Tight End: is height a negative attribute? (1 Viewer)

[EBF]

After watching tall TE prospects like Jerramy Stevens and Marcedes Lewis fail to meet expectations, I started to wonder whether height was really an asset at the TE position. Height might allow a receiver to win jump balls over smaller defenders, but it typically comes at a significant cost of lateral agility and quickness. I think this is why guys like Brad Cottam and Leonard Pope have been complete failures as NFL players while shorter TEs like Chris Cooley, Kellen Winslow, Vernon Davis, and Dallas Clark have thrived. I decided to look at elite TE prospects and evaluate their production and height.

I looked at every draft class between 2000-2007. I decided to exclude players from the 2008 and 2009 drafts because they haven't been in the league long enough to reach their full potential. I limited my study to players who were selected in the top 100 picks of the NFL draft partially for the sake of simplicity and partially because I think most of the elite TE prospects fall into this range. I counted 39 prospects (excluding Kevin Everett because of his unique medical situation).

2000

Bubba Franks

Anthony Becht

Erron Kinney

2001

Todd Heap

Alge Crumpler

Sean Brewer

Shad Meier

2002

Jeremy Shockey

Daniel Graham

Jerramy Stevens

Doug Jolley

Matt Schobel

Chris Baker

2003

Dallas Clark

Bennie Joppru

LJ Smith

Jason Witten

Mike Seidman

Visanthe Shiancoe

2004

Kellen Winslow

Ben Watson

Ben Troupe

Kris Wilson

Ben Hartsock

Chris Cooley

2005

Heath Miller

Alex Smith

2006

Vernon Davis

Marcedes Lewis

Joe Klopfenstein

Anthony Fasano

Tony Scheffler

Leonard Pope

David Thomas

Dominique Byrd

Owen Daniels

2007

Greg Olsen

Zach Miller

Matt Spaeth

The first thing I did was calculate the average height of this group. The number I came up with was 6'4.4". Then I looked at each player's best statistical season in terms of receiving yards and calculated the average "peak season" for this group. 522 yards was the number I came up with. The average top 100 draft pick TE is 6'4.4" with a peak season of 522 receiving yards.

As a reference, I also ranked the TEs by height. The number next to each player's name is his height in inches above 6 feet.

Pope 7.6

Spaeth 7.1

------------------------------

Stevens 6.6

Lewis 6.3

------------------------------

Olsen 5.7

Klopfenstein 5.6

Witten 5.6

Franks 5.5

Becht 5.5

Kinney 5.5

Scheffler 5.3

H. Miller 5.0

Meier 5.0

------------------------------

Shockey 4.6

Schobel 4.6

Heap 4.5

Seidman 4.4

Z. Miller 4.3

Shiancoe 4.3

Troupe 4.3

Joppru 4.2

Jolley 4.2

Fasano 4.1

A. Smith 4.1

Hartsock 4.0

------------------------------

Winslow 3.7

Cooley 3.7

Brewer 3.6

Watson 3.4

Clark 3.3

Daniels 3.3

V. Davis 3.2

LJ Smith 3.2

Graham 3.1

Baker 3.1

D. Thomas 3.1

------------------------------

Byrd 2.5

Crumpler 2.4

------------------------------

Wilson 1.7

From there I decided to look at each individual TE's peak season compared to the average peak season for the group. I came up with the following quality rankings based on the amount of yards above the average:

Witten (+623)

Winslow (+584)

Clark (+584)

V. Davis (+443)

Shockey (+372)

Crumpler (+355)

Daniels (+340)

Heap (+333)

Cooley (+327)

Z. Miller (+283)

H. Miller (+267)

LJ Smith (+160)

Scheffler (+123)

Watson (+121)

Olsen (+90)

Shiancoe (+70)

Stevens (+32)

Kinney (+19)

Troupe (+8)

Lewis (-4)

Fasano (-68)

Franks (-80)

Graham (-113)

Baker (-113)

Jolley (-113)

A. Smith (-137)

D. Thomas (-166)

Becht (-166)

Schobel (-190)

Pope (-284)

Klopfenstein (-296)

Wilson (-342)

Meier (-363)

Hartsock (-384)

Spaeth (-386)

Seidman (-399)

Byrd (-478)

Joppru (-522)

Brewer (-522)

These lists are interesting to look at, but they don't tell us whether there's a correlation between height and success, so I decided to exclude all of the players whose peak season fell below the average. That gave me the following 19 players:

Witten (+623)

Winslow (+584)

Clark (+584)

V. Davis (+443)

Shockey (+372)

Crumpler (+355)

Daniels (+340)

Heap (+333)

Cooley (+327)

Z. Miller (+283)

H. Miller (+267)

LJ Smith (+160)

Scheffler (+123)

Watson (+121)

Olsen (+90)

Shiancoe (+70)

Stevens (+32)

Kinney (+19)

Troupe (+8)

The average height of this group is 6'4.3", only one tenth of an inch below the average of the entire group. It doesn't look like there's a difference in height between successful TEs and unsuccessful ones, but I think this list is misleading. Many of the players at the bottom were mediocre talents who fluked their way to one good year. I decided to remove these players from the equation and limit the list to players who had multiple "good" seasons (seasons above 522 receiving yards). This gave me the following group:

Witten (+623)

Winslow (+584)

Clark (+584)

V. Davis (+443)

Shockey (+372)

Crumpler (+355)

Daniels (+340)

Heap (+333)

Cooley (+327)

Z. Miller (+283)

H. Miller (+267)

LJ Smith (+160)

Scheffler (+123)

Olsen (+90)

Shiancoe (+70)

The average height of this group is 6'4.2", only two tenths of an inch below the average of the initial group of 39. Once again there doesn't appear to be a strong correlation between height and success, but what if we become even more selective and limit our list to the very best of the best, the TEs who have achieved the rare feat of an 800+ yard season?

Witten 1145

Winslow 1106

Clark 1106

V. Davis 965

Shockey 894

Crumpler 877

Daniels 862

Heap 855

Cooley 849

Z. Miller 805

The average height of this group is 6'3.9", a full half of an inch shorter than the average of the entire group. To me this suggests that height might actually impede a TE prospect's receiving ability. Let's look at the data.

average height of a top 100 TE prospect: 6'4.4"

average career peak: 522 yards

average height of TEs with at least one good season: 6'4.3"

percentage of TEs with at least one good season: 48.7%

average height of TEs with multiple good seasons: 6'4.2"

percentage of TEs with multiple good seasons: 35.9%

average height of TEs with at least one elite season: 6'3.9"

percentage of TEs with at least one elite season: 25.6%

% of drafted TEs between 6'7.0-6'7.9": 5.2

% of drafted TEs between 6'6.0-6'6.9": 5.2

% of drafted TEs between 6'5.0-6'5.9": 23.1

% of drafted TEs between 6'4.0-6'4.9": 30.8

% of drafted TEs between 6'3.0-6'3.9": 28.2

% of drafted TEs between 6'2.0-6'2.9": 5.2

% of drafted TEs between 6'1.0-6'1.9": 2.6

where good = at least one 522+ yard season...

% of good TEs between 6'7.0-6'7.9": 0

% of good TEs between 6'6.0-6'6.9": 5.3

% of good TEs between 6'5.0-6'5.9": 21.1

% of good TEs between 6'4.0-6'4.9": 26.3

% of good TEs between 6'3.0-6'3.9": 36.8

% of good TEs between 6'2.0-6'2.9": 5.3

% of good TEs between 6'1.0-6'1.9": 0

where elite = at least one 800+ yard season...

% of elite TEs between 6'7.0-6'7.9": 0

% of elite TEs between 6'6.0-6'6.9": 0

% of elite TEs between 6'5.0-6'5.9": 10

% of elite TEs between 6'4.0-6'4.9": 30

% of elite TEs between 6'3.0-6'3.9": 50

% of elite TEs between 6'2.0-6'2.9": 10

% of elite TEs between 6'1.0-6'1.9": 0

What, if anything, can we conclude from this? The first thing we should notice is that elite TEs are rare. Of the 39 TEs drafted in the top 100, only 10 have achieved an elite season. That's roughly 1 in every 4.

The second thing we should notice is that very tall and very short TEs are rare. 84.2% of the TEs drafted in the top 100 are between 6'3.0"-6'5.9". Since very tall and very short TEs are rare and since elite TEs are rare, it might not mean anything that there hasn't been an elite 6'6.0-6'7.9" TE yet. There were only 4 players picked in that height range between 2000-2007. The fact that none of them has registered an elite season yet might be a matter of scarcity and variance rather than ability.

At the same time, I think the results are interesting. 28.2% of top 100 prospects are between 6'3.0-6'3.9", yet this group represents 36.8% of the good TEs and a whopping 50% of the elite TEs. The sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions, but it certainly seems to suggest that 6'3.0-6'3.9" is the actual "ideal" height for a receiving TE.

When people talk about young players like 6'6.2" Rob Gronkowski or 6'6.1" Martellus Bennett as having "great size," they might want to reconsider. Jason Witten is currently the only elite receiving TE above 6'5" (though Greg Olsen, Heath Miller, and Tony Scheffler could conceivably join him).

 

[Go deep]

First thing, nice job

second thing, you have ALOT of time on your hands.

As far as the info goes, much like BMI, i dont think you can measure a players chance of being successful based on mathematics. Does anyone really think that if Gronkowski was 2 inches shorter he would be more likely to be a good player?

 

[Beaumont]

Really tall TE not in the nold of an OT have a problem blocking and get pushed off the field. I recall Zach Hilton discussing his struggles to block given he was long and lanky.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Jared Cook is 6'5 EBF.

But I do like this breakdown.....I was thinking something similar the day. Which is why Travis Beckum could have a shot in NY.

 

[netnalp]

I forget who said it but I believe recall it was someone who would know what they were talking about, I think Tony Gonzalez maybe, that the skills used in basketball are really helpful for a TE. If that's true, it might be interesting to see a comparison of TE's that played college or excelled at high school basketball compared to those that didn't. Tony g and Shannon Sharpe, Gates are three that played college basketball.

Some more I found that played college basketball:

Mike Ditka

Todd Heap

Ricky Dudley - he does more to disprove the theory I suppose.

(Harold Carmichael is 6'7" but i think he was a WR)

 

[the rover]

interesting that because you only went with drafted TEs Antonio Gates gets omitted, but at 6'4", he wouldn't really do much to the results.

 

[EBF]

Jared Cook is 6'5 EBF.But I do like this breakdown.....I was thinking something similar the day. Which is why Travis Beckum could have a shot in NY.

Cook is 6'4.6" and Finley is 6'4.4". Those guys could throw a monkey wrench into these results in the future, but then there's other guys chomping at the bit like Fred Davis, who's in the 6'3" range.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Jared Cook is 6'5 EBF.But I do like this breakdown.....I was thinking something similar the day. Which is why Travis Beckum could have a shot in NY.

Cook is 6'4.6" and Finley is 6'4.4". Those guys could throw a monkey wrench into these results in the future, but then there's other guys chomping at the bit like Fred Davis, who's in the 6'3" range.

True.What do you think about Tony Gonzo and Gates being former college bball players like a poster above stated? Could have a correlation as well.

 

[Donsmith753]

Something you aren't considering is that tight ends are typically not the focal point of any NFL offense.

They tend to excel when

1) The team has no elite or up and coming WRs

2) The QB is young and needs to dump off the ball

3) The offense is stagnant enough where the TE, typically a "safety valve" kind of offensive weapon, is used more often

Case in point, Alge Crumpler got a decent number of balls from Michael Vick. ( Vick either had poor WRs or was just a really lousy QB, take either angle and the reality is the WRs did not produce for those teams, so Vick relied on his legs and Crumpler) Randy McMichael for the Dolphins, no WRs besides Chambers. Gonzo got stats but his WRs were Kennison and whatever else they could scrounge up for Trent Green. Gates excelled when there were few to no strong WR options for SD.

The more elite the offensive line, the less likely the TE needs to stay in to help block. Jay Novacek and Brent Jones could run free because the Dallas and SF O lines were so strong and accomplished in their dynasty years. Shannon Sharpe had some outstanding Denver O lines that didn't need him as a blocker ( not that he could block anyway if he even tried)

I don't think height is a negative attribute, I think the position requires an offensive "tweener" that is rare to find. Has to be big enough to block, but fast enough to get past linebackers and safeties, and have good hands while taking balls in traffic while waiting for the big hit coming. Generally players like this are rare so most teams simply have specialists at the position ( i.e. a blocking TE or a WR type of TE)

I suspect if your TE is racking up major numbers year in and year out, in a non FF sense, then that's an indicator that something is probably not working right in your general team offense.

I agree with most of what you say but what about Dallas Clark, Indy's offense is ok.

 

[Couch Potato]

I have done my own exhaustive study and found that children have a much greater chance than the general population of growing up to be NFL tight ends if their parents named them Zach Miller. In fact, just having the Miller surname helps a lot.

 

[dgreen]

2) The QB is young and needs to dump off the ball

I did a very rough, incomplete look at this a couple years ago. From what I looked at, I didn't see a correlation between age/experience of the QB and TE receptions.

 

[dgreen]

Does anyone really think that if Gronkowski was 2 inches shorter he would be more likely to be a good player?

Would a reduction in 2 inches lead to more speed and agility?

 

[dgreen]

I suspect if your TE is racking up major numbers year in and year out, in a non FF sense, then that's an indicator that something is probably not working right in your general team offense.

I agree with most of what you say but what about Dallas Clark, Indy's offense is ok.

I disagree with the "year in and year out" part. The TEs who produce good numbers year in and year out are typically on good offenses. Gonzalez played on good offenses in KC, Gates in SD, Witten in DAL, Sharpe in DEN, and some others produced good TE numbers are part of good offenses.

 

[Chunky Soup]

Once again EBF having problems with causation/correlation. How is Chris Johnson working out as a RB, EBF?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I don't think you can draw the conclusion that height is a negative indicator. What you haven't taken into account is that many of the larger players may not have been drafted to be a receiving TE. They may have been drafted for their blocking ability. Likely, very few of the smaller TEs were mainly for their blocking ability.

 

[CalBear]

Sorry, it really looks here like you kept chopping away at your data set until it looked the way you wanted it to.

 

[dgreen]

I don't think you can draw the conclusion that height is a negative indicator.

All else being equal, height would likely be an advantage. A 7' TE who can run and catch just like a 6'4" TE would probably be better. But, all else is rarely equal. A 7' TE won't be able to run like the 6'4" TE. At some point, the taller someone is, the more they probably lose in other areas.

What you haven't taken into account is that many of the larger players may not have been drafted to be a receiving TE. They may have been drafted for their blocking ability. Likely, very few of the smaller TEs were mainly for their blocking ability.

I'm not sure how this is an argument against anything here. What you are saying is "Big guys are better blockers" and "Small guys are better receivers". That's exactly what he's suggesting might be the case.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I admire the study, and think you did a nice job with the data you had. But I think you'd want to do three things before reaching any conclusions:

1) Control for draft status. I don't think you've done that. If a 6'1 TE is the 10th pick and a 6'6 TE is the 90th pick, and the 6'1 TE becomes a star and the 6'6 TE stinks, I'm not sure that says much about height. At least, much interesting about height. I think you want to reword the question into a more economic/market-type of question such as "does the NFL draft market overvalue tall TEs and undervalue short ones?" or "Why NFL GMs need to reconsider height when it comes to tight end."

2) You need a control group, otherwise you're data mining. What you want to do is split your group in half (more on this in #3), run your test/studies, get your results, and then measure it against a control group to see if it still holds. Otherwise, your theory is no more impressive than saying, like another poster did, that naming your kid Zach Miller is a great way to make him a star TE. You need to separate out real correlation from data mining, and a control group would help with that.

3) I'd open up your data to since 1960 or 1970 or 1980. Only 8 years worth of data isn't much. (I'd quibble with the metrics you're using, too, but I think they're at least reasonable enough.)

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I don't think you can draw the conclusion that height is a negative indicator.

All else being equal, height would likely be an advantage. A 7' TE who can run and catch just like a 6'4" TE would probably be better. But, all else is rarely equal. A 7' TE won't be able to run like the 6'4" TE. At some point, the taller someone is, the more they probably lose in other areas.

What you haven't taken into account is that many of the larger players may not have been drafted to be a receiving TE. They may have been drafted for their blocking ability. Likely, very few of the smaller TEs were mainly for their blocking ability.

I'm not sure how this is an argument against anything here. What you are saying is "Big guys are better blockers" and "Small guys are better receivers". That's exactly what he's suggesting might be the case.

Certainly you'd agree that larger guys are likely more likely to be drafted mainly for their blocking skills (vs smaller guys). If so, when you remove those from the pool, the overall average height of TEs decreases, eliminating the disparity between elite ones and the whole pool.

 

[Chase Stuart]

What you haven't taken into account is that many of the larger players may not have been drafted to be a receiving TE. They may have been drafted for their blocking ability. Likely, very few of the smaller TEs were mainly for their blocking ability.

I'm not sure how this is an argument against anything here. What you are saying is "Big guys are better blockers" and "Small guys are better receivers". That's exactly what he's suggesting might be the case.

I disagree. Unless EBF wants to talk only about receiving tight ends, I think it's legitimate to wonder if the guy was drafted mainly because of his blocking skills. Then he doesn't "bust" if he turns into a great blocker/poor receiver.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I admire the study, and think you did a nice job with the data you had. But I think you'd want to do three things before reaching any conclusions:

1) Control for draft status. I don't think you've done that. If a 6'1 TE is the 10th pick and a 6'6 TE is the 90th pick, and the 6'1 TE becomes a star and the 6'6 TE stinks, I'm not sure that says much about height. At least, much interesting about height. I think you want to reword the question into a more economic/market-type of question such as "does the NFL draft market overvalue tall TEs and undervalue short ones?" or "Why NFL GMs need to reconsider height when it comes to tight end."

2) You need a control group, otherwise you're data mining. What you want to do is split your group in half (more on this in #3), run your test/studies, get your results, and then measure it against a control group to see if it still holds. Otherwise, your theory is no more impressive than saying, like another poster did, that naming your kid Zach Miller is a great way to make him a star TE. You need to separate out real correlation from data mining, and a control group would help with that.

3) I'd open up your data to since 1960 or 1970 or 1980. Only 8 years worth of data isn't much. (I'd quibble with the metrics you're using, too, but I think they're at least reasonable enough.)

Good response overall Chase. One quibble: on #3, I think there is a very real question to ask....around how meaningful/applicable data is from 1960, 1970, and possibly even 1980. NFL players have "evolved" quite a bit during that time (and the rules have morphed too), so I think it's fair to limit the timeframe somewhat. You're probably right that more than 8 years of data is ideal - but a cutoff of 1960 IMO doesn't provide a good sample.

 

[haterade]

when the data and analysis doesn't match the hypothesis, don't try to force it

it was a good try

much respect

and keep up the good work

 

[Go deep]

Does anyone really think that if Gronkowski was 2 inches shorter he would be more likely to be a good player?

Would a reduction in 2 inches lead to more speed and agility?

I dont know, is there data to back that up, i doubt it.

 

[Go deep]

I don't think you can draw the conclusion that height is a negative indicator.

All else being equal, height would likely be an advantage. A 7' TE who can run and catch just like a 6'4" TE would probably be better. But, all else is rarely equal. A 7' TE won't be able to run like the 6'4" TE. At some point, the taller someone is, the more they probably lose in other areas.

What you haven't taken into account is that many of the larger players may not have been drafted to be a receiving TE. They may have been drafted for their blocking ability. Likely, very few of the smaller TEs were mainly for their blocking ability.

I'm not sure how this is an argument against anything here. What you are saying is "Big guys are better blockers" and "Small guys are better receivers". That's exactly what he's suggesting might be the case.

How tall are you, do you think you can run faster than this guy?

 

[loose circuits]

over analysis IMO, but a good effort

Is this supposed to be an argument that the kid from Miami won't be any good?

 

[Horsec]

No this is an argument to wait til after round 10 and draft whomever is left between Winslow, Shincoe, Cooley, and Carlson.

 

[EBF]

over analysis IMO, but a good effortIs this supposed to be an argument that the kid from Miami won't be any good?

I'd say it's more of an observation than an argument. Draft pundits like to talk about tall TEs as having great size, but I noticed that most of the elite pass catching TEs in the NFL aren't very tall. I think the fact that most of the elite receiving TEs are relatively short offers some support for the idea that height might not be such an asset at the TE position. All things being equal, a tall player with an identical skill set should be superior to a short player with an identical skill set. The problem is that these cases are rare because height usually comes at the cost of other things like speed and agility.

 

[Go deep]

No this is an argument to wait til after round 10 and draft whomever is left between Winslow, Shincoe, Cooley, and Carlson.

Hijack alertWinslow is at least a tier higher than those guys. He might lead all TE's in targets this year. Thats not to say i think he will be a top 3-5 TE, but if he doesnt, it wont be from lack of opportunity.

 

[Go deep]

over analysis IMO, but a good effort

Is this supposed to be an argument that the kid from Miami won't be any good?

I'd say it's more of an observation than an argument. Draft pundits like to talk about tall TEs as having great size, but I noticed that most of the elite pass catching TEs in the NFL aren't very tall. I think the fact that most of the elite receiving TEs are relatively short offers some support for the idea that height might not be such an asset at the TE position.

All things being equal, a tall player with an identical skill set should be superior to a short player with an identical skill set. The problem is that these cases are rare because height usually comes at the cost of other things like speed and agility.

I dont think this is true. If anything, i think height would increase your speed, as long as you were proportionately built to someone shorter.

 

[RUSF18]

I think everyone brings up a lot of really good reasons as to why your analysis is flawed (but still, good effort)...

When people talk about young players like 6'6.2" Rob Gronkowski or 6'6.1" Martellus Bennett as having "great size," they might want to reconsider. Jason Witten is currently the only elite receiving TE above 6'5" (though Greg Olsen, Heath Miller, and Tony Scheffler could conceivably join him).

So you're saying that we (potentially) could have 4 TEs above 6'5" that will put up elite seasons. Outside of them, how many current starting TEs meet or exceed that height?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I think the fact that most of the elite receiving TEs are relatively short offers some support for the idea that height might not be such an asset at the TE position. All things being equal, a tall player with an identical skill set should be superior to a short player with an identical skill set. The problem is that these cases are rare because height usually comes at the cost of other things like speed and agility.

I think people are over thinking this one.Most elite WRs are under 6'4". That doesn't make height a detriment for WRs. Most elite basketball players are under 7'0". That doesn't make height a detriment for basketball players.Most people are under 6'4". There's a smaller pool of people to choose from as you go taller. There may be more players who are shorter, but proportionally, probably not.

 

[CaptainHook]

Are you serious....

i dont want to discourage you because i really appreciate people considering novel ideas and testing them out...but its quite ovbious you dont have anything remotely useful here.

i want to genuinely thank you for trying, but... back to the drawing board

 

[JJP]

Really tall TE not in the nold of an OT have a problem blocking and get pushed off the field. I recall Zach Hilton discussing his struggles to block given he was long and lanky.

Another case in point: Greg Olson. Bears pick up a blocking TE the other day because Olson can't block.

 

[EBF]

I think the fact that most of the elite receiving TEs are relatively short offers some support for the idea that height might not be such an asset at the TE position. All things being equal, a tall player with an identical skill set should be superior to a short player with an identical skill set. The problem is that these cases are rare because height usually comes at the cost of other things like speed and agility.

I think people are over thinking this one.Most elite WRs are under 6'4". That doesn't make height a detriment for WRs. Most elite basketball players are under 7'0". That doesn't make height a detriment for basketball players.Most people are under 6'4". There's a smaller pool of people to choose from as you go taller. There may be more players who are shorter, but proportionally, probably not.

Right, but read the whole post.

% of drafted TEs between 6'7.0-6'7.9": 5.2% of drafted TEs between 6'6.0-6'6.9": 5.2% of drafted TEs between 6'5.0-6'5.9": 23.1% of drafted TEs between 6'4.0-6'4.9": 30.8% of drafted TEs between 6'3.0-6'3.9": 28.2% of drafted TEs between 6'2.0-6'2.9": 5.2% of drafted TEs between 6'1.0-6'1.9": 2.6where good = at least one 522+ yard season...% of good TEs between 6'7.0-6'7.9": 0% of good TEs between 6'6.0-6'6.9": 5.3% of good TEs between 6'5.0-6'5.9": 21.1% of good TEs between 6'4.0-6'4.9": 26.3% of good TEs between 6'3.0-6'3.9": 36.8% of good TEs between 6'2.0-6'2.9": 5.3% of good TEs between 6'1.0-6'1.9": 0where elite = at least one 800+ yard season...% of elite TEs between 6'7.0-6'7.9": 0% of elite TEs between 6'6.0-6'6.9": 0% of elite TEs between 6'5.0-6'5.9": 10% of elite TEs between 6'4.0-6'4.9": 30% of elite TEs between 6'3.0-6'3.9": 50% of elite TEs between 6'2.0-6'2.9": 10% of elite TEs between 6'1.0-6'1.9": 0

6'3.0"-6'3.9" players represent only 28.2% of the TEs drafted, but they account for 36.8% of the players with a "good" season and 50% of the players with an "elite" season.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

6'3.0"-6'3.9" players represent only 28.2% of the TEs drafted, but they account for 36.8% of the players with a "good" season and 50% of the players with an "elite" season.

Right, but I think that can be explained a couple different ways. One is you are making your judgement from a final group of just 10 players. That's just too small to make a definitive determination. Second, as I mentioned earlier, you have to account for some of the bigger guys who were drafted for their blocking skills rather than their receiving skills. This would probably change the disparity. And third, the pool from which the NFL is choosing is still smaller for larger TEs. They are likely choosing a larger percentage of the big TE's and only the absolute elite of the smaller TEs. The fact that the NFL has chosen or not chosen them doesn't change the original pool size of players.

 

[Lab]

I see sample-size problems and other-variable problems, but I do like how EBF's % numbers (two posts above this one) form nice bell curves. As simple-minded as that might sound, it lends credence in my mind.

 

[CalBear]

I see sample-size problems and other-variable problems, but I do like how EBF's % numbers (two posts above this one) form nice bell curves. As simple-minded as that might sound, it lends credence in my mind.

Of course they form bell curves, that's what any populational numbers will do. The height of 100m champions also forms a bell curve, and that says absolutely nothing about whether Usain Bolt can run fast.

 

[netnalp]

I see sample-size problems and other-variable problems, but I do like how EBF's % numbers (two posts above this one) form nice bell curves. As simple-minded as that might sound, it lends credence in my mind.

Of course they form bell curves, that's what any populational numbers will do. The height of 100m champions also forms a bell curve, and that says absolutely nothing about whether Usain Bolt can run fast.

Heck the book titled "The Bell Curve" had bell curves and claimed to be valid and yet it was shown to have little to no validity.

 

[Peggy Starfish]

"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size do you?"

/Todd Yoder

 

[Lab]

I see sample-size problems and other-variable problems, but I do like how EBF's % numbers (two posts above this one) form nice bell curves. As simple-minded as that might sound, it lends credence in my mind.

Of course they form bell curves, that's what any populational numbers will do. The height of 100m champions also forms a bell curve, and that says absolutely nothing about whether Usain Bolt can run fast.

That makes sense for the first category that just tracks the heights of all drafted TEs, because that's just population data. But what about the other two data sets that correlate height with production? It seems that finding a consistent curve on those correlated data supports the existence of a correlation. If there were no correlation between height and production, then the results that tracks those two variables would be fairly random. Wouldn't it?

 

[Matt Waldman]

Rather than argue the numbers, is it possible to consider that taller tight ends generally have more difficulty executing the diverse range of physical skill sets required of the position? I think he is onto something that is easier to digest from observation of what's happening on the field rather than a statistical analysis.

 

[dgreen]

Wiki has all the answers:

Tall wide receivers have an advantage of being able to jump considerably higher than shorter defensive backs to catch highly thrown passes. Of course, this advantage has limits because exceedingly tall receivers are normally not as agile or lack overall speed or strength. Tight ends are usually over 1.93 m (6 ft 4 in) because they need greater body mass to be effective blockers and greater height is an advantage for them as receivers, since they run shorter routes based less on speed.

 

[Mister CIA]

Height becomes a negative attribute at all positions (except maybe punter and kicker). Whatever your criteria for graphing the results, I'd expect all positions to grade out proportional to one another, give or take an inch.

 

[CalBear]

I see sample-size problems and other-variable problems, but I do like how EBF's % numbers (two posts above this one) form nice bell curves. As simple-minded as that might sound, it lends credence in my mind.

Of course they form bell curves, that's what any populational numbers will do. The height of 100m champions also forms a bell curve, and that says absolutely nothing about whether Usain Bolt can run fast.

That makes sense for the first category that just tracks the heights of all drafted TEs, because that's just population data. But what about the other two data sets that correlate height with production? It seems that finding a consistent curve on those correlated data supports the existence of a correlation. If there were no correlation between height and production, then the results that tracks those two variables would be fairly random. Wouldn't it?

Correlation is not causation. There will be correlation between height and production at any position, and the distribution will look like a bell curve regardless of how you slice the numbers. That doesn't do anything to predict what any individual in the population will do. (Particularly when you've had to slice the population down to 10 members to find anything that looks like meaningful data).Think about QBs. You could do a QB study that would look almost exactly like this, maybe with the bell curve peaking an inch or two shorter than with TEs. You'd find very few elite seasons from QBs of 6'6" or more. Does that mean that being 6'6" is a detrimental quality to a QB? I can't imagine any reason why that would be. It's just that the population is so small that we haven't yet seen a 6'6" elite QB.

 

[Lab]

I see sample-size problems and other-variable problems, but I do like how EBF's % numbers (two posts above this one) form nice bell curves. As simple-minded as that might sound, it lends credence in my mind.

Of course they form bell curves, that's what any populational numbers will do. The height of 100m champions also forms a bell curve, and that says absolutely nothing about whether Usain Bolt can run fast.

That makes sense for the first category that just tracks the heights of all drafted TEs, because that's just population data. But what about the other two data sets that correlate height with production? It seems that finding a consistent curve on those correlated data supports the existence of a correlation. If there were no correlation between height and production, then the results that tracks those two variables would be fairly random. Wouldn't it?

There will be correlation between height and production at any position, and the distribution will look like a bell curve regardless of how you slice the numbers.

That's the point I'm driving at -- is that statement really true? I'm sure it is in an absolute sense at the very extremes, meaning that as a TE (or any position really) falls in height down to something like 5'5", they're less likely to be any successful ones. And similarly, as players get close to the 7' mark, there will be fewer of them at that end too. But in the reasonable middle ground (let's say 6'1" - 6'7" for TEs), will the TEs performance be correlated to their height, or will it be essentially random?As I am typing this, I just had a lightbulb come on, and maybe it's the point you've been making all along. Here it is: If the general population of TEs follows a smooth bell curve (which it should since it's just population data), then it stands to reason that the sub-population of top-performing TEs would follow the same bell curve (assuming they're evenly distributed among all heights). That actually makes sense to me. If that's what you've been driving at all day, then I think you're right.I guess the question to ask would be whether bell curve of TE height in the general population matches the curve of TE production-by-height. If it's the same curve, then that's to be expected and there is no real correlation. But if the curves are different (meaning they are different shapes, or perhaps center around different numbers) then that suggests there might be some correlation between height any production.Interesting stuff (to me at least). Sorry to vomit so much rambling onto the screen.

 

[Marauder]

6'3.0"-6'3.9" players represent only 28.2% of the TEs drafted, but they account for 36.8% of the players with a "good" season and 50% of the players with an "elite" season.

You talk like this is a huge difference but with this sample size it is a very tiny difference. In your elite category, the difference between the 6'3" group and 6'4" group is 2 players. If you include Antonio Gates, a player who rightfully belongs in the discussion but was only left out because he was not drafted and the percentages come down from 50%/30% to 45%/36%. Now it is a difference of 1 player, and the difference in average heights between the prospects and the elites is less than half an inch. Do you really expect to draw anything close to a meaningful conclusion from that? One more 6'5" player has an elite season and you come to a very different conclusion.Edited to add: I noticed that 6'5" Heath Miller missed your magical 800 yard marker by 11 yards. He catches one more pass that year and it throws your whole theory out the window.