wbar3383 Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Ok, so I was tired of just blindly throwing opinions out on the tall wide reciever debate , so I went back for final 2006 season stats. I took the top 30 players, sorted by yards, and looked for hieght. Be advised I took out 2 tight ends (#26 and #27), because we are not talking about them. Here is what I saw. 1 Chad Johnson CIN 87 1369 6-1 2 Marvin Harrison IND 95 1366 6-0 3 Reggie Wayne IND 86 1310 6-0 3 Roy Williams DET 82 1310 6-3 5 Donald Driver GB 92 1295 6-0 6 Lee Evans BUF WR 82 1292 5-10 7 Anquan Boldin ARI 83 1203 6-1 8 Torry Holt STL WR 93 1188 6-0 9 Terrell Owens DAL 85 1180 6-3 10 Steve Smith CAR 83 1166 5-9 11 Andre Johnson HO 103 1147 6-3 12 Isaac Bruce STL 74 1098 6-0 12 Laveranu ColesNYJ 91 1098 5-11 14 Mike Furrey DET 98 1086 6-0 15 Javon Walker DEN 69 1084 6-3 16 T.J. Houshman CIN 90 1081 6-1 17 Joey Galloway TB 62 1057 5-11 18 Terry Glenn DAL 70 1047 5-11 19 Marqu Colston NO 70 1038 6-4 20 Plaxico Burress NYG 63 988 6-5 21 Hines Ward PIT 74 975 6-0 22 Jerrich Cotche NYJ 82 961 6-0 23 Darrell Jackso SEA 63 956 6-0 24 Larry FitzgeraldARI 69 946 6-3 25 Mark Clayton BAL 67 939 5-10 28 Brayl Edwards CLE 61 884 6-3 30 Muhsin Muham CHI 60 863 6-2 The first thing that popped out to me was the inordinate number of 6 foot even players. I mean we must have the market cornered in the NFL on perfect six footers. My only conclusion there is that some heights are padded (just like weights) but they have some sort of stigma or fear of being labelled short. Kinda like the fans on the forums do. Anyway, Ill ignore that even though it does stick out. # % Catches Yards 5-9 1 3.57 83 1166 5-10 2 7.14 149 2231 5-11 3 10.71 223 3202 6-0 9 32.14 757 10235 6-1 4 14.29 260 3653 6-2 1 3.57 60 863 6-3 5 17.86 469 5371 6-4 1 3.57 70 1038 6-5 1 3.57 63 988 As you can see, 6 foot wide recievers rule at 32 percent of the population and amassed over 10k yards for the top end recievers. It seems that the mass majority of shorty haters draw their midgit line at 5-11. Considering that the 6 footers are pound for pound the most productive in the NFL, I'm having a hard time figuring out why we are so paranoid about that 1 extra inch. (at least in football) My thoughts are... forget height. If you want to play WR for me can you... 1) get open 2) catch the friggin ball once you are 3) if you are over 6-2, then i will let you slide on #1 My thoughts at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Touchdown Redskins Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 So what you're saying is skill > height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
909997 Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 we should have kept Darnerien McCants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoth Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Who is playing the other WR positions? We're not after height for height sake. We need someone tall for specific 3rd down and redzone situations to muscle people and get the gutsy over-the-middle catches and toss ups in the endzone. Many possession receivers contribute mightily, allowing the big names on that list to do well, but aren't mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbar3383 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 Who is playing the other WR positions?We're not after height for height sake. We need someone tall for specific 3rd down and redzone situations to muscle people and get the gutsy over-the-middle catches and toss ups in the endzone. Many possession receivers contribute mightily, allowing the big names on that list to do well, but aren't mentioned. You mean like chris cooley ? We have a tall guy who can catch, so yes I am saying people are looking for height just for height sake. And it's a hard accusation to deny considering comments made in other threads. They basically have nothing to say but, "omg wtf, we need an 8 foot tall reciever". Cooley is 6-3 or so, a mad reciever, and blocks like crap. No reason for him not to be our posession reciever. If you want someone that size but faster, your gonna have to spend a high draft pick on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbar3383 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 So what you're saying is skill > height. Why not. Skill or heart, pick one. Randel and Lloyd are not that far apart in height. They both got thrown at last game. 1 guy had heart and made the catches. 1 did not Height didnt make a damn bit of difference. Skill and plain just wanting it did. I am all for tall recievers, but Im not gonna cut my cat's throat if we dont have one. Well maybe I will, cause I hate them cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 You mean like chris cooley ?We have a tall guy who can catch, so yes I am saying people are looking for height just for height sake. And it's a hard accusation to deny considering comments made in other threads. They basically have nothing to say but, "omg wtf, we need an 8 foot tall reciever". Cooley is 6-3 or so, a mad reciever, and blocks like crap. No reason for him not to be our posession reciever. If you want someone that size but faster, your gonna have to spend a high draft pick on him. Cooley's verticle is probably 14 inches. EDIT: For the record that's an exaggeration. The point I'm trying to make is that Cooley can't jump. Although I don't think Joe Jureviscious can jump and he's been pretty successful. Basically I don't know what I'm talking about. P.S. I before E except after C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.