What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

WRs and "Size Concerns" - Yay or Nay? (1 Viewer)

Soulfly3

Footballguy
Do you give stock to WR size in 2023?
Does it matter to you at all? A bit? A lot?

Where are you on the spectrum of it being a concern in big 2023 and beyond and how does it affect the way you draft?

Me , personally.... Used to be a pretty big concern. I was a "draft the prototype" guy, for maybe too long. Cost me some WRs that I was huge on in college that I passed on in the NFL. I didn't go with my gut, and I didn't read the trends properly.

Now? I'm taking my guy whether he's 160pnds or 190 or 220. If he's a baller, the size barely matters to me.

What say you?
 
"Tank" Dell was essentially a DND for me this year. Tutu Atwell was when he came out, too, even though he was a second rounder. That's too small.

I downgraded Addison and Flowers for similar reasons, but their height and weight is much more acceptable.

I'm still stuck in the prototypes, but I'm beginning to realize that the game is played by smaller skill players now because of the way in which quarterbacks are coached, especially the ever-decreasing time allotment within which they're expected to throw the football. The smaller, quicker guys who don't take as long to get moving excel in that shorter-area game better than your prototypical 6'2" X receiver.

It's taking some adjusting on my part.

It's also taking some adjusting to get used to slot guys as viable WR1s in fantasy, but the adjustment has to be made.
 
Last edited:
Funny you say this, as I made Tank a must draft player this season, whereas last season he wouldve been a maybe and season before he'd get 1sec of my consideration.
and as you may (or may not) know, Flowers was my #1 wr in this draft. got him too.

Yeah, I can see Flowers if you really like him. I cannot see Dell. He's nearly twenty pounds lighter.

I haven't totally moved off my priors yet. I'll admit it. But I think Dell is a bad kind of outlier.
 
Funny you say this, as I made Tank a must draft player this season, whereas last season he wouldve been a maybe and season before he'd get 1sec of my consideration.
and as you may (or may not) know, Flowers was my #1 wr in this draft. got him too.

But I think Dell is a bad kind of outlier.

he's definitely bordering on that "way too small" status. but for his potential, and having only spent a 4th rnd rookie pick, it was a no brainer for me.
 
and having only spent a 4th rnd rookie pick

Fair enough. It's preference and league-specific. I just wouldn't do it. I'm not there yet. I don't see the upside vs. drafting a bigger, faster project guy. Even if Dell is a rousing success, at that height and weight he's likely just depth in my leagues. I play in a ten-team dynasty league and a deep-roster IDP league, so my draft strategy is different by necessity. I won't draft depth in the ten-team league because it's useless, and I'll pick up needed players on the defensive side of the ball in the IDP league. There's no reason for me to pick Dell. Plus, even in a standard league, I like to aim for the moon with later picks.
 
Admittedly, I was a "Size Matters" player... oh, wrong forum.. :scream:

But to me, Red Zone Threat for WR is more of a size impact, then PPR value for most shifty WR.
Atwell was on my DND. Dell was heavily dropped as well.
It depends on where they are schemed (slot, outside, etc) and league format & roster construction
Large Rosters where you start 5+ WR, you need to account for the smaller players as you eliminate a large portion of you pool.
I think that PPR is more "moving the chains" players like Addison, Flowers or Downs favorable draft value.
Big Fast WR (think LAC Big Mike Williams & QJ) offer Red Zone value, but less PPR game in game out potential (IMO)
 
I care less about WR size than I do RB size (see Tyreek Hill, DeVonta Smith,, Jaylen Waddle, vs Devon Achane, Myles Gaskin, Kenny Gainwell, James Cook, etc. ).

In the statement I quoted below, ignoring the 6' comment he made and make it 5'10" or 5'11", I agree RB size matters and I certainly agree it matters more than WR size.

"Size at the running back position needs to be factored in terms of fantasy production projection. By just looking at the running backs that finish in the top in terms of fantasy production, they are more often than not on the plus side of 6 feet tall and north of 215 pounds. Keep in mind that size is not the be all end all, but it's definitely worth considering and educating yourself on when you evaluate the running back position and could be used as a tiebreaker between two-players. As much as we like to think that the NFL is all about passing, savvy coaches realize that with that increase the power-run game behind a large running back remains a critical part of any efficient offensive approach. Especially if have a large running back that also can be a weapon in the passing game; that's the recipe for fantasy success. "
 
Last edited:
By just looking at the running backs that finish in the top in terms of fantasy production, they are more often than not on the plus side of 6 feet tall
I don’t think that’s correct. Most top RBs are in the 5’10” range. Very few RBs are over 6’.
I agree, but that's not really the point of the post. If he had said 5'11" or 5'10" 220 it would have made more sense. I quoted that statement because I didn't make it.
 
By just looking at the running backs that finish in the top in terms of fantasy production, they are more often than not on the plus side of 6 feet tall
I don’t think that’s correct. Most top RBs are in the 5’10” range. Very few RBs are over 6’.
I agree, but that's not really the point of the post. If he had said 5'11" or 5'10" 220 it would have made more sense. I quoted that statement because I didn't make it.
But it’s an incorrect statement. If he can’t be bothered getting that part correct, why would I listen to him. The weight part isn’t really correct either because there’s plenty of successful RBs at or under 215 pounds.
 
By just looking at the running backs that finish in the top in terms of fantasy production, they are more often than not on the plus side of 6 feet tall
I don’t think that’s correct. Most top RBs are in the 5’10” range. Very few RBs are over 6’.
I agree, but that's not really the point of the post. If he had said 5'11" or 5'10" 220 it would have made more sense. I quoted that statement because I didn't make it.
But it’s an incorrect statement. If he can’t be bothered getting that part correct, why would I listen to him. The weight part isn’t really correct either because there’s plenty of successful RBs at or under 215 pounds.
The gist of what he's saying is true IMO.
 
By just looking at the running backs that finish in the top in terms of fantasy production, they are more often than not on the plus side of 6 feet tall
I don’t think that’s correct. Most top RBs are in the 5’10” range. Very few RBs are over 6’.
I agree, but that's not really the point of the post. If he had said 5'11" or 5'10" 220 it would have made more sense. I quoted that statement because I didn't make it.
But it’s an incorrect statement. If he can’t be bothered getting that part correct, why would I listen to him. The weight part isn’t really correct either because there’s plenty of successful RBs at or under 215 pounds.
The gist of what he's saying is true IMO.
Disagree.
 
By just looking at the running backs that finish in the top in terms of fantasy production, they are more often than not on the plus side of 6 feet tall
I don’t think that’s correct. Most top RBs are in the 5’10” range. Very few RBs are over 6’.
I agree, but that's not really the point of the post. If he had said 5'11" or 5'10" 220 it would have made more sense. I quoted that statement because I didn't make it.
But it’s an incorrect statement. If he can’t be bothered getting that part correct, why would I listen to him. The weight part isn’t really correct either because there’s plenty of successful RBs at or under 215 pounds.
The gist of what he's saying is true IMO.
Disagree.
I can respect that. Why do you disagree, ignoring the 6' comment and using say 5'10 or 5'11"?
 
First of all, I think if you told us the source, JohnnyU, it might make things easier.

Secondly, you're posting something as if you're arguing that argument, but then when its flaws are brought up, you disagree with what the quote says and say, "Well, I'm just quoting it!"

If you disagreed, why not just say that there are experts who view height and weight as important for RB fantasy success?

I'm sure there has been work done on it. Why not Google and come back with something about BMI or some other such measurement. I know Football Outsiders did an article around 2020/21 about BMI and success with RBs.
 
Here's one:


Here's another:

"The combination of size and speed is one of the most essential things in determining a running back’s success at the NFL level. When scouting players, there’s a direct correlation between fantasy production and BMI. The BMI we’re looking for is 29.5 to 30.5."

Dynasty Nerds, NFL Combine Preview


And more:

 
Last edited:
First of all, I think if you told us the source, JohnnyU, it might make things easier.

Secondly, you're posting something as if you're arguing that argument, but then when its flaws are brought up, you disagree with what the quote says and say, "Well, I'm just quoting it!"

If you disagreed, why not just say that there are experts who view height and weight as important for RB fantasy success?

I'm sure there has been work done on it. Why not Google and come back with something about BMI or some other such measurement. I know Football Outsiders did an article around 2020/21 about BMI and success with RBs.
I went back and captured the link from that source and posted it in my OP.
 
Height means very little at the RB position. Weight and speed combo are much better to look at as mentioned above. Barry Sanders was short but had tree trunks for thighs.
 
By just looking at the running backs that finish in the top in terms of fantasy production, they are more often than not on the plus side of 6 feet tall
I don’t think that’s correct. Most top RBs are in the 5’10” range. Very few RBs are over 6’.
I agree, but that's not really the point of the post. If he had said 5'11" or 5'10" 220 it would have made more sense. I quoted that statement because I didn't make it.
But it’s an incorrect statement. If he can’t be bothered getting that part correct, why would I listen to him. The weight part isn’t really correct either because there’s plenty of successful RBs at or under 215 pounds.
The gist of what he's saying is true IMO.
Disagree.
I can respect that. Why do you disagree, ignoring the 6' comment and using say 5'10 or 5'11"?
Because I can list 100s of successful RBs under 215 pounds.
 
Last edited:
By just looking at the running backs that finish in the top in terms of fantasy production, they are more often than not on the plus side of 6 feet tall
I don’t think that’s correct. Most top RBs are in the 5’10” range. Very few RBs are over 6’.
I agree, but that's not really the point of the post. If he had said 5'11" or 5'10" 220 it would have made more sense. I quoted that statement because I didn't make it.
But it’s an incorrect statement. If he can’t be bothered getting that part correct, why would I listen to him. The weight part isn’t really correct either because there’s plenty of successful RBs at or under 215 pounds.
The gist of what he's saying is true IMO.
Disagree.
I can respect that. Why do you disagree, ignoring the 6' comment and using say 5'10 or 5'11"?
Because I can list 100s of successful RBs under 115 pounds.
In the WNFL?
 
Height means very little at the RB position. Weight and speed combo are much better to look at as mentioned above. Barry Sanders was short but had tree trunks for thighs.
Saw a picture of NYG OTAs where Saq & Eric Gray were comparing Quad size... just saying .... things to consider.
 
Honestly, I've never had size concerns at any position. If guys are good enough, they can win at any size. Now I can see using size as a tiebreaker between 2 guys who are otherwise pretty close, but I've never disqualified someone due to size.

I remember a long time ago in 2008 getting Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles, and DeSean Jackson as my rookie picks because they were all too small, while other teams were drafting guys like Kevin Smith, Tim Hightower and Limas Sweed because "prototype" size.
 
Honestly, I've never had size concerns at any position. If guys are good enough, they can win at any size. Now I can see using size as a tiebreaker between 2 guys who are otherwise pretty close, but I've never disqualified someone due to size.

I remember a long time ago in 2008 getting Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles, and DeSean Jackson as my rookie picks because they were all too small, while other teams were drafting guys like Kevin Smith, Tim Hightower and Limas Sweed because "prototype" size.
It's not an exact science to be sure, but I look at who has been a successful fantasy RB and who has not, and that falls predominately with RBs that have enough size. Far too often RBs <200 lbs don't. You hope they are. You hope their receiving ability makes them fantasy relevant. Are there outliers, sure, but.....
 
but I look at who has been a successful fantasy RB and who has not, and that falls predominately with RBs that have enough size.
look closer. Who has been the top fantasy RB the last two seasons?
I believe I said there are outliers.
But they're not outliers anymore. That's the point.
They are if it is mostly RBs that aren't under 200lbs. Ekeler is definitely an outlier. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. I went back several years and most of the top RBs were at least 205 lbs and most were more than that. Ekeler is the only one 200 or less, so yes, I believe those types of RBs are still an outlier.
 
Interesting question.

Almost every time DaVonta Smith gets hit, he seems to get up a little gimpy to varying degrees.

Waddle as well.

They both seem to limp around a little, then shake it off, but I do have concerns that those hits will add up.

Being slight of frame in the NFL seems like a risky proposition. Quite a few slim receivers are having success in the NFL. I have concerns about their longevity, but so far so good.
 
but I look at who has been a successful fantasy RB and who has not, and that falls predominately with RBs that have enough size.
look closer. Who has been the top fantasy RB the last two seasons?
I believe I said there are outliers.
But they're not outliers anymore. That's the point.
They are if it is mostly RBs that aren't under 200lbs. Ekeler is definitely an outlier. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. I went back several years and most of the top RBs were at least 205 lbs and most were more than that. Ekeler is the only one 200 or less, so yes, I believe those types of RBs are still an outlier.
It's pointless to discuss this with you since you keep changing your stance to try and "win". No one was arguing RBs under 200 pounds were ideal. I disputed your "need to be over 215 pounds" statement.
 
By just looking at the running backs that finish in the top in terms of fantasy production, they are more often than not on the plus side of 6 feet tall and north of 215 pounds.
For prosperity sake this was the statement that was not correct - before you then for some reason jumped down to under 200 pounds which no one was disputing.
 
but I look at who has been a successful fantasy RB and who has not, and that falls predominately with RBs that have enough size.
look closer. Who has been the top fantasy RB the last two seasons?
I believe I said there are outliers.
But they're not outliers anymore. That's the point."
They are if it is mostly RBs that aren't under 200lbs. Ekeler is definitely an outlier. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. I went back several years and most of the top RBs were at least 205 lbs and most were more than that. Ekeler is the only one 200 or less, so yes, I believe those types of RBs are still an outlier.
It's pointless to discuss this with you since you keep changing your stance to try and "win". No one was arguing RBs under 200 pounds were ideal. I disputed your "need to be over 215 pounds" statement.
You're being unreasonable. I used words like "predominately", "outliers", "mostly". You seem to ignore that.
 
The Evolution Of The Passing Game And The Wide Receiver Position: The "Cosell Doctrine"


From Cosell, in closing:

The common thread with all the wide receivers I’ve touched on: size. It’s a fascinating dichotomy that is now crystallizing in the NFL. Smaller receivers have increased value due to the expansion of the multi-dimensional "Joker", the player who can align anywhere in the formation. On the other hand, bigger wideouts provide matchup problems for smaller corners on the outside. The NFL has always been cyclical. Is offense a step ahead of the defense right now? Defensive coaches think so.
 
I'm not as turned off as I used to be with small WRs.

However I still believe their true value is selling them quickly after they hit
 
Do you give stock to WR size in 2023?
Not as much as maybe 5 years ago. Devante Smith is tiny, yet a stud. There's a place for the little guy
Smith is thin but he’s plenty tall/long. I think I’m less worried about weight and more worries about these Rondale types who are built more like 3rd down backs. The lack of length is worrisome. I think Wandale and Rondale types can be successful, it just requires a coach to use them in a very specific way.
 
Do you give stock to WR size in 2023?
Not as much as maybe 5 years ago. Devante Smith is tiny, yet a stud. There's a place for the little guy
Smith is thin but he’s plenty tall/long. I think I’m less worried about weight and more worries about these Rondale types who are built more like 3rd down backs. The lack of length is worrisome. I think Wandale and Rondale types can be successful, it just requires a coach to use them in a very specific way.
I've always thought Rondale Moore is playing wrong position. He should be a 3rd down RB. He could be a true gamebreaker there, as a WR he's got a hell of a time getting off the line, but he looks very good whenever he does. His true value would be as a poor man's Austin Ekeler.
Do you give stock to WR size in 2023?
Not as much as maybe 5 years ago. Devante Smith is tiny, yet a stud. There's a place for the little guy
DeSean Jackson is in the top-40 in receiving yards in NFL history, ahead of contemporaries like AJ Green, Roddy White, and Jordy Nelson who all had more "ideal" size.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top