What is the "ideal" size for a WR? (1 Viewer)

[Raiders]

I was reading the thread about Santonio Holmes loosing 9 pounds after the combine and how that his lower weight (179 lbs.) was pushing him down in the rankings. So then I had a thought; “What is the ideal size for a WR?”

QB’s we think 6’2 220 lbs.

RB’s, maybe 5’11 215 lbs.

And I guess I always thought that a WR should be 6’4 210 lbs. Like Randy Moss.

Here is a look at the top 20 Wr’s from last year:

Smith, Steve HT: 5-9, WT: 179

Fitzgerald, Larry HT: 6-3, WT: 223

Moss, Santana HT: 5-9, WT: 185

Johnson, Chad HT: 6-1, WT: 190

Holt, Torry STL HT: 6-1, WT: 193

Chambers, Chris HT: 5-11, WT: 210

Boldin, Anquan HT: 6-1, WT: 216

Galloway, Joey HT: 5-11, WT: 188

Harrison, Marvin HT: 6-0, WT: 181

Ward, Hines PIT HT: 5-11, WT: 190

Burress, Plaxico HT: 6-5, WT: 231

Glenn, Terry HT: 5-10, WT: 184

Driver, Donald HT: 6-0, WT: 177

Moss, Randy HT: 6-4, WT: 210

Smith, Rod HT: 6-0, WT: 200

Houshmandzadeh, T.J. HT: 6-1, WT: 197

McCardell, Keenan HT: 6-1, WT: 192

Kennison, Eddie HT: 6-0, WT: 195

Smith, Jimmy HT: 6-1, WT: 208

Stallworth, Donte' HT: 6-0, WT: 197

Only 5 out of the top 20 Wr’s were taller than 6’0 and weighed more than 200 pounds. While it is true that I prefer the bigger WR’s, (I drafted V Jackson last year, and I had a man crush on both Reggie Williams and Matt Jones) the little guys shouldn’t be overlooked. Guys like Lee Evans and Mark Clayton stick out to me. In this upcoming class of Rookie WR’s I wonder how many people will pass on the little guys like Sinorice Moss and Santonio Holmes for the bigger guys like Chad Jackson, Derek Hagan, and Maurice Stovall?

 

[Kleck.]

I don't believe in ideal size for any position. There will always be exceptions and a lot will depend on the system and the more important qualities of the player.

 

[Mister CIA]

100 receptions for 1600 yards and 16 TDs would be ideal.

 

[Napoleon Dynamite]

And only 3 WRs below 5-11

Got size stats from 2004?

 

[Kleck.]

I'd also say that with WRs, moreso than other positions, the ideal size theory might be tossed further out the window.

IMO, it's all about how the WR can beat a DB. If he can do it in many different ways he'll find his name on a top 20 more times than not. Size can help, but it's necessarily the most important when it comes to overall success.

 

[Kleck.]

And only 3 WRs below 5-11

Got size stats from 2004?

Without looking up the stats, I'm quessing you'd see quite a difference year-to-year when comparing say the top 5-10 WRs.It might also be important to do some ratios of the total number of NFL WRs under 5'11" and/or over 6'2" versus the number that made the top 20 those years using the same height standards. It would be interesting to see what those ratios might suggest.

 

[Napoleon Dynamite]

And only 3 WRs below 5-11

Got size stats from 2004?

Without looking up the stats, I'm quessing you'd see quite a difference year-to-year when comparing say the top 5-10 WRs.

Im looking it up right now... and so far it seems all big WRs ... mushin, to, bennett...

 

[Kleck.]

And only 3 WRs below 5-11

Got size stats from 2004?

Without looking up the stats, I'm quessing you'd see quite a difference year-to-year when comparing say the top 5-10 WRs.

Im looking it up right now... and so far it seems all big WRs ... mushin, to, bennett...

2004 would support the taller WR. 2003 could be different though. S. Smith, S. Moss, Coles... All had good years in 2003 as shorter WRs.

 

[H.K.]

Since the recent rule changes on defense, WR's don't need to muscle away from defenders the way they used to be required to do, so the game places more emphasis on speed now.

Bigger is better if you don't have to sacrifice speed and quickness. Taller WR's can add a dimension to their game that smaller ones can't if all other attributes are equal.

Of course, the combination of size and speed is a rarity, which is why there aren't too many of them.

 

[Napoleon Dynamite]

2004 top 20 wrs

1. Muhammad, Muhsin 6-2 215

2. Horn, Joe 6-1 195

3. Walker, Javon 6-3 215

4. Owens, Terrell 6-2 215

5. Harrison, Marvin 6-0 181

6. Holt, Torry 6-1 193

7. Bennett, Drew 6-5 203

8. Wayne, Reggie 6-0 195

9. Johnson, Chad 6-1 190

10.Driver, Donald 6-0 177

11.Stokley, Brandon 5-11 197

12.Clayton, Michael 6-4 197

13.Jackson, Darrell 6-0 197

14.Bruce, Isaac 6-0 186

15.Burleson, Nate 6-0 197

16.Kennison, Eddie 6-0 195

17.Mason, Derrick 5-11 193

18.Moss, Randy 6-4 210

19.Smith, Rod 6-0 200

20.Porter, Jerry 6-2 221

NO ONE below 5-11 and only 2 below 6-0

Half are OVER 6-0

So for 2004/2005 6-0 WRs dominated - Most likely because it's a a common height for WRs.

What is interesting is that not many under 5-11 wrs make the list (most likely any year won't see more then 5)

2003 out of the top 20 only Moss/S Smith are below 5-11, Warrick, Coles, Chambers, Mason are all 5-11

 

[Raiders]

Where is Doug Drinnen when you need him? It would bne pretty cool if he could do some number crunching of the top 20- 30 Wr's from the last 10 years. In fact he' probably already done the study before.

By the way it wasn't a rule change, it was just a decission to enforce the rule more often. But that probably would help to explain at least some of S Smith and S Moss' numbers.

 

[cstu]

My view is that #1 WR's need to be at least 6-0, 190 unless they are very fast and quick like Steve Smith and Santana Moss. There's nothing wrong with smaller WR's if they create mismatches, have good hands and run good routes. I think it's also a fallacy that taller WR's are better because guys that are too tall (6-4) aren't as agile as guys in the 5-11 to 6-1 range - besides the Freak of course.

 

[cstu]

Three types of successful NFL WR's:

6-2 and above, 200+ lbs - big, strong guys who may not have top speed but can outmuscle DB's (TO and Muhammed).

5-11-6-1, ~190 - do-it-all type guys who are big and strong enough to match up against DB's, but also fast enough to get open. (Most #1 WR's)

5-10 and below, ~180 - super quick guys who run sub 4.4 and are difficult for even top DB's to cover. (Smith and S. Moss)

 

[Burning Sensation]

Ideal? I am guessing a man who was 30' tall, and 1000 lb's would have ideal size. He could run the 40 in two strides, he would be the best run blocking WR in the league, and imagine him on a fade route in the corner of the endzone.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Ideal? I am guessing a man who was 30' tall, and 1000 lb's would have ideal size. He could run the 40 in two strides, he would be the best run blocking WR in the league, and imagine him on a fade route in the corner of the endzone.

Wouldn't he just be the quarterback then and run in for a TD?With hands that big he'd have trouble catching a tiny football.

Yeah, if we were in the "ideal size for a QB" thread.

 

[Mister CIA]

I could have been a contender [/22 foot tall cornerback]

 

[Englishteacher]

Ideal? I am guessing a man who was 30' tall, and 1000 lb's would have ideal size. He could run the 40 in two strides, he would be the best run blocking WR in the league, and imagine him on a fade route in the corner of the endzone.

Wouldn't he just be the quarterback then and run in for a TD?With hands that big he'd have trouble catching a tiny football.

Yeah, if we were in the "ideal size for a QB" thread.

yeah man, just quit it with the and keep the discussion focused

 

[radballs.]

Since the recent rule changes on defense, WR's don't need to muscle away from defenders the way they used to be required to do, so the game places more emphasis on speed now.

I agree with this. However, it also emphasizes a larger component on precise route running, and as a result, improved chemistry between QB and WR (in terms of knowing where the receiver will be).

 

[Burning Sensation]

Ideal? I am guessing a man who was 30' tall, and 1000 lb's would have ideal size. He could run the 40 in two strides, he would be the best run blocking WR in the league, and imagine him on a fade route in the corner of the endzone.

Wouldn't he just be the quarterback then and run in for a TD?With hands that big he'd have trouble catching a tiny football.

Yeah, if we were in the "ideal size for a QB" thread.

yeah man, just quit it with the and keep the discussion focused

An english teacher telling me to keep the discussion focused, am i back in 7th grade?Oh yeah, sorry, the answer to the question is, however tall Steve Smith is, that boy is GOOD!!!!

 

[Disturbed01]

And only 3 WRs below 5-11

Got size stats from 2004?

Ask Steve Smith!

 

[Holy Schneikes]

In case anyone is interested in a "historical" discussion on the subject, check the link below.

2004 ideal WR size discussion

2003 was a "small year" just like 2005 was. Good receivers get open and catch the ball. Guys of all different shapes and sizes can do that. Big and fast with great hands is the ultimate, but a smaller guy who has excellent quickness and hands is obviously more than capable of being the #1 option.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I think 40 time is dramatically overrated by FF hobbyists for wr's. I am significantly interested in the 3 cone times and short shuttle are much more significant indicators of playing speed.