Ideal position sizes

[Redmusky]

I’m interested in the ideal physical size each position should be on both the lines and in the defensive positions LBs and DBs. A number of schools look like there is no rhythm or reason to a players physical make up in size or speed.

We have offered on the line this year from 6 ft to 6-7, LBs under six ft to well over 6ft.

I realize speed is a number factor in a lot of cases but even that greatly differs.

[kchusker_chris]

I’m interested in the ideal physical size each position should be on both the lines and in the defensive positions LBs and DBs. A number of schools look like there is no rhythm or reason to a players physical make up in size or speed.

We have offered on the line this year from 6 ft to 6-7, LBs under six ft to well over 6ft.

I realize speed is a number factor in a lot of cases but even that greatly differs.

 

Depends on the scheme. I've noticed as teams migrate toward the spread their offensive linemen get taller and quicker. (with the exception of maybe center) Long arms helps fill those gaps, and they are moving more during run/pass blocking so they need to be quicker, especially in pass protection. If you look at a school like Georgia Tech, their OL generally maxes out at about 6'4. They can get under defensive linemen better and get that push they need for an option/run attack, whereas an offense that depends on the pass like cincinatti or tech have had a number of 6'6"-6'7" recruits over the last 5 years.

 

I think you'd have a hard time finding any sort of "norm" though. Like you said, it ranges drastically. It probably has a lot to do w/ the preference of the coaching. The linemen probably fall into a partern of some sort. Everyone covetts that 6'5" QB. As for RB, I don't see much of a reason why a 5'7" guy can't perform as well a 6'2" guy. Tall receivers like Dez Bryant are optimal, but speedy guys like that 5'7 kid from K-State do just fine as well (when they catch the balls thrown to them anyway). Personally I'd rather not have a team of 5'9" CB's trying to guard 6'3" recievers, but some of those little guys can really jump. IMHO it's a case-by-case evaluation as long as they don't fall way out of the norms.

[whateveritis1224]

WR's your optimal size will be the 6'3"-6'5", but you're mostly looking at speed, route running, and overall quickness. Look at what Jackson did for the Eagles this year, and if you got what he has no matter your size, you could succeed pretty much anywhere. CB's probably in the 6'0"-6'2" range. Any taller and I guess the general consensus is that your body gets stiffer and you can't make the cuts the CBs need to stay with receivers. A lot of the CB position is the CB turning their hips and being able to react and run with WRs. Any shorter and the CB will have trouble guarding the taller WRs.

 

RBs any taller than 6'2 or 6'3 and they might as well be either WRs or TEs.

 

QBs can practically be any size, but with the sizes of today's O-linemen any shorter that what Brees is and they'll start having trouble seeing over them and to the receivers.

[n.e.husker]

coaches look at the kid and his frame, if he will be able to carry a certain amount of weight, for example, a highschool safety at 200 lbs with bigger frame can carry more weight, so coach sticks him in the weight room and puts on 25 lbs or so and moves to line backer.

 

Just a quick example. It all depends on how that player is viewed by coaches and the needs of the team.