Robinson, Brown and maybe a few others (list I looked at only listed top 10) who had more catches. Four of them plus Gabriel had more yards. Granted some of these guys were not the #3 wr on their team and that does say a lot about Adams but it also says a lot about how much the Packers throw the ball. Would you have such an unguarded opinion of the last 6 on the list as you do about Adams? They are all rookies that had pretty good years for rookies but every year we see young player flash then fail (remember that Boykin dude we had?) I don't think it will happen to Adams but I am not ready to put him up as evidence that our WR corps is better than any one of a half a dozen other teams because I think there are a lot of 2nd and 3rd year guys that could do what Adams did in GB. Still, it does work in our favor that he is our#3 so there is that.