Toggle sidebar

Where does it stop?

T

TommyMac

Hall of Fame
Apr 24, 2001
14,039
33
0
85
Mobile, Alabama
I'm talking about the size of football players. Reading my Phil Steele mag the other day and no matter what team you're talking about, they all have tons (pun intended) of 300+ lb. linemen. Heck, a 300 lb. lineman is almost considered considered anemic. 320-340 lbs. is more the norm.

Folks, a 300 lb. human being used to be a real rarity and would draw attention whereever they went. Now, they hardly draw a 2nd glance. Geez, BAMA used to win NC's with O-Lines that barely averaged 200 lbs. They were called "BAMA's Tiny Giants", even had a song about them. They gave up 30-40 lbs. routinely and won, which leads to my question.

Why do we have to "keep up with the Joneses"? I'm not suggesting that we go back to 200 lb. linemen, but couldn't an O-Line of leaner, quicker 280-285 lbers. get the job done even if they had to give away 30-40 or even 50 lbs. I gotta believe they could, especially in the 4th quarter when those big old boys are probably getting a little tired if they've been lugging around 25-30 lbs. of fat for 3 quarters.

John Hannah and Dwight Stephenson excelled at 260-265 lbs. and I guarantee they'd be dominant even today with their quickness and explosiveness. It's almost impossible to compensate for superior quickness. In the 67 Sugar Bowl, our quick little kids owned the LOS all day against Nebraska's big ole cornfed boys. The NU D-Linemen said that our kids were so quick and blocked at such precise angles that they could hardly get out oftheir tracks before our kids were across the LOS and had them blocked.

Seems like we got into this bulk over quickness style during Dubose's tenure. Of course, he didn't bother to get them in shape, so that just made it all the worse. I'm all for bigger players if their size is natural and they carry it well. I just don't think mass for the sake of mass is the best way to go, especially if it hurts a player's quickness and athleticism.

Don Shula generally seemed to favor smaller, quicker, more explosive linemen and I'm wondering if CMS is gonna take a page from Poppa's book. I've noticed that he seems to like to recruit TE's which are capable of playing other positions and are generally a little more athletic than most O-Linemen out of HS. Seems like a good plan to me.

What do y'all think? Is bigger necessarily better?
 
I think you're right about a smaller, quicker OL doing just as well as a 340 lb giant. I remember BAMA's last NC in 1992; I believe the o-line averaged about 270 lbs. and the offense routinely put up 300 yards rushing. I do believe Coach Shula likes the leaner, quicker athlete on both the offensive and defensive lines. I may be totally off, but that's the way it looks by who he's recruiting and the direction the S&C program is going. :biga2:
 
TommyMac, I believe you are on the right track so to speak. Fast and quick is hard to beat regardless your position. Hell fire, I'm 6 foot and 6 inches tall and weighed at the doc's office the other day at allmost 300 LBs.

I'm not blubbery but I'll testify that quickness is not my strength. Of course after 42 years of hard back breaking work I'm not exactly in my prime.

But your right! We need lean mean fighting machine's, compared to lumbersome cumbersome slow wide loads!

:biga2: ROLL TIDE ROLL :biga2:
 
Where doe it stop

No question. I am in agreement 100%. In the nfl there are examples of guys just like you describe making pro bowl after pro bowl. With the right coaching and scheme the quicker man wins the great majority of the time. The '66 team was a great example as you point out. LSU and Kentucky had 300 pounders who along with those from Nebraska made great pro players and our guys dominated them. Coach Bryant used to moan about how his little guys were in for it this week. He said he wouldn't blame any of them for not wanting to play such big boys. We know it was a psyche that worked for him/Bama but also may have necessary to get the other team over confident so they would get frustrated when they would be unable to carry out their assignments.

I still remember the giant husker linemen going off the field shaking their heads and getting in arguments with the coaching staff because they couldn't do anything with our guys. Then Stabler sliced them up the rest of the way. I honestly feel that was the greatest college football team I ever saw. What a joy to watch. I believe a chisled in shape 280 pounder with proper technique can beat those bigger guys all day.

RTR
:p
 
Tommy Mac, you sound like Coach Bryant in the '60's (I was there 61-66).
We had a big tackle then, bigger than any other lineman on the team, named Steve Wright who never did start for Bama but went on to a good career in the NFL.
CMS and Johnston have both said they prefer to take lean players and build them up to where they want them than try to trim down a big man.
If we can continue to build an "athletic" team it certainly can't hurt.
 
It seemed to have worked very well in Denver. The Bronco O line has been "undersized" for a while under Shanahan. They seem to run well with nearly any back, and when they had a qb who could see past his hand, didn't loose in pass protection. Heck, they even won a couple of Super Bowls didn't they?!
 
Bamatree said:
Tommy Mac, you sound like Coach Bryant in the '60's (I was there 61-66).
We had a big tackle then, bigger than any other lineman on the team, named Steve Wright who never did start for Bama but went on to a good career in the NFL.
CMS and Johnston have both said they prefer to take lean players and build them up to where they want them than try to trim down a big man.
If we can continue to build an "athletic" team it certainly can't hurt.
Click to expand...


Wasn't Steve Wright the a-hole who wrote the book "I'd Rather Be Wright" in which he cut down Coach Bryant? I read parts of it and it was soooo obvious that it was sour grapes and frustration over not being able to measure up to Coach's standards. He's the ONLY guy I've ever heard of who bad-mouthed The Coach afterplaying for him. Or in Wright's case, riding the pines for him. Anyway, it was his loss that he couldn't appreciate the opportunity he missed out on.
 
I think it's partially due to the fact guys are bigger

now than ever. If you look back in the 1920s, your basic OL was about 6' and 200 lbs. Gradually, Offensive linemen have gotten bigger and bigger. Generally, the population as a whole has gotten bigger over the years and I don't mean fat either. People, as a whole, are taller and bigger than ever.

I also don't think that just because a guy is over 300 lbs that he's necessarily slow or not quick. Strength and conditioning now is light years ahead of what those programs were in the 1960s. As such, it's very possible to be over 300 lbs and be very quick and have brute strength.

Finally, when it comes to needing a yard or less for a first down or TD, I want a gigantic O line. 9 times out 10, if those O linemen are in shape, they're going to whip that D line and get that first down.
 
Hanna, if he played today, would be around 300lbs. Big John worked on his legs and not upper body. Today, he would do both. Lines today must have quickness which is why I'm excited about the Mathis move. But today's lineman also have size, run 4.9/5.0 40s and posses quickness.

That’s why the TE that comes in at 255-265lbs makes the move to OL...at 295 though!
 
I'll readily concede that we're in an age of much bigger football players and that's not gonna change. My contention is that most of today's jumbo sized linemen are carrying a lot of unnecessary weight that detrimental later in the game. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an 18-22 year old kid that's say, 6'5", 340 lbs. that's in good shape. By that, I mean that his body-fat percentage isn't on the high side.
 
good point bamajags

GoBamaJags said:
It seemed to have worked very well in Denver. The Bronco O line has been "undersized" for a while under Shanahan. They seem to run well with nearly any back, and when they had a qb who could see past his hand, didn't loose in pass protection. Heck, they even won a couple of Super Bowls didn't they?!
Click to expand...

i was thinking the same thing about denver's o-lines under shanahan. but is it because denver used a lot more pulling linemen who needed speed and agility, rather than say the 90's cowboys, which had massive o-linemen who pushed running plays straight at the d-line?

i don't know, i'm just asking, but it would seem that the size v. agility for o-linemen issue would turn largely (no pun intended) upon the things you ask those players to do within your system.

i do think, however, that smaller linemen on both sides of the ball probably suffer fewer hip, knee, and ankle injuries than do their larger counterparts. after all, the body is only designed to carry so much weight.

RTR
 
Broncos line

Good points on the Broncos. They won both Super Bowls with the smallest average OL in the League. They consistently rank in the top of the league in rushing, year in and year out, with multiple running backs. There seems to be 2 primary reasons for this 1) the blocking schemes and techiniques used by the OL of which smaller, quicker and good technique are key, and 2) Shanahan is committed to the running game. He uses a strong run to set up the pass, also his receivers are good down field blockers (i.e. Ed McCafferey). The downside is the pass blocking, but his system can overcome this with a mobile quarterback (Elway, Plummer) using rollouts, naked boot legs etc. That was one of the reasons for the falloff in performance after Elway retired, Brian Griese was very immobile and didn't fit the system. Sorry to digress, this isnt a Broncos Board.
My point is the typical D lineman in college is 280-300 and quickeness and technique, with or without excessive bulk, can go along way to controlling the LOS. I think Fran's approach and schemes favored big, powerful linemen who could drive the DL back, they may not be the scheme or approach taken by CMS.

RTR
 
I think the question is actually which is better between girth or size, especially at the takle position. I played guard in high school, at Vestavia, at 5'6 170, (those were the days). And I actually had moderate success, which makes me think that an undersized interior lineman may actually have an advantage. He doesnt have to get as low to get underneath a rushing defender. (See Alonzo Ephraim..6'4 is not that big, relativley speaking). But I think at the Tackle position, the bigger, the better, especially in terms of height and wing span. A defender has to rush mighty wide to get around a 6'7 frame..(Chris Samuels/Roosevelt Paterson/Wesley Britt). At the same time, that Tackle has to have quick feet to keep up with the speed of todays DE's. So I guess my thought is that height is more important than weight, but ultimatley, speed and quickness rule. :biga2:
 
You can't compare the linemen of yesteryear to today and here is why>

First, we ran a wishbone that called for guys to RUN BLOCK 99.9% of the time and that offense required a smaller faster person. Today, we're running a pro-set offense, which requires as much as 60% pass blocking and a much more stout and bigger linemen. What Coach Shula is doing is actually keeping the height of the guys, but building their strength and stamina and yet losing some weight. I'll bet our guys won't be much over 310 when all is said and done this year. Oh sure, we'll have some guys pushing the 330 range, but after summer camp I'm guessing most of our guys will be in the 305 to 315 range, but with really quick feet.

The biggest factor however, in the size is just the fact that PEOPLE today are much bigger than even 20 years ago. Today, I would guess the average height of a man is over 5'9", while that was the average height of a man when I was in my late teens and early 20's in the 70's and early 80's.
 
There are athletes now that are 340 pounds that are quick, in good shape, have little fat, and play with finesse. These are not the 340 pound fat linemen Mississippi St had in the 90's. If that were the case I'd agree. I would rather have a big strong quick 280 lb lineman than a fat slow 340, but now you can get 340lb lineman that are mobile, although they are not common.

Defensive linemen have grown in size and quickness too. If you weighed 200 pounds you could out finesse a 240 pound DT, not anymore. Defensive linemen are big and fast so you must have big fast OL to block them. If that weren't the case, and all you had to do was overpower the opposition, Bart Raulston would have been an All-American OT.

It takes a combination of both size and agility. It's not one or the other, and often the term "undersized" is used in reference to 270 - 280 lb linemen, hardly small and not that far from 300lbs. A truly undersized lineman, in the 240 - 260 range would have a hard time in the SEC regardless of agility, ability, and strength.

Hannah and Stephenson at 265 were probably in the upper 1-2% as far as weight goes, at the time they played. Who was bigger? They would have to a little bigger now (280 - 285) and proabably would be with today's S&C programs.
 
The linemen today, looking at a lot of High School teams around here every Friday night, seem to be big AND quick. Contrary to that, though, a lot of recruiting boards and the like are quick to add a little weight or shave a little off the 40 time for a kid. Makes 'em look a little more appetizing.

I like the old way of thinking that if a kid is smaller and quicker, he is going to beat a bigger, slower kid. The school where I teach won a State Championship this past year and won with the smaller, quicker boys. Guys played their assignments and blocked at precise angles. This gave our running backs time to find holes and allowed our receivers to get open on precise routes. Now, granted, we played Tennessee 1A, but our regular season schedule consisted of not one 1A school escept in our region. we played 1 2A school, 1 3A school, 2 4A schools, and 1 Division II school, which in Tennessee is a school that can recruit and offer a kid a scholarship. By the time we got to the post season, we couldn't lose.

Roll Tide!!
ChattTide
 
The one thing a lot of posters seem to be assuming is that we are going to face opponents who are bigger AND slower.
We are not. They will big, and they will be fast.

This is not 1975 and the defensive lines we face, except maybe for Utah St, will not be comprised of 240lb white guys, or 350lb sumo wrestlers. They will be lean 300 pounders that run sub 4.9 40's.
 
Last edited:
bnhonest said:
I think the question is actually which is better between girth or size, especially at the takle position. I played guard in high school, at Vestavia, at 5'6 170, (those were the days). And I actually had moderate success, which makes me think that an undersized interior lineman may actually have an advantage. He doesnt have to get as low to get underneath a rushing defender. (See Alonzo Ephraim..6'4 is not that big, relativley speaking). But I think at the Tackle position, the bigger, the better, especially in terms of height and wing span. A defender has to rush mighty wide to get around a 6'7 frame..(Chris Samuels/Roosevelt Paterson/Wesley Britt). At the same time, that Tackle has to have quick feet to keep up with the speed of todays DE's. So I guess my thought is that height is more important than weight, but ultimatley, speed and quickness rule. :biga2:
Click to expand...

Ephraim is a good example, but I would not make comparisons to high school. I was an all-county offensive guard at 6'3" 185. I do not recall ever blocking anyone as tall or taller than myself and many opposing DT's never crossed the LOS. So just on my own experience I would say height is better, just the opposite of your conclusions. But our other guard at 5'8" 140 blocked Scott Cross, Howard Cross' 6'4" 260lb "little" brother, all night when we played New Hope. In high school, ability, attitude, technique, coaching, and intelligence can make up for huge differences in size and strength (the same was true in the early days of college football) so except maybe for the elite programs, there is no set formula that can be applied in high school football so there is no way to stretch any conclusions to college football.
 
In today's game, size IS important, imo. Quickness and nimbleness are important too, but coaches want 300 pounders up front for a reason--to be able to drive block to open up holes for rb's and at the same time be able to pass block for the qb. A clear size advantage enables you to do that better. Larry Allen of the Dallas Cowboys would be what I would consider to be the gold standard--he's huge(335 lbs.) but can also dance around on the los if he has to. If I'm a coach, I would take all the 300 lb. guys that are in shape I could get. Like Barry Switzer used to say, if you ain't got size, you ain't got nothin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back