B10 Fit

[robsker]

I disagree with the entire premise that players are so much "bigger and tougher" in the Big Ten.

 

 

That they are bigger is not an issue for opinion. Their RB's average 219 pounds --- our RB's for next year --- Rex (202), Aaron green (185) are much smaller. The B10 OLB'ers are 230 on average --- we have L. David at 205-210 or so) E. Martin at 215, S. Fisher at what 205? Their MLBers' are 250 on average. Compton is our heaviest and he is perhaps 230. No... there is no doubt that the B10 is a "bigger" conference. No opinion. Fact.

 

Tougher? Who knows.. But 20 hits a game to your QB when those hitting him are comparable in size up to perhaps 20 pounds heaver versus 20 hits a game against guys weighing 30-45 pounds more than your QB... that is quite a difference.

 

I think few would logically argue against the notion that the B10 teams that are much larger are more physical than the teams we lined up against, on average, this year.

 

I don't think you're giving enough credit to the size of NU's linebackers. Fisher is close to 230lbs (he is just freakin' tall), Martin is in the range of 235-245lbs, Whaley is in the 225 area. I don't have a roster in front of me, just going off of memory. I will see if I can find a current roster and post. If anyone has one saved, please post. I may or may not be wrong

 

 

Really? You might be right... I do not have the NU roster in front of me now... But I thought Fisher was a skinny 205 - 210 tops. Maybe I am wrong. By the way... roster weights are, of course, suspect. In any event, Fisher was definitely NOT a physical player when on the field. I thought Martin was perhaps 225 - 230. If you are right (and you might be) then that is better.

[RedNLeader]

I mean take a look at gnomes trying to tackle the iowa st tight-end during saturdays game it was not an easy task at all...but bo and carl will figure things out

[RedDenver]

As someone else mentioned, the B10 reminds me of the late 80's Huskers - big and muscled; while we remind me of the late 80's FSU - lean and fast. Keep in mind that the SEC has run by the B10 in several title games this decade. Bigger isn't always better. Look at how Michigan's smaller, faster offense is absolutely destroying the rest of the conference.

[robsker]

What are the ave. sizes for the big 12?

 

 

That I have not seen... but they are bigger than NU and smaller than the average B10. At least that is what the article I am drawing from implies. Specifically, The article that gave the 219 RB, 230 OLB, 250 MLB numbers for the B10 and stated that they were "much bigger" than the B12 --- and the gist was that the B10 was slower and bigger and the B12 was faster and smaller and that this would make an interesting situation when NU joins the B10 as they stated that NU was small and fast --- even by B12 standards. The content from the article (in a Wisconsin newspaper) whose content was relayed to be a friend there basically said that it would be interesting to see how the B10 handles the NU speed (on O and D) and how NU handles the B10 physicality. This got me thinking... and hence the post.

[Paxo]

I disagree with the entire premise that players are so much "bigger and tougher" in the Big Ten.

 

 

That they are bigger is not an issue for opinion. Their RB's average 219 pounds --- our RB's for next year --- Rex (202), Aaron green (185) are much smaller. The B10 OLB'ers are 230 on average --- we have L. David at 205-210 or so) E. Martin at 215, S. Fisher at what 205? Their MLBers' are 250 on average. Compton is our heaviest and he is perhaps 230. No... there is no doubt that the B10 is a "bigger" conference. No opinion. Fact.

 

Tougher? Who knows.. But 20 hits a game to your QB when those hitting him are comparable in size up to perhaps 20 pounds heaver versus 20 hits a game against guys weighing 30-45 pounds more than your QB... that is quite a difference.

 

I think few would logically argue against the notion that the B10 teams that are much larger are more physical than the teams we lined up against, on average, this year.

 

But you're comparing the Big 10 averages to just Nebraska. What about averages for the Big 12? I glanced through the depth charts of both conferences and I didn't see a significant difference at any position except running back. Average LB's seems to be around 230-240 lbs in both conferences. The size of the running backs is my biggest concern.

[Vizsla1]

The Big 10 has produced 3 national championship teams in 29 years. We have fared well against Big 10 teams in our bowl games 3-1 during that same period. I realize we are in a different era, but the size difference does not scare me as much as the schedule that lies ahead. Bo and company will adapt, but I do not anticipate that we get away from speed and strength vs bigger guys. I may be completely wrong and that's why I do most of my coaching from the armchair and after the games. i look like a genius.

[clone]

the huskers will fit in just fine in the B10.

 

It is a truly gruelling schedule, Depth is critical.

[Enhance]

If I did my math correctly, all of the linebackers on our roster currently average 223 lb. Of the 15 we have, all but two are under the year of Junior. Martin weighs in at 240, Fisher at 235, and Compton at 225. All three of those guys have at least two more years in our system. David is at 210 right now but still has room to gain muscle mass over the off season.

 

For comparison, Ohio State (the team I think we can all agree has been the best overall in the Big 10 the last few years) averages 224.5 lbs. per linebacker. They also have more upperclassmen which means they've spent more time in the weight room.

 

As far as running backs go, Green may come into Nebraska at 185 but you can bet your butt that it will not be his playing weight. Many great running backs had weight in the 200 area. I believe Lawrence Phillips started the '95 season at 205, and had two amazing games right in a row at that weight.

[knapplc]

The premise of this thread is that size = good, and that's not true at all. SPEED is what the game is all about, and has been for 20 years.

 

Although having speed is not a bad thing. Yes we really beat the tar out of people in the 80s early 90s, but remember those Fla teams just running away from us. TO went to faster guys and look what happened. Not to discount size, I think we need more of it, but speed will always be a factor.

 

Bingo! Size alone, strength alone, do not mean anything without speed. Ohio State learned this and won a championship recently, but frankly, almost none of the other teams in the Big 10 have focused on speed in recruiting. A lot of teams rely on "three yards and a cloud of dust" to win games still, and that is not going to cut it these days.

 

Watch Dennard Robinson streak away from Big 10 LBs and DBs, and imagine Martinez, Burkhead and Reed doing the same thing.

 

On defense, we'll shelve the Peso for most of the season and run a base 4-3, with a line featuring three returning starters and an intact LB corps. Our pass defense will take a hit without Amukamara, Gomes and Hagg, but we'll be just fine with Evans, Dennard and Osborne.

 

Next year's schedule is really tough, but nothing we can't handle.

[ICT HSKR 10]

As someone else mentioned, the B10 reminds me of the late 80's Huskers - big and muscled; while we remind me of the late 80's FSU - lean and fast. Keep in mind that the SEC has run by the B10 in several title games this decade. Bigger isn't always better. Look at how Michigan's smaller, faster offense is absolutely destroying the rest of the conference.

 

Too bad their defense gives up as much as the offense can put up haha

[HuskerNLimbo]

I think you may be giving the whole Big Ten too much credit for being bigger. Let's be honest, there are three teams in the Big Ten right now that I would consider physical: Wisconsin, Iowa, and quasi Ohio State. In that order. Michigan State has a nice offense, but I would not refer to it as ram it down your throat football.

 

As far as physical defenses go, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa, are your best in the conference. Not all teams in the big x are trying to beat you with physicality.

 

I don't think that the ave size of Big Ten players has a correlation on how well we will do against them. Bigger is not always better. IE Ohio State the last four bowl games they've played. Florida, LSU, Texas, and Oregon.

 

It will, however, be fun to watch what happens with the transition.

[Caven]

As someone else mentioned, the B10 reminds me of the late 80's Huskers - big and muscled; while we remind me of the late 80's FSU - lean and fast. Keep in mind that the SEC has run by OSU in several title games this decade. Bigger isn't always better. Look at how Michigan's smaller, faster offense is absolutely destroying the rest of the conference.

 

Fixed that for you. For the most part in the Big 10 vs. SEC bowl games the Big 10 has more than held their own. The Big 10 is 11-9 against the SEC when you take out OSU in the title games over the last decade (unless I missed a bowl game where we were matched up which is entire possible).

[jas11]

A majority of the teams in the Big Ten use some version of the spread offense. It's not just a 3 yards and a cloud of dust league anymore.

[RedDenver]

As someone else mentioned, the B10 reminds me of the late 80's Huskers - big and muscled; while we remind me of the late 80's FSU - lean and fast. Keep in mind that the SEC has run by OSU in several title games this decade. Bigger isn't always better. Look at how Michigan's smaller, faster offense is absolutely destroying the rest of the conference.

 

Fixed that for you. For the most part in the Big 10 vs. SEC bowl games the Big 10 has more than held their own. The Big 10 is 11-9 against the SEC when you take out OSU in the title games over the last decade (unless I missed a bowl game where we were matched up which is entire possible).

I'm not saying the B10 hasn't been competitive. I'm pointing out, while the original poster is concerned with us being undersized, that the SEC has done quite well against the B10's best with smaller, faster players.

[knapplc]

A majority of the teams in the Big Ten use some version of the spread offense. It's not just a 3 yards and a cloud of dust league anymore.

 

The Spread as run in the Big 10 is not nearly as prolific as the Spread run by Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas and (at times) Oklahoma and Texas over the past several years. They're not even in the same galaxy. Entirely different athletes with entirely different levels of speed.

 

It's a fallacy to think the Big 10 is this slow, plodding conference that Nebraska is going to run circles around, and I probably overstated that "three yards and a cloud of dust" comment, but the reality is that we have greater overall team speed than most teams we'll face next year.