Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how does being too short hurt a rb?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    It's also a matter of body metrics. Height, while not a sure fire method of prediction, it's a cheap way to get a feel for how long his arms and legs are, and how big his hands are. Having short arms impedes blocking and evasion, Short legs limits stride length, which correlates to top speed. Hand size is an indicator of potential for ball security. Typically the shorter you are, the more deficient you are in those catagories. When you're 5'8" to 5'10", it's an issue, but some people have different builds that keep them in the acceptable range of body metrics. Once you drop below 5'8", pretty much everyone's gonna be deficient in every metric. Vision isn't as big an issue as long as the player has a good feel for the blocking scheme.

    Stand Tall and Shake the Heavens!
    The Destroyer Is Manifest!
    I reserve the rights to retract any posts made betwen midnight and 5 AM PST due to being really, really drunk

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bored of education View Post
      Because it distorts vision and the ability to see a play develop and opportunities for those one or two cuts near the line of scrimmage.

      case closed.

      close thread
      Alternatively, many experts say this is the exact reason why Maurice Drew is such a threat. Linemen and linebackers can't see what he's doing behind the tall Jaguars O-line until he hits his hole.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by JT Jag View Post
        Alternatively, many experts say this is the exact reason why Maurice Drew is such a threat. Linemen and linebackers can't see what he's doing behind the tall Jaguars O-line until he hits his hole.
        How many great RBS are their that are under 5'7 ever? 2-5?


        MJD is an exception to every rule
        my scent?...like making love to a lumberjack
        <TACKLE> i will ngata give you a bj raji
        <+BOE> Scott, with Burfict's character concerns (whether legit or not) you think Pioli would draft him. :D
        <+ScottWright> Why not. Baldwin does need a sparring partner...
        Originally posted by Hermstheman83
        What's with the hate on Ricky Stanzi? Those youtube clips of him with the hulk hogan theme music instantly make him better than Luck.

        Comment


        • #19
          I have by no means read through this whole thread yet, but I feel I must throw my two cents in already.

          Vision is an issue, but not for the runner. While in traffic, RBs either will run to daylight or cut off of the backs of their blockers, so height makes no difference. For the defenders, however, it's an entirely different story. They are the ones that need to see through the traffic to find the ball carrier. The smaller the back, the harder he is to find. Height makes no difference to me if the back has the necessary bulk, strength, athleticism, vision, natural running ability, etc.

          Comment


          • #20
            As a runner, I don't think it is significant but when you ask that RB to go out as a receiver, it is far more difficult for a QB to find him quickly over the higher DL. It is the reverse of what you hear when they talk about LB's having problem recognizing just where a short RB is and taking the proper angles to stop him. Short RB's are usually but not always a bit of a liability in the passing game.
            And proud of it!!!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bored of education View Post
              MJD is an exception to every rule
              Sigged tencharacters.

              Comment


              • #22
                As a LB you don't actually follow the RB, generally speaking you read the guards the fact that he is short and thus maybe harder too see is irreverent

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by fenikz View Post
                  As a LB you don't actually follow the RB, generally speaking you read the guards the fact that he is short and thus maybe harder too see is irreverent
                  And if he cuts back, you're up the proverbial creek. It's much easier to track a larger back than track a short back by trusting him to follow the obvious blocking scheme.

                  Stand Tall and Shake the Heavens!
                  The Destroyer Is Manifest!
                  I reserve the rights to retract any posts made betwen midnight and 5 AM PST due to being really, really drunk

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DragonFireKai View Post
                    And if he cuts back, you're up the proverbial creek. It's much easier to track a larger back than track a short back by trusting him to follow the obvious blocking scheme.
                    I totally agree.
                    And proud of it!!!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by bored of education View Post
                      How many great RBS are their that are under 5'7 ever? 2-5?


                      MJD is an exception to every rule
                      How many great RBs are over 6' tall???? Height is NOT an advantage for a RB. I've been saying this for YEARS.

                      Most top RBs have a stocky build (see Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, etc.)

                      One thing EVERY defender gets taught is that NEVER try to tackle a ball-carrier around the shoulders. Which means you always need to get your shoulders lower then the ball-carrier's shoulders.

                      This is exactly why RBs are thought to run as low to the ground as possible, with their shoulders leading the way.

                      Lower center of gravity is an advantage.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Overall pros, assuming the shorter back has all other necessary tools to play: harder to find in traffic, lower center of gravity usually equals better balance

                        Overall cons: generally smaller hands, which affects receiving and ball protection, usually a liability in pass protection, and as was mentioned earlier, harder for a QB to find if he goes beyond the LOS on a pass route.

                        Everything equal, I would still take a 5'10 215 lb RB over a 5'7 205 lb RB, but if the 5'7 RB is simply the better player, I have no problem taking him.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by FA1 View Post
                          Overall pros, assuming the shorter back has all other necessary tools to play: harder to find in traffic, lower center of gravity usually equals better balance

                          Overall cons: generally smaller hands, which affects receiving and ball protection, usually a liability in pass protection, and as was mentioned earlier, harder for a QB to find if he goes beyond the LOS on a pass route.

                          Everything equal, I would still take a 5'10 215 lb RB over a 5'7 205 lb RB, but if the 5'7 RB is simply the better player, I have no problem taking him.
                          I agree. Actually 5'9" in height and about 210-215 has proved to be a very solid build for a pro RB. Many have succeeded with these dimensions. However there is only one Jones-Drew, making drafting a 5'7" guy a high risk.
                          And proud of it!!!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Two words: It doesn't. 5'9" is my optimum height for a RB.

                            sig by BoneKrusher

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X

                            Debug Information