Originally posted by Ninefan56:
And the conclusions of the matter are what?
"Hilton was far and away the most productive of the bunch, despite being by far the smallest. Granted his success had a lot to do with Indy's scheme, depth chart, etc., but I think this should be taken as a reminder that we all get way too caught up in measurables. For example, people were drooling over Streeter because he's tall and fast, but he fell all the way to Round 6 and couldn't even dress for a game in his first year."
The main conclusions are...
1. When we evaluate WRs, we shouldn't go nuts about guys just because they're tall and run fast 40s. Givens outperformed Quick. Hilton outperformed Streeter, etc.
2. WR is a position with a relatively high learning curve and bust rate. While I still don't love the Jenkins pick, we should be patient as a lot of other rookie WRs also failed to make any kind of meaningful contribution in year one.