WR Size History Comparison

[THUMPER]

Last year John "Wally Cox" Clayton wrote a stupid article claiming that Jerry Rice was the forerunner of the bigger WRs we see today. I actually sent him an e-mail refuting this ridiculous claim and showed facts that during Rice's prime, most WRs were actually smaller and that it wasn't until WRs like Michael Irvin and Herman Moore came along that WRs got generally bigger.

Anyway, I was thinking about it again as I was looking at prospective WRs in the draft and how I was quick to dismiss the guys under 6'2" and 200. That got me to thinking about who the top WRs are today and how they size up against the WRs of previous eras so I did a comparison of the top-20 WRs in 1956, 66, 76, 86, 96, and 2006 and found some interesting results...

Here are the average height and weight of the top-20 WRs:

1956 - 73.9" 202.2 lbs
1966 - 73.5" 198.1 lbs
1976 - 73.2" 193.0 lbs
1986 - 72.6" 189.3 lbs
1996 - 73.0" 196.0 lbs
2006 - 72.6" 202.5 lbs

As you can see, WRs are actually getting SHORTER! They have also gotten heavier again though due to weight training which wasn't done by hardly any players prior to the late 60s and then only by linemen and LBs for the most part.

The WRs in 1956 were almost exclusively offensive players but the trend of larger ends still stuck around for a while.

The mid-80s were the time of small WRs like the "Marks Brothers" (Duper & Clayton), the "Smurfs" with the Commanders, Henry Ellard, etc. That is also the time when Rice came onto the scene but it wasn't until the mid 90s that WRs started to get bigger again, with the advent of Irvin, Moore, Ed McCaffery, Chris Carter, Jake Reed, Carl Pickens, and others who were 6'2"+ and over 200 lbs.

Here are the ranges for the top-20 of each era (biggest guy and smallest guy):

1956 - 76" 230 lbs (Bill McColl - Bears) - 72" 190 lbs (Bobby Walston - Eagles)

1966 - 76" 210 lbs (Bernie Casey - 49ERs) - 72" 175 lbs (Charlie Frazier - Oilers)

1976 - 79" 225 lbs (Harold Carmichael - Eagles) - 71" 170 lbs (Cliff Branch - Raiders)

1986 - 76" 215 lbs (Dwight Clark - 49ERs) - 69" 168 lbs (There were 5 players who were 5'9": Mark Duper, Mark Clayton, Gary Clark, Brian Brennan, & Drew Hill)

1996 - 75" 217 lbs (Herman Moore - Lions) - 69" 180 lbs (Brett Perriman - Lions)

2006 - 76" 231 lbs (Marques Colston - Saints) - 69" 185 lbs (Steve Smith - Panthers)

Our WRs, Owens & Glenn are 75" 224 lbs and 71" 195 lbs respectively.


11 of the top-20 WRs this year are under 200 lbs and 15 are under 6'2" (74"). In 1986 there were 15 WRs under 200 lbs and 10 under 6'2". The average height is the same for 1986 and 2006 but the weight is 13 lbs higher this year.

In 1956 no receiver in the top-20 was under 6' or below 190 lbs.

The point of all this is that we shouldn't be too quick to disregard a WR because of his size.


Just for the record, I'm Lineman sized myself (6'3" 274 lbs) so this isn't from a short guy trying to justify his meager existence.

All I can say is that it's the offseason and I'm bored.

 

[Cbz40]

Excellent post Sir. Man you are burning that Midnight Oil......

Thanks for the time and effort......very interesting stuff.

I remember Jimmy liked the tall speedy WR's......can we say Michael & Harper

 

[Yeagermeister]

Excellent post Sir. Man you are burning that Midnight Oil......

Thanks for the time and effort......very interesting stuff.

I remember Jimmy liked the tall speedy WR's......can we say Michael & Harper

Or Macey Brooks

 

[THUMPER]

Or Macey Brooks

The ultimate eyeball test. :bang2:

I remember a guy named Doomsday on the old DMN forum who just LOVED Brooks. probably not the same Doomsday that posts here though.

 

[Biggems]

too bad carl lewis never played for us.....we drafted him but he stayed with track....it would have been sweet to see him and dorsett on the field at the same time.

too bad mike sherrard had bad wheels...he had the potential to be a great WR in the league, but his legs were too brittle.

 

[Yeagermeister]

too bad carl lewis never played for us.....we drafted him but he stayed with track....it would have been sweet to see him and dorsett on the field at the same time.

too bad mike sherrard had bad wheels...he had the potential to be a great WR in the league, but his legs were too brittle.

Sherrard was decent for SF for a few yrs once he got healthy.

 

[Eddie]

I still think we should pick up a 7 foot WR. Just have him walk 8 yards and alley-oop the ball high to him. There's no way a 5'8" DB can outjump him.

It's like playing school yard ball when we were kids. The tall kids always caught the high pops.

Simple.

 

[Yeagermeister]

I still think we should pick up a 7 foot WR. Just have him walk 8 yards and alley-oop the ball high to him. There's no way a 5'8" DB can outjump him.

It's like playing school yard ball when we were kids. The tall kids always caught the high pops.

Simple.

Sign Shaq to be a goal line wr.....fades all day

 

[TDHND]

I'm 6'1" 200,that mean I can get a job somewhere? I have good hands.

 

[Eddie]

Sign Shaq to be a goal line wr.....fades all day

Hell yeah. Shaq, Yao, and Dirk on the goal line. Just toss the ball high.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Hell yeah. Shaq, Yao, and Dirk on the goal line. Just toss the ball high.

Post the cb up and alley oop

 

[THUMPER]

Post the cb up and alley oop

Y.A. Tittle to R.C. Owens.

 

[speedkilz88]

Sherrard was decent for SF for a few yrs once he got healthy.

But he was much quicker and athletic prior to those broken legs.

 

[ravidubey]

1956[/B] - 73.9" 202.2 lbs
1966 - 73.5" 198.1 lbs
1976 - 73.2" 193.0 lbs
1986 - 72.6" 189.3 lbs
1996 - 73.0" 196.0 lbs
2006 - 72.6" 202.5 lbs

Very cool post, man.

I always believed you have game skills and athleticism, and that the best WR's had both. Game skills includes pattern running, "football" timing, body positioning skills, and ball catching skills.

Athleticism for WR includes speed, quickness, stamina, durability, strength, size, and leaping ability.

Size, of course, is just one minor component of a WR's athleticism. Players "shrunk" in weight and height because speed and quickness emerged as the most important athletic factor for WR's. Even with today's medicine, money, and year-round training smaller WR's are going to be faster and quicker than bigger ones. It's simple physics, really.

Jerry Rice had the perfect combination of great ball skills and an unnatural athletic fluidity, grace, and speed. He could accelerate without you detecting it-- couple that with him being in the right system and being 6'2" and it's no wonder he blasted nearly every receiving record there is out of the books.

 

[DragonCowboy]

Sign Shaq to be a goal line wr.....fades all day

grr shaq would get a lot of fouls for pushing off. He'd break his elbows too after "accidentally" elbowing people in their helmet.

 

[2much2soon]

Last year John "Wally Cox" Clayton wrote a stupid article claiming that Jerry Rice was the forerunner of the bigger WRs we see today.

Yeah, that is kind of a dumb statement. Sounds like a writer looking for an angle.
It also could of been said that guys like Stallworth, Tony Hill, Carmichael could of been prototypes due to their size.
Interesting that the numbers show WRs getting slightly smaller, though.

 

[THUMPER]

Very cool post, man.

I always believed you have game skills and athleticism, and that the best WR's had both. Game skills includes pattern running, "football" timing, body positioning skills, and ball catching skills.

Athleticism for WR includes speed, quickness, stamina, durability, strength, size, and leaping ability.

Size, of course, is just one minor component of a WR's athleticism. Players "shrunk" in weight and height because speed and quickness emerged as the most important athletic factor for WR's. Even with today's medicine, money, and year-round training smaller WR's are going to be faster and quicker than bigger ones. It's simple physics, really.

Jerry Rice had the perfect combination of great ball skills and an unnatural athletic fluidity, grace, and speed. He could accelerate without you detecting it-- couple that with him being in the right system and being 6'2" and it's no wonder he blasted nearly every receiving record there is out of the books.

It is interesting how trends begin in the NFL with one or two players having success and they just happen to be a certain size so everyone starts looking for players with similar physical attributes when in fact it has very little to do with their size/weight and everything to do with their skills.

The 290+ DEs became the vogue for a while due to the success of Reggie White but none of the top passrushing DEs are over 290 and most are 270 or less. The only player in the top-20 in sacks this year that was over 290 was Warren Sapp and he is a DT. Only a few DEs were over 275 (Julius Peppers, Trevor Pryce, & Will Smith are 280-something) but most are in the 260s range.

Tall QBs is another trend that has taken hold of the NFL and while I can understand the need to be able to see over the heads of your linemen there are plenty of talented players who are overlooked because they are considered too small.