Being Short Doesn't Matter For Top Cornerback Prospects

[MiddleMan]

Just wanted to share this article with you guys. For bleacher report, it's a pretty well written and detailed article on why being a short cornerback isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some good videos and examples in there as well.

http://www.bleacherreport.com/articles/2010973-why-being-short-doesnt-matter-for-top-cornerback-prospects

[Maverick]

Thx MM. The article definitely has merit, & I get it that some of the smaller guys can gain a competitive advantage with superior technique.....but, how long can they maintain this technique over the course of a game? IMHO, we STILL need taller CBs for the larger more physical WRs.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

I'm less concerned about Verrett's height than I am his slight frame. I really say that only from a health standpoint. I really feel like if he's stays healthy he'll be a big-timer for us.

[Steve]

There is always the worries about his frame, but even guys with good frames can get hurt. Indy drafted Steve Entman and Quintin Coryett in part because both were big guys and durable in college, but neither of those guys ever really played much because injuries.

[Formula 21]

There is always the worries about his frame, but even guys with good frames can get hurt. Indy drafted Steve Entman and Quintin Coryett in part because both were big guys and durable in college, but neither of those guys ever really played much because injuries.

Now that was a historically bad draft.

[Yubaking]

I am not sure the article states anything of value. Half of the CBs mentioned are 5'11" or better (Revis, Haden, Davis), which makes them average sized CBs. All are taller than Verrett. A couple mentioned (Dennard, Brock) are far from established upper end CBs.

Also, we do not play much press man coverage, so that entire discussion seems largely irrelevant to what we should expect to happen with Verrett.

I completely disagree with the notion that Sherman would still best CB in the game if he were shorter. If he were Verrett's size, the 49ers would probably be Super Bowl champions right now.

Verrett has skills, but his lack of height does limit him versus if he were taller. Further, Verrett's lack of size is not just lack of height. He has a small body type, so it will be interesting to see how well he holds up.

I don't think this article adds anything that has not been discussed already at length on this board.

[KNSD]

We have short safeties to cover up for Verrett's short height. No worries!

[Steve]

The one thing to keep in mind is that of all the highlights we saw during the draft, how many were because the WR was taller then then CB? I tend to watch just bits and pieces of coverage, but I didn't see ANY. Not one. There were tons of catches, but in every single one, it was due to the WR gaining seperation over the DB. And if you watch NFL games, that is how almost every catch in an NFL games is too. And that has NOTHING to do with height. You get maybe one catch per game, where the WR catches the pass out beyond the reach of the CB, or where the WR wins a jump ball. It just isn't that important. There will be moments when if could be, but they are much fewer and further between then the routine plays, which will make a break a team. Having a tall player, who doesn't have as technique and quickness, will add up much, much faster then the height thing will.

Remember, smaller, shorter guys are far better change of direction. You can only change direction so much per cut, and guys with shorter legs get more steps it, so they can cut more often. Look at any schoolyard, you see the little quick kids who are the ones that win tag, because they can turn on a dime. How is pass coverage not the same as that?

When you watch a lot of bigger CB, how many of them do you see stopping the quick slants, the quick outs and the bubble screens? Those are the routine plays in the NFL, yet the guys you see making those plays are typically the little quick guys.

There is nothing wrong with drafting a bigger guy if his technique and quickness are as good as the little guy, but they rarely are equal. Little, quick guys are often the better player, and you ALWAYS take the better players.

[Millionaire Wussy]

It was also because the WR was more physical than Verrett...or man-handled Verrett. This is seen in the Verrett coverage of Karon Boone over the middle. Of course if we run a defense that is more zone than this probably won't happen too much as a Charger. I hope.

http://www.chargers.com/multimedia/videos/WATCH-Chargers-Take-Verrett-at-No-25/3d1070e8-4876-4a13-b6fd-1945cde3bde3

[Yubaking]

The one thing to keep in mind is that of all the highlights we saw during the draft, how many were because the WR was taller then then CB? I tend to watch just bits and pieces of coverage, but I didn't see ANY. Not one. There were tons of catches, but in every single one, it was due to the WR gaining seperation over the DB. And if you watch NFL games, that is how almost every catch in an NFL games is too. And that has NOTHING to do with height. You get maybe one catch per game, where the WR catches the pass out beyond the reach of the CB, or where the WR wins a jump ball. It just isn't that important. There will be moments when if could be, but they are much fewer and further between then the routine plays, which will make a break a team. Having a tall player, who doesn't have as technique and quickness, will add up much, much faster then the height thing will.

Remember, smaller, shorter guys are far better change of direction. You can only change direction so much per cut, and guys with shorter legs get more steps it, so they can cut more often. Look at any schoolyard, you see the little quick kids who are the ones that win tag, because they can turn on a dime. How is pass coverage not the same as that?

When you watch a lot of bigger CB, how many of them do you see stopping the quick slants, the quick outs and the bubble screens? Those are the routine plays in the NFL, yet the guys you see making those plays are typically the little quick guys.

There is nothing wrong with drafting a bigger guy if his technique and quickness are as good as the little guy, but they rarely are equal. Little, quick guys are often the better player, and you ALWAYS take the better players.

Before the draft, I watched pre-draft clips that showed Verrett on a snap by snap basis in three games. The good news is that Verrett is very fast and very quick. He has good ball skills as well. Only once in 3 games did I see him faked out of his jock which, if memory serves, happened when an Oklahoma WR faked a cut like he was going to run a skinny post and then cutting back to the outside on an otherwise regular out pattern. Verrett got turned around on the play. Other than that, Verrett's coverage was very strong in terms of being where the receiver was. Also, Verrett showed the ability to knife in sometimes before blocks could be set up to make tackles.

The bad news is that he absolutely struggled on high balls, allowing completions (despite being near the WR) and committing PI in the end zone by putting his hand on a receiver to try to elevate for a high ball. Also, if a blocker, even an average sized WR, got his hands on Verrett on a running play, Verrett struggled to get off the block. And finally, while Verrett appeared to be a sure tackler, the "tacklee" often fell forward for extra yardage.

I think if Verrett stays healthy, he will be a good contributor for us and we definitely needed a CB. I just saw Verrett as more of an early second round pick than a late first round pick overall, but not a crazy pick at all in terms of our needs.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

I am not sure the article states anything of value. Half of the CBs mentioned are 5'11" or better (Revis, Haden, Davis), which makes them average sized CBs. All are taller than Verrett. A couple mentioned (Dennard, Brock) are far from established upper end CBs.

Also, we do not play much press man coverage, so that entire discussion seems largely irrelevant to what we should expect to happen with Verrett.

I completely disagree with the notion that Sherman would still best CB in the game if he were shorter. If he were Verrett's size, the 49ers would probably be Super Bowl champions right now.

Verrett has skills, but his lack of height does limit him versus if he were taller. Further, Verrett's lack of size is not just lack of height. He has a small body type, so it will be interesting to see how well he holds up.

I don't think this article adds anything that has not been discussed already at length on this board.

Burying the lede again.

But you're right. The whole height thing was already debunked by dozens of examples.

[Beerman]

I really don't give a shit about size. Can the guy make a play on the ball? Is he a playmaker? Can he keep up speed wise with receivers? Does he understand offenses and is he able to anticipate routes/throws?

There are just so many other aspects that are more important than size. It will come into play a few times a year, but it all likely evens out.

You have to take into account that larger corners also have disadvantages in coverage as well.

The main concern with Verrett is durability as has been mentioned. That is a real. The upside is that he has seemingly been able to play through the majority of injuries he's had.