Just wondering since these are the receiver heights of the two Super Bowl teams:
New England
5-11
5-10
6-2
6-1
5-11
6-0
Half under 6-0, tallest 6-2
Atlanta Falcons
5-8
5-10
6-3
5-10
6-2
5-9
5-10
More than half 5-10 or shorter, tallest 6-3
Well considering every opponent who had a WR that was 6'4" or taller had a field day on us, I'd like us to at least have one tall weapon.
Michael Roberts certainly had the height that made defending him awfully tough.
Remember that those guys are the best 5'10" guys in the world. Having a tall wideout for short yardage and red zone plays is a nice tool against 5'9" MAC DVD.
WRs:
Andrew Davis 6'4 "
Rayshawn Watkins 6'3"
Darryl Richards 6'3"
Nick Kovacs 6'3"
Bryce Mitchell 6'3"
TEs:
Andrew Kulon(FB/TE) 6'4"
Nate Swart 6'5"
Jordan Fisher 6'3"
Drew Rosi 6'3"
Jamal Turner 6'5"
Five of the top seven career pass reception leaders for UT were 5-10 and shorter.
Page 5-10
Moore 5-10
Odom 5-10
Reedy 5-9
Greene 5-7
Does this mean that we are throwing more to smaller guys for quick short yardage plays, or that the smaller player is a better receiver?
(02-07-2017 05:56 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote: [ -> ]Five of the top seven career pass reception leaders for UT were 5-10 and shorter.
Page 5-10
Moore 5-10
Odom 5-10
Reedy 5-9
Greene 5-7
Does this mean that we are throwing more to smaller guys for quick short yardage plays, or that the smaller player is a better receiver?
Taller receivers are better for a down field passing game, fighting through press coverage, over the middle, in red zone ... etc. Shorter receivers thrive in systems that have more of short passing game and RAC, like college spread offenses use. If you had to to pick the ideal receiver in the NFL today... it would be Julio Jones. Players like him don't grow on trees, that's probably more than anything the reason why you see more short receivers. Whenever a receiver like Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones are available... they don't last very long in the NFL Draft because that combination of size, speed, and strength are very rare.
Superbowl: with two QB's that can hit a dime at fifty yards and WRs that know how to separate.
So yes we should, great for that fade to the endzone. We should also have on roster at least one CB that can defend that fade and sideline pass.
The better receiver is the guy with a knack for getting himself open and for making the catch when it comes (Moore, Page). Among that group, generally the taller the better for WR's. But, a shorter guy with shiftiness or great speed can be successful. (Hawkins, Reedy, Greene.)
It seems like the shorter guys are less successful downfield. With the downward arc of the ball a taller DB has the advantage, unless of course the receiver can get a few steps on the DB. They always used to try sending Hawkins on those long routes. Most of the time the ball was knocked away, unless he had a few steps and then he was gone.
Detroit....its an interesting topic to be sure. Thank you for bringing it up for discussion. Generally the greatest # of catches in volume are less than 15 yards and to get some separation at 15 yards requires quickness not height. IMHO this is the reason that so many "shorter" receivers get so many catches but if height can be combined with shiftiness, hands, and the knack for getting open then size will win. This was all stated above but the NFL still loves the prototypical tall pocket passers and tall receivers. However, QB's SEEM to be shorter now due to the Vick affect on athleticism. At least I think they are somewhat shorter. This would also be an interesting research topic.
Comments?