Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is "Ideal size"?

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

  • What is "Ideal size"?

    so many times you hear the phrase "He has ideal size for the ____ position"

    so tell me what are the ideal sizes in your opinion for each position...the prototypical size.....just for arguements sake

    I'd say

    QB-6'4 220
    RB-5'11 215
    WR-6'4 210
    LT-6'6 315
    RT-6'5-330

    CB-6'0 200

    whats yours? i'd do every position but im too lazy


    -sig by jkpigskin

  • #2
    Qb- 6'5 220
    Rb- 6'0 220
    Fb- 6'2 240
    Wr- 6'3 220
    Lt- 6'6 330
    Lg- 6'5 310
    Oc- 6'2 300
    Rg- 6'4 320
    Rt- 6'6 330
    Te- 6'5 250

    De- 6'5 270
    Ut- 6'3 310
    Nt- 6'3 330
    De- 6'5 250
    Rolb- 6'2 240
    Mlb-6'2 250
    Lolb- 6'3 240
    Cb- 6'1 200
    Fs- 6'2 210
    Ss- 6'1 220

    Comment


    • #3
      Qb - 6'4 225
      Rb - 5'11 225
      Wr - 6'2 210
      Te - 6'5 250

      Dt - 6'5 300
      De - 6'5 280
      Lb - 6'2 245
      Cb - 5'11 200
      S - 6'1 210

      Comment


      • #4
        "Ideal" is a bit misleading. Ideal is a bit too perfect, if I could get a 6-10 WR I would love it, but that really isn't realistic. I guess my "ideal" guys would be...

        QB- 6-4 225
        RB- 6-0 220
        FB- 6-2 260
        TE- 6-4 255
        WR- 6-3 215
        OT- 6-6 315
        OG- 6-4 325
        C- 6-2 310
        DE- 6-5 275
        DT- 6-4 315
        NT- 6-1 330
        OLB- 6-3 240
        MLB- 6-2 250
        CB- 6-1 205
        S- 6-2 215

        Kinda rough, but I guess that is what you look for.

        Also, I know it's a saying, I wasn't referring to your use of the word, just the saying.

        That is correct comahan
        I ******* LOVE YOU DG
        <3 dg

        Comment


        • #5
          Qb- 6'3 220
          Rb- 5'9 220
          Fb- 6'1 240
          Wr- 6'3 225
          Lt- 6'4 330
          Lg- 6'3 325
          Oc- 6'1 310
          Rg- 6'3 320
          Rt- 6'4 330
          Te- 6'5 250

          De- 6'6 290
          Nt- 6'4 340
          De- 6'6 300
          Rolb- 6'2 240
          Mlb- 5'11 240
          Mlb- 6'3 260
          Lolb- 6'3 240
          Cb- 6'1 200
          Fs- 6'2 210
          Ss- 6'1 220

          I prefer smaller skill positions. Low center of gravity, built like tanks.

          Comment


          • #6
            QB- 6-3 220
            RB- 6-0 220
            FB- 5'11 250
            TE- 6-6 250
            WR- 6-4 225
            OT- 6-6 285
            OG- 6-4 300
            C- 6-3 310
            DE- 6-5 275
            DT- 6-2 310
            NT- 6-1 315
            OLB- 6-3 240
            MLB- 6-3 250
            CB- 6-1 205
            S- 6-2 220
            K- 5-11 180
            Coach- 6-2 200
            General Manager- 6-0 210
            Owner- 6-0 180

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Man_Of_Steel View Post
              QB- 6-3 220
              RB- 6-0 220
              FB- 5'11 250
              TE- 6-6 250
              WR- 6-4 225
              OT- 6-6 285
              OG- 6-4 300
              C- 6-3 310
              DE- 6-5 275
              DT- 6-2 310
              NT- 6-1 315
              OLB- 6-3 240
              MLB- 6-3 250
              CB- 6-1 205
              S- 6-2 220
              K- 5-11 180
              Coach- 6-2 200
              General Manager- 6-0 210
              Owner- 6-0 180
              lol


              i like fat owners....like 5'5 270


              -sig by jkpigskin

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 'cuse-213 View Post
                Qb- 6'3 220
                Rb- 5'9 220
                Fb- 6'1 240
                Wr- 6'3 225
                Lt- 6'4 330
                Lg- 6'3 325
                Oc- 6'1 310
                Rg- 6'3 320
                Rt- 6'4 330
                Te- 6'5 250

                De- 6'6 290
                Nt- 6'4 340
                De- 6'6 300
                Rolb- 6'2 240
                Mlb- 5'11 240
                Mlb- 6'3 260
                Lolb- 6'3 240
                Cb- 6'1 200
                Fs- 6'2 210
                Ss- 6'1 220

                I prefer smaller skill positions. Low center of gravity, built like tanks.

                Try about 4 inches shorter for a NT.

                Comment


                • #9
                  My personal preferences
                  QB = 6'5 225
                  RB = 6'0 230
                  FB = 5'10 250
                  WR = 6'4 220
                  TE = 6'6 245
                  LT = 6'7 298
                  LG = 6'5 300
                  C = 6'3 290
                  RG = 6'6 310
                  RT = 6'8 320
                  DE = 6'6 270
                  DT = 6'6 300
                  OLB = 6'4 250
                  MLB = 6'2 240
                  CB = 6'0 200
                  SS = 6'2 220
                  FS = 6'1 200
                  K & P = does it really matter?

                  Sig By Diehardvikingfan

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [QUOTE=PACKmanN;442148]Qb- 6'5 220
                    Fb- 6'2 240

                    I like my fullbacks shorter and still built like that because its a lot easier to generate power and get underneath the opponenets pad levels IMO

                    Sig By Diehardvikingfan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RoyHall#1 View Post
                      Try about 4 inches shorter for a NT.
                      I meant to say 6'3 which is still kinda tall for a NT. but ever since I heard Ngata did pretty well at it, I seemed more preferred to a tall NT. If they have the right coaching and technique to get leverage and whatnot, I see no problem with it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        really as long as they can attract and hold a double team and keep the LOS held... they can play nose... but there are not many big players that dont allow o-linemen to get under their pads

                        Sig By Diehardvikingfan

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Qb- 6'3 230
                          Rb- 5'10 220
                          Wr- 6'3 215
                          Ot- 6'5 315
                          Og- 6'3 320
                          C- 6'3 310
                          Te- 6'4 255
                          Fb- 6'0 255

                          Sse- 6'6 280
                          Wde- 6'5 260
                          Nt- 6'3 320
                          Ut- 6'4 305
                          Wlb- 6'3 235
                          Mlb- 6'3 245
                          Slb- 6'3 240
                          Fs- 6'0 200
                          Ss- 6'0 210
                          Cb- 5'10 200
                          Virginia Tech.
                          ACC Champions 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010

                          Next Up: 2012

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            why would anyone want 240 lb fullbacks? 255+ is ideal
                            I'm a state.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michigan View Post
                              why would anyone want 240 lb fullbacks? 255+ is ideal
                              250+ is great for my style and the orginal purpose of a fullback and thats for blocking.. but a lot of ppl like the faster brian leonard/mike alstott type fullbacks now.. personally i think those guys are runningbacks who just werent fast enough... lerenzo neal is a dying breed and thats a shame

                              Sig By Diehardvikingfan

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information