forums

Let's Talk WR Recruiting - Prioritizing SIZE

Advertisement
I've seen this broken down over decades not years. I have mentioned it here previously. The most successful wide receivers have historically been in the 5-11 to 6-1 range and specifically 6-0. Of course, part of that is sheer numbers. That height range has produced the greatest number of candidates.

One aspect is always clear cut: If the receiver is slower than 4.5 for the 40 then the 5-11 to 6-1 range really stands out. Apparently those guys have necessary guile while also the proper frame to make the plucky plays.

Throw out slow guys who are too short or too tall. I love systems. That should be among them.

Marketshare is absolutely the dominant criteria. It is still absurdly underreported. Most fans have no clue what it means. I started following the CommonManFootball analytics guy on YouTube several years ago because he placed such emphasis not only on marketshare but also marketshare in relation to age.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
We need tough kids who can catch with their hands, go get the ball, and create separation.

Size, bigger and faster is great. But we’ve seen big fast waste after big fast waste since 2002 on this team. How’d Jolla do? Leggett? Moore? So many highly rated whatevers.

The Patriots run with 5-10 Edelman and 5-10 Dorsett. Let’s get guys who make plays.
Click to expand...

Even our tall bums are more serviceable than our midget bums, which is probably the in summary of my entire post. Guys like Leggett and Ryan Moore are WR1 on this team right now. At times, they were legit 20%+ marketshare WRs. They clearly are not up to standard, but it is what it is.

I'd love elite short area quickness (Edelman is 97th percentile in the 20-yard and 3-cone) and elite straight line speed (Dorsett is a 95th percentile 40 time), too.

That's the problem with what this has devolved into for some..."lets go out and recruit guys like...[rattles off players with absolutely elite level skill sets]"...its clearly not that easy. Also, this is not the pro game either. But, the same was extended early in the thread when someone mentioned Alabama as if their WRs are some jobbers.

The problem is, when you don't have a trump card...speed, short area quickness and elusiveness, route running, whatever...when you don't have an elite trait that puts you over the top, you're just a guy and yeah, if you're going to be just a guy...be 6'4". And yeah, we've had a lot of 6'3"+ bums, but their level of bad is not the level of bad we're seeing right now from this room. If the only elite trait you have is your size...at least its an elite trait.
 
BoxingRobes said:
Even our tall bums are more serviceable than our midget bums, which is probably the in summary of my entire post. Guys like Leggett and Ryan Moore are WR1 on this team right now. At times, they were legit 20%+ marketshare WRs. They clearly are not up to standard, but it is what it is.

I'd love elite short area quickness (Edelman is 97th percentile in the 20-yard and 3-cone) and elite straight line speed (Dorsett is a 95th percentile 40 time), too.

That's the problem with what this has devolved into for some..."lets go out and recruit guys like...[rattles off players with absolutely elite level skill sets]"...its clearly not that easy. Also, this is not the pro game either. But, the same was extended early in the thread when someone mentioned Alabama as if their WRs are some jobbers.

The problem is, when you don't have a trump card...speed, short area quickness and elusiveness, route running, whatever...when you don't have an elite trait that puts you over the top, you're just a guy and yeah, if you're going to be just a guy...be 6'4". And yeah, we've had a lot of 6'3"+ bums, but their level of bad is not the level of bad we're seeing right now from this room. If the only elite trait you have is your size...at least its an elite trait.
Click to expand...
You can keep your fancy statistics. Those two guys avoided contact and made zero tough catches that I can recall. That is precisely the opposite of what we need. It’s more like the definition of what ails us. And market share in coker’s wr room meant you were able to walk.

Just because we have short guys who don’t perform doesn’t mean the solution is taller. We need guys who can play WR (including blocking). Berrios was actually good for a year here. Osborn was solid. By your spec Evidence Njoku, Jontaveous Carter and D’Mauri Jones shoulda lit it up here.

I personally think vertical and short shuttle are two of the most important physical metrics for WRs, but nothing replaces hands, toughness and ball instincts. That’s what we have to recruit for. You don’t tale a tall kid who isn’t tough and can’t catch over a smaller kid who is, and can.
 
Ethnicsands said:
You can keep your fancy statistics. Those two guys avoided contact and made zero tough catches that I can recall. That is precisely the opposite of what we need. It’s more like the definition of what ails us. And market share in coker’s wr room meant you were able to walk.

Just because we have short guys who don’t perform doesn’t mean the solution is taller. We need guys who can play WR (including blocking). Berrios was actually good for a year here. Osborn was solid. By your spec Evidence Njoku, Jontaveous Carter and D’Mauri Jones shoulda lit it up here.

I personally think vertical and short shuttle are two of the most important physical metrics for WRs, but nothing replaces hands, toughness and ball instincts. That’s what we have to recruit for. You don’t tale a tall kid who isn’t tough and can’t catch over a smaller kid who is, and can.
Click to expand...

So, you went from "these guys suck" and my response was "those guys would have actually been the best WRs on this team" with trying to pick out some outliers of guys that don't work out and were buried on the depth chart. You're missing the point entirely. Yeah, some of those guys will suck...but you're going to find a usefulness more often for them than you will not...you'll find more use recruiting Lawrence Cager and Darrell Langham's than the Sam Bruces or Dionte Mullins over time.

You're also trying to compare apples to bananas with your underlined statement. Take a kid who is good over a kid that is bad. Sure...but I'd rather take Lawrence Cager...6'5" and can't catch over your smaller, grittier I guess can catch Mike Harley or even Jeff Thomas. Cager would have been a better WR for this very team this year. You can point out his flaws, but he would have out produced Harley. I mean, he did on the same team for two years. Cager doubled up Thomas' touchdown ratio and avg more yards per catch last year, too.

I suggest you read up on marketshare and the importance of it at WR. I'm pounding the table on it on this forum because most posters here are lost. I was the first guy on this forum telling you all that KJ Osborn was our best WR and Mike Harley was better than Jeff Thomas while the collective kept thinking Jeff Thomas was something he was clearly not.
 
Mico Jones said:
This all 4 teams in the playoffs would take Jeff Thomas.

Clemsons best receiver in prior years was 5-10 185 Hunter Renfrow
Click to expand...
Hunter was never their best receiver however he was very important and made key plays. Clemson would not turn him away. Other than that your point is perfect.
 
Advertisement
BoxingRobes said:
I'll take elite route running and elite speed, too.

When you have neither, be tall?
Click to expand...
You’re right! I think you could have kept it this simple this earlier in your post haha. You’re right. Height is an important attribute like speed and route running. However, tall receivers should also be good route runners and are physical. As far as catching, if you can’t catch you shouldn’t be a receiver.
 
lauderdaleballer said:
Hunter was never their best receiver however he was very important and made key plays. Clemson would not turn him away. Other than that your point is perfect.
Click to expand...

People dropping Renfrow in here...he became an awesome wide receiver...but he was also a walk-on. He was an FCS recruit. His athletic profile is nothing special either. He's an anomaly. If you're going to mention Renfrow for your 'well actually' post...why don't we just start talking about Marshall Few and why he's not him.
 
BoxingRobes said:
People dropping Renfrow in here...he became an awesome wide receiver...but he was also a walk-on. He was an FCS recruit. His athletic profile is nothing special either. He's an anomaly. If you're going to mention Renfrow for your 'well actually' post...why don't we just start talking about Marshall Few and why he's not him.
Click to expand...
Yea but like you said in a recent post, regarding if WR don’t have speed or run routes well then we should opt for taller WRs is a great point. I think most people are saying that ignoring WR because they are under 6’3 is a bad idea. However, I don’t believe you are saying that. Yea Renfrow walked on, but that poster was saying that he was still effective. Which he was but as a walk-on he was an outlier.
However, I see your point. I would rather have a 6’5 WR that runs a 4.7 then a 6’1 WR that runs a 4.6.
 
Advertisement
BoxingRobes said:
So, you went from "these guys suck" and my response was "those guys would have actually been the best WRs on this team" with trying to pick out some outliers of guys that don't work out and were buried on the depth chart. You're missing the point entirely. Yeah, some of those guys will suck...but you're going to find a usefulness more often for them than you will not...you'll find more use recruiting Lawrence Cager and Darrell Langham's than the Sam Bruces or Dionte Mullins over time.

You're also trying to compare apples to bananas with your underlined statement. Take a kid who is good over a kid that is bad. Sure...but I'd rather take Lawrence Cager...6'5" and can't catch over your smaller, grittier I guess can catch Mike Harley or even Jeff Thomas. Cager would have been a better WR for this very team this year. You can point out his flaws, but he would have out produced Harley. I mean, he did on the same team for two years. Cager doubled up Thomas' touchdown ratio and avg more yards per catch last year, too.

I suggest you read up on marketshare and the importance of it at WR. I'm pounding the table on it on this forum because most posters here are lost. I was the first guy on this forum telling you all that KJ Osborn was our best WR and Mike Harley was better than Jeff Thomas while the collective kept thinking Jeff Thomas was something he was clearly not.
Click to expand...
If you dont understand my point you’re trying not to. And your response strikes me as nit picky and obtuse. You chose to mention leggett and moore. They were not good.

We need to evaluate wrs better and get kids who can play the position. You’re gushing over size. Nothing to dislike about it but it’s not more important than hands, toughness and separation. And picking on harley seems dumb. He’s trying but limited.

As for market share, yawn. Have at it. it’s one indicator. It’s context driven. Who else was on your team, and how healthy/experienced. How was the QB and scheme, etc. if it leads you to long for lance leggett, then you’re doing this wrong.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top