49er schism

[RiverDog]

LOL, yeah "phony". I recommend sending a letter to the author of the article explaining how artificial the measurements were. While you are at it, make sure to do the same with the other 10 articles that are on that Google page about the same thing, and maybe send some info to teams like the Falcons, to let them know since they have a tall QB they don't need a tall receiver core, maybe they'll all release guys like Jones, Marshall, Alshon, Mega Tron, Demaryious etc, and Wilson can have his pick. LOL

It wasn't the measurements I questioned. It was the fact that they used averages to show how tall the NO receivers were. It's like having 6 houses on your block worth $250K and one worth $2M and you tell me that the average house on the block is worth half a million dollars. Not exactly a true reflection of the neighborhood.

Moore's 5'9" height severely skewed the Saints average to the south while Sidney Rice's presence skewed the Hawks average to the north. That's what made it phony. Now neither of those players are on their respective teams. That's why I said it was ironic.

[HumanCockroach]

True, but he was using the starting receivers, and most PRODUCTIVE receivers from each team. Brees may indeed be surrounded by large receivers, but so is Ryan; does that mean his height is irrelevant, while Wilson and Brees' are? Manning had a stable of big receivers, does that mean he is short? No. Tall receivers are desired in EVERY situation, regardless of QB height.

Pretending like it is paramount only with shorter QB's misses the big picture. Which is there simply aren't enough tall talented receivers to go around, and each team keeps the "best" receivers available, not because of height, but because of available talent. Brees won one SB with tall receivers, Seattle won one SB without it, are we to assume NO win came because of the height, and Seattles came because of the lack of it? No. It just doesn't work that way. For all you or I know Seattle will draft a 6'5" receiver and NO will sign a 5'8" receiver. Height is desirable, but it ISN'T the only or even most important factor.

The ENTIRE NFL would like to add height, doesn't have a thing to do with how tall the QB is.

[NorthHawk]

I'm kind of hoping they get someone like Kelvin Benjamin at 6-5 and a huge wingspan or maybe Martavis Bryant at 6-4 later in the draft.

[RiverDog]

True, but he was using the starting receivers, and most PRODUCTIVE receivers from each team. Brees may indeed be surrounded by large receivers, but so is Ryan; does that mean his height is irrelevant, while Wilson and Brees' are? Manning had a stable of big receivers, does that mean he is short? No. Tall receivers are desired in EVERY situation, regardless of QB height.

Pretending like it is paramount only with shorter QB's misses the big picture. Which is there simply aren't enough tall talented receivers to go around, and each team keeps the "best" receivers available, not because of height, but because of available talent. Brees won one SB with tall receivers, Seattle won one SB without it, are we to assume NO win came because of the height, and Seattles came because of the lack of it? No. It just doesn't work that way. For all you or I know Seattle will draft a 6'5" receiver and NO will sign a 5'8" receiver. Height is desirable, but it ISN'T the only or even most important factor.

The ENTIRE NFL would like to add height, doesn't have a thing to do with how tall the QB is.

The two most productive receivers for the Saints were Graham (6'7"') and Colston (6'4"). The two most productive receivers for the Hawks were Tate (5'10") and Baldwin (5'10"). Big drop offs to the #3 receivers on both teams. Sorry, HC. Anyway you slice it, the Saints have way taller receivers than do the Hawks.

Understood and agreed about the entire NFL wanting to add height. Nor am I arguing that height is the only or the most important factor. My argument is that adding height is more of a concern, or should be more of a concern, for us than for other teams. I am using the Saints as an example of a team with a short quarterback that seems to have recognized that need. But I guess if you can't mold the facts to say what you want them to say, you can always argue that it's a mere coincidence.

[HumanCockroach]

And I suppose you can't continue to attempt to make a case based on your own personal theory. Untill Brees or Payton, or anyone else actually says it, you are taking two ENTIRELY different things putting them together and saying'see, this is why this team does it, and the Seahawks are EXACTLY the same, and the QB is EXACTLY the same, and ignore the fact that many of the teams with the TALLEST receiving cores in the league, also have the tallest QB's in the league, that's irrelevant, because well that is what I think". Simply put, it does NOT matter the size of the QB. No matter how hard you attempt to profess it so, it isn't.

As YOU said, the most Productive receivers for one were TALL, and for the other SHORT. You blew your OWN theory up, without acknowledging you did so. The BEST receivers produce, regardless of QB. It IS that simple.

[RiverDog]

And I suppose you can't continue to attempt to make a case based on your own personal theory. Untill Brees or Payton, or anyone else actually says it, you are taking two ENTIRELY different things putting them together and saying'see, this is why this team does it, and the Seahawks are EXACTLY the same, and the QB is EXACTLY the same, and ignore the fact that many of the teams with the TALLEST receiving cores in the league, also have the tallest QB's in the league, that's irrelevant, because well that is what I think". Simply put, it does NOT matter the size of the QB. No matter how hard you attempt to profess it so, it isn't.

As YOU said, the most Productive receivers for one were TALL, and for the other SHORT. You blew your OWN theory up, without acknowledging you did so. The BEST receivers produce, regardless of QB. It IS that simple.

Not only was that not the point of my argument, I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I "blew up my own theory". The Hawks had no WR's taller than 6'1", except for Rice, and he only played in 8 games and was a ghost of his former self in those, so of course, the most productive receivers for us in 2013 would be shorter receivers. In 2012, the most productive receiver for us was a healthy 6'4" Sidney Rice. My point was that currently the Hawks have one of the shortest receiving corps in the league and that the Saints, who just happen to start the next shortest QB, have one of the tallest receiving corps in the league.

Once again, my point is that it is more important to us than it is to other teams that we prioritize acquiring bigger receivers. I fully acknowledge your point that the entire league wants big receivers and that a lot of teams with tall quarterbacks also have tall receivers. That doesn't disprove my point whatsoever.

You're sticking your head in the sand by refusing to acknowledge that there are some inherent disadvantages to being short and acting as if it's sacrilege to make any statement that notes anything on the "cons" side of a discussion about RW. It's like ignoring the fact that a quarterback is a more accurate passer when he's running to the side of his throwing arm vs. away from it. Russell is a great quarterback, and I wouldn't trade him for anyone, but one has to recognize his weaknesses as well as his strengths if we are to put him in the best position to succeed, which I think we are both in favor of. Putting an added premium on taller receivers will help mitigate one of his weaknesses (not sure if he has any others...lol!).

[Eaglehawk]

River,

Look at Manning 6'5" and part of the best offense in history. Looked like Minnie Mouse after the Superbowl.

Good receivers are good and their height means nothing... for the most part that is. Also what did Brees do with all those tall receivers last season?

Its a tough call, but I think that the bottom line is talent, period. Short or tall.

Remember Nate Archiball, one of the shortest guys to play basketball. He was one of the great ones though.
How about Earl the Pearl Monroe, of the Knicks 1970's sure tall but no giant.
And last but not least how about Nate Robinson from UW played with the Knicks(don't know where he is now) the dude is way under 6feet but can ball with the best of them.
I think height may be a factor in some cases but eventually it comes down to talent that makes up for the difference in height. Or that makes you get cut despite the fact that you are a 6'5" receiver.

[HumanCockroach]

And I suppose you can't continue to attempt to make a case based on your own personal theory. Untill Brees or Payton, or anyone else actually says it, you are taking two ENTIRELY different things putting them together and saying'see, this is why this team does it, and the Seahawks are EXACTLY the same, and the QB is EXACTLY the same, and ignore the fact that many of the teams with the TALLEST receiving cores in the league, also have the tallest QB's in the league, that's irrelevant, because well that is what I think". Simply put, it does NOT matter the size of the QB. No matter how hard you attempt to profess it so, it isn't.

As YOU said, the most Productive receivers for one were TALL, and for the other SHORT. You blew your OWN theory up, without acknowledging you did so. The BEST receivers produce, regardless of QB. It IS that simple.

Not only was that not the point of my argument, I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I "blew up my own theory". The Hawks had no WR's taller than 6'1", except for Rice, and he only played in 8 games and was a ghost of his former self in those, so of course, the most productive receivers for us in 2013 would be shorter receivers. In 2012, the most productive receiver for us was a healthy 6'4" Sidney Rice. My point was that currently the Hawks have one of the shortest receiving corps in the league and that the Saints, who just happen to start the next shortest QB, have one of the tallest receiving corps in the league.

Once again, my point is that it is more important to us than it is to other teams that we prioritize acquiring bigger receivers. I fully acknowledge your point that the entire league wants big receivers and that a lot of teams with tall quarterbacks also have tall receivers. That doesn't disprove my point whatsoever.

You're sticking your head in the sand by refusing to acknowledge that there are some inherent disadvantages to being short and acting as if it's sacrilege to make any statement that notes anything on the "cons" side of a discussion about RW. It's like ignoring the fact that a quarterback is a more accurate passer when he's running to the side of his throwing arm vs. away from it. Russell is a great quarterback, and I wouldn't trade him for anyone, but one has to recognize his weaknesses as well as his strengths if we are to put him in the best position to succeed, which I think we are both in favor of. Putting an added premium on taller receivers will help mitigate one of his weaknesses (not sure if he has any others...lol!).

No, I have never said that Wilson isn't short, OR that he would benefit from a taller redzone target, the difference is that while YOU continue to insist that Brees has that bevy of tall receivers, it is BECAUSE he is short, when it it OBVIOUS that he has tall receivers because ALL QB's regardless of height, and ALL front offices regardless of height of their QB want tall receivers in the redzone. You are claiming it is a higher priority, when it isn't. You are dismissing the facts of the matter in an attempt to justify your position on the subject.

Wilson my friend was the most accurate QB in the redzone two seasons ago, and not all of those passes went to Rice, no matter how hard you try, your argument is lacking in any type of actual facts or even residual facts to support it.

You have provided the next shortest QB and claimed this makes your position correct, while ignoring everything else. There HAVE been tall WR's available, and several good ones, and yet Seattle hasn't pulled the trigger on ANY, if nothingelse this disproves your "higher priority" theory. The Seahawks didn't HAVE to have a bevy of short receivers RD, they CHOSE it, and continue to do so. So yes, I'll continue to bury my head, I mean after all, I only have the entire history of the NFL, and the history  of the Seahawks moves supporting that position, while you have Drew Brees, and NOTHING else.

Not sure why we are discussing it to be honest, thought you were "done". You can have your position, but I am not changing mine.Until, there is something more than your own personal conjecture.

[monkey]

Pete has repeatedly stated that he wants one of his receivers to be a bigger similar to Mike Williams. That is his offensive vision, and has been all along, that's never changed.
It why they picked up the guy from the CFL.
Having said that, it's about getting the RIGHT big guy, not just any big body, because it still always comes down to competition, and if a smaller WR is better and outplays the bigger one, guess who will play that spot?

[HumanCockroach]

Of course Carroll does as does EVERY coach and FO in the NFL (it is after all why they continue to sign, trade and draft them), and he has wanted that whether the name was Hasselbeck, Jackson or Wilson. It is WHY he keeps taking fliers on players like Edwards, TO, Durham etc. The QB's height is irrelevant to that desire, which for some reason is me sticking my head in the sand. LOL

[RiverDog]

Pete has repeatedly stated that he wants one of his receivers to be a bigger similar to Mike Williams. That is his offensive vision, and has been all along, that's never changed.
It why they picked up the guy from the CFL.
Having said that, it's about getting the RIGHT big guy, not just any big body, because it still always comes down to competition, and if a smaller WR is better and outplays the bigger one, guess who will play that spot?

Oh, I absolutely agree. No way do I want another BMW. I'd rather have a fleet of Doug Baldwins or Golden Tates vs. one BMW. All I am saying is that we should be placing a premium on taller receivers, giving height a higher weight in whatever equation we use to appraise WR's vs. other WR attributes like speed or elusiveness when it comes down to making a decision. I am not advocating that we go into the post season with a fixation on height.

[HumanCockroach]

Why didn't you say that from the beginning? That the Seahawks should be putting a bigger priority on it in your opinion, instead of claiming that is why the Saints did it? As opposed to what you "think", you have been presenting it as fact. An opinion is fine, and sure I think everyone would like the next AJ Green, or Mega Tron, just don't have the foggiest why you based it on the QB height, as opposed to the talent and ability those guys have, which is obviously successful regardless of how diminutive the QB happens to be.