Are small receivers "in" again?

[CrazyCowboy]

Never really went anywhere, they have always been very good short/small receivers.....it is the tall and fast with great hands that is most difficult to find IMO.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

For quite some time now, so much importance has been placed on size at receiver, but will that be different in this year's draft/free agency? I guess it got me thinking with the success of a number of small receivers this year, coupled with the hype surrounding Holmes in the draft.

Steve Smith (5-9), Santana Moss (5-10), Joey Galloway (5-11) and Terry Glenn (5-11) were four of the top nine receivers in the NFC this year in yards gained.

Just curious on everyone's thoughts on sub-6-foot receivers.

Randy Moss played so huge for so long until the past year that he made me forget just how many great OTHER receivers the NFL had......

I was guilty of comparing everyone to Moss until this year!

 

[BIGDen]

Height has always been overrated in receivers. People act like all you have to do is lob it up to the 6-3 WR being covered by the 5-10 corner and it's a sure thing. But except in rare cases, like sometimes around the goal line, that doesn't work.

I like the Jimmy Johnson approach: If you can play, you can play. It doesn't matter what you look like or what the so-called prototype might be. All you have to do is look at Smith and Moss to see that.

BTW, it's overrated at most other positions, too.

All things being pretty equal (speed, hands, route running) you take the taller receiver. Height IS an advantage. I saw Eli a lot this year and so many times he just threw it in the area of Plaxico and Burress went up and caught it even if the DB seemed to have better position. If you list the great receivers of our era, a large majority of them are over 6 feet for a reason. If a shorter receiver is dominant - you take him, but he will not usually win the jump ball or catch the high pass (that actually happens quite a bit).

 

[kartr]

For quite some time now, so much importance has been placed on size at receiver, but will that be different in this year's draft/free agency? I guess it got me thinking with the success of a number of small receivers this year, coupled with the hype surrounding Holmes in the draft.

Steve Smith (5-9), Santana Moss (5-10), Joey Galloway (5-11) and Terry Glenn (5-11) were four of the top nine receivers in the NFC this year in yards gained.

Just curious on everyone's thoughts on sub-6-foot receivers.

It's called the Peyton Manning rule or Ty Law rule. If corners can't get physical with receivers, of course the receivers are going to run wild.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

All things being pretty equal (speed, hands, route running) you take the taller receiver. Height IS an advantage. I saw Eli a lot this year and so many times he just threw it in the area of Plaxico and Burress went up and caught it even if the DB seemed to have better position. If you list the great receivers of our era, a large majority of them are over 6 feet for a reason. If a shorter receiver is dominant - you take him, but he will not usually win the jump ball or catch the high pass (that actually happens quite a bit).

But all things never are equal in the real world.

And Burress I'll give you because he's on the extreme side of the scale -- 6-6 or 6-5 with really long arms is different than a 6-2 guy. But I still disagree that jump balls are really that successful very often. How often do you really see that play work? And how many times did we see our own Glenn and even Newman successfully defend taller WRs like Fitzgerald and Roy Williams this year?

I think sometimes people look at this like it's basketball, where just a few inches in reach or height can make a difference. But when a QB is looking at a route and his WR is covered, even by a CB several inches shorter, it's very hard to throw to that covered receiver. INTs are so damaging, and very, very few QBs are accurate enough to put the ball within literally inches of where he wants it many yards down the field.

I'm not saying that shorter is better, just that being taller in itself shouldn't override about 10 other factors that are higher in importance.

And as for what Cowpoke said -- You're right that we had big WRs then, but I'm not talking about just WRs, but all positions. Everyone knows Jimmy took production above all, and didn't care if a guy was so-called "undersized". Emmitt, Vinson Smith, Thomas Everett...

 

[Derinyar]

The answer is simple, WR skills are what makes the WR. You can have big, fast and athletic and still have someone who can't be a WR, ie Randal Willaims. You can have someone whos big and slow and he can be successful, ie Keyshawn. You can have someone whos small and doesn't time well but has very good skills and have a successful player, ie Terry Glenn. Give me a player who knows his postion and I'll show you someone whos able to make some plays.

 

[kmd24]

I'd be interested in that 6'5" Jeff Samardzija kid from ND when he comes out though.

ND's Maurice Stovall is probably a better pro receiver. Just as big (6-5 220) and a bit faster than Samardzija.

 

[kingwhicker]

Short people got no reason...

 

[scottsp]

Certainly, the post 5-yard illegal contact rule benefits these types of receivers as much as anyone. Guys like Santana Moss are tough enough to defend in space. Take a corners ability to bump him off his route after five, and then all a quarterback has to do is deliver on time.

The thing is, you don't have to be extremely fast to be a productive wideout. Steve Smith runs crisp routes and rarely rounds off. He is quick in and out of his breaks. As long as he gets off the line, out of the jam, he's in great shape to make a play.

Bigger wideouts will always be in demand, IMHO, because they will always have the ability to create space for themselves. Again, as long as they are good route runners.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Height has always been overrated in receivers. People act like all you have to do is lob it up to the 6-3 WR being covered by the 5-10 corner and it's a sure thing. But except in rare cases, like sometimes around the goal line, that doesn't work.

I like the Jimmy Johnson approach: If you can play, you can play. It doesn't matter what you look like or what the so-called prototype might be. All you have to do is look at Smith and Moss to see that.

BTW, it's overrated at most other positions, too.

40 times are a great indicatior of straight line speed. And just like how you are built, very often it makes no difference. Some of the greatest players in NFL History weren't the biggest or fastest, Jerry Rice, Irvin (though he did have size he wasnt THAT fast), Emmitt Smith (too small, too slow, all time leading rusher). Look at recent draft picks, people thought Ronnie Brown would be a better back than Caddy, which could still happen, based on his size and combine. Cadillac is a better pure runner, which i have said all along, and there was a reason he started over Brown at Auburn

 

[jterrell]

For quite some time now, so much importance has been placed on size at receiver, but will that be different in this year's draft/free agency? I guess it got me thinking with the success of a number of small receivers this year, coupled with the hype surrounding Holmes in the draft.
Steve Smith (5-9), Santana Moss (5-10), Joey Galloway (5-11) and Terry Glenn (5-11) were four of the top nine receivers in the NFC this year in yards gained.
Just curious on everyone's thoughts on sub-6-foot receivers.

Yup as CBs get bigger the best way to beat them is with smaller quicker guys. Against small Cbs the bigger WRs have huge advantages.

Ideally you'd have 1 of each.

 

[Bach]

Productive receivers are in - like always

 

[Marktui]

Didn't Harper and Irvin start the trend towards big recievers?? Irvin at 6'2'' and Harper at 6'1''.

 

[Taylor_Can_Hit21]

If you have 4.4 speed and run great routes, and have good hands, you are going to be a good reciever in the NFL given the chance.