ifeelasleep Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 57 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: Idk if I agree with this sentiment. I think your most successful backs are that size because that's the size of dudes that play RB. If you're a good enough athlete to make the NFL and you're 6'1-6'4 go play a position that makes you way more money and you dont get hit 20+ times a game. Only so many spots dudes under 6' can have a shot at the league. I don't think being bigger than your tackler would be too much of an issue. I don't believe Cam Newton or Micah Parsons wouldn't make good running backs if they played the spot for a few years. RB used to be a premium position and smaller backs have always thrived. center of gravity, shiftiness, coordination, those are negatively affected by height. Sanders, emmitt, LT, shady mccoy, jones theres always a spot for the shifty smaller backs. Edited January 3 by ifeelasleep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 19 minutes ago, ifeelasleep said: RB used to be a premium position and smaller backs have always thrived. center of gravity, shiftiness, coordination, those are negatively affected by height. Sanders, emmitt, LT, shady mccoy, jones theres always a spot for the shifty smaller backs. Yep. Never said smaller backs don't work. 100% agree there's been a billion small running backs. You're saying BECAUSE there's so many small RBs it's better to be small. I'm saying they're small BECAUSE short people don't get as many opportunities elsewhere. What im saying is its fine for the RB position to be smaller so the influx of smaller bodies is misproportioned to the amount of taller bodies that are more spread throughout the roster. its never been harder to run over smaller people. Its been hard to run over strong people. I don't think it's a detriment to be tall, I just DONT think it's a detriment to be short. When it was a premium position they were getting bigger just like the rest of the athletes. Edited January 3 by HighCalebR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 33 minutes ago, ifeelasleep said: RB used to be a premium position and smaller backs have always thrived. center of gravity, shiftiness, coordination, those are negatively affected by height. Sanders, emmitt, LT, shady mccoy, jones theres always a spot for the shifty smaller backs. Funny. I don't recall Emmitt Smith being either small or shifty. Dude was like 220 pounds and would break arm tackles with ease after his OL completely gassed a defense, while following a very good fullback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 I think if they're spending a premium pick on a WR, which is reasonable, the guys they'd be most interested in replacing are Watson and Doubs. Both had a chance to establish themselves as a "#1 WR" but for various reason neither really did it. They're almost certainly better off by taking the one WR they really believe in than throwing darts to get developmental guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 hours ago, vegas492 said: My brother in law "adopted" the Falcons as his "other" team about a decade ago. He says exactly that. Only he expands upon it. If that offense had a real QB, look out. And the defense is actually solid. He talks about Pitts, no love, no hate, just facts. Pitts with a real QB (Ryan his rookie year) was great. Since then? Meh. And he despises Ridder. I asked him who he wanted at QB for that team via free agency, zero hesitation...Kirk Cousins. A better version than old Matt Ryan. FWIW. I think this could be where Fields lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 hours ago, vegas492 said: Funny. I don't recall Emmitt Smith being either small or shifty. Dude was like 220 pounds and would break arm tackles with ease after his OL completely gassed a defense, while following a very good fullback. Right, but he is like 5'9 or 10. Almost all RBs are shorter than 6'2. There are some really good 6'3 backs (Eric Dickerson, Eddie George) and the same is the case for 6'2 guys (Jim Brown, Steven Jackson, Marcus Allen). But most of your good RBs are really not taller than your average man. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said: I think this could be where Fields lands. I don't think Fields gets moved either way this offseason. No reason to, they can trade him in 2025 after seeing a year of his replacement (if they want to). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 14 minutes ago, incognito_man said: I don't think Fields gets moved either way this offseason. No reason to, they can trade him in 2025 after seeing a year of his replacement (if they want to). In truth, I think a win over GB would trigger CHI keeping Fields and collecting another haul of picks to trade back a little from #1 overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 6 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: In truth, I think a win over GB would trigger CHI keeping Fields and collecting another haul of picks to trade back a little from #1 overall. good thing i'll be there Sunday to make sure this doesn't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mdpackfan22 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 So with Gute hitting on Love, is he considered a top 3 drafting GM in the league now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgwingman Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 17 minutes ago, Mdpackfan22 said: So with Gute hitting on Love, is he considered a top 3 drafting GM in the league now? I've waited a while to post these. It might even be worth creating a separate thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 39 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: In truth, I think a win over GB would trigger CHI keeping Fields and collecting another haul of picks to trade back a little from #1 overall. I think they've probably already made up their mind on Fields. He's probably not shown them enough consistency to this point, and I think they will take a QB at #1 and deal Fields for a later 1st/early 2nd, and maybe another early to mid round pick next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 25 minutes ago, pgwingman said: I've waited a while to post these. It might even be worth creating a separate thread. And they will still never learn patience or go hey I was wrong and maybe I don't know everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgwingman Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 13 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said: I think they've probably already made up their mind on Fields. He's probably not shown them enough consistency to this point, and I think they will take a QB at #1 and deal Fields for a later 1st/early 2nd, and maybe another early to mid round pick next year. We were discussing this at work yesterday. If I'm Poles/Eberflus, I'm making a business decision. If I stick with Fields and he goes 6-10, I'm probably fired. If I draft Caleb Williams and go 6-10, I can probably convince ownership that we've got a young, promising QB. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts