NYT on Brees' height

[BradyFTW!]

This QB height rule is as stupid as thinking that a receiver with a fast 40-time has a better chance of getting open, when it doesn't.

If everything else is held equal, then yes, the faster WR has an easier time getting open. Randy Moss had an easier time getting open in 2007 than 2009, for example. That said, none of this stuff happens in a vacuum, and speed is one of many, many variables that come into account. It matters, but so do a whole lot of other things. The same is true for height with QBs.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You're automatically assuming that the shorter QB will have the lower completion %, when this is false. 2.5% of Brees' balls are batted down but he still has one of the best percentages of any QB.

Brees and Warner are short compared to other QB's, have the most batted balls, yet still have the highest completion %'s in the league. How do you explain this? You can't keep using the 'he's an exception' excuse. The height rule itself isn't even proven to be true.

They're both way, way more talented than league-average QBs. You're comparing the absolute best 'short' QB to a bunch of JAG tall QBs... it doesn't prove anything. That line of thought would lead you to say that height doesn't matter in the NBA either since Allen Iverson used to put up 30 PPG, or a pitcher's velocity doesn't matter since Greg Maddux won plenty without it.

Guys like Maddux, Iverson, and Brees prove that these shortcomings can be overcome if you're sufficiently talented, dedicated, and smart- not that tthe respective physical traits are irrelevant in determining success.

 

[TennesseePatriot]

Besides, at 6'1 it's not like the man is short. He's basically average height.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Besides, at 6'1 it's not like the man is short. He's basically average height.

I'm 6'4", and when I stood next to Ryan O'Callaghan I felt pretty damn short.

 

[maverick4]

They're both way, way more talented than league-average QBs. You're comparing the absolute best 'short' QB to a bunch of JAG tall QBs... it doesn't prove anything. That line of thought would lead you to say that height doesn't matter in the NBA either since Allen Iverson used to put up 30 PPG, or a pitcher's velocity doesn't matter since Greg Maddux won plenty without it.

Guys like Maddux, Iverson, and Brees prove that these shortcomings can be overcome if you're sufficiently talented, dedicated, and smart- not that tthe respective physical traits are irrelevant in determining success.

I agree with this mostly, however there is no one who has proven that the height rule even matters for QB's. In my mind it's an outdated and archaic standard.

This reminds me of when Billy Beane first became the Oakland A's GM. He knew that scouts were obsessing over how big a pitcher looked, how tall he was. He went and looked purely at production, and found guys like Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, Mark Mulder. Now you have guys like Lincecum winning Cy Youngs.

I strongly disagree that Brees and Warner are the exception to the rule. Someone already posted here showing how few tall QB's were superbowl winners.

Looking for height in a QB is as archaic as looking for a big-looking pitcher. I would argue there isn't even causation or correlation between height and success for these positions.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I agree with this mostly, however there is no one who has proven that the height rule even matters for QB's. In my mind it's an outdated and archaic standard.

This reminds me of when Billy Beane first became the Oakland A's GM. He knew that scouts were obsessing over how big a pitcher looked, how tall he was. He went and looked purely at production, and found guys like Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, Mark Mulder. Now you have guys like Lincecum winning Cy Youngs.

I strongly disagree that Brees and Warner are the exception to the rule. Someone already posted here showing how few tall QB's were superbowl winners.

Looking for height in a QB is as archaic as looking for a big-looking pitcher. I would argue there isn't even causation or correlation between height and success for these positions.

Hudson, Zito, and Mulder have all had careers plagued by injury and/or inconsistency, which is the main worry re: small pitchers. Pedro Martinez is another example. I love what Beane has done, but a) college-to-pro stats tend to scale more reliably in baseball than football, and b) those scouts were partially right. Did they take things way too far to the extreme of avoiding small guys? Definitely, but it is still a concern, even if it's not as big of one as they believed.

Re: the old Cowboys model (that no QB under 6'1" is worth drafting, period), I agree that that's insane. Being short as a QB is definitely a significant issue, and presents unique complications, but it's one that absolutely can be overcome, as guys like Brees and Steve Young have shown. I actually like the pitcher analogy- smaller pitchers can be excellent, and lack of stature should not prevent you from pursuing a guy who has a ton of talent. It's a very real obstacle, but one that can be overcome.

 

[maverick4]

Another example is look at receivers. So many are fixated on the huge 6-3 wideout who can run a 4.2 40-time.
Meanwhile, small guys like Welker are cast-offs until they join the Dolphins/Pats, and guys like Edelman get drafted late but end up on the field tons.

Size or straight line speed in no way indicates how open a receiver can get, or how well he can haul in the ball. Conversely, height in a QB in no way correlates to the two most important traits of decision-making and accuracy.