PDA

View Full Version : The 3 Towers



mercurig
04-29-2012, 08:19 PM
Reuben Randle *- *6'4"
Damian Davis - 6'5"
Ramses Barden - 6'6"

If one of these 3 receivers pans out, the "Plax" factor is back without the attitude.

slipknottin
04-29-2012, 08:27 PM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

mercurig
04-29-2012, 08:31 PM
Nicks plays like he's 6'6"

DVision
04-29-2012, 08:35 PM
Correction:

Reuben Randle - 6'3"

Not much of a difference. He has a solid frame. I'm with slip though. Heck, I'd take a Steve Smith (The really real one) over 99% of the receivers in the league. Height isn't everything.

miked1958
04-29-2012, 08:40 PM
Reuben Randle *- *6'4"
Damian Davis - 6'5"
Ramses Barden - 6'6"

If one of these 3 receivers pans out, the "Plax" factor is back without the attitude.Who is Damian Davis? One of the UDFAs?

Drez
04-29-2012, 08:44 PM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.
And Cruz is barely over 6'. How you play is definitely much more important than how tall you are.

mercurig
04-29-2012, 08:48 PM
I still like a tall receiver for the corner of the end zone.

giantsfan420
04-29-2012, 09:06 PM
cut the guy some slack. i know plex was a decade ago (feels like it) but that was a thing of beauty, the jump ball over two db's with plex coming down with it for a TD...its not a shot at Nicks or any wr we have.

having a big wr who can play is a luxury that can be pivotal in certain situations. Randle plays and is more like Nicks imo then Plex anyways...Barden experiment is reaching critical mass, he'd better show something and fast

Tuckit91
04-29-2012, 09:12 PM
I guess people think if your tall then you can catch and run too..Nicks and Cruz are the one of the best 1-2 punch in the NFL.

gfd_2
04-29-2012, 09:20 PM
cut the OP some slack. He's got a point about the benefits of having a 6'4" plus receiver catching a fade in the corner of the end zone.

Drez
04-29-2012, 09:22 PM
cut the guy some slack. i know plex was a decade ago (feels like it) but that was a thing of beauty, the jump ball over two db's with plex coming down with it for a TD...its not a shot at Nicks or any wr we have.

having a big wr who can play is a luxury that can be pivotal in certain situations. Randle plays and is more like Nicks imo then Plex anyways...Barden experiment is reaching critical mass, he'd better show something and fast
Like I said, it's more about how you play than how tall you are. Plax was as good at those plays as much for how he played the ball than because of how tall he was.

giantsfan420
04-29-2012, 09:25 PM
cut the guy some slack. i know plex was a decade ago (feels like it) but that was a thing of beauty, the jump ball over two db's with plex coming down with it for a TD...its not a shot at Nicks or any wr we have.

having a big wr who can play is a luxury that can be pivotal in certain situations. Randle plays and is more like Nicks imo then Plex anyways...Barden experiment is reaching critical mass, he'd better show something and fast
Like I said, it's more about how you play than how tall you are. Plax was as good at those plays as much for how he played the ball than because of how tall he was.


good point

Giants10Joe
04-29-2012, 09:30 PM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

Drez
04-29-2012, 09:34 PM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

CJ is not the best WR in the league because he's 6'5". It's because of all his other talents and then because he's tall. Tall is probably the last thing on the list that makes him a great WR.

Also, why then does Nicks have equal or better stats than CJ through equal points in their careers?

DVision
04-29-2012, 09:40 PM
Reuben Randle *- *6'4"
Damian Davis - 6'5"
Ramses Barden - 6'6"

If one of these 3 receivers pans out, the "Plax" factor is back without the attitude.Who is Damian Davis? One of the UDFAs?

Yeah. The TE we drafted is the same height ways about 100 pounds more and still runs a faster 40 time.

Drez
04-29-2012, 09:42 PM
Reuben Randle - 6'4"
Damian Davis - 6'5"
Ramses Barden - 6'6"

If one of these 3 receivers pans out, the "Plax" factor is back without the attitude.Who is Damian Davis? One of the UDFAs?

Yeah. The TE we drafted is the same height ways about 100 pounds more and still runs a faster 40 time.
lmao

greenca190
04-29-2012, 09:43 PM
EXCUSE ME FIRST GRADERS, BUT PEOPLE COME IN ALL SHAPES AND SIZES, GOD ****ING DAMN IT

ShakeNBake
04-29-2012, 09:52 PM
Tall guys do not automatically make better receivers. I thought the search for the next Plaxico ended after guys like Anthony Mix couldn't get the job done.

Drez
04-29-2012, 09:58 PM
Tall guys do not automatically make better receivers. I thought the search for the next Plaxico ended after guys like Anthony Mix couldn't get the job done.

I thought it ended when we discovered that Nicks was a freaking stud.

PRFan
04-30-2012, 12:19 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

CJ is not the best WR in the league because he's 6'5". It's because of all his other talents and then because he's tall. Tall is probably the last thing on the list that makes him a great WR.

Also, why then does Nicks have equal or better stats than CJ through equal points in their careers?


Better QB?

AceOspadZ4
04-30-2012, 01:11 AM
Why do we want the "Plax factor"? Last season we had the best group of receivers in franchise history. Nicks makes more jump ball catches then plax ever did

meanseen
04-30-2012, 01:22 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

CJ is not the best WR in the league because he's 6'5". It's because of all his other talents and then because he's tall. Tall is probably the last thing on the list that makes him a great WR.

Also, why then does Nicks have equal or better stats than CJ through equal points in their careers?
gotta disagree here. calvin is an amazing wide reciever with superb skills, but what makes him the BEST is his complete physical dominance over any cornerback in the league. he has a ridiculous wingspan and is so aggressive and physical at the point of attack because of his 6'5 build. his skill is what makes him a great reciever, but his size is what makes him the best.

Redeyejedi
04-30-2012, 01:36 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference. Cruz has the insane vertical vertical 41 1/2"

Drez
04-30-2012, 02:03 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

CJ is not the best WR in the league because he's 6'5". It's because of all his other talents and then because he's tall. Tall is probably the last thing on the list that makes him a great WR.

Also, why then does Nicks have equal or better stats than CJ through equal points in their careers?
gotta disagree here. calvin is an amazing wide reciever with superb skills, but what makes him the BEST is his complete physical dominance over any cornerback in the league. he has a ridiculous wingspan and is so aggressive and physical at the point of attack because of his 6'5 build. his skill is what makes him a great reciever, but his size is what makes him the best.
But, if not for the other skills he has his size would be meaningless. Sure, size is equalizer/tie breaker in an all other things being equal scenario, but just because he's 6'5" doesn't make him the dominant receiver that he is.

Drez
04-30-2012, 02:03 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

CJ is not the best WR in the league because he's 6'5". It's because of all his other talents and then because he's tall. Tall is probably the last thing on the list that makes him a great WR.

Also, why then does Nicks have equal or better stats than CJ through equal points in their careers?
gotta disagree here. calvin is an amazing wide reciever with superb skills, but what makes him the BEST is his complete physical dominance over any cornerback in the league. he has a ridiculous wingspan and is so aggressive and physical at the point of attack because of his 6'5 build. his skill is what makes him a great reciever, but his size is what makes him the best.
But, if not for the other skills he has his size would be meaningless. Sure, size is equalizer/tie breaker in an all other things being equal scenario, but just because he's 6'5" doesn't make him the dominant receiver that he is.

meanseen
04-30-2012, 02:28 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

CJ is not the best WR in the league because he's 6'5". It's because of all his other talents and then because he's tall. Tall is probably the last thing on the list that makes him a great WR.

Also, why then does Nicks have equal or better stats than CJ through equal points in their careers?
gotta disagree here. calvin is an amazing wide reciever with superb skills, but what makes him the BEST is his complete physical dominance over any cornerback in the league. he has a ridiculous wingspan and is so aggressive and physical at the point of attack because of his 6'5 build. his skill is what makes him a great reciever, but his size is what makes him the best.
But, if not for the other skills he has his size would be meaningless. Sure, size is equalizer/tie breaker in an all other things being equal scenario, but just because he's 6'5" doesn't make him the dominant receiver that he is.


without a doubt, his skill is number one most important aspect of his greatness, but to say that his size matters the least when it comes to his stature as the best is not true. consistently, all the great recievers in the last couple years have been more physically gifted than hakeem. guys like andre johnson, calvin, randy moss, plax, fitz, brandon marshall, new-comers julio jones and aj green. not to say that marshall or plax is better than nicks, but their size gives them a distinct advantage that nicks wont ever have.

GMENAGAIN
04-30-2012, 06:40 AM
Let's just play Boothe at WR . . . he's 6'5"

Diamondring
04-30-2012, 06:53 AM
cut the guy some slack. i know plex was a decade ago (feels like it) but that was a thing of beauty, the jump ball over two db's with plex coming down with it for a TD...its not a shot at Nicks or any wr we have.

having a big wr who can play is a luxury that can be pivotal in certain situations. Randle plays and is more like Nicks imo then Plex anyways...Barden experiment is reaching critical mass, he'd better show something and fastCut him some slack? They should apologize to the man. His post is about tall receivers and said nothing about them dominating because of their size. Also your post is spot on.

chasjay
04-30-2012, 07:02 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

CJ is not the best WR in the league because he's 6'5". It's because of all his other talents and then because he's tall. Tall is probably the last thing on the list that makes him a great WR.

Also, why then does Nicks have equal or better stats than CJ through equal points in their careers?


Surely you agree that Calvin Johnson's height adds to his ability to make some catches. I don't think anybody here is saying that height alone is a marketable talent for a WR (Barden would be All-Pro if that were the case), but Stafford and Johnson hook up on some passes that wouldn't work if CJ were an even 6' or 6'-1".

GMENAGAIN
04-30-2012, 07:09 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height. Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead? Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

CJ is not the best WR in the league because he's 6'5". It's because of all his other talents and then because he's tall. Tall is probably the last thing on the list that makes him a great WR.

Also, why then does Nicks have equal or better stats than CJ through equal points in their careers?


Surely you agree that Calvin Johnson's height adds to his ability to make some catches. <FONT size=4>I don't think anybody here is saying that height alone is a marketable talent for a WR</FONT> (Barden would be All-Pro if that were the case), but Stafford and Johnson hook up on some passes that wouldn't work if CJ were an even 6' or 6'-1".
</P>


Not so sure about that . . . . many posters on here seem to think that height alone makes a good WR . . . . .</P>

buddy33
04-30-2012, 07:55 AM
Having a tall WR is only good if they play like it. Some tall guys don't play tall. You have some shorter WR's that play like they are taller. Just being 6'5 or 6'6 doesn't mean you are a red zone great.

LT_was_good
04-30-2012, 08:30 AM
Part of the obsession Giants fans have with tall receivers comes from the fact that when Eli misses his target, he generally misses high (dating back to Accorsi's now-famous scouting report from 2002). Cruz and Nicks made some spectacular catches on high throws this year, and each of them had better seasons last year than Plaxico ever had.

JimC
04-30-2012, 08:31 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. <font color="#0000FF" size="6">Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5".</font> Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.


That, is the silliest statement that I ever heard.

Drez
04-30-2012, 09:36 AM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

It's because being tall has an advantage. Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver in the league. You know why? Because he's 6' 5". Obviously, he's incredibly talented, but he doesn't have more talent than Nicks. That extra four inches allows him to catch a few more balls and allows Stafford to throw it a little bit higher to make it harder for DBs to reach it. Being tall isn't enough, you need talent too. But tall wide receivers have a higher ceiling than short ones.

CJ is not the best WR in the league because he's 6'5". It's because of all his other talents and then because he's tall. Tall is probably the last thing on the list that makes him a great WR.

Also, why then does Nicks have equal or better stats than CJ through equal points in their careers?


Surely you agree that Calvin Johnson's height adds to his ability to make some catches. I don't think anybody here is saying that height alone is a marketable talent for a WR (Barden would be All-Pro if that were the case), but Stafford and Johnson hook up on some passes that wouldn't work if CJ were an even 6' or 6'-1".

Height is a tie breaker, so to speak, in an all things being equal scenario. But, CJ would probably still be (one of) the best WR in the NFL even if he was 6'1". It's all his other tools that make him great. His height only adds to it.

BK07071
04-30-2012, 02:04 PM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

Nicks is not the best receiver the Giants ever had.........that title belongs to a guy by the name of "Homer Jones" who was around in the sixties.

nygpolishpunk
04-30-2012, 02:11 PM
Sign Anthony Mix JR you IMGRATE!!!!

Neverend
04-30-2012, 02:18 PM
Nicks plays like he's 6'6"

Yep, when he extends those long arms his catching radius is extremely impressive

Being tall is nice, but being tall can easily hurt. Tall receivers have a tendency to be stiff, not get out of their breaks quickly, and play at one speed. The exceptions are the ones that get drafted high but being tall doesnt make you a great receiver. Juron criner who i loved went in the 6th round

If a receiver can box out a defender and make a contested catch, does it really matter what he is in the end? There a shorter guys that excel in that area that a big wideout would too

giantsfan420
04-30-2012, 02:20 PM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height.

Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead?

Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.

Nicks is not the best receiver the Giants ever had.........that title belongs to a guy by the name of "Homer Jones" who was around in the sixties.


while that may be true this instance, i could easily see nicks being the greatest giants wr of all time...as long as we can keep him his whole or most his career

nycsportzfan
04-30-2012, 02:30 PM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height. Nicks is the best receiver the giants have ever had, and hes 6'1. How about we find the next Nicks instead? Randle is exactly 2" taller than Nicks, for reference.
And Cruz is barely over 6'. How you play is definitely much more important than how tall you are.
Ya, this goes for every positon..

vinylord
04-30-2012, 02:53 PM
Teams call a WR "good size" if he is about 6-1 to 6-3. What makes a receiver "good" is soft hands, retains possession, route running, speed, balance, toughness - many other things. Being 6-4 to 6-6 is an anomoly because "big" after a certain point gets to be "slow, awkward or cumbersome". Why can a 6'1" heavyweight boxer beat a 6'9" boxer? Because the stiff is TOO BIG! So it is a rarity that all the skills of a great receiver can be found in an oversized specimen. Plax was such a rarity. Reece drafted Barden as a "red zone threat" because he was tall. That means a "one-trick pony". Nicks and Cruz are all-around atheletes who are more valuable than a tower.

paul007
04-30-2012, 08:23 PM
I dont understand why this forum gets so obsessed with receivers with height. .

You know what they say, size is everything.
lol

Honestly the height of a WR doesnt matter.There are plenty of excellent WRs that are even under 6 feet tall.
Run good routes, speed are key factors too.

giantcarll
04-30-2012, 09:23 PM
Dont know if you remember these guys but Harold Carmichael and Otis Taylor were pretty tall recievers and were great.

alau53
04-30-2012, 09:37 PM
armani toomer based on longevity is the top giant receiver..and if the gmen want the next plax they can sign the original plax who's a f/a..he wouldnt cost much and he'd be good in the green zone

miked1958
04-30-2012, 09:56 PM
Reuben Randle *- *6'4"
Damian Davis - 6'5"
Ramses Barden - 6'6"

If one of these 3 receivers pans out, the "Plax" factor is back without the attitude.Who is Damian Davis? One of the UDFAs?

Yeah. The TE we drafted is the same height ways about 100 pounds more and still runs a faster 40 time.Wow. Lol

Toadofsteel
05-01-2012, 12:54 PM
Being tall means you're automatically talented?

http://deborahdekrem.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/4f35923e34365_*****-please.png