Receiving corps- inclusion of positions?

[JPF]

A couple of friends and I have been debating what positions should be included in the term. Interested to hear some thoughts from you guys on it.

[K Train]

Whats to debate? Wouldnt it be anyone who catches passes? Wide Receivers, half the TEs in the league, half the RBs in the league, and probably a handful of fullbacks

[Giantsfan1080]

Anyone who can catch the ball. All 3 positions. WR, TE, RB.

[JPF]

Originally Posted by K Train

Whats to debate? Wouldnt it be anyone who catches passes? Wide Receivers, half the TEs in the league, half the RBs in the league, and probably a handful of fullbacks

See that's what I'm saying but they're arguing that RB's aren't "traditionally" considered part of that discussion.

[dolphinfan2k5]

Semantics. Doesn't matter. Could mean any of them.

[LonghornsLegend]

It should be considered that anyone who catches passes consistently would be apart of that equation. Some teams it wont include the RB but others it will. I don't see the point in not including Darren Sproles for the Saints considering how many passes he pulls in.

[K Train]

Originally Posted by JPF

See that's what I'm saying but they're arguing that RB's aren't "traditionally" considered part of that discussion.

if you throw to the RB its not even a question. Players like MJD, Rice, Forte, Mccoy, Bush catch more passes than a lot of WRs whether they are designed routes or dump offs

[NY+Giants=NYG]

Originally Posted by JPF

A couple of friends and I have been debating what positions should be included in the term. Interested to hear some thoughts from you guys on it.

WR Corps only I put.

I coached TEs and we are our own position. Think of it has half OL and half WR. Doesn't make me a full OL player or a full WR. You are your own position, and therefore I think WR corps only fits.

Now you have can a blocking TE who just sits and block, and pass catching TE who does very little blocking, but overall, the TE position is it's own entity. If a individual player can do certain things based on his strengths then you can find a niche for him within the framework of the offense. But I'd still classify him as a TE. In fact either way, if I coached for the team, he'd be my player not the WR's coaches player or OL coach's player.

[killxswitch]

When I hear "receiving corps" I think WRs. Obviously there are other pass catchers but I've seen "WR corps" and "receiving corps" used interchangeably.

[Caulibflower]

corps plural of corps (Noun)

Noun:

A main subdivision of an armed force in the field, consisting of two or more divisions: "the 5th Army Corps".

Thus, wide receivers are a division of a team's receiving corps. You didn't say the 2003 Chiefs had a weak receiving corps, you said they lacked a great wideout.

[Mufasa]

Definition of CORPS: a group of persons associated together or acting under common direction; especially : a body of persons having a common activity or occupation <the press corps>

Thus, it can mean any and all of the options.

[tjsunstein]

Any and all pass catchers.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by dolphinfan2k5

Semantics. Doesn't matter. Could mean any of them.

Exactly.

If you want to say "anyone who catches passes", that means you need to include an eligible O-lineman or a QB who catches his own deflected pass. Instead of saying "receiving corps", say something more specific.

[Brothgar]

Traditionally it would be WRs only because WRs were the only ones who's main job was to catch the ball as TEs and RBs were more for blocking and running respectfully. But, with that said now a days it should really be used for WR and TEs at least and if you really want to throw in the RB as well I have no problem with it.

[descendency]

It depends on the offense, but I include anything that can catch a pass.