Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Short Recievers won 4 of past 5 Super bowls?


BrunellSuperbowl

Recommended Posts

Cowboy fans were telling me our recievers are too short to go all the way. But did the Pats have a big reciever? I know the Steelers had short recievers this yr.

I hear Peter King saying what we do makes no sense. Our recievers are short. Maybe Gibbs looked at the trend and see's the small recievers are best for the playoffs.

For all the Moss and TO hype they have never won a super bowl and both have been in the league for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that ability has always trumped height in any sport. Certainly you will have physical advantages by being taller. However speed, focus, and ball-handling skills are much more important. Any small receiver can provide a dynamic weapon by knowing how to get open and being able to catch the ball and hang onto it. Everybody has seen the "obvious catch" where the guy drops it and eveyone shakes thier heads. Santana had a ProBowl year by being fast, and having glue-hands. Even when double and triple teamed he would make catches that would seem unlikely for another player. This WR squad will hopefully add to such ability. Regardless having Santana covered less will create new opportunities that will be exploited.

:logo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that ability has always trumped height in any sport. Certainly you will have physical advantages by being taller. However speed, focus, and ball-handling skills are much more important. Any small receiver can provide a dynamic weapon by knowing how to get open and being able to catch the ball and hang onto it. Everybody has seen the "obvious catch" where the guy drops it and eveyone shakes thier heads. Santana had a ProBowl year by being fast, and having glue-hands. Even when double and triple teamed he would make catches that would seem unlikely for another player. This WR squad will hopefully add to such ability. Regardless having Santana covered less will create new opportunities that will be exploited.

:logo:

Another thing our recivers are a lot like the Pats and Steelers recievers. They are quick , small and can do different things. None of the guys other then Moss are big time stat guys. But will get open and spread the feild.

The only team without small recievers i guess was the Bucs. And they won because defense. And i think the only taller reciever they had was Meshawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not worried guys, gibbs has a plan. Tough d, good ass running game and guys who can get u first downs. Isn't that the recipe for winning the superbowl. THe pats had a back who got them sufficient years and great wrs who could move the chains. Steelers had fast willie parker and bettis and hines as their possession guy. The bucs had who pittman and alsott running for them while having jurvevius and mehsawn, not ur typical wrs but not with great playmaking ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep I agree with you on this 100%

Top 3 recievers on super bowl teams over the last few years

2006Pitt- Hines Ward (6-0), Randel El (5-10), cedric wilson (5-10)

2005NE- Deion Branch (5-9), David Patten (5-10), David Givens (5-11)

2004NE- Basically the same

2003TB- Keyshawn Johnson (6-4), Joe Jurevicius (6-5), McCardell (6-0)

2002NE- Troy Brown (5-10), Patten (5-10), Branch(5-9)

2001BAL-Quadry Ismail(5-11), Travis Taylor(6-1), Brandon Stokely(5-11)

2000Rams-Isaac Bruce(6-0), Tory holt(6-0) Az Hakim(5-10)

6 of the last 7. only exception was 2003 Bucs and it was their defense that carried them.

Peter king and pasquerelli are very biased and for reasons we can't control, hate the skins. They know we have a great team and offense but are always looking for ways to put the redskins down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very true cp. they sucked as well. these are the two SB teams over the past seven years with average to above average sized recievers and their offenses also happened to be the weakest.

I believe that small, quick recievers are more productive because of the explosive separation they can get. High scoring offenses such as the rams, cheifs and pats utilize them.

I really like the wide out line-up we have now: a superstar (moss), a possesion guy(lloyd), and a slot guy(randel el), and red zone (cooley and sellers)-this is very comparable to past great offenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our best friend Nunyo Demasio pointed this out two months ago:

Little big men: Diminutive receivers making big mark in playoffs

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/nunyo_demasio/01/13/receivers/index.html

My first thought upon standing next to Carolina Panthers wide receiver Steve Smith this week was how did someone that seems the size of a Lilliputian in the locker room become the most unstoppable player in the NFL. Generously listed at 5-foot-9 and 185 pounds, Smith mixes Jordanesque leaping ability, world-class speed and Terminator-like ruggedness. He also has become a polished route runner who possesses LaDainian Tomlinson-like moves after making a catch. But he says his best attribute is his height. Say what?

"I use it to my advantage," the fifth-year veteran out of Utah said this week, with no hint of levity. He then went on to explain that without his height, he doubts he would possess other qualities, such as a 40-inch vertical that has made him a star.

[T]his season Smith headed a coterie of smallish receivers who showed that size doesn't have to matter. He led the NFL with 1,563 receiving yards, followed by 5-10, 190-pound Santana Moss, who set a Redskins single-season record with 1,483 receiving yards and will join Smith as a starter for the NFC's Pro Bowl squad. Indeed, of the eight wideouts selected to the Pro Bowl, only two are taller than six feet: Cincinnati's Chad Johnson (6-1) and Arizona's Larry Fitzgerald (6-3).

"The little guys are back in style," declared Tampa Bay receiver Joey Galloway, a 5-11, 197 pound veteran who had the best season of his 11-year career: a team-leading 83 catches for 1,287 yards and 10 touchdowns.

Of course, Washington coach Joe Gibbs remembers from his first NFL stint that a team with small receivers can win the title. He won three Super Bowls largely because of small receivers: the Smurfs in the early 1980s and the Posse in the late '80s. In '83, the Smurfs helped set a then-NFL record with 541 points in a season. Gibbs' receivers included the 5-10 Charlie Brown, 5-8 Virgil Seay and 5-7 Alvin Garrett.

After his offense floundered in '04, Gibbs jettisoned Rod Gardner (6-2, 213 pounds) and Coles, and went smaller to get bigger plays. Enter Santana Moss and David Patten, who entered the '05 season as starters, each listed at 5-10 and 190 pounds. (Washington's receiver corps was so small that the 5-9, 170-pound Antonio Brown said it was surreal to feel normal for once.)

While Patten suffered a season-ending injury last season, Moss flourished, averaging 17.6 yards on 84 catches. Offensive coordinator Don Breaux marvels at Moss' magnetic sense of the ball, regardless of whether the throw is off. Breaux joked to me recently that he thinks Moss has a GPS installed in his brain to track the ball.

It's natural to imagine Moss or Smith -- tied for the NFL lead in touchdowns (12) and catches (103) -- with a few more inches. But perhaps it would mean a few less inches on their verticals. Moreover, Moss might not have that uncanny knack for altering his route to pluck balls out the sky.

Smith, the most unstoppable receiver in the NFL this year, certainly wouldn't trade his height for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is impossible. A short receiver has never won a Super Bowl but one of his teams may have.

What is your definition of short? Santana Moss at 5'11 is considered tiny by many writers while Jerry Rice at 6'1 has been called anything but.

Of course Santana never won a superbowl but look at other players that were short. Lynn Swann is 6 feet tall, Irvin was 6'1, Gary Clark was 5'9, Troy Brown was 5'10 with Givens at 6'0.

I dont know why so much importance is put on having a reciever thats like 6'4 220. Of course I see the many advantages of a guy that can take a hit on a 3rd and short play action pass, but it isnt like a short man is a disadvantage in any way, between the players I mentioned are what? 11 different superbowl rings or something? Yeah. Big recievers are nice but they arent the be all and end all of an effective offense and bigger safeties and corners just make slower prey for fast, small, agile wide recievers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres always a double edge sword with everything in the NFL. If you have small wideouts then 7-10 yard patterns on 3rd down are easy to sit on for Cbs and Safeties. With big wideouts the D might know its coming but at least they can shield the ball. The key is to stay out of those situations.

The flip side is to have big safeties, ala Roy Williams, who are intimidating in those instances but can be burned big time in coverage. We have 3 WRs who can burn any D on 1st, 2nd or 3rd down.

I think the best part of getting saunders is his unpredictability. He ran draws or threw deep on 3rd and 15. Gibbs on the other hand always went right at the sticks. Every D knew that and sat on those routes. WE are not trying to we the best show on turg. Martz stole that from Turner, on the staff at some point i think, who stole that from Gibbs. This will be the Posse part Deaux except Lloyd is faster and more explosive than Monk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when people talk about big recievers they arent talking about bean poles that can just stick their hand up over people. They are talking about tall strong guys that can brush CB that is mugging him off while hes running a route. These same people seemingly forget the NFL finally started enforcing its pass interferrance rules a few years ago, whats even stranger is that many people at that time was predicting the resurgance of the small fast reciever.

Now I think the big reciever hold outs are just people who are still pissed about the rule being enforced, predicted small recievers wouldnt make a come back cause of the enforcement, or just have been convinced by someone who for whatever reason it maybe likes the big ones.

theres no denying that a big strong WR can muscle some big YACs for you, but so can the little guy. The thing is now since you dont have to be big and strong for seperation WRs can come from many molds and employed in a variaty of fashions. Its true durring the days of muggings small quick guys still got seperation, but sometimes it was at the expense of time in the pocket for the qb. Now, while the smaller recievers still have to contend with contact before seperation its easier for them to manage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is impossible. A short receiver has never won a Super Bowl but one of his teams may have.

Though that may be true the contributions that the smaller receivers have provided are being discussed. No one man wins a SB, the consistent opinion around the majority of the media would say the Skins made a mistake in thier signings...and yet just a week ago they were border-line genious. It is likely that with all that was achieved last year, additoinal talent would surpass what has already been done. I know being an Iggles fan you have a load a crap why things will be different this year. Things weren't looking all that great for you on that Sunday night game at FedEx when McNabb was still playing. Don't doubt Gibbs' formula he knows more than Reid does about winning SB's.

:logo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...