Increases in size by position (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

How would you rank the increase in size (height and weight) among players at all the positions?

QB

RB

FB

TE

WR

T

G

C

DE

DT

LB

DB

Obviously I wish we would break down DB and LB into smaller units, but that's all I've got. What positions have gotten the biggest? The smallest? Are they any positions that are nonlinear? I.e., they were at the biggest sometime awhile ago, but not in the beginning?

 

[delusional]

Safe to say every position got bigger with the exception of RB. I think that stayed pretty much the same.

 

[Thorpe]

Are we judging the increase by pounds and inches? Or by percent?

I'd say QB has gotten the biggest. Then OL, DT, and maybe WR or TE.

 

[Texasmouth]

HGH pretty much rules.

 

[footballguy#1]

My guess is OL has seen the biggest increase and RB and DB have seen the smallest increases.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Here are the sizes of some stud big boys from the 70's & 80's. I think size of the NFL athlete has increased the most at the Lines.

Mike Webster- C- 6'1" - 255

Alan Page - DT - 6'4" - 245

Art Shell - OT - 6'5" - 265

Jack Youngblood - DE - 6'4" - 247

 

[Sweet Love]

I was going to say DT. Back in the day, it was more of a mobile position and now many of them are bigger than the OL they are facing.

 

[Thorpe]

 

[Chase Stuart]

Answers:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=493

 

[Donnybrook]

Question is: Is bigger always better? I believe Bill Polian would disagree.

 

[pizzatyme]

From the title of this thread, I was expecting something totally different in here.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Well done, Chase. Other than the weight/BMI leveling out earlier than I expected for LBs, the results were about what I would have guessed. I agree with all your conclusions with regard to the defensive players.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Gotta love how this thread gets 12 replies.

Sad.

Great job, GBCS.

 

[redman]

DTGTLBWRFBTEDERBCQBDB

That's how I'd rank them.

 

[Christo]

Answers:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=493

Interesting, both defensive ends and defensive lineman have gotten shorter, and a bit shorter in the DT case. The sample size is very low for modern NT, but they’re also about 6-2, just like the average DT. Why? Wait one more table. Linebackers have also gotten shorter — the Zach Thomases and London Fletchers of the world are showing that you don’t need to be 72 inches tall to be a good linebacker.

Funny, I was watching Heaven Can Wait a few weeks ago. In the scene where Farnsworth tries out for the Rams, I was thinking that the defensive linemen all looked tall down in their three-point stances.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Question is: Is bigger always better? I believe Bill Polian would disagree.

Isn't more of a Dungy philosophy than a Polian philosophy?Also, Indy's one recent superbowl came in large part to El Gigante Booger McFarland.

 

[switz]

I think RB has gotten smaller... not as many Campbells, Riggs, etc.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Well done, Chase. Other than the weight/BMI leveling out earlier than I expected for LBs, the results were about what I would have guessed. I agree with all your conclusions with regard to the defensive players.

Thanks a bunch, Jene.

 

[Wu-banger]

.....would be interested in to see how this would play out to NFL starters and not just players entering the draft.

Good info none the less

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I think RB has gotten smaller... not as many Campbells, Riggs, etc.

Pro-football-reference.com lists campbell as 5-11 232. I saw another listing of him at 244Pro-football-reference.com lists G.Riggs as 6-1 230By comparison some of today's RBs (sizes from pfr):Mike Anderson 6-0 230Ronnie Brown 6-0 233Najeh Davenport 6-1 245Ron Dayne 5-10 250TJ Duckett 6-0 254Brandon Jacobs 6-4 256Lamont Jordan 5-10 230Jamal Lewis 5-11 240Deuce McAllister 6-1 232Musa Smith 6-0 232Fred Taylor 6-1 235Michael Turner 5-10 237Lendale White 6-2 240That doesn't even consider fullbacks - just to name a fewGreg Jones 6-1 248 (could be considered a RB/FB)Lorenzo Neal 5-11 255Ovie Mughelli 6-1 260

 

[switz]

I think RB has gotten smaller... not as many Campbells, Riggs, etc.

Pro-football-reference.com lists campbell as 5-11 232. I saw another listing of him at 244Pro-football-reference.com lists G.Riggs as 6-1 230By comparison some of today's RBs (sizes from pfr):Mike Anderson 6-0 230 <-- not a starterRonnie Brown 6-0 233 <-- starter, then injuredNajeh Davenport 6-1 245 <-- never a starterRon Dayne 5-10 250 <-- not a starterTJ Duckett 6-0 254 <-- not a starterBrandon Jacobs 6-4 256 <-- not a starterLamont Jordan 5-10 230 <-- not a starterJamal Lewis 5-11 240 <-- good RBDeuce McAllister 6-1 232 <-- split timeMusa Smith 6-0 232 <-- not a starterFred Taylor 6-1 235 <-- good RBMichael Turner 5-10 237 <-- not a starterLendale White 6-2 240 <-- not a starter, split timeThat doesn't even consider fullbacks - just to name a fewGreg Jones 6-1 248 (could be considered a RB/FB)Lorenzo Neal 5-11 255Ovie Mughelli 6-1 260

I posted that before looking at the breakdown. But in general, I would say that RBs are still a bit smaller today than a few years back. At least the stud RBs are, you don't often see a big RB having success like they used to. Also, a lot of guys listed as FB in the 70's carried the ball more often than guys listed as FBs do today.Seems like the big backs today get injured very frequently. Most of the great RBs today are a bit shorter than they used to be.