PDA

View Full Version : Whats More Important for CB's: Size or Speed?


REDSKINSWARRIOR82
02-08-2011, 11:42 AM
I am really coming up with some great topic right ?

would you rather have the pac man type(without the off field issues) 5'9 180 speed jet corner, or the tall 6'2 200 4.56 speed Q Jammer type.

me i am all for the speed guys,because they dont get beat,andthey make for great return guys and they can jump like over 39inches doesn't really matter if their 5;8. Example Darelle Green he is 5'8 1/2 and he is the best corner ihave ever see play he run a 4.2 in his prime.

Dion was under 5'11 too. But if you can find guys like Woodson (both Rod and Charles,or Champ Bailey who are 6'1 200 and run 4.32 then back up a bricks truck and sign a blank check.

AntoinCD
02-08-2011, 11:50 AM
It's not just a case of size or speed. Both are nice to have but if you put a fast guy with no technique he's going to get beat. If you have a big guy with stiff hips he's going to get beat.

However if you're playing god and you can make a perfect CB minus one of the above I would prefer mine with great size. Get a jam on the WR, play with great positioning and technique and have the ability to outmuscle him on jump balls etc and speed isn't a concern.

katnip
02-08-2011, 11:58 AM
I'd have to go with size. You can be the fasted corner but if your like 5'9" going against guys like T.O., etc. To me your going to get beat (unless your playing the Patriots, with Welker and them)

FUNBUNCHER
02-08-2011, 12:06 PM
Small CBs like Darrell Green need to be great athletes, bigger guys can get away with being slower.

I'd would rank 'loose' hips, technique, short area quickness, ball skills/speed as the top attributes for a corner.

Most cornerbacks, if they were playing one on one with a QB and were told he's going throw the ball roughly 20 yards, 15 yards, or 50 yards downfield at the snap, have enough speed to go run to the football before it hits the ground.

The hard part is getting to the ball first when you're covering someone who knows where the ball is going and you don't.

I still believe your corners should be the best pure athletes on a football team.

BTW, please don't make an either/or thread for every single position!!!

Matthew Jones
02-08-2011, 01:26 PM
I'd prefer a fluid corner, I'm not sure if that really fits into the speed category but a lot of the bigger cornerbacks have trouble doing that sort of thing.

REDSKINSWARRIOR82
02-08-2011, 01:41 PM
Small CBs like Darrell Green need to be great athletes, bigger guys can get away with being slower.

I'd would rank 'loose' hips, technique, short area quickness, ball skills/speed as the top attributes for a corner.

Most cornerbacks, if they were playing one on one with a QB and were told he's going throw the ball roughly 20 yards, 15 yards, or 50 yards downfield at the snap, have enough speed to go run to the football before it hits the ground.

The hard part is getting to the ball first when you're covering someone who knows where the ball is going and you don't.

I still believe your corners should be the best pure athletes on a football team.

BTW, please don't make an either/or thread for every single position!!!

I dont want a tall tiff CB because if they take 1 or 2 wrong steps itsa touch down. most of the time they dont have the recovery speed to makeup the gap and catch the w-r. Thats why i like Strongly built fast guys like D Green, and Newman, Revies ISland,

REDSKINSWARRIOR82
02-08-2011, 01:42 PM
I'd prefer a fluid corner, I'm not sure if that really fits into the speed category but a lot of the bigger cornerbacks have trouble doing that sort of thing.

Thats the crazy thing, the big corners have no issue with straight deep routes,its when the quicker WR cuts in liek a deep 15 yard in,or a post route the bigger cb cant keep up. the smaller quicker cb and cut under the wr and get the pick.

BuddyCHRIST
02-08-2011, 02:15 PM
Deion was not under 5'11". He was listed at 6'1" and was actually a little bit taller.

Anyways, there is not rather between size or speed. The most important thing is being a smart player and playing hard. Antoine Winfield isn't big or fast and he's (or atleast used to be) a heck of a player.

jason96r
02-08-2011, 02:30 PM
Hip fluidity and quick feet. Then I'd go with some speed.

PrimetimeTheDon
02-08-2011, 02:46 PM
COD is the most important physical element when evaluating a cornerback.

Top flight speed comes in second.

descendency
02-08-2011, 02:49 PM
Speed >>>>> Size.

D-Unit
02-08-2011, 03:29 PM
Instinct/Intelligence.

But scheme could determine what you value more between speed and physicality if you're trying to rank prospects on a big board.

RaiderNation
02-08-2011, 03:35 PM
For a team like the Raiders, Id say you look for both. We need guys who can bump the run which usually means they need to have some size to handle the WR's, then since we play mostly man speed is needed to stay with the WR's. Nnamdi Asomugha is the perfect blend of size 6'2 210lbs and speed(ran a 4.45 if I remember correctly).

Day One Pick
02-08-2011, 03:36 PM
Speed is necessary for an NFL CB, case closed. Size is just a bonus.

Nebula
02-08-2011, 04:18 PM
What the others said. For a defensive back, technique skills are by far and away the most important quality for a cornerback. (Instincts for LB, athleticism and physical gifts for a pass rusher) I don't care how fast and athletic you are, if you can't flip your hips and plant your foot consistently you're not making it in the NFL as a corner

Caulibflower
02-08-2011, 05:12 PM
I think the serious question is:

Would you rather have a fast midget playing cornerback, or a lumbering man with giantism? Let's say he's 8 feet tall.

nepg
02-08-2011, 05:16 PM
You can get far more mileage out of a fast CB than a big one. But those two attributes aren't among the most important attributes...not even close.

descendency
02-08-2011, 05:41 PM
Speed is necessary for an NFL CB, case closed. Size is just a bonus.

That's a great way to put it.

I think the serious question is:

Would you rather have a fast midget playing cornerback, or a lumbering man with giantism? Let's say he's 8 feet tall.

Neither one would play in the NFL. I mean a < 5'9" corner would be beaten regularly. A guy who can't run 4.6 would not be able to mirror well.

REDSKINSWARRIOR82
02-08-2011, 05:43 PM
Instinct/Intelligence.

But scheme could determine what you value more between speed and physicality if you're trying to rank prospects on a big board.
yeah if your a cover 2 team like bucks,vikes,bears you take bigger slower cornerbacks. But if your a man team like 60% of the teams in the NFL, then speed at cornerback is very important.

REDSKINSWARRIOR82
02-08-2011, 05:48 PM
It's not just a case of size or speed. Both are nice to have but if you put a fast guy with no technique he's going to get beat. If you have a big guy with stiff hips he's going to get beat.

However if you're playing god and you can make a perfect CB minus one of the above I would prefer mine with great size. Get a jam on the WR, play with great positioning and technique and have the ability to outmuscle him on jump balls etc and speed isn't a concern.
But fast cornerbacks can recover if they get beat at first. I have heard guys say they made a lot of plays just of their speed.

REDSKINSWARRIOR82
02-08-2011, 05:53 PM
Small CBs like Darrell Green need to be great athletes, bigger guys can get away with being slower.

I'd would rank 'loose' hips, technique, short area quickness, ball skills/speed as the top attributes for a corner.

Most cornerbacks, if they were playing one on one with a QB and were told he's going throw the ball roughly 20 yards, 15 yards, or 50 yards downfield at the snap, have enough speed to go run to the football before it hits the ground.

The hard part is getting to the ball first when you're covering someone who knows where the ball is going and you don't.

I still believe your corners should be the best pure athletes on a football team.

BTW, please don't make an either/or thread for every single position!!!

Sorry about making 2 posts I will not make a new thread again ,and just comment on others.

brasho
02-08-2011, 06:08 PM
yeah if your a cover 2 team like bucks,vikes,bears you take bigger slower cornerbacks. But if your a man team like 60% of the teams in the NFL, then speed at cornerback is very important.

You realize the "bucks" play in Milwaukee in the NBA, right?

Where did you get your numbers that 60% of the teams in the NFL are man teams? Just because you pointed out 3 teams running tampa-2 defenses, that doesn't help your argument in the least bit. Teams in the NFL run predominately zone coverage. All teams run some man and run some zone, but for the most part, there are few teams that run man a lot (Raiders, Jets, Eagles, Broncos, Packers) but for the most part, they run a ton of zone.

You named the BUCS, Bears, and Vikings as zone teams with bigger slower CBs.... you forgot the Colts by the way... and yet their CBs aren't any bigger than any others (except Talib of the Bucs) and the Bucs' "big CB", Talib is also an up and coming top man-to-man coverage guy. The guy is nearing shutdown CB status and is far from slow. As for the guy across from him, I seriously doubt Ronde Barber at 5'9 is considered a big CB.

Anyway, to answer your question, a CB has to be able to move first and foremost. If he can't move, he can't play. Ronde Barber ran a 4.63 coming out of UVa but is hardly considered slow. He has great feet, great anticipation, and is super smart.

The good part about getting a big CB (one of the reasons I liked Antrell Rolle better than Pacman Jones) is that if he fails at CB (like nearly half of all CBs) he could always move back to safety. But generally speaking, big CBs don't fare as well over time as CBs as the smaller, quicker ones.

brasho
02-08-2011, 06:09 PM
I am really coming up with some great topic right ?
.

Absolutely.....not.

87Canes
02-08-2011, 08:02 PM
Wayyyy too much to look into for a CB to just pick size or speed but if I absolutely had to pick I'd go with speed. I'd prefer fluid hips and ball skills over anything because if they've got a great DL and good scheme, they wont have to cover for long because of pressure. They then should be in a good position to make a play on the ball if the scheme is setup for the O.

PossibleCabbage
02-08-2011, 08:06 PM
I want the 5'11" or taller guys who are the best athletes, everything else being equal.

PhinsRock
02-08-2011, 08:08 PM
Neither. It's quickness/fluid hips and instincts.

TACKLE
02-08-2011, 08:10 PM
Whether you prefer size or speed, 5'9 187, 4.58 runnin, top 5 NFL CB Brandon Flowers makse your argument invalid. ;) (but seriously)

Big Black
02-08-2011, 08:14 PM
This would have been a better thread if it was:

If you had to choose a CB on your team, who do you take, Darrell Green or Rod Woodson?


Its not as simple as size versus speed.

FUNBUNCHER
02-08-2011, 09:01 PM
This would have been a better thread if it was:

If you had to choose a CB on your team, who do you take, Darrell Green or Rod Woodson?


Its not as simple as size versus speed.

Rod Woodson was a better CB than D Green, and it had more to do with than just size.

D Green IMO will be the first to say that he played with awful technique, and was only effective in coverage because for most of his career he was the quickest and fastest player in the NFL.

Whenever Green lined up against 95% of most NFL WRs, the gap in athleticism and speed was like a corner covering a TE.

Woodson was the total package at cornerback, IMO. In his prime I'd put him up against any corner who ever played the game.

FUNBUNCHER
02-08-2011, 09:05 PM
Deion was not under 5'11". He was listed at 6'1" and was actually a little bit taller.

Anyways, there is not rather between size or speed. The most important thing is being a smart player and playing hard. Antoine Winfield isn't big or fast and he's (or atleast used to be) a heck of a player.

Deion was 5'11, and I say this because it was his listed height coming out of FSU. He had long arms and something like a 40 inch vert, so his actual height was basically irrelevant.

Big Black
02-09-2011, 03:15 PM
Rod Woodson was a better CB than D Green, and it had more to do with than just size.

D Green IMO will be the first to say that he played with awful technique, and was only effective in coverage because for most of his career he was the quickest and fastest player in the NFL.

Whenever Green lined up against 95% of most NFL WRs, the gap in athleticism and speed was like a corner covering a TE.

Woodson was the total package at cornerback, IMO. In his prime I'd put him up against any corner who ever played the game.

+1

I agree.

There are few cornerbacks that were the complete package like Woodson. The OP posed a very simplified question of size versus speed. Obviously there's a lot more to it than that. As much as I prefer Woodson like you, some would pick Green over Woodson at the same time.

MaxV
02-09-2011, 03:44 PM
Depends on the scheme.

For Cover-2 CBs, I would say it's more about quickness then speed.

They play mostly zone coverage and have to react quickly to the ball. If the WR goes deep they let him go and let Safeties pick him up.

Being good in run support is important for Cover-2 corners, so size definitely helps.

Day One Pick
02-11-2011, 05:22 AM
This would have been a better thread if it was:

If you had to choose a CB on your team, who do you take, Darrell Green or Rod Woodson?


Its not as simple as size versus speed.

Rod Woodson had speed and a lot of it. He was a track star at Purdue. Woodson was as complete a corner I've ever seen. Anyone under about 30really has no idea how good Woodson was.