Defensive Player Prototypes

[call_me_ishmael]

This is going to be a stream of consciousness, so bear with me please.

It seems to me that the size of players is changing rapidly. I used to always think you wanted big linebacker, 6'3" or taller weighing between 240-260 lbs. Seattle and SF have highly effective linebackers that are significantly smaller, though. Seattle has several starting backers who are 6'0". That seems really short, but perhaps they can run like birds. Navarro Bowman is another example of an uber successful shorty at 6'0".

There was a discussion on these boards yesterday about how a 6'6" DT would be too tall and would have a tough time playing with proper leverage. Is this a new thing? I think back to the John Henderson Marcus Stroud dominating DT duo in Jacksonville a few years back where both guys were dominating giants, like 6'8". It would seem to me that you want as tall and long of linemen as possible, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Does size really matter that much? Would a 6'1" LB who can run like the wind, tackle well and cover be more desirable than a 6'3" guy who may get beat occasionally in coverage?

Remember a few years ago in the days of Sean Taylor when every team was looking for a 6'2", 220 lbs safety that could run alright? It seems that in the past 3-4 years many of the first round pick safeties have shrunk up a bit and have gotten faster. This is a little surprising with the rise of the uber, unblockable gigantic tight end. You would think you'd want bigger safeties in todays game.

What are the qualities that make guys like Bowman and the shorter SEA so effective and dominating?

Discuss.

[mraynrand]

"Would a 6'1" LB who can run like the wind, tackle well and cover be more desirable than a 6'3" guy who may get beat occasionally in coverage?"
AJ Hawk: 6 ft 1 in, 248 lb, 4.59 s
Willis: 6 ft 1 in, 24o lb, 4.39 s (pro day)

Anything is more desirable than the 6'1" LB who gets beat all the time in coverage and can't make a play. I'll go with: SMALLER, FASTER, WEAKER!! - as long as they can tackle and make more than one great play per season.

[Striker]

"Would a 6'1" LB who can run like the wind, tackle well and cover be more desirable than a 6'3" guy who may get beat occasionally in coverage?"
AJ Hawk: 6 ft 1 in, 248 lb, 4.59 s
Willis: 6 ft 1 in, 24o lb, 4.39 s (pro day)

Anything is more desirable than the 6'1" LB who gets beat all the time in coverage and can't make a play. I'll go with: SMALLER, FASTER, WEAKER!! - as long as they can tackle and make more than one great play per season.

Pretty much this.

Though it does matter a bit more in the secondary to have taller DBs...especially with the size of some of the WRs and TEs these days.

[call_me_ishmael]

"Would a 6'1" LB who can run like the wind, tackle well and cover be more desirable than a 6'3" guy who may get beat occasionally in coverage?"
AJ Hawk: 6 ft 1 in, 248 lb, 4.59 s
Willis: 6 ft 1 in, 24o lb, 4.39 s (pro day)

Anything is more desirable than the 6'1" LB who gets beat all the time in coverage and can't make a play. I'll go with: SMALLER, FASTER, WEAKER!! - as long as they can tackle and make more than one great play per season.

Interesting that Willis is that short. Never would have guessed that. I think Ray Lewis was also about that height. Maybe height doesn't matter much for ILBs as I thought. Won't they struggle to get off blockers with their tiny arms? Height seems like it'd be preferable.

[smuggler]

It's actually convenient for your INSIDE backers to be a little on the short side because it makes them less visible to potential blockers. Of course, they'll have a height disadvantage against TEs, but who doesn't?

[packrulz]

This is why Chris Borland of the Badgers interests me, his height might cause him to slip to the 3rd or 4th round, depending on how he does at the combine. http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings...014&genpos=ILB

[woodbuck27]

"Would a 6'1" LB who can run like the wind, tackle well and cover be more desirable than a 6'3" guy who may get beat occasionally in coverage?"
AJ Hawk: 6 ft 1 in, 248 lb, 4.59 s
Willis: 6 ft 1 in, 24o lb, 4.39 s (pro day)

Anything is more desirable than the 6'1" LB who gets beat all the time in coverage and can't make a play. I'll go with: SMALLER, FASTER, WEAKER!! - as long as they can tackle and make more than one great play per season.

Yes...and certainly.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

This is why Chris Borland of the Badgers interests me, his height might cause him to slip to the 3rd or 4th round, depending on how he does at the combine. http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings...014&genpos=ILB

Tough call. I enjoyed watching him with the badgers, and he sure seems to have a nose for the ball, but he is turtle slow, so won't he be a liability in our scheme?

[run pMc]

Bob McGinn will get to roll out his small/soft theme again. Oh goody.

Seattle's LB's are very fast. GB's ILBs aren't nearly as speedy and it hurts them. I have nightmares of Hawk trying to cover checkdowns to Reggie Bush and Darren Sproles. They could use somebody there with some range/pass coverage skills, and overall better sideline-to-sideline/pursuit speed. Good instincts make a big difference.
It could be argued that had Hawk and Willis been in the same draft, Willis would have been picked first.

For DL, I'd think shorter would give you a leverage advantage, especially on goal-line/3or4th-and-short situations where it helps to get low. The trouble is most 6'0" DL are at an arm length disadvantage against a 6'4" OL...unless they have monkey arms or crazy quickness. Having taller DL helps block QB vision and passing lanes a little better. I think it's OK to have a mixture of body types on the DL, but for the 3-4 base I'd expect you'd want a fatty in the middle (like Pickett or Raji size) and a couple of guys who look like Datone Jones (6'4"+, 290+) on the edges. Subpackages and obvious passing downs would allow for some variation, especially if you have a Mike Daniels type who can be disruptive and effective in limited snaps.

[RashanGary]

Since defense has a lot to do with reacting and changing direction, it would make sense that shorter players dominate.

[RashanGary]

5'11" - 6' is prototype safety
6' - 6'1" is prototype ilb

[Cheesehead Craig]

The game has evolved from power to speed. So therefore the body types must also change. Height is not so much of a detriment as lack of speed is. You can have a shorter DB, but if he can jump and keep up with the speedster WRs, he'll be fine.

There certainly will be a place for larger bodies on defense, such as the DL. Outside of the DL though, you better have speed.

[Bossman641]

Bob McGinn has taught me that bigger is always better than smaller.

In reality, I think it's more important to have speed at the LB and DB levels than it is to have any type of size thresholds. With the increase in mobile QB's, the read option, and teams going to 3 and 4 WR wide open offenses there is more of an emphasis on safeties who can run. Maybe in the past you wanted a bigger safety who could lay out guys coming across the middle, but those routes are protected now anyways.

I think the ideal would be to have bigger DL who can keep your LB's clean, and then favor speed at the LB and DB positions.

[red]

i prefer bigger faster players

guess i'm in the minority

[mraynrand]

i prefer bigger faster players

guess i'm in the minority

Yeah, and I like 6' 3" athletic women with large breasts and thin waistlines. Trouble is, she's already taken.