What 2nd Year Guy Must Step Up

[Rams and Gators]

Well let's just set up a scenario that begs the answer we want why don't we? I never advocated putting incompetence on the field and wouldn't so anyone I throw to I want to catch the ball . Those who can't catch don't make my roster,I guess they do your's though since you came up with the scenario.

I'll make my point 1 last time, then I'm too bored to keep on arguing.

If I'm deciding who to play I'm factoring in a number of things:
Ability to get open
Ability to catch the ball
Ability to go and fight for the ball
Along with others

By the sound of it you'd factor in:
Ability to fight for the ball.
Ability to be tall.

 

[LesBaker]

If those two are on the field, we likely have Cook/Kendricks/Pettis on the field with them. IMO, Tavon and Stedman should be the two starters on the outside. Small or not. Dan Marino was a beast with 5'9" Mark Duper and 5'9" Mark Clayton. If you can get open and catch the ball then that will be good enough.

I had forgotten how short those two were in comparison to the norm.

The point about getting open and catching it is more meaningful than height, strength or speed.

 

[Thordaddy]

I had forgotten how short those two were in comparison to the norm.

The point about getting open and catching it is more meaningful than height, strength or speed.

Except Les what "norm " are you talking about? the norm then was 3 or 4 inches shorter than it is today and those guys were considered short then so our guys don't quite make a comparable comparison???? redundant much? a comparable shorter than the norm for today is 5'11" so the comparrison fails to prove the point. That doesn't mean the point is wrong just that the comparison is flawed.It also assumes Tavon and Sted and Sam combined are as good as Clayton, Duper and Marino because their measurables are equal so they "should " have success,do I have to delve into that? ram29jackson where are you on this point ?
Bradford is the same height as Marino but Bradfords guards average three inches taller than Marinos and center 2 inches taller but Sam is supposed to see our guys as well ?
I agree getting open is the most important thing, and FWIW that's why bigger guys are wanted and at a premium because they don't have to be as good at getting open to be AS open. This argument is sort of like do you want a great leaper or a bigger center in basketball if they both hit the same point on the backboard when they leap? You want the guy who takes up the most space.
Jrry's comparison could be used to argue a guy and just a good guy as far as you know who is 6ft 9in. should be as successful as Bill Russell at center in todays NBA and FWIW Russel wasn't even short for a center back then.
Did I go back in time too far?
Then how far "should we".
These sort of comparisons can imply at best and ignore so much other stuff they fail .
The Russel Wilson comparrison to Tarkenton ? Fail , more like Eddie Lebaron Tarkenton wasn't that short and could throw from the pocket very effectively Wilson keeping him in the pocket is how to beat him like Vick cuz they a r e ..............short.
I don't think short eliminates either guy because they are talented enough to overcome it,I do think combined they give their QB less to see and a steady diet of that isn't what most coaches would want. Our's may want that ,Sam may want that ,I don't expect they will but if they do it won't be because Sted and Tavon are as good as because the rest are gawd awful IMO.
If someone disagrees with that then we have a basis to start from,but the goal posts are getting moved all over the map in this thread and although I'm pretty adaptable I weary of bringing the discussion back to center.

Great preaching to ya Les


BTW Tarkenton wants the Vikes to draft Johhny Football

 

[jrry32]

That's an empty backfield ,which is not what I thought we were talking about,and THAT does have more of you receivers tall than short 3/5.
I hope we aren't in that set most of the time.
As far as Marino and his little guys they were playing against smaller DBs ,we've gone over that ,it's a different league now,Jim Brown wouldn't gain the yards now that he did against 215 lb linebackers and 260 lb DTs and 230 lb DEs .
back then most DBs were sub 200 and a lot of them in the 180s
If you want to use numbers from the past you have to use them all not cherry pick to "prove" a point .
Like I said earlier, DB;s are getting bigger some already are:eek: There is a reason big recs. are at a premium .
BTW how much did you even see those guys play? They were gone 25 years ago.

I don't mean all 3, I mean one of the three.

DBs are getting bigger? So why fight fire with fire? What's the weakness big DBs have? They aren't as quick in short areas, as loose in the hips and usually aren't as fast. So how do you exploit that? Small, quick, fast WRs.

 

[jrry32]

Except Les what "norm " are you talking about? the norm then was 3 or 4 inches shorter than it is today and those guys were considered short then so our guys don't quite make a comparable comparison???? redundant much? a comparable shorter than the norm for today is 5'11" so the comparrison fails to prove the point.

3 to 4 inches at WR? That's a stretch imo. I went back and averaged the heights of the top 20 WRs in receiving yards in 1985 vs. the top 20 in 2013. The difference in height was 6'0.5"(1985) to 6'1.3"(2013). That's 0.8".

 

[bluecollarram]

3 to 4 inches at WR? That's a stretch imo. I went back and averaged the heights of the top 20 WRs in receiving yards in 1985 vs. the top 20 in 2013. The difference in height was 6'0.5"(1985) to 6'1.3"(2013). That's 0.8".

See I told ya that fancy book lernin would pay off.

 

[Thordaddy]

3 to 4 inches at WR? That's a stretch imo. I went back and averaged the heights of the top 20 WRs in receiving yards in 1985 vs. the top 20 in 2013. The difference in height was 6'0.5"(1985) to 6'1.3"(2013). That's 0.8".

What was it for the top 10 and top 50
I know our interior line 2013 vs. the Dolphins for those years was 3 inches difference ,the guys Marino had to see over to see the midgets.
And Marino was the same height, but once again the numbers for Duper and Clayton as implication TA and Sted assume no difference in talent on their part AND more importantly that their numbers were compiled with one of the top five QB's of all time. Just not a good comparison and it's a prime example of what ram29jackson was complaining about.
r29j said ".in the internet age people have a habit of pulling out a black and white stat or saying 10 is more than 8 therefore such and such is true. No, you have to look at context and match ups and situations.

 

[jrry32]

What was it for the top 10 and top 50
I know our interior line 2013 vs. the Dolphins for those years was 3 inches difference ,the guys Marino had to see over to see the midgets.
And Marino was the same height, but once again the numbers for Duper and Clayton as implication TA and Sted assume no difference in talent on their part AND more importantly that their numbers were compiled with one of the top five QB's of all time. Just not a good comparison and it's a prime example of what ram29jackson was complaining about.

I didn't assume anything. I'm telling you that it worked before. I will happily find you more recent examples if you'd prefer(2001 Patriots with 5'10" Troy Brown and 5'10" David Patten & 2002 Jets with 5'9" Laveraneus Coles, 5'10" Wayne Chrebet and 5'9" Santana Moss). The point of the matter is that size is irrelevant if they're our best two WRs. Whoever is the best at getting open and catching the ball should play.

I don't know what it was for the top 10 and 50. I only calculated the top 20.

 

[Ramifications]

Sometimes seems like history has tides and there is a cyclical ebb and flow to size, we have seen them range up and down the spectrum through the years.

Big WRs come in vogue (Art Monk), than big CBs like Lester Hayes are needed to combat them, than at a certain point, it makes sense to have smaller WRs, WAS had smurfs, ATL run and shoot with Eric Metcalf, Terrance Mathis, Bert Emanuel. Three Amigos weren't that big, Vance Johnson 5'11" and both Mark Jackson and Ricky Nattiel 5'9".

 

[Thordaddy]

I didn't assume anything. I'm telling you that it worked before. I will happily find you more recent examples if you'd prefer(2001 Patriots with 5'10" Troy Brown and 5'10" David Patten & 2002 Jets with 5'9" Laveraneus Coles, 5'10" Wayne Chrebet and 5'9" Santana Moss). The point of the matter is that size is irrelevant if they're our best two WRs. Whoever is the best at getting open and catching the ball should play.

I don't know what it was for the top 10 and 50. I only calculated the top 20.

Again ,what can happen doesn't establish it as being likely, because Marshal Faulk was5 ft 10 and 211lbs doesn't mean someone of the same size will or even is likely to match his stats.
Those examples out of ALL the teams in the NFL throughout it's history, you haven't come close to it happening half the time.

 

[RamFan503]

What were we arguing about again?

 

[kmramsfan]

What were we arguing about again?

I think it was something about getting B Jones to step up big next season ..... or whomever.

 

[RamFan503]

I think it was something about getting B Jones to step up big next season ..... or whomever.

Ah - Thanks. Yes he should.

 

[tonyl711]

I didn't assume anything. I'm telling you that it worked before. I will happily find you more recent examples if you'd prefer(2001 Patriots with 5'10" Troy Brown and 5'10" David Patten & 2002 Jets with 5'9" Laveraneus Coles, 5'10" Wayne Chrebet and 5'9" Santana Moss). The point of the matter is that size is irrelevant if they're our best two WRs. Whoever is the best at getting open and catching the ball should play.

I don't know what it was for the top 10 and 50. I only calculated the top 20.

the Seahawks this year, their WRs aren't the tallest and their QB isn't either.

 

[tonyl711]

Again ,what can happen doesn't establish it as being likely, because Marshal Faulk was5 ft 10 and 211lbs doesn't mean someone of the same size will or even is likely to match his stats.
Those examples out of ALL the teams in the NFL throughout it's history, you haven't come close to it happening half the time.

you have been given many examples of "small" WR sets that have worked and worked well, why are you trying to put a negative spin on every example you are given? GSOTs WRs honestly I don't think any were over 6 ft, maybe Proehl not sure about him but Bruce, Holt, Hakim and Horn were all small, yet Kurt didn't have problems finding them over his Olinemen.

 

[Thordaddy]

What were we arguing about again?

I don't know but jrry took all day researching that in order to prove something I thought could happen had.
It's just that when it does it's an anomaly.
But maybe you were smart enough not to BE arguing and so you wouldn't remember

 

[Thordaddy]

you have been given many examples of "small" WR sets that have worked and worked well, why are you trying to put a negative spin on every example you are given? GSOTs WRs honestly I don't think any were over 6 ft, maybe Proehl not sure about him but Bruce, Holt, Hakim and Horn were all small, yet Kurt didn't have problems finding them over his Olinemen.

I'm not putting a negative spin on it at all tony,I'm saying that two small guys in a three set when you have big guys at your disposal is not the preferred combination, never said it couldn't work nor hadn't just that I doubt we go that way and why ,the rest was apoplexy over something it was morphed to.
But the GSOT itself was not the same case those guys were average height and so were not an example anyway,Hakim was the only one I'd call small I think he was 5'10".

 

[jrry32]

the Seahawks this year, their WRs aren't the tallest and their QB isn't either.

Great point. Seattle made it work with their two leading WRs both being 5'10".

Again ,what can happen doesn't establish it as being likely, because Marshal Faulk was5 ft 10 and 211lbs doesn't mean someone of the same size will or even is likely to match his stats.
Those examples out of ALL the teams in the NFL throughout it's history, you haven't come close to it happening half the time.

It doesn't have to happen half the time. It's(not happening half the time) irrelevant if Stedman and Tavon are our two best WRs. It would be foolish not to play both of them together because they're small. If they get open and catch the ball better than the other WRs, they should be on the field. It's as simple as that. I don't care if you're starting two small guys. It's worked before. It'll work again. If they're your best options, you play them.

 

[Thordaddy]

Great point. Seattle made it work with their two leading WRs both being 5'10".



It doesn't have to happen half the time. It's(not happening half the time) irrelevant if Stedman and Tavon are our two best WRs. It would be foolish not to play both of them together because they're small. If they get open and catch the ball better than the other WRs, they should be on the field. It's as simple as that. I don't care if you're starting two small guys. It's worked before. It'll work again. If they're your best options, you play them.

If you are trying to prove the later,yes , you'd need to get well past the former.
BTW did you happen to see ANY of those examples you conjured actually play ?I did, all of them,and in EVERY case the announcers harped on how they were unusually small, anomalies.

 

[jrry32]

If you are trying to prove the later,yes , you'd need to get well past the former.
BTW did you happen to see ANY of those examples you conjured actually play ?I did, all of them,and in EVERY case the announcers harped on how they were unusually small, anomalies.

The announcers are welcome to harp on what they'd like. You can call it anomalies, I'll call it irrelevant. Why...you may ask is it irrelevant? Because looking at the Rams right now, it's very possible that Tavon and Stedman are our two best WRs next year. And if they are, why would you not put them on the field together?

Drop the proving the latter stuff. I never set out to argue that it's commonplace. That was your strawman. I pointed out that it's happened before. It's been successful. And there's no reason why it shouldn't happen again if those two players are your best two WRs.

So if Tavon and Stedman are our two best WRs, why would you not put them on the field together? Why would you put inferior talent on the field? It just doesn't seem like good football logic to me.

You're entitled to your opinion but I don't agree with it.