Top 20 College RB's... (1 Viewer)

[Warpig]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi...1.html?bcnn=yes

Wow! Some of those guys look small! And for those of you that say Norwood is too small and Irons is too small...

Darren McFadden (ranked #1) - 6'2", 205 lbs!!! That my friends, is somewhat "lanky" for an NFL RB!

I think Ian Johnson will be a 3rd or 4th round RB at best.

I'll be keeping my eye on "The Wisconsin Winnebago".

 

[Andy Dufresne]

McFadden will put on about 10-15 when he turns pro, so I don't think it'll be a problem.

Steve Slaton at 195 lbs on the other hand...

 

[jbz]

Watch McFadden play and see if you consider him too lanky. He'll be fine. But yeah, a lot of those guys are considered "small" by common NFL standards. I think we have to throw those standards out soon as it's being proven that you don't need to be the proto-typical size to be successful in the NFL.

 

[switz]

Watch McFadden play and see if you consider him too lanky. He'll be fine. But yeah, a lot of those guys are considered "small" by common NFL standards. I think we have to throw those standards out soon as it's being proven that you don't need to be the proto-typical size to be successful in the NFL.

Actually, the proto-typical size is just changing...Bigger RBs seem to have less and less succes as defensive players get faster and faster.

 

[freshly_shorn]

Watch McFadden play and see if you consider him too lanky. He'll be fine. But yeah, a lot of those guys are considered "small" by common NFL standards. I think we have to throw those standards out soon as it's being proven that you don't need to be the proto-typical size to be successful in the NFL.

Actually, the proto-typical size is just changing...Bigger RBs seem to have less and less succes as defensive players get faster and faster.

The tendency to have RBBCs is opening the door for these fast, smaller guys, too.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Watch McFadden play and see if you consider him too lanky. He'll be fine. But yeah, a lot of those guys are considered "small" by common NFL standards. I think we have to throw those standards out soon as it's being proven that you don't need to be the proto-typical size to be successful in the NFL.

It doesn't hurt though. I think guys like Reggie Bush, Willie Parker (who else is a feature back under 210 lbs?) are the exception rather than the rule.If anything, I think the trend is toward bigger backs - guys like Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson.Edit: Ohhh. This could be a fun discussion!

 

[jbz]

Watch McFadden play and see if you consider him too lanky. He'll be fine. But yeah, a lot of those guys are considered "small" by common NFL standards. I think we have to throw those standards out soon as it's being proven that you don't need to be the proto-typical size to be successful in the NFL.

Actually, the proto-typical size is just changing...Bigger RBs seem to have less and less succes as defensive players get faster and faster.

true dat. but you still see guys getting knocked for being 5'9 instead of 6'0, stuff like that. i do see the trend changing though as smaller RBs have been getting drafted earlier (DeAngelo Williams, Reggie Bush, Caddy, etc)

 

[jbz]

Watch McFadden play and see if you consider him too lanky. He'll be fine. But yeah, a lot of those guys are considered "small" by common NFL standards. I think we have to throw those standards out soon as it's being proven that you don't need to be the proto-typical size to be successful in the NFL.

It doesn't hurt though. I think guys like Reggie Bush, Willie Parker (who else is a feature back under 210 lbs?) are the exception rather than the rule.If anything, I think the trend is toward bigger backs - guys like Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson.Edit: Ohhh. This could be a fun discussion!

lol, yeah conflicting opinions right off the bat! For every Steven Jackson/LJ/McGahee/AD there's a DeAngelo Willams/Bush/Gore/Addai. Should be interesting to see how it plays out as guys like Slaton, Ray Rice, Mike Hart, etc are all kinda small (at least in height)

 

[Andy Dufresne]

lol, yeah conflicting opinions right off the bat! For every Steven Jackson/LJ/McGahee/AD there's a DeAngelo Willams/Bush/Gore/Addai. Should be interesting to see how it plays out as guys like Slaton, Ray Rice, Mike Hart, etc are all kinda small (at least in height)

Of that second list of backs, only Bush is less than 215 and Frank Gore is nearly 225 lbs.

 

[jbz]

yeah i know, i put height in there after (regarding the college guys). lot of them bulked up after getting into the NFL too. in general, they're considered non-prototype size is basically what i was trying to say

 

[Jiggyonthehut]

These rankings are laughable.

 

[John Mamula]

These rankings are laughable.

about as lazy as you can get, just looking at last year.

 

[GOroute]

BEANIE WELLS!

 

[vandyt]

This just in....

Some great college RBs have trouble making it in the pros because of their size.

News at 11.

 

[GoinDeep]

Emmitt played at 205 - 211...he held up rather well. I think coaches use the size of a player as an excuse too often without giving them the opportunity to perform.

 

[switz]

lol, yeah conflicting opinions right off the bat! For every Steven Jackson/LJ/McGahee/AD there's a DeAngelo Willams/Bush/Gore/Addai. Should be interesting to see how it plays out as guys like Slaton, Ray Rice, Mike Hart, etc are all kinda small (at least in height)

Of that second list of backs, only Bush is less than 215 and Frank Gore is nearly 225 lbs.

Most college RBs will put on about 10-15 pounds hitting the NFL...For the most part though, gone are the days of the 230+LB feature back -

John Riggins 6'2" 235Lbs

Jerome Bettis 5'11" 255Lbs

Jim Brown 6'2" 232Lbs

Larry Csonka 6'3" 237Lbs

Compared to now, a bruiser being considered -

Travis Henry 5'9" 215Lbs

His counterpart who pretty much stunk was

Lendale White 6'0" 235Lbs

Look at the "big backs" that have come into the NFL recently - Duckett, Dayne, White - all pretty much busts.

The prototypical back is getting smaller. Sure you'll get the occasional big back drafted, but the majority of superstar and up and coming backs are now in the 210-220 range.

FYI, go to google, type in the RBs name followed by weight

Reggie Bush — Weight: 203 LB

Brian Westbrook — Weight: 203 LB

Willie Parker — Weight: 209 LB

Frank Gore — Weight: 212 LB

Maurice Jones-Drew — Weight: 212 LB

Joseph Addai — Weight: 214 LB

Marshawn Lynch — Weight: 215 LB

Travis Henry — Weight: 215 LB

Thomas Jones — Weight: 220 LB

Cedric Benson — Weight: 220 LB

LaDainian Tomlinson — Weight: 221 LB

Larry Johnson — Weight: 230 LB

Steven Jackson — Weight: 231 LB

Ronnie Brown — Weight: 232 LB

Willis McGahee — Weight: 232 LB

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Emmitt played at 205 - 211...he held up rather well. I think coaches use the size of a player as an excuse too often without giving them the opportunity to perform.

He did? Huh. Couldv'e sworn he played bigger.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Look at the "big backs" that have come into the NFL recently - Duckett, Dayne, White - all pretty much busts.The prototypical back is getting smaller. Sure you'll get the occasional big back drafted, but the majority of superstar and up and coming backs are now in the 210-220 range.

I can agree with that. That's why I think a guy like McFadden can make it - he IS going to put on 10-15 more lbs. But I think guys the size of Slaton are still going to struggle to find their place.I guess it's a tough debate because we haven't defined "Big" and "small" in the context of this discussion. I'd consider a big NFL back as anyone over 225 lbs. A small back is someone less than 210.

 

[switz]

Emmitt played at 205 - 211...he held up rather well. I think coaches use the size of a player as an excuse too often without giving them the opportunity to perform.

He did? Huh. Couldv'e sworn he played bigger.

Emmitt Smith — Weight: 216 LBBarry Sanders — Weight: 203 LBThurman Thomas — Weight: 198 LB

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Emmitt played at 205 - 211...he held up rather well. I think coaches use the size of a player as an excuse too often without giving them the opportunity to perform.

He did? Huh. Couldv'e sworn he played bigger.

Emmitt Smith — Weight: 216 LB

That sounds more correct.

Barry Sanders — Weight: 203 LBThurman Thomas — Weight: 198 LB

Thomas was at his peak 10 years ago. Meanwhile, the league has gotten a LOT bigger and faster. I think he'd have a tough time holding up today.

 

[switz]

Look at the "big backs" that have come into the NFL recently - Duckett, Dayne, White - all pretty much busts.The prototypical back is getting smaller. Sure you'll get the occasional big back drafted, but the majority of superstar and up and coming backs are now in the 210-220 range.

I can agree with that. That's why I think a guy like McFadden can make it - he IS going to put on 10-15 more lbs. But I think guys the size of Slaton are still going to struggle to find their place.I guess it's a tough debate because we haven't defined "Big" and "small" in the context of this discussion. I'd consider a big NFL back as anyone over 225 lbs. A small back is someone less than 210.

I agree with the 225 marker... anyone over that is pretty big, but look at the NFL now, only TWO RBs over 225 are very successful, ONE is moderately successfule, the rest are pretty much busts.On the other hand, I consider anyone 205 and below "small" yet Bush and Westbrook are pretty good.Still, anyone in between say 210-220 is pretty prototypical, the outliers still close to prototypical are 5 above and below that range.I don't have the sizes of the guys on that list, but it looks like most will hit that 205-210 range at least.Isn't it interesting we have another situation with two backs coming out odf the same school where the #2 could be as good if not better than the #1? Re: Jones and McFadden.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I agree with the 225 marker... anyone over that is pretty big, but look at the NFL now, only TWO RBs over 225 are very successful, ONE is moderately successfule, the rest are pretty much busts.On the other hand, I consider anyone 205 and below "small" yet Bush and Westbrook are pretty good.Still, anyone in between say 210-220 is pretty prototypical, the outliers still close to prototypical are 5 above and below that range.I don't have the sizes of the guys on that list, but it looks like most will hit that 205-210 range at least.

Good points. I'd always assumed the typical threshhold for a "workhorse" back was closer to 220. I guess I'm wrong.I do like these smaller, very exciting backs that are coming out. A lot of it depends on the system they're in, I suppose.

 

[jbz]

Look at the "big backs" that have come into the NFL recently - Duckett, Dayne, White - all pretty much busts.The prototypical back is getting smaller. Sure you'll get the occasional big back drafted, but the majority of superstar and up and coming backs are now in the 210-220 range.

I can agree with that. That's why I think a guy like McFadden can make it - he IS going to put on 10-15 more lbs. But I think guys the size of Slaton are still going to struggle to find their place.I guess it's a tough debate because we haven't defined "Big" and "small" in the context of this discussion. I'd consider a big NFL back as anyone over 225 lbs. A small back is someone less than 210.

I agree with the 225 marker... anyone over that is pretty big, but look at the NFL now, only TWO RBs over 225 are very successful, ONE is moderately successfule, the rest are pretty much busts.On the other hand, I consider anyone 205 and below "small" yet Bush and Westbrook are pretty good.Still, anyone in between say 210-220 is pretty prototypical, the outliers still close to prototypical are 5 above and below that range.I don't have the sizes of the guys on that list, but it looks like most will hit that 205-210 range at least.Isn't it interesting we have another situation with two backs coming out odf the same school where the #2 could be as good if not better than the #1? Re: Jones and McFadden.

Yeah, Felix Jones is pretty damn good. Should be interesting to see how his draft stock goes.

 

[jbz]

These rankings are laughable.

about as lazy as you can get, just looking at last year.

curious as who should be on/off the list then? i thought it was pretty decent list, especially since they had guys that didn't do well last year for one reason or another. if they went solely off of last year guys like Chris Wells and Justin Forsett wouldn't have made the list and someone like Jorvorskie Lane and all his TDs would have.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Brad Lester is going to vault up this list throughout the season.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Brad Lester is going to vault up this list throughout the season.

Not what I've been hearing. Maybe someone else will be shooying up the 2010 draft boards.