I've noticed in the NFL most tighends are not smaller than average and in Vegas every highschool seems to have super short tightends most under 5' 4" - supposedly the reason is that they can be difficult for a linebacker to get their eyes on in the backfield. As oppose to a receiver who allready has a saftey/conorback "assigned" to them.


Is this common any where else ?


Maybe they are just looking for a way to make use of fast little guys who won't make good HBs or FBs and decided not to play soccer.

I suppose if you wanted the tight end to be a receiver type, you might look to that. But on the flip side, the QB might have trouble seeing the TE if he's behind the two lines.

Of course, if you want a TE to essentially be another lineman, you wouldn't want that at all.

I think they're just looking for places to put these people, really.

I don't see why you would want a short tight end for either purpose; blocking for one, you want size. However, a receiving tight end essentially fills the role of a big possession receiver, you want them to be a big target, especially down in the red zone.

All our tight ends at UVA are huge. 6'3 to 6'6", 240-250 lbs.

I've noticed in the NFL most tighends are not smaller than average and in Vegas every highschool seems to have super short tightends most under 5' 4" - supposedly the reason is that they can be difficult for a linebacker to get their eyes on in the backfield. As oppose to a receiver who allready has a saftey/conorback "assigned" to them.


Is this common any where else ?


Maybe they are just looking for a way to make use of fast little guys who won't make good HBs or FBs and decided not to play soccer.

it's most likely this. I mean, you could argue that they would make better CB's and FS than TEs, but at under 5'4" that's a joke. I'd say make em kickers.

My high school's TE's are all about 6 feet.

american football? i thought this was about something else :groucho: