Size DOES matter...

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

And a record setting offense.

AGAIN..... the year before the team went to the AFCCG. It was the #2 defense in the NFL.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

AGAIN..... the year before the team went to the AFCCG. It was the #2 defense in the NFL.

I don't think shorter CB's are bad, but when you use an argument like that, you should include all the major factors. That Pats went 18-1 because of their offense, not D that year. I don't disagree with your point, I just wanted to add a citically important piece to that portion of the argument

I think height is part of the overall package with each CB. It's a factor, but not the most important factor.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Then how do you explain all those 6' + receivers like Randy Moss not getting injured all the time. The theory has to cut both ways to make sense. I don't really buy it. I'd like to see some empirical evidence to support the claim.

I'd be in favor of some evidence too, but that being said a WR cut is NOT the same as a DB cut. When the WR cuts, they know exactly what they're going to do before they do it. More importantly, their body knows it, and the whole thing moves in unison.

For a DB, they have to react to what the receiver is doing, which means part of their body was convinced they should go one way, and they have to drastically jerk it all back the other way at a moment's notice.

Completely different movements.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

I don't think shorter CB's are bad, but when you use an argument like that, you should include all the major factors. That Pats went 18-1 because of their offense, not D that year. I don't disagree with your point, I just wanted to add a citically important piece to that portion of the argument

I think height is part of the overall package with each CB. It's a factor, but not the most important factor.

Sorry, but I'm not buying this, even a little bit. I was responding to a post by PFK. This "the offense was great!" stuff is an attempt to dismiss rather than discuss. The defense, with the smurf corners, was #2 in 2006, after all.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Sorry, but I'm not buying this, even a little bit. I was responding to a post by PFK. This "the offense was great!" stuff is an attempt to dismiss rather than discuss. The defense, with the smurf corners, was #2 in 2006, after all.

Not buying what? You used the 18-1 team as an example. Your original premise was good, I think, it's just that that piece of your argument was not. Our defense wasn't so good that year.

In a discussion, it's ok to disagree with specific points, even if you agree with the conclusion and most of the other points. I'm not being hostile, and I don't want you to get pissed. Don't make assumptions about my intensions, I was not trying to dismiss anything, merely pointing to a broken piece of the argument. Hell man, we all have a piece of an arguement that doesn't fit sometimes.

Do you think that height is not a factor at all? I didn't get the impression that that's what you think, but if so, I disagree. Otherwise, I think that shorter corners can be very successful.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Not buying what? You used the 18-1 team as an example. Your original premise was good, I think, it's just that that piece of your argument was not. Our defense wasn't so good that year.

The defense was 4th in the NFL.

In a discussion, it's ok to disagree with specific points, even if you agree with the conclusion and most of the other points. I'm not being hostile, and I don't want you to get pissed. Don't make assumptions about my intensions, I was not trying to dismiss anything, merely pointing to a broken piece of the argument. Hell man, we all have a piece of an arguement that doesn't fit sometimes.

Neither the post I originally responded to, nor the peson responding to my post, used anything truly factual, in terms of actual data. In fact, the 18-1 record was the only hard fact in that chain of posts.

Do you think that height is not a factor at all? I didn't get the impression that that's what you think, but if so, I disagree. Otherwise, I think that shorter corners can be very successful.

Height (and the associated quickness issue) in football is sometimes a benefit and sometimes a hindrance. If height were the end all and be all, there'd be a slew of 6'10" cornerbacks instead of the current number, which is zero.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

The defense was 4th in the NFL.

Sure, but if you look at the amount of time opposing offenses had the ball, it's puts that number into context. The defense didn't suck that year, but they certainly were not nearly as good as the year before.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Sure, but if you look at the amount of time opposing offenses had the ball, it's puts that number into context. The defense didn't suck that year, but they certainly were not nearly as good as the year before.

What does that have to do with my post, or the post I was responding to:

What's the old WEEI saying "you're maaaakkkiinng my point" Yes those smaller secondaries (with the exception of OTIS) were among the Pats most successfull, but they were also the secondaries that were PRE 2005-6, which is about when we started seeing the effects of almost EVERY team lining up 6'2+ WRs on a regular basis. Prior to that Randy Moss and TO were the EXCEPTIONS rather than the rule. NOW they are the rule, and defenses have to respond.

Whether you accept that the defense was fine in 2006 and 2007, or you insist on claiming it wasn't despite its success, the fact is that the team, and the defense, was successful. Furthermore, you're taking a possession number and using it for a subjective argument. In addition, the year before still makes my point. That's why I wasn't buying it.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Height (and the associated quickness issue) in football is sometimes a benefit and sometimes a hindrance. If height were the end all and be all, there'd be a slew of 6'10" cornerbacks instead of the current number, which is zero.

I'm going to have to disagree strong with this point. There is a much smaller pool of people in the US that fall into the 6'10" category. In fact, I bet the the % of people in the US that are that tall is less than 1/10th of 1%. This figure alone blows that piece of your agrument out of the water.

When you combine this factual information with cultural factors in the US, you get an even smaller pool. Abnormall tall athletes are very likely pushed more towards basketball when they are young. This further decreases the pool of very tall athletes that even go into football. When you look at the pool that does, they taller ones will more likely learn positions like QB, LB etc... not much emphasis is put on height for DB's at the high school and college level compared to most other positions. There is a trend of larger CBs, and to be completely honest with you, it's difficult for me to imagine a case where height could actually be a burdeon on the actual playing field.

The arguement that height may cause more injuries is interesting, but I believe it's much more a function of height/weight. Height actually increases the distance from the joint to the end of the limb (think of a lever).... putting less strain on the fulcrum. I could see this causing more injuries to bones like the bone themselves, but not the joints. Although I'm not a medical expert, I think that there is probably a statistic that measures body weight vs. the length of a limb to determine stress and strain on a joint. As I said though, I am no medical expert, so this particular paragraph should be taken with a grain of salt.

That all said, I've played several sports (obviously not at the professoinal level) and can attain that it's harder to get open when you're covered by a guy who is taller than you.

 

[Raymond]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

I'm going to have to disagree strong with this point. There is a much smaller pool of people in the US that fall into the 6'10"........................

Holy crap

You've been backpedaling faster than a clown on a unicycle on this point, so now you resort to this?

Man up and admit you were wrong.

 

[Synovia]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Even Rodney, who was over 200, was still only 5'10.

Where the hell do you people get your information?


Rodney Harrison is 6'1 220.

 

[Synovia]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

If you look at the tall CB in he league they tend to be injury prone. as a cb you are reading a WR route and cutting,pivoting and turning which

According to what? DO you have any stats, or are you just making things up?

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

What does that have to do with my post, or the post I was responding to:

It was a direct response to the comment that I quoted in the post. You said "The defense was 4th in the NFL." You said that to back up your argument. I added the offesnive time of possession because that has a HUGE influence on the ranking of a defense in the NFL. If disagree with the idea that offensive time of possession doesn't affect your defense's performance, I'm not exactly sure what to say..... further conversation would not likely have any positive effect.

I'm trying to be as clear as I can, and communicate in a very straight forward way. Please don't twist it.

 

[Clonamery]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

....it's harder to get open when you're covered by a guy who is taller than you.

Yeah, if you're not moving.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

....thank god it doesn't matter in bed ( ),

TMI Ken, T M I

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Yeah, if you're not moving.

Yes, and if your running with them behind you and they have a six inch reach advantage it has no effect.... Also, it increases the range of their hands when running perpendicular to the passer as well. This is elemtary stuff, man. Playing football once should have taught you this.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

It was a direct response to the comment that I quoted in the post. You said "The defense was 4th in the NFL." You said that to back up your argument. I added the offesnive time of possession because that has a HUGE influence on the ranking of a defense in the NFL. If disagree with the idea that offensive time of possession doesn't affect your defense's performance, I'm not exactly sure what to say..... further conversation would not likely have any positive effect.

I'm trying to be as clear as I can, and communicate in a very straight forward way. Please don't twist it.

I'm not twisting anything. The defense was #4 in the league and the team went 18-1. You're the one trying to twist that.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Holy crap

You've been backpedaling faster than a clown on a unicycle on this point, so now you resort to this?

Man up and admit you were wrong.

Was that a joke? I think it was, but considering the way some of the stuff I'm saying is being interpetted, it might not be. Just because an argument is ecclectic, doesn't mean it's not relevant, valid or correct.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Yes, and if your running with them behind you and they have a six inch reach advantage it has no effect.... Also, it increases the range of their hands when running perpendicular to the passer as well. This is elemtary stuff, man. Playing football once should have taught you this.

But in general, taller CBs are not as fast as smaller ones (some are, but they are the exceptions). So the question becomes, which is more effective given equal intangibles? A CB who is constantly on the WR's hip but can't outjump him? Or a CB who has extra reach but is a few steps behind a faster receiver?

 

[Clonamery]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Yes, and if your running with them behind you and they have a six inch reach advantage it has no effect.... Also, it increases the range of their hands when running perpendicular to the passer as well. This is elemtary stuff, man. Playing football once should have taught you this.

If? Perpendicular?

Talent and execution. Ask Welker.