Why are there no really tall wide receivers?

Factual Questions
1

Why are there no (or at least so few) really tall wide receivers in football? I am talking 6’10" or above. I have seen many 6’4" and a few around 6’6" but really not that many. It would seem that they would be great for short sideline and back corner of the endzone type routes where they don’t have to run too far and just have to jump, catch, and step out of bounds.

It seems that every NCAA Division I basketball team has at least one 6’10" guy. They may not be all that skilled (not good enough for NBA), but they are generally in good shape, have enough speed to make it down the court (over and over), and have good enough hands to catch passes and rebound. It would seem that at least a few of these guys could make solid contributions in the NFL.

2

[QUOTE=Mesquite-oh]
Why are there no (or at least so few) really tall wide receivers in football? I am talking 6’10" or above. I have seen many 6’4" and a few around 6’6" but really not that many. It would seem that they would be great for short sideline and back corner of the endzone type routes where they don’t have to run too far and just have to jump, catch, and step out of bounds.
[/QUOTE]
There isn’t much call for guys who can only run fade routes; if they know what’s coming, they can always defend it (by getting their own 6’10" guy if need be). They need to be complete players.

Most big men are NOT fast nor athletic. Watch a basketball game and count how many times you see a 6’10" center running the fast break; it’s very, very rare. Moreover, most of them at the college level are skinny guys who would snap like a twig playing football. The very few big guys who are muscular, can run and have soft hands are heading for the NBA , where the money is much better and careers last longer.

3

[QUOTE=furt]
…most of them at the college level are skinny guys who would snap like a twig playing football.
[/QUOTE]

That’s the crux of it, I think.

Go high, catch the ball, get broken in half, end of career.

4

[QUOTE=Mesquite-oh]
Why are there no (or at least so few) really tall wide receivers in football? I am talking 6’10" or above. I have seen many 6’4" and a few around 6’6" but really not that many. It would seem that they would be great for short sideline and back corner of the endzone type routes where they don’t have to run too far and just have to jump, catch, and step out of bounds.

It seems that every NCAA Division I basketball team has at least one 6’10" guy. They may not be all that skilled (not good enough for NBA), but they are generally in good shape, have enough speed to make it down the court (over and over), and have good enough hands to catch passes and rebound. It would seem that at least a few of these guys could make solid contributions in the NFL.
[/QUOTE]

I only played in HS but, much of successful football play is about center of gravity. Things with higher centers of gravity are easier to knock over, therefore more easily brought down/tackled. This makes very tall players genetically unsuited to the task unless they are very bulky as well. Thats why your average lineman/running back has the build of a cinderblock.

5

An athletic 6’10" guy will make more money in the NBA and have a longer career than if he played TE or WR in the NFL. Average salary in the NBA this year is $5.2 million. It’s $1.4 million in the NFL.

6

Harold Carmichael. Only 6-8 but had an outstanding career with the Eagles.

7

the knees!! the taller the person the easier the knees go.

shaq may have a chance at football, he has a big build. once again most defensive players would tackle at the knees. the easiest thing to reach.

manute bol… oh goodness, that would be horrible to see.

8

Matt Jones of the Jags is 6’6". He is also freakishly fast for his size. He was a QB in college. I think there’s another 6’6" receiver, certainly a couple of 6’5"ers.

Morris Stroud, who played tight end for the Chiefs in the 70s, was 6’10", and the tallest player in NFL history.

9

[QUOTE=anson2995]
An athletic 6’10" guy will make more money in the NBA and have a longer career than if he played TE or WR in the NFL. Average salary in the NBA this year is $5.2 million. It’s $1.4 million in the NFL.
[/QUOTE]
This is the real reason. It is said that pretty much all NFL wide receivers are frustrated NBA wannabes. If they could play basketball, they would. If you have the physical talent to be a WR or TE, you have the physical talent to be a basketball player. If you’re also 6’10", you wouldn’t even consider the NFL.

Lower money, less playing time, contracts aren’t guaranteed, a much greater chance of debilitating injury, less ability to contribute meaningfully to the team…the NFL is like a “safety school” for those who can’t make the NBA.

10

All good points. I agree that it would be preferable for a taller than 6’10" guy to play in the NBA due to safety, length of career, and mo’ money issues- no doubt. However, there are only so many slots open in the NBA and there is a new crop of new tall guys every year.

Every year that they have it, I attend the Open Spurs Practice (when fans can come and watch) and watch the guys who are invited to try out for the team play with the current Spurs. Keep in mind that this is about 5 to 8 guys out of all the colleges in the colleges in the US, all the guys in Europe, and all the guys who have not made a team in the past 5 years. That is a hell of a big pool of tall guys and these 5 are the ones that have been lucky enough to be invited by one of the NBA teams. There are many many tall guys who were not even invited. The centers that are invited are fast, big and strong and from major college programs. They rarely make the team.

These guys got to work somewhere. If I was a tall guy who did not have the skills necessary to play NBA ball, I would certainly love to try out for football. Even though it is not as good as the NBA, even if I played football only one year, a million dollars would look nice in my bank account. There are lots of dangerous jobs out there that people take willingly for a lot less money. I doesn’t seem reasonable that there is no one who wants to even try out.

Again, as a coach, I wouldn’t be asking these guys to get yards after the catch, I wouldn’t be asking them to catch passes going across the middle or find seams in the coverage. It wouldn’t matter that they were an easy tackle. I wouldn’t be asking them to run routes on every offensive series. Instead, I would be asking them that on 3rd down on the 6 yd. line that they line up, take about 10 steps, turn around, jump high, catch ball, and then step out of bounds. I would ask them to do this about 4-6 times a game.

Plenty of teams have specialists- TE’s that only seem to catch short passes, Fullbacks that only block or come in on short yardage, DB’s that only come in on certain coverages, etc. If I was a coach, I would try to take advantage of the fact that the average corner is only a little over 6’. That is why it seems unreasonable we don’t have coaches recruiting at least one tall wr “specialist.”

11

I seems to me that what you’re asking for is quite specialized, even by specialist standards. In the NFL, you need more versatility out of your guys. Even if your fullback only comes in on certain third-down plays, he’s still capable of running the ball, or blocking, or taking a screen pass. He probably also plays on special teams. Your tall, fragile guy has such a narrow window of usefulness that a team would be unwilling – usually – to expend a roster spot on him.

12

I recall that the Cowboys gave backup Duke forward/center Mike Tissaw a tryout back in the 80s, but he didn’t make the team. I think he tried at out tight end, though, not WR.

Also, Tissaw was only 6’8".

13

And there’s the fact that, yes, if you have six inches on your defender, a perfectly thrown pass would give him zero shot at it even if he knew exactly what was coming. But the window for that pass is only of limited size, and a slight throwing mistake means an interception.
If, on the other hand, you’re the same size as your defender, but fast and versatile enough that he has to respect your deep game and give you at least a little downfield cushion, then a perfectly thrown pass still gives him zero shot. And the margin of error on the pass is about the same size, and a mistake is less likely to be intercepted.

The disadvantage of the second from the offense’s point of view is that the defender can gamble and shut down the short pass, but the great, great advantage is that the long pass will sometimes be completed. I know which I’d rather have as an offensive coordinator.

14

George Allen once offered Andre the Giant 7’2 (or thereabouts -depending on your source) a contract to Redskins Training camp. Andre would be expected to block field goals and extra points. It never happened - not sure if it is a publicity gimmick or André made too much money to be a special teamer for the Skins or what …

15

[QUOTE=Mesquite-oh]
Plenty of teams have specialists- TE’s that only seem to catch short passes, Fullbacks that only block or come in on short yardage, DB’s that only come in on certain coverages, etc. If I was a coach, I would try to take advantage of the fact that the average corner is only a little over 6’. That is why it seems unreasonable we don’t have coaches recruiting at least one tall wr “specialist.”
[/QUOTE]
To further elaborate on Sal Ammoniac’s point, I don’t think there really are that many specialists. Those TEs and FBs that you mention are almost certainly involved in special teams.

In the NFL, you can only dress 45 guys for any one game. There are 11 starters on both offense and defense, which is 22 total. Given that you need a kicker and a punter, that means you can’t even have one backup for each starter. Toss in the fact that you pretty much have to carry a third QB, plus all the guys on special teams, and you end up with roster spots being quite precious.

I’ll grant you that most teams have a crapload of WRs. Five at a minimum, and often upwards of 7 or even 8. But all of them past the top three are likely to be prominently involved in special teams. Even if they aren’t in the high-profile 'teams positions like kick/punt returner or gunner, they’ll almost certainly be in on every punt and kick.

16

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
In the NFL, you can only dress 45 guys for any one game. There are 11 starters on both offense and defense, which is 22 total. Given that you need a kicker and a punter, that means you can’t even have one backup for each starter. Toss in the fact that you pretty much have to carry a third QB, plus all the guys on special teams, and you end up with roster spots being quite precious.
[/QUOTE]

Indeed, although their quarterback doesn’t count towards their 45 man-roster, technically. Teams carry a roster of 53, and on game day they designate seven as inactive for the day and one as their emergency (third) QB.

I don’t think any teams are carrying 8 receivers on the active roster, either. The distribution is fairly standard: 2 QBs, 4 RBs, 3 TEs, 5, WRs, 8 O-linemen, 13-D-linemen & linebackers (usually 6&7 for teams playing the 3-4 or 7&6 for teams playing the 4-3), 8 DBs, a kicker, and a punter. A team that plays a lot of two-tight end packages might have 4 TEs and one fewer receiver, or a team that plays a one back offense might replace one of the RBs with a WR. There are variations like that, but they are minor.

From that group of 45, they need a player who can also fill each of these roles: long snapper, kick returner, punt returner, holder.

Then on top of that, ther are a ton of special teams jobs: 11 on PAT defense, 10 each on kickoff, kick return, and punt return, 9 on a punt, and 8 on PAT attempt that aren’t accounted for above. That’s 58 slots, and you can be sure that each of the backups are expected to fill several of those.

17

[QUOTE=anson2995]
Indeed, although their quarterback doesn’t count towards their 45 man-roster, technically. Teams carry a roster of 53, and on game day they designate seven as inactive for the day and one as their emergency (third) QB.
[/quote]
That answers a question I’ve been having, as I thought I’d remembered that 46 men dressed at one point. I believe you, but would you happen to have a cite I could read? I’m genuinely interested.

18

[QUOTE= Mesquite-oh]
Plenty of teams have specialists- TE’s that only seem to catch short passes, Fullbacks that only block or come in on short yardage, DB’s that only come in on certain coverages, etc. If I was a coach, I would try to take advantage of the fact that the average corner is only a little over 6’. That is why it seems unreasonable we don’t have coaches recruiting at least one tall wr “specialist.”
[/QUOTE]

Plus, you also have to remember that there are salary cap concerns. You sign the guy to a contract, and, on his first play across the middle, his fragile body gets broken in half.

Not only do you not have him for the rest of the season, he’ll count against the cap for however many years you gave him on his contract. You get the roster spot back when you cut him, but the cap money is gone.

19

Julius Peppers (6-7) the All-Pro DE for the Carolina Panthers was a football and basketball player at UNC. There were many people who said he could have gone to the NBA if he had wanted to.

Antonio Gates (6-4) the All-Pro TE for the San Diego Chargers played only basketball in college, not having played football since high school. He seems to have done pretty well as a pro football player.

Both of these guys are exceptions and were pretty much pure athletes and could have played whatever sport they chose. They both just happened to choose football.

BTW Peppers is the only person to have played in both the NCAA Final Four and a Super Bowl. He was the 2nd overall pick in the draft, while Gates was an unsigned free agent.

20

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
That answers a question I’ve been having, as I thought I’d remembered that 46 men dressed at one point. I believe you, but would you happen to have a cite I could read? I’m genuinely interested.
[/QUOTE]

I’d love to provide an official cite, but the NFL does not publish its rule book. But here’s a recent explanation from an article in the New York Sun…

He’s got it partly right… according to the NFL Record & Fact Book, this rule was amended in 1995:

Closest I could finf to an official source is this comment at Giants.com