Charles Romes Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Why are we even looking at this guy. He's only 5'11". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 because he is good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 As it turns out, WR performance isn't only based on height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistolPeaTear Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Why are we even looking at this guy. He's only 5'11". because we need a WR, he's accomplished, had more receptions and TDs than any WR on our team last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poeticlaw Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Why are we even looking at this guy. He's only 5'11". Its not the heght of a reciever its the receivers ability to get open and his hands to catch the balls. Outside of that the average corner is only 6 ft tall so their is no big deal. Coles possess both the ability to get open and the ability to catch plus he has good blocking skills. Hardy is 6 5 or something and proved nothing last year. MArvin harrison is only 6ft Steve smith 5 10 if you go don the line youll se more 6ft under with solid stats the over 6ft with solid stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Coles is fast, can jump, has long arms and catches the deep ball well. At one time he had world class speed. If he is only an inch taller than Evans, he looks all of it to me. Your point is not lost that he is not a big possession receiver. Derek Fine and Shouman may fill that role for us. Robert Royal would have, except he drops most passes that are not thrown underhand to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Why are we even looking at this guy. He's only 5'11". he's a powerhouse that plays big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 As it turns out, WR performance isn't only based on height. Shocking! You mean you could be under 6' tall and still play WR in the NFL? Unbelievable!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPicc2114 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Tell that to Wesley Welker and Steve Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Steve Largent was 5'11". He held every major NFL receiving record when he retired. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike In Illinois Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Washington's WR corps was named The Smurfs in the early 1980's and they played in a couple of Super Bowls, winning one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLBighits Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 We Should of Offered TJ whosyourmomma A nice Contract, because we haven't had two legit wideouts since moulds and price in his younger days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Why are we even looking at this guy. He's only 5'11". James Hardy is over 6'5". How well did he play last year? I really don't care how tall Coles or any other WR is. The more important question is whether or not he can play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Why are we even looking at this guy. He's only 5'11". You're right. We should sign Ernest Wilford instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts