Pandion Haliaetus":8b2jo36y said:Obviously, I meant Bates who is 6'1, 220.
Norwood is big enough, yeah, if you're comparing him to Sidney Rice. They are pretty much carbon copies in terms of size and ability. But what Norwood is not, is a big body.(whether he plays big or not) nor does he possess the strength a big WR would have.
But again If your arguing that Norwood fills the "Rice" role in the Offense, and as Chris alluded to that the Seahawks were searching for a big "WR" until they signed Rice, my point still stands. If you're saying Norwood fits the bill as a "big" WR then why does the 6th WR automatically have to be a big WR (like according to Anthony!)
Because it doesn't, it won't, and the most logical outcome is that it will go to the best reciever regardless of stature and that's only if the Seahawks carry 6 WRs.
I'm not saying any of you are necessarily wrong but that the competition is just much broader than what some of you are trying to paint it... in that player "X" has an advantage because of size. That's what I'm really arguing.
so short answer yes Norwood can fill the big role and no that does not mean we would not like another big WR given Harvin is under 6 foot as well as Baldwin, and Richardson is barely 6 foot. Like I said unless one of the smaller guys just dazzles Height will matter.