The Possession Receiver

by howtheyscored on Jan 8, 2007 9:25 PM PST Comment 11 comments

****Excluding the title game that just finished, this is a perfect example of a diary I will bring to the front. In spite of the injury, I think Ted Ginn could be the perfect type of receiver worth taking 11th overall. Of course, maybe his injury hurts his draft stock and we can trade down and get him. Who knows? Of course I've seen 3 different guys I've been psyched about before moving onto the next guy (Dwayne Jarrett, Gaines Adams, and now Ginn, so maybe it's just a passing fancy. Either way, the next 3 months will be fascinating as we figure who we really want suiting up for the 49ers next fall.****

So since we've been talking about the draft and a number of receivers have come up in conversation, most recently Ted Ginn Jr. of the unfortunate Ohio State Buckeyes, I've come to slowly realize something.

I don't really know what the difference is between the go to number one guy and the solid possession receiver. I mean, I know basic differences like ideal size and difference in talent, but as far as the role of the possession reciever I don't have a very sharp grasp.

And I've been one in the past to throw this term around. I've seen it used a lot in these threads, notably with regard to Antonio Bryant, who has been called "a good possession guy with some speed," but what do you mean by that? Surely Antonio Bryant has the size and the speed to be a number one guy. What's holding him back is general skill deficiency. He doesn't get enough separation from opposing cornerns and he's rendered almost completely moot in the middle of the field. But why is it that if not being able to do these things makes him a bad go to guy, then not being able to do these things allows him to be a good possession guy?

To me, the term Possession Receiver means more than just "second best" or "sub-elite." That's what number two receiver means. Possession Receiver implies a pretty specific role that a player is expected to fill and not a rank based on inferior talent, size, or speed.

I'm just not sure what that role is. I know the possession guy is not expected to make the big plays, which is why slower guys often are forced into the role. So they get the shorter, more conservative routes designed to pick up moderate yardage, convert downs, and keep the drive going. That makes sense... but these are things a number one guy should be able to do to as well.

A number one guy needs to be able to run underneath or to catch a 10 yard out or get enough separation for the hook route to be effective... the same things that I associate with possession receiving.

So is big play ability the only thing that separates the top guy from the "possession" guy as far as the on-field role goes? That's a little dissatisfying to me as a distinction. There must be more to it.

Is there more to it? If there isn't, then I just don't know how we can possibly distinguish top talent in the draft from career two guys except by saying "well, he doesn't have the speed" or "he doesn't have the strength" and moving on, which seems a bit haphazard (and the draft process is haphazard enough to begin with).

So now I leave it to you. Enlighten me.

Oh yeah, and what do ya'll think of Ginn Jr.? I think it was a good topic brought up by Fooch. Ginn is very exciting because even if we can't expect him to make a big impact on the offense right away, he'll make an immediate impact on special teams where we haven't had a true return guy in years. And I would be very welcome to that. I don't know a lot else about Ginn, though, and wonder if I should be getting excited or not.

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.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good question

When I hear the words possession receiver, I immediately think of Wayne Chrebet. Does anyone else get the mental image? To me, he embodied what a possession receiver is supposed to be. Sure handed, tough, always makes the catch to convert on third down. Guys like Ed McCaffery and Troy Brown fit this mold also.

Here's the thing that puzzles me now. Look back 10-15 years and, your number one receiver was a guy that who had these traits mentioned above, and the ability to go deep. Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, Andre Reed, Issac Bruce...these were the top guys a decade ago. Your second receiver was usually a deep threat to stretch the field and open things up for your number one guy and your backs and the tight end. Alvin Harper and John Taylor kind of sum up this kind of receiver. Now all of a sudden, your number one is supposed to be your deep threat and your number two guy the sure handed receiver. How and why did this change?

There are a few throwback number one guys out there now like Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, and Chad Johnson. Guys like these are hard to find. I don't see any reason why a guy like Antonio Bryant couldn't be your leading receiver on a good team, even though he's a possession guy. I mentioned some possible deep threat type receivers in one of the previous diaries. If we can add a speed guy, whether he's a number one type or not, would be the biggest help at WR for the team, but I wouldn't spend a first round pick on one of them. The second round is where I'd target a WR, and I think we can get value there while addressing the DL in the first round.

I don't know if I answered your question, helped a bit, or muddied the waters even more.

by gatling on Jan 8, 2007 10:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good point

You're right, it used to be your #2 guy was usually more of a deep threat and your #3 (or top backup) was more of a possession guy, and now they've flip-flopped.

In my opinion this changed with the advent of the zone blitz. Now, defenses get more pressure on the QB quicker and from a wider variety of places. Since the QB has less time to throw, you need guys who run shorter, more precise routes to bail him out, while the deep threats are usually more of a luxury and saved for passing downs.

This also shows how hopelessly out of date Al Davis's 7-step drop, vertical passing game is these days, and why the Raiders lead the league is getting their QB sacked.

Once a cobra bit Frank Gore's leg. After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died.

by Josh from Hollywood on Jan 8, 2007 11:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Zone Blitz

The zone blitz was one thing I had in mind as to why we saw such a change in what teams look for in a wide receiver. The other things I took into consideration were the advent of the cover 2 defense, West Coast and spread offensive formations, and the physical evolution of the athlete. I'm not sure if any one factor is more responsible for the change than another, but probably more a combination of all them, and a few I didn't think of I'm sure.

by gatling on Jan 9, 2007 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

To tell the truth

That did muddy the waters a little, but it was also a very interesting and informative response. I hadn't considered the effect of eras in football, especially because I largely model my idea of a number one guy on Jerry Rice, who you bring up as an example of the kind of guy we saw before the mysterious change in philosophy.

And I remember Irvin and Harper with very strong feelings. Stupid Harper wasn't even that good a receiver, he was just tall and fast with decent hands, but damned if it didn't work. Not that that kind of thing didn't work for a lot of teams, I just hated that it worked for the Cowboys too.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on Jan 8, 2007 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Harper

He proved himself strictly a complimentary receiver when he went to Tampa didn't he? I know I smiled a little watching him fail.

I really think with another year for Alex Smith to develop, the line to hopefully stay healthy and gel as a unit, the improvement of Vernon Davis, and the addition of another WR to the depth chart, you can see Bryant emerge as a lead receiver. Look at what he's done the last two years without a solid quarterback or consistent offense. He's not a guy who's going to get 100 catches a year, but I think he's very capable of catching 80-90 balls as your top receiver, with Vernon Davis actually being your secondary guy. I do think we need to another receiver, but I don't think it's as vitally important as many others do. I think it's also possible that Arnaz Battle could become the second receiver we need, at worst he's our third guy.

by gatling on Jan 9, 2007 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Great Post

I think you're very right in noting that sometimes the "possession reciever" label is put on a guy who simply has skills too inferior to be a big play guy the way the "utility" label is put on an infielder in baseball who isn't good enough to play everyday. But a true possession receiver is not just a #2 guy, he actually does things which allow him to be especially good at making those big 3rd and 6 catches, unlike a guy like John Taylor, who was basically a big play guy who happened to be a #2 because he was on the same team as Jerry Rice (who actually had more of those possession receiver skills, but was simply too damn good to be just a possession guy).

There are a few qualities that separate the two archetypes as far as I am concerned:

--Size: Some big play guys can be smaller due to their great speed, and the separation they create (such as Santana Moss and Steve Smith), but possession guy must make up for the lack of game-breaking speed with the ability to provide a big target, the size to box out defenders. (Example: J.J. Stokes, who was drafted as a potential stud, but quickly fell to possession receiver status because he could get away from defenders -- his nickname was "Carpool" because he always had someone with him.)

--Hands: A big play guy can often be forgiven for the occasional drop because he makes up for it with his game-changing plays and ability to stretch the defense. A possession guy must catch anything he gets his hands on, and be able to make catches in traffic, because that's usually where he is. (Example: Keyshawn Johnson, who has lost a lot of speed since his days as a #1 receiver, but is still very valuable as a possession guy because he makes catches in traffic as well as anybody.)

--Route-running: The ability to run precise routes is even more imporant when you can't separate from defenders on athleticism alone. Running routes consistantly and with razor-sharp precision allows you to get an extra step on defenders and be where the QB expects you, so they feel more comfortable throwing to a spot, even in traffic. (Example: Ricky Proehl who has made a long, long career out of being the best route-runner on any team he's on.)

Once a cobra bit Frank Gore's leg. After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died.

by Josh from Hollywood on Jan 8, 2007 11:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

Keyshawn Johnson and Wayne Chrebet (WC c/o gatling) are really excellent examples of guys who are actually very good receivers but whose skill set favors the possession slot, and not guys who are second level receivers necessarily pushed into that slot.

Having those two guys in my head does a lot to clear up where the line can be drawn between "big play" and "possession" based on how a player fits a role and not based on talent. Being able to contrast this with a guy like, say TO, who actually does a lot of possession things but is most capable with big plays and drops more balls than anybody is a useful way to conecptualize these differences.

I'm still interested in what qualities we look for in a college player that we expect to translate into one role or the other. So often it gets unduly simplified down to size and speed that it's hard to tell why a Calvin Johnson might be a better big play guy in the NFL than, say, (bad example, I know) a Mike Williams from a couple of years ago, who was largely projected to be this kind of possession guy we've been talking about.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on Jan 9, 2007 12:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Qualities

Mike Williams really is a good example to look at, if only to identify what went wrong there. Part of it could be the year off between college and the pros, but that might be the easy way out. I think a guy like Williams, playing for a top school in a big conference, only having two years of college to judge on makes it tough. His yards per catch dropped from his freshman year to his sophomore year, which should have been a sign I think. Also, he played in a pro style offense, so to my mind his game wasn't likely to improve from what he did in college. He's a big target, a good guy in the red zone because of his size, but ultimately he'd probably be best suited to the tight end position, if he added 15-20 pounds.

Williams time in the 40 yard dash wasn't that impressive, at 4.5 seconds, according to this . Compare that to the 4.38 put up Vernon Davis before the 2006 draft. This is part of the reason I still think Davis could become our true deep threat, because of the rare combo of size and speed he has at tight end. Unless teams can match a huge corner or a very quick safety up with Vernon, I think in a year or two we'll see Davis become the guy we all envision.

by gatling on Jan 9, 2007 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My take

Is it just me, or is primary and secondary receiver mutually exclusive of possession and big play receiver? To clarify, it is my belief that you can be the primary receiver and be either possession OR big play, and the same can be said about the secondary receiver. Being #1 doesn't mean you have to be a big play guy, or you have to be a possession guy.

In the case of the 49ers, they have to interesting starting receivers. Many consider Bryant to be more of a possession-type guy, while I see him as their "big play" guy. Arnaz Battle, to me, is their possession receiver.

To me, a "possession" guy is one who the QB goes to when a given play is needed. He should be one that the QB trusts in most situations. The "big play" guy, on the other hand, has a different role. Sure, he can (and should) be dependable enough to make the "necessary" plays, but at the same time, he can make things happen. This doesn't necessarily mean he has the speed to create tons of seperation. He can make "big plays" by running fly/post routes, but at the same time, take a slant/comeback route, break a tackle and get some more yardage.

I don't know if this makes sense at all. Perhaps, I'm just rambling. Perhaps it ends up sounding like what everyone else is saying. I just feel that #1/#2 do not necessarily equate to a particular role, but rather, how good the receivers are.

by sfgfan on Jan 9, 2007 10:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs