Big strong WR's are OVER RATED ? (1 Viewer)

[The Moz]

It just seems year in and out it si da little fellas getting it done ! Like Harrison , Holt , Wayne , Smith , this year Coles , and Driver ect. Sure Owens ( when head isn't in ### ) and this year Colston and AJ are solid but it seems the trend is really smaller wr's rather than the 6'3 225 WR we have been hearing is taking over the league last few seasons !

Was the entire 6'3 225 wr invasion a mirage or a trend that just hasn't really hit yet ? ?

 

[Ghost Rider]

This is because DB's are still allowed some leeway when it comes to bumping and such, so big, strong WR's have a more difficult getting separation than smaller, quicker WR's. I think this is part of the reason why the Jaguars passing game struggles so much. All of their WR's are big. They need a speed WR to stretch the field, not to mention a consistent QB.

 

[Thorpe]

Size is important, but not as important as speed, quickness, route-running, timing and hands.

 

[Biabreakable]

I think the correlation your seeing for smaller quicker Wrs being more successful lately is partly tied to the increased enforcement of the no contact after 5 yards rule. Before that defensive back had more leeway to interfere with Wrs and while this was happening teams were gravitating to the big Wrs who could fight Dbs for the ball. Being a big Wr is no longer as much of an advantage now that the refs will call holding and interference more strictly than they were for quite awhile there.

Defensive backs have become larger overall recently taking away some of that advantage as well.

Size is only one factor in what makes a reciever good. It is not a prerequisite.

 

[Big Score]

If you're good, you're good.

 

[redman]

If you're good, you're good.

I do think that if I had to choose, I'd rather have speed and quickness than size and strength at the WR position, especially in the Illegal Contact Era of football.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It just seems year in and out it si da little fellas getting it done !

There are a lot more little fellas than big fellas who have the skills to play WR.Consider this: there are a lot more successful WRs who run a 4.4 or higher than there are who run a 4.39 or lower. That doesn't mean being super fast is bad. Similarly, being 6'3", 245 isn't bad. It's just rare.

 

[Two Deep]

Size is important, but not as important as speed, quickness, route-running, timing and hands.

Tell that to your wife.

 

[diesel7982]

Tyrone Calico

 

[redman]

Size is important, but not as important as speed, quickness, route-running, timing and hands.

Tell that to your wife.

My wife loves my route running. Loves it.

 

[H.K.]

Size is important, but not as important as speed, quickness, route-running, timing and hands.

Tell that to your wife.

My wife loves my route running. Loves it.

How does she feel about your "quickness"?

 

[redman]

Size is important, but not as important as speed, quickness, route-running, timing and hands.

Tell that to your wife.

My wife loves my route running. Loves it.

How does she feel about your "quickness"?

I have good explosion. You can't teach that. :feelinglikeaFFAthread:

 

[H.K.]

I have good explosion. You can't teach that. :feelinglikeaFFAthread:

I'll try to get this back to the original topic: All things being equal a larger WR is better than a smaller one. The size advantage allows for an easier target to pick up, a bigger window to throw to, a tougher player to defense in jump ball situations, and the ability to shield defenders. However, the combo of size and speed often have an inverse relationship, so this optimum scenario is pretty rare.

 

[mbuehner]

Its less about simple height than leaping ability and body positioning. That being said, if TO was 6'0" he wouldnt be in the league, much less the #2 WR despite double digit dropsies.

So height can help (the next generation stars aside from Steve Smith are all pretty tall- A Johnson, Colston, Roy Williams, Plaxico) a lot, but its certainly not everything. I think there just happen to be an uncharacteristic number of extremely talanted WRs in our current era who happen to be about 6' tall. I mean Marvin Harrison and Torry Holt are going to the HOF, they kinda skew the books a little bit. Even Jerry Rice was 6'2".

 

[Z-Dog]

In my league, the top 10 WRs were:

Harrison (small)

Owens (big)

Wayne (medium)

Holt (medium)

Walker (big)

C.Johnson (big)

DJax (medium)

Driver (medium

Houshmandzadeh (medium)

Burress (big)

I've assigned anyone under 6' and 190 pounds to small, over 6' but under 6'2" and over 190 but under 210 as medium, and everyone else as medium.

4 of 10 were big

5 of 10 were medium

1 of 10 was small

 

[Two Deep]

I have good explosion. You can't teach that.

:feelinglikeaFFAthread:

I'll try to get this back to the original topic: All things being equal a larger WR is better than a smaller one. The size advantage allows for an easier target to pick up, a bigger window to throw to, a tougher player to defense in jump ball situations, and the ability to shield defenders. However, the combo of size and speed often have an inverse relationship, so this optimum scenario is pretty rare.

Especially in the red zone. The little guys need space in order to score, whereas the big guys can score in tight quarters.

 

[cr8f]

I have good explosion. You can't teach that. :feelinglikeaFFAthread:

I'll try to get this back to the original topic: All things being equal a larger WR is better than a smaller one.

All things aren't equal. That's what this topic is about.