Jump to content
the lone star

Is Larry Fitzgerald Still A Top 12 WR Talent Wise?

Is Larry Fitzgerald Still A Top 12 WR Talent Wise?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Larry Fitzgerald Still A Top 12 WR Talent Wise?



Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

I think we are saying the same thing here ET.  But Larrys ability to win the jump ball is more about his body control and hands and the fact that he is 6'3" often facing 5'10" cbs.  I wouldnt describe him as explosive as much as i love him.

I remember him holding court against guys like Richard Sherman and Patrick Peterson as well - both guys well over that 5' 10" range. 

I'm not saying Fitz was the MOST explosive in his era - Andre, Calvin, Moss, Smitty were clearly much more explosive than him (and I mean MUCH more explosive). I'm saying that Fitz had explosion, but they were seen in that 4th dimension he had on jump balls, as well as his explosion in his routes. His cuts were so sudden, his speed at the top of routes was so sudden, he could have ran a 5.1 and still caught 80 for 1,100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

#1 Larry Fitzgerald is not explosive.  Thats really not a matter of debate, we've known this since he came into the league. 

#2 explosiveness/= speed.  I have seen track guys run average 40s.  We have heard about 40 speed being manufactured.  Ive also seen players that were fast on the field run bad 40s (Joe Haden, Mario Manningham).  The 40, the Vert, the broad jump.  These are explosion tests.  You want to know how FAST a player is, watch the tape.  Somebody already brought up Evans and Alshon, but you also had Rice, and Fitz who were long striders and built up speed.  They werent explosive. But they didnt off get caught from behind either.

#3 Explosive plays are those of 20+ not 40+.  That has been the accepted view for 1 simple reason: 40+ plays are fluky.  There is almost always a missed assignment, or something that allows that play to happen.  

#4 Explosiveness is not the only measure of talent for a wr.  Fitz has maybe the best hands of all time, he is one of the best route runners in the game.  He has an incredibly high football iq.  So he isnt explosive, he has plenty of other talents to lean on.

#5 Yes Calvin Johnson was explosive.  At 6056 235 lbs he ran a 4.35 40.  That is equally if not more impressive than Moss' 4.28 when you factor that he outweighed Moss by damn near 30 lbs.  

1. No, 40+ yard plays are the best indicator, as seen by which players on that list rank where...especially relative to the number of games/targets they got. A ****load of 20+ yard catches are just dig route receptions. Michael Irvin used to record a ton of those, and anyone who watched him play knows he wasn't explosive. Keyshawn Johnson had 19 plays of 20+ yards in 2001. Randy Moss only had 14 that year. And no, most 40+ yard plays are not flukes. That's why the guys at the top of that list slaughter Fitzgerald. It's not just a bunch of luck that allowed Joey Galloway, one of the fastest players in NFL history, to slaughter Fitzgerald in that category, despite playing fewer games and getting nowhere near the number of targets. 

2. Fitzgerald is not one of the best route runners in the game. He's slow as molasses out of his breaks. His talent is his ability to catch the ball despite tight coverage. He's not good at separating. Never was. 

Edited by NFLExpert49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2018 at 6:18 PM, NFLExpert49 said:

1. No, 40+ yard plays are the best indicator, as seen by which players on that list rank where...especially relative to the number of games/targets they got. A ****load of 20+ yard catches are just dig route receptions. Michael Irvin used to record a ton of those, and anyone who watched him play knows he wasn't explosive. Keyshawn Johnson had 19 plays of 20+ yards in 2001. Randy Moss only had 14 that year. And no, most 40+ yard plays are not flukes. That's why the guys at the top of that list slaughter Fitzgerald. It's not just a bunch of luck that allowed Joey Galloway, one of the fastest players in NFL history, to slaughter Fitzgerald in that category, despite playing fewer games and getting nowhere near the number of targets. 

2. Fitzgerald is not one of the best route runners in the game. He's slow as molasses out of his breaks. His talent is his ability to catch the ball despite tight coverage. He's not good at separating. Never was. 

You really do not know much about the game if you think either of those things are true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You can tell it's the dead season when the term explosion gets this much debate.

Fitz was so good in his prime because he was so sudden in his ability to change directions and cut on a dime one-on-one.   When you combine that with his size, catch radius, box-out ability and glue-like hands - he beat CB's in so many ways.   He's not as quick in his breaks/cuts anymore - which is understandable.   Now he relies more on his timing, catch radius, hands, and ability to not give away his cut direction.   But in his prime, the only thing he really lacked was straight line speed.     I don't know that Fitz's skill set could be that debatable - if some want to say that's not explosion, well OK (I see the distinction more in the trenches, where you can't just have a quick first step or punch, but you have to be able to keep whatever leverage/speed advantage you've gained to call it explosion).  But short-area burst, ability to change directions & cut on a dime, it's the skill that explains why guys like Fitz and Keenan Allen can be dominant WR's (remember that 4.7 40 at the Combine for Allen that dropped him in his draft, although partly due to the PCL recovery stage, as it still showed the one lacking element in his game, straight line speed). 

When you add Fitz's size and catch radius/box-out ability to his change of direction/lack of tell signs where he was going/quick cuts in his prime, well it's why he was a top WR for so long - the truly best WR's beat you in multiple ways, and aren't just 1-2 trick ponies.  Fitz may be down to a couple of main ways now, but Fitz in his prime was a totally different animal. 

I don't quite have him in my top 12 anymore, because as he ages more, the ways he wins and the skill gap he enjoys gradually decreases, so it's hard to predict his skill set will remain identical.  It won't.  It just happens to age very well. 

 

 

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

You really do not know much about the game if you think either of those things are true.

Not an argument. You didn't address any of the points I made. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Broncofan said:

You can tell it's the dead season when the term explosion gets this much debate.

Fitz was so good in his prime because he was so sudden in his ability to change directions and cut on a dime one-on-one.   When you combine that with his size, catch radius, box-out ability and glue-like hands - he beat CB's in so many ways.   He's not as quick in his breaks/cuts anymore - which is understandable.   Now he relies more on his timing, catch radius, hands, and ability to not give away his cut direction.   But in his prime, the only thing he really lacked was straight line speed.     I don't know that Fitz's skill set could be that debatable - if some want to say that's not explosion, well OK (I see the distinction more in the trenches, where you can't just have a quick first step or punch, but you have to be able to keep whatever leverage/speed advantage you've gained to call it explosion).  But short-area burst, ability to change directions & cut on a dime, it's the skill that explains why guys like Fitz and Keenan Allen can be dominant WR's (remember that 4.7 40 at the Combine for Allen that dropped him in his draft, although partly due to the PCL recovery stage, as it still showed the one lacking element in his game, straight line speed). 

When you add Fitz's size and catch radius/box-out ability to his change of direction/lack of tell signs where he was going/quick cuts in his prime, well it's why he was a top WR for so long - the truly best WR's beat you in multiple ways, and aren't just 1-2 trick ponies.  Fitz may be down to a couple of main ways now, but Fitz in his prime was a totally different animal. 

I don't quite have him in my top 12 anymore, because as he ages more, the ways he wins and the skill gap he enjoys gradually decreases, so it's hard to predict his skill set will remain identical.  It won't.  It just happens to age very well. 

 

 

Again, Fitzgerald was not sudden in his ability to change directions. Not even remotely. Hardly anybody over 6'1" is. Jerry Rice might be the only exception. 

You want to see suddenness coming out of breaks, watch some Isaac Bruce. Or Marvin Harrison. Or Steve Smith. Or Chad Johnson in his prime. Or Terry Glenn. 

Fitzgerald was a modern Michael Irvinhybrid with more acrobatic ability. Fearless traffic receiver with great hands. Actually, come to think of it, Cris Carter is probably the best comparison. 

Edited by NFLExpert49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2018 at 7:18 PM, NFLExpert49 said:

He's not good at separating. Never was. 

 

15 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Again, Fitzgerald was not sudden in his ability to change directions. Not even remotely. Hardly anybody over 6'1" is. Jerry Rice might be the only exception. 

200w.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Not an argument. You didn't address any of the points I made. 

 

Because there is nothing to address. You stated Fitzgerald isn't a good route runner, which is universally regarded as a very bad take - but you're going to hold that position. Multiple people have refuted your take on 40+ yard receptions, you're blatantly ignoring it and citing examples that really bring zero context to your stance. 

At this point, you've made it clear that your reality is the only reality you're going to exist and you're incapable of continuing a discussion. So, we are forced to question your reality vs your "point" and come to the conclusion made by @Superman(DH23)

You just simply don't know what you're talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Because there is nothing to address. You stated Fitzgerald isn't a good route runner, which is universally regarded as a very bad take - but you're going to hold that position. Multiple people have refuted your take on 40+ yard receptions, you're blatantly ignoring it and citing examples that really bring zero context to your stance. 

At this point, you've made it clear that your reality is the only reality you're going to exist and you're incapable of continuing a discussion. So, we are forced to question your reality vs your "point" and come to the conclusion made by @Superman(DH23)

You just simply don't know what you're talking about. 

Uh...no. NFL scouts universally consider Fitzgerald to be - like nearly every taller receiver - not very quick out of his breaks. There's a reason Fitzgerald almost never gets any separation from a defender unless it's running into a zone vacated as a result of a pick play/decoy route from another receiver. It's because he doesn't separate very well one-on-one in routes (without pushing off). 

Nobody has refuted my statement on 40+ yard receptions. As I already demonstrated, 20+ yard receptions are not a good indicator of explosiveness when you look at guys who did better than the likes of Randy Moss in that area. 40+ yard receptions are clearly explosive plays, and the guys who are at the top of the list/have the highest rate of them are guys who have the physical credentials (speed) to back it up. The guys at the bottom of the list consistently do not. This includes tight ends. 

Did you know that in 2004, Tony Gonzalez had more 20+ yard receptions than Randy Moss had in 9 of his 15 years in the NFL, and tied with another? You can't say that about any of his years in 40+ yard receptions, though. Gee, I wonder why not.

It's almost as if 40+ yard catches are a much better indicator of explosiveness. 

And no, you're demonstrating that you are incapable of continuing a discussion. I'm continuing the discussion, and you are resorting to this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

 

200w.gif

 

You bold that hardly anyone over 6'1" was good at changing directions as the part of that quote you're laughing at? Do you even understand how changing directions works, and how having longer legs hinders it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

You bold that hardly anyone over 6'1" was good at changing directions as the part of that quote you're laughing at? Do you even understand how changing directions works, and how having longer legs hinders it? 

I'm laughing at your posts overall, fwiw. Just those parts specifically, even more so.

Someone should probably go back and tell Randy Moss and Broncos Brandon Marshall that they weren't good at changing directions/lacked suddenness. Or forget the time machine, we should probably inform Julio Jones that he's lacking in suddenness. Collect call AJ Green. Send a text to Demaryius Thomas. DM Keenan Allen.

Since you're just the NFL expert, should we find the NBA expert and alert him that their players over 6'1 aren't sudden or good at changing direction too? With their long legs and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I'm laughing at your posts overall, fwiw. Just those parts specifically, even more so.

Someone should probably go back and tell Randy Moss and Broncos Brandon Marshall that they weren't good at changing directions/lacked suddenness. Or forget the time machine, we should probably inform Julio Jones that he's lacking in suddenness. Collect call AJ Green. Send a text to Demaryius Thomas. DM Keenan Allen.

Since you're just the NFL expert, should we find the NBA expert and alert him that their players over 6'1 aren't sudden or good at changing direction too? With their long legs and all.

Uh, they're not. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about because you don't understand the game. You're an amateur who thinks he knows better than someone who has been around actual NFL scouts. You don't know enough to know you don't know enough.

When you compare a Brandon freaking Marshall to an Isaac Bruce, it's night and day. Isaac Bruce could leave corners falling to the ground coming out of his breaks. None of the guys you named could do that. That doesn't mean they can't get open, but it means that they won't often get open against man coverage with routes alone. They need either scheme, or a good release, or pure speed, or to use their size to box the corner out, etc. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

When you compare a Brandon freaking Marshall to an Isaac Bruce, it's night and day. Isaac Bruce could leave corners falling to the ground coming out of his breaks. None of the guys you named could do that.

Wait, a doggone second. 

Didn't your original post (that I quoted) say that Fitz doesn't have any suddenness in his COD skills and hardly anyone over 6'1 does? Followed by the comment that Jerry Rice may be the lone exception?

And didn't I respond by bringing up a bunch of guys over 6'1 with good COD skills? Or at least you'd concede, guys I (and most people) assume have good suddenness to their game. 

Where did I compare them to Bruce? Guess you have to be all-time to have any skills at all!

giphy.gif 

Also lol'ing at the fact that Randy Moss couldn't break ankles.

Edited by Yin-Yang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

Wait, a doggone second. 

Didn't your original post (that I quoted) say that Fitz doesn't have any suddenness in his COD skills and hardly anyone over 6'1 does? Followed by the comment that Jerry Rice may be the lone exception?

And didn't I respond by bringing up a bunch of guys over 6'1 with good COD skills? Or at least you'd concede, guys I (and most people) assume have good suddenness to their game. 

Where did I compare them to Bruce? Guess you have to be all-time to have any skills at all!

giphy.gif 

Because we're talking about how they are relative to their peers. There are numerous receivers around the league who demonstrate just how unremarkable the guys you named are in terms of coming out of their breaks.

Yeah, compared to some couch potato like you, those guys are world beaters in coming out of their breaks.

Compared to numerous receivers who aren't hindered by being taller, however, they are not.

You can post as many gifs as you want, but they're not going to make up for your lack of football knowledge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Uh...no. NFL scouts universally consider Fitzgerald to be - like nearly every taller receiver - not very quick out of his breaks. There's a reason Fitzgerald almost never gets any separation from a defender unless it's running into a zone vacated as a result of a pick play/decoy route from another receiver. It's because he doesn't separate very well one-on-one in routes (without pushing off). 

Source? We live in an age of Google, so if it was universally understood among scouts, you should be able to present something fairly quickly.

 

38 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Nobody has refuted my statement on 40+ yard receptions. As I already demonstrated, 20+ yard receptions are not a good indicator of explosiveness when you look at guys who did better than the likes of Randy Moss in that area. 40+ yard receptions are clearly explosive plays, and the guys who are at the top of the list/have the highest rate of them are guys who have the physical credentials (speed) to back it up. The guys at the bottom of the list consistently do not. This includes tight ends. 

Correlation does not equal causation. All 40 yard receptions aren't created equally. How many are blown coverages? How many are broken tackles? How many are due to a QB extending a play and drawing a defense in? How many are due to a WR demonstrating explosive traits?

THAT'S the point we're trying to make. Unless you can provide a granular breakdown of the circumstances of each 40+ yard play, you can't take this stat with any sort of confidence.

43 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

And no, you're demonstrating that you are incapable of continuing a discussion. I'm continuing the discussion, and you are resorting to this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh

Whatever helps you sleep at night, princess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×