FanPost

The Big [Receiver] Question

So I decide the "big" vs. "small" WR topic might need it's own diary as I'm sure there are more opinions to be expressed and I didn't want to totally hijack Fooch's thread.

So to quote fellow poster mississippininer, from his response to my post about why we would want the next TO, based on size and athletic ability and not attitude.  Check it, if you so please, http://www.ninersnation.com/comments/2007/6/22/2310/73648/4#4

only CJ aka 85 has been the top ten in receiving in the last 5 years

I re-read what mississippininer wrote and I'm starting to think he/she meant to say "over the last 5 years" and not "in the last 5 years".  I guess that must be Fooch's bad for not having a grammar or literary intent check.

So let's revisit the top 5 receivers for the last 5 years.

'06

  1. C. Johnson*
  2. M. Harrison
  3. R. Wayne
  4. R. Williams*
  5. D. Driver
'05
  1. S. Smith
  2. S. Moss
  3. C. Johnson*
  4. L. Fitzgerald*
  5. A. Boldin*
'04
  1. M. Muhammad*
  2. J. Horn*
  3. J. Walker*
  4. T. Holt
  5. I. Bruce
'03
  1. T. Holt
  2. R. Moss*
  3. A. Boldin*
  4. C. Johnson*
  5. D. Mason
'02
  1. M. Harrison
  2. R. Moss*
  3. A. Toomer*
  4. H. Ward
  5. P. Burress*
* "big" receiver

From '02-'05 3 of the top 5 WRs were "big", even by mississippininer's own criteria.  So in total 14/25 (56%) of the 5 WRs from the last 5 years were big.  I fail to see where the smaller WRs are dominating the bigger WRs.

Now revisiting last year's top 10 WRs and using mississippininer's said criteria

when I mean "Big" I mean over 6 foot 1.  With that as a marker re-look at your board.

Okay, fair enough, my board loses 1 receiver from the top 10, Reggie Wayne.  Wayne, at 6'0" and 2lbs shy of 200 but mississippininer doesn't consider weight an issue in determining a WR "bigness" or lack there of.  

With the loss of Reggie Wayne, 4 of the top 10 reception leaders are big.  And I think that gives me 8 of the top 20 WR from last year were big.  So the edge in '06 goes slightly to the small receivers.

As far at touchdowns goes with the new criteria, I'm down to 13/21 WR being big.  Here the edge goes to bigger WR but not by a whole lot.

How about the "intangibles" that surround a WR on a certain team.

The success of WR depends on ton of factors QB, System, Running Game,  Blocking, and chemistry. So I am sure we can agree that all of these things come into play.

How is being a small WR beneficial to the above?

Being a elite WR as you know is more about TD's.  It is about receptiions, yards, and about opening up the running game.

You're the one that brought up receiving yards as a measuring stick.  Based on the '06 numbers, smaller WR barely take yards while bigger WR barely take TD.  So can you quantify how smaller WR open the running game up more than bigger WR?  I can't, but one might make the assumption that a 210lbs WR might be a little more effective blocking than a 185lbs WR.

You care to quantify any of the following?

I prefer the total package than leading the league in TD as well as games missed, dropped passes, and ineffective/non productive performances to the outcome of the game.

So being bigger leads to more missed games to being injured, dropping more balls, and having more ineffective/non productive performances?  Care to back any of this up with stats or opinions?  Or this just mississippininer's own expert opinion?  I'm just wondering.

So I think it's pretty obvious that smaller WR in no way dominate bigger WR.  So why wouldn't you want the next TO?

Game, set, match.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.