View Poll Results: The Rams allowed most of the receiving TDs to:

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Big Receivers (6'1 and taller)

    12 30.00%
  • Small Receivers (6'0 and shorter)

    28 70.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,491
    Rep Power
    167

    Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    Here's another "behind the stats" question.

    In 2009, the Rams gave up 23 receiving TDs. Of those 15 (nearly 2/3) fell into one of the following two categories:

    Players 6'1 and taller.
    Players 6'0 and shorter.

    Which type of player was responsible for the bulk of the TD passes against?

    (I'll post the answer later)


  2. #2
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,410
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    Im gonna go with shorter. Only because when it came to the redzone we actually did decent at stopping teams. Most td's were bigger ones.

  3. #3
    RockinRam's Avatar
    RockinRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    4,074
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    I'm going with shorter.


    I don't clearly remember a specific game in which a tall/big receiver just flat-out dominate us.

  4. #4
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,088
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    I'm going with the shorter option also since we face many more receivers <6'0". Also most RBs are shorter and I'm sure we gave up some receiving TDs to them throughout the year.


    WHAT SAY YE?

  5. #5
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,342
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    I just don't buy the big receiver argument. All things being equal it could provide an advantage but I'd rather have a guy who makes quick cuts and has a better burst of speed. Taller guys generally lack in those areas. At TE it's a different argument.

    (I voted short just to play the odds and because it's unlikely you would start a thread to prove we are vulnerable to tall receivers)

  6. #6
    viper's Avatar
    viper is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Age
    53
    Posts
    1,674
    Rep Power
    26

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    I went with the tall receivers just to perpetuate the myth.

  7. #7
    mikhal5569's Avatar
    mikhal5569 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mass
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,102
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    I voted that the shorter faster ones did more damage to our DB's. Largely, due to the fact of the lack of consistent pass rush by our DL.
    Last edited by mikhal5569; -06-24-2010 at 03:43 PM.

  8. #8
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,491
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    *SPOILER ALERT*

    If you want to see the answer, highlight the space below:


    In this case, the "myth" is, in fact, the truth. The Rams gave up 15 TDs to receivers who were 6'1 or taller (7 to WRs, 7 to TEs, 1 to a FB). This could explain why the Rams have focused on obtaining bigger, more physical CBs (Fletcher, Murphy), OLBs (Diggs, Carpenter) and safeties (Payne). Notably, some of the toughest big receivers the Rams faced were in the division, including Larry Fitzgerald, John Carlson and Vernon Davis.

  9. #9
    Warner4prez's Avatar
    Warner4prez is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    North Dakota
    Age
    28
    Posts
    468
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    I can't say I'd be surprised either way really. I like some of our DB's but by mid-season our DB's were already getting pretty beat up. Bartell was banged up, Fletcher went out in 8 or 9? Once Quincy Butler, Justin King, Jonathan Wade and Danny Gorrer started seeing playing time...yikes.

    I'm really hoping that Fletcher comes back strong. I've got high hopes for Murphy and I want to like Justin King poor coverage and all, but I think Fletcher will be the guy for a few years to come.

  10. #10
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    59

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    This result surprises me...mostly because the stats on NFL.com indicate that the breakdown is 12 by one of those groups and 10 by the other for a total of 22 receiving TDs against us. While the same group comes out on top, I would note that (a) the margin is very slim at a 54% majority and (b) teams are notorious for over-stating the size of their players. Highlight below to see exact results:


    J. Carlson 6'5" - 2
    N. Burleson 6'0" - 1

    D. Driver 6'0" - 1
    J. Kuhn 6'0" - 1

    V. Davis 6'3" - 1
    J. Morgan 6'0" - 1

    V. Shiancoe 6'4" - 1

    R. Wayne 6'0" - 1
    D. Clark 6'3" -1
    A. Collie 6'0" - 1

    R. Meachem 6'2" - 1
    R. Bush 6'0" - 1

    A. Boldin 6'1" - 1
    L. Fitzgerald 6'3" - 1


    E. Bennett 6'0" - 1

    C. Johnson 5'11" - 1
    A. Crumpler 6'2" - 1

    K. Walter 6'3" - 1

    L. Fitzgerald 6'3" - 1
    E. Doucet 6'0" - 1

    V. Davis 6'3" - 1

  11. #11
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,491
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    For the record, my numbers came from ProFootballReference.com.

    It is notable, however that, even under NFL.com's stats (highlight below to reveal):

    Only 1 TD reception was by a player (Chris Johnson, RB) under 6'0.

  12. #12
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    59

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    True, but the difference between two credible sources kind of emphasizes how many players are within an inch of the line between "big" and "small" receivers. All of the tight ends on the list are big and all of the runningbacks are small, but most of the actual wide receivers are very close to the same size (by height anyway).

  13. #13
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,491
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    Perhaps, but the proof is really in the way the Rams have been selecting DBs. The players likely to be the Rams' top 3 CBs (Bartell, Fletcher and Murphy) are all at least 6'0, and are considered physical players for the position.

    I think that is a reaction to players like Fitzgerald, V.Davis, Boldin (now gone from the division) and Carlson.

  14. #14
    RockinRam's Avatar
    RockinRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    4,074
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Perhaps, but the proof is really in the way the Rams have been selecting DBs. The players likely to be the Rams' top 3 CBs (Bartell, Fletcher and Murphy) are all at least 6'0, and are considered physical players for the position.

    I think that is a reaction to players like Fitzgerald, V.Davis, Boldin (now gone from the division) and Carlson.
    It could also be because those kinds of cornerbacks fits Spagnuolo's defensive scheme in which he wants the corners to be aggressive and physical.

  15. #15
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    59

    Re: Big Receiver Vulnerability: Perception vs. Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Perhaps, but the proof is really in the way the Rams have been selecting DBs. The players likely to be the Rams' top 3 CBs (Bartell, Fletcher and Murphy) are all at least 6'0, and are considered physical players for the position.

    I think that is a reaction to players like Fitzgerald, V.Davis, Boldin (now gone from the division) and Carlson.
    I'd agree with that. I don't know whether our defense was more or less vulnerable to big receiving targets overall, but it's true that the most dangerous receivers in the division are big, physical guys.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Pass Rush Vulnerability: Perception vs Reality
    By AvengerRam in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: -06-26-2010, 08:29 PM
  2. Best Available Free Agents - Offense
    By r8rh8rmike in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -06-15-2009, 11:12 AM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: -07-11-2007, 06:43 PM
  4. Team Postion Rankings
    By RamsFan16 in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -06-07-2006, 09:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •