Sandy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 6 hours ago, coachbuns said: Good possibility through free agency but I'd like to see a safety picked somewhere in the top 3 rounds too. That position is really weak as is. So far it doesn't look like a good draft for safeties, but the free agent market is loaded. I wouldn't be shocked if we got shut out on safeties in the draft. I agree that if the right prospect is available with one of our picks on day 2 I run for it, but I'll stick with CB as my top draft wish first day 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said: 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. But is that because being tall is worse for the position or that it just doesn't matter what height you are as long as you're strong enough to withstand continuous punishment while able to see your rush lanes? The average man is 5'9. The average of an NFL player is 6'2. I don't think it's a coincidence that RB and DB are your shortest positions on average, by a decent margin. They're the two positions where you can get away with less size, so the talent pool for the position is going to sway shorter as that's where the greater number of humans exist. But I still don't know why that would mean it's worse to be taller. There's just less tall athletic people, so they get put at positions you need tall athletic people. Edited January 3 by HighCalebR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 8 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: But is that because being tall is worse for the position or that it just doesn't matter what height you are as long as you're strong enough to withstand continuous punishment while able to see your rush lanes? The average man is 5'9. The average of an NFL player is 6'2. I don't think it's a coincidence that RB and DB are your shortest positions on average, by a decent margin. They're the two positions where you can get away with less size, so the talent pool for the position is going to sway shorter as that's where the greater number of humans exist. But I still don't know why that would mean it's worse to be taller. There's just less tall people athletic people, so they get put at positions you need tall athletic people. We don't really have any proof of causation, but there is a definite correlation. If it weren't a disadvantage, I would imagine that we would see more distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 16 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: But I still don't know why that would mean it's worse to be taller. There's just less tall people athletic people, so they get put at positions you need tall athletic people. Think of it this way..would it be easier to knock over a tall, thin building, or a short and stout one? Edit: imagine from Godzilla's point of view. But he's wearing a helmet that affects his peripherals. Edited January 3 by Sandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: We don't really have any proof of causation, but there is a definite correlation. If it weren't a disadvantage, I would imagine that we would see more distribution. But if you have the choice between LaDanian or Peterson I don't think you'd say LT is better because he's shorter. You'd take whichever guy fits your system better. I think it's pretty obvious these guys get weened off the RB position as they grow and they get further up the competition ladder, even though a good portion have been 6'+ the whole time. A lot of the taller athletes in the league have a past at the RB position. There's just less tall fast humans, the resource pool is muuuuch wider at the average height that meet pro athletic testing thresholds.. It's the same convo of the 6'2 center vs the 6'5 center. Sure there's more 6'2 guys, cuz the 6'5 ones are being put where you need bigger bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Sandy said: Think of it this way..would it be easier to knock over a tall, thin building, or a short and stout one? Edit: imagine from Godzilla's point of view. But he's wearing a helmet that affects his peripherals. But what about a tall thick building. Nah this doesn't work. It's more like king Kong vs godzilla.. if I can get king Kong to be bigger and meaner than godzulla I'm taking the gorilla. Edited January 3 by HighCalebR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWhitehurst Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 3 hours ago, Leader said: Totally agree on WR. Either go big or go home. I can see valid arguments either way. Going big would likely mean picking one no later than round 2. I'd want a WR prospect to at least "back up" Watson and his vertical, defense-stretching role, especially if Watson by unfortunate chance is going to have chronic hamstring issues and simply be permanently unreliable to play. Prospects realistically in reach might be Brian Thomas Jr., Xavier Legette, or maybe a Ja'Lynn Polk a bit later. 6'6 Johnny Wilson is intriguing, even if he doesn't have top end speed. Edited January 3 by DWhitehurst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 6 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: But what about a tall thick building. Nah this doesn't work. It's more like king Kong vs godzilla.. if I can get king Kong to be bigger and meaner than godzulla I'm taking the gorilla. The thick tall building will still be easier to knock over than the thick stout building with a low center of gravity. That part is physics. In my analogy, Godzilla is a linebacker. I agree that if a running back is overall larger than the linebacker, he would be effective. Godzilla could try to arm tackle the short, stout building, but there's a good chance the building slips the tackle and takes it to the end zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 minutes ago, Sandy said: The thick tall building will still be easier to knock over than the thick stout building with a low center of gravity. That part is physics. In my analogy, Godzilla is a linebacker. I agree that if a running back is overall larger than the linebacker, he would be effective. Godzilla could try to arm tackle the short, stout building, but there's a good chance the building slips the tackle and takes it to the end zone. I've knocked **** over. Its half of what i do. Solid bases have solid bases. Weak bases have weak bases. Doesn't matter the height. It's a bad analogy. Offense isn't buildings. Defense isn't monsters. They're people. Bigger faster stronger is a mantra for a reason. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 4 minutes ago, DWhitehurst said: Totally agree on WR. Either go big or go home. I can see valid arguments either way. Going big would likely mean picking one no later than round 2. I'd want a WR prospect to at least "back up" Watson and his vertical, defense-stretching role, especially if Watson by unfortunate chance is going to have chronic hamstring issues and simply be permanently unreliable to play. Prospects realistically in reach might be Brian Thomas Jr., Xavier Legette, or maybe a Ja'Lynn Polk a bit later. Knowing how Gute disregarded the WR room for so long, I suspect he's gonna consider it packed to he gills now (and in many ways it is.....) - and - I'd be more than fine with it - IF - Watson could stay healthy. I've seen nothing in his Packer history (and dont have a clue about his college days) that would indicate he can in fact stay healthy. I'm always interested in seeing top line skill position guys added to the roster....but I suspect this will not be the year thats done in the WR room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 31 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: I've knocked **** over. Its half of what i do. Solid bases have solid bases. Weak bases have weak bases. Doesn't matter the height. It's a bad analogy. Offense isn't buildings. Defense isn't monsters. They're people. Bigger faster stronger is a mantra for a reason. Sorry you got upset man, just trying to help with 11th grade physics. Frankly, shorter, denser players having a lower center of gravity makes a lot more sense than "they ran out of tall fast guys". Edited January 3 by Sandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 3 hours 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). I think there are basically four scenarios for the Bears holding #1 and which one we end up with depends on a bunch of unknowns. 1) They could get a big offer for the pick, so they go with Fields as the future. 2) They could get a big offer for Fields, so they go with the QB at #1. 3) They could fall in love with one of the QBs, then work to shop Fields. 4) They could fall in love with Fields and work to shop the #1 overall pick, since they probably don't want to take a WR there (a thing that has not happened since 1996 for a reason.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Have a pad and pen available..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWhitehurst Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, Leader said: Knowing how Gute disregarded the WR room for so long, I suspect he's gonna consider it packed to he gills now (and in many ways it is.....) - and - I'd be more than fine with it - IF - Watson could stay healthy. I've seen nothing in his Packer history (and dont have a clue about his college days) that would indicate he can in fact stay healthy. I'm always interested in seeing top line skill position guys added to the roster....but I suspect this will not be the year thats done in the WR room. Agreed. Gute never does what I think he should do in earlier rounds of the draft. (This may be a good thing more often than not. Haha.) And you can't fix all the holes in one draft. I just think a case 'could' be made to take a Watson-type of WR early IF they come to determine his hamstring issues may be irreparably chronic and thus unreliable to play, to gameplan with. I mean, Love's best passer rating was with Watson in the Chiefs game. That's no coincidence. Love needs to improve his floor, but there's no doubt he has a very high ceiling. But he needs that vertical defense stretcher to realize it more often than not. He will likely never be as accurate as Rodgers, but we know he can make off-platform throws most QB's cannot. Having another tall, longspeed go route guy with a large wingspan and good hands can compensate for that. And just for sheer entertainment value--you have an amazing thrower in Love. So get him the WR's he needs for him to reach that ceiling. Yes, the defense has big needs, but I'd argue we first need the right DC/system/coaching/development in place before anything else, rather than just throwing early round picks at the problem every year with no improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Here's a forum going back 7 years trying to answer the same question Do short running backs have an advantage over taller ones? - Quora And an article from a fantasy nerd a few years ago. Exploring Running Back Size - NBC Sports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts