| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Galvao 
Joined: 10 Oct 2009 Posts: 647 Location: Finland
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:42 am Post subject: Will we ever see a short WR get drafted in the top 5? |
|
|
|
In the last 10 years or so there hasnt been a WR drafted in the top 5 who has been shorter than 6'1. Will we ever see a Steve Smith kinda player get drafted in the top 5? I looked back until the 1997 draft and the shortest WR drafted in the top 5 was Peter Warrick (5'11) in 2000. _________________
God forbid you to go to hell, but if you even seen a Rams game then you know it well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheVillain112 
 Joined: 19 Feb 2010 Posts: 12442
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Shorter than 6'1? Maybe.
Justin Blackmon, Robert Woods and Sammy Watkins are all listed at 6'1 currently. Who knows if when they reach the combine if they'll come up a bit short of that (Although I doubt Blackmon and Watkins will, possibly Woods)... _________________
Thanks Rammy...
Last edited by TheVillain112 on Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
plan9misfit 

 Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 17983 Location: RIP: B2TB, T14, & S.A. We miss you.
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:17 am Post subject: Re: Will we ever see a short WR get drafted in the top 5? |
|
|
|
| Galvao wrote: | | In the last 10 years or so there hasnt been a WR drafted in the top 5 who has been shorter than 6'1. Will we ever see a Steve Smith kinda player get drafted in the top 5? I looked back until the 1997 draft and the shortest WR drafted in the top 5 was Peter Warrick (5'11) in 2000. |
Will we ever see one? Well, yes. As you pointed out, Peter Warrick was the last one taken in the top 5. Desmond Howard (5'10") was selected 4th overall in 1992.
Will we ever see it happen again? Probably. But the message sent is that taller WRs are better fits for the NFL because they're often more versatile than the pygmies. _________________
Co-Founder: DCRA - No McQuistan, No Super Bowl
| The_Slamman wrote: | | It's like we are in a win now mentality with lose now personnel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PowerElite 
Joined: 25 Dec 2009 Posts: 7624
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Desmond Howard may be the reason why. He was such a big time bust for what he was expected to be in the NFL at WR that people used him as the prototype as to what to look for to avoid drafting WR busts. He was short, didn't have great top end speed, and wasn't required to run an advanced route tree in college. If a 5'10 200lbs WR that runs a 4.2 and is a Heisman candidate sort of dominant college player comes along, I don't see why they can't go top 5. If he has dominated all three years in college and has return ability like Patrick Peterson, I'd draft the guy top 5. He'd have to have the sort of timed combine speed that he displayed on the field. I'd be skeptical if he ran a 4.45. Jeremy Maclin was a "4.3" guy in college and the next "Desean Jackson" but isn't much of a big play guy in the NFL. Speed would be one of his top assets so he'd need to be able to outrun DBs for as long as Steve Smith and Joey Galloway in order to be worth that high of a pick. Top 5 the goal is to draft a Pro Bowl type player and not just another good NFL player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
vikingsrule
 Joined: 15 Nov 2005 Posts: 39455 Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| We will continue to see shorts WRs in the top 10 being selected, but looking at historic trends of 6-1 and shorter WRs, you shouldnt go near them in the top 10. The past 12 years of top 10 picks have seen 6-1 or shorter WRs being total flops in the NFL. The only success story has been Michael Crabtree, and even that is debatable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ngo1125 
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 Posts: 890
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PowerElite wrote: | | Desmond Howard may be the reason why. He was such a big time bust for what he was expected to be in the NFL at WR that people used him as the prototype as to what to look for to avoid drafting WR busts. He was short, didn't have great top end speed, and wasn't required to run an advanced route tree in college. If a 5'10 200lbs WR that runs a 4.2 and is a Heisman candidate sort of dominant college player comes along, I don't see why they can't go top 5. If he has dominated all three years in college and has return ability like Patrick Peterson, I'd draft the guy top 5. He'd have to have the sort of timed combine speed that he displayed on the field. I'd be skeptical if he ran a 4.45. Jeremy Maclin was a "4.3" guy in college and the next "Desean Jackson" but isn't much of a big play guy in the NFL. Speed would be one of his top assets so he'd need to be able to outrun DBs for as long as Steve Smith and Joey Galloway in order to be worth that high of a pick. Top 5 the goal is to draft a Pro Bowl type player and not just another good NFL player. |
I agree. If he has that elite skill set and production in college, a team would probably take a chance on him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JaguarCrazy2832 
Joined: 28 Jun 2008 Posts: 73424
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I wouldnt say never, but there would have to be an interesting exception. Blackmon might go Top-5, you never know _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Superman(DH23) 
Joined: 03 Jan 2008 Posts: 16410 Location: Abdi on the sick sig
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Probably not b/c short WRs are viewed as dime a dozen type guys. Guys that you can get for a much better value in later rounds, the top of the draft is viewed as getting hopefully the next best player at his position for the long term, meaning you want prototypes in that spot. _________________
| OneBadCat wrote: | | Ahah Okay first of all Gamble was lost to IR this year but when healthy he proved to be 2nd only to Revis last season. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FREDDY T 
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 5287 Location: NY
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| no and they shouldnt. even the thought of kendall wright at seven makes me a little woozy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|