What's the ideal size for a Running Back? (1 Viewer)

[Restricted]

If you want to include proportions or muscle mass, feel free.

 

[Franknbeans]

whatever size Willie Parker is

 

[The Shizzle]

5'11" 220lbs is hot.

 

[KellysHeroes]

There really isn't one

 

[wadegarrett]

Depends on the team, the system, the personnel, the play calling, etc. There is no 'ideal' size.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Seems like success can be found at any reasonable size, but a lot of successful backs seem to hover around 5'10/5'11 and about 210/220.

LT 5'10 220

Gore 5'9" 212

Parker 5'10 209

Rudi Johnson 5'10 228

Thomas Jones 5'10 220

Chester Taylor 5'11 213

Addai 5'11 214

Alexander 5'11 225

Henry 5'9 215

Then there are the slightly bigger backs who run well at 6'0-6'2 and about 230, like Stephen Jackson, Larry Johnson, Fred Taylor, Deuce, McGahee, Ronnie Brown, etc.

Overall, weight seems to be the more consistent factor and runs from a low of about 210 to a high of about 230.

Always exceptions though, Like Dunn, Jamal Lewis etc.

 

[EBF]

5'9"-5'11"

205-225 pounds

 

[AnonymousBob]

If you can handle around twenty carries a game and not get hurt while averaging 4+ ypc then you're the ideal size.

I really don't feel size is as big a deal as people try to make it. If you have talent and can take a pounding then then you're golden.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I don't think there is an answer for this. I decided to look up the top 25 RB's in terms of career yardage. Granted, they played during different eras, but here are some facts about the all-time top 25 list (stats gathered from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/):

- None of the top 4 were over 6'0"

- None of the top 4 were over 210lbs

- Avg size of the top 4 is 5'9.5"/204.25lbs, with none of them off this target by more than 1.5" or 4.25lbs

- Only 3 of the top 10 were over 6'0"

- Only 2 of the top 10 were over 220lbs

- 4 of the top 25 were under 200lbs

- None of the top 25 are under 5'8" or over 6'3"

Top 25 by height

6'3" - 2

6'2" - 5

6'1" - 3

6'0" - 3

5'11" - 4

5'10" - 5

5'9" - 1

5'8" - 2

Twenty of the top 25 were between 5'10" and 6'2". I was surprised that the number over 6'0" was as high as it was. Avg height is 5'11.75"

Top 25 by weight

240lbs and over - 2

236-240lbs - 0

231-235lbs - 3

226-230lbs - 2

221-225lbs - 1

216-220lbs - 6

211-215lbs - 1

206-210lbs - 4

201-205lbs - 1

200lbs and under - 5

Seems like the weight is more distributed than the height. 10 are 210lbs and under, 8 are 211-225lbs, and 7 are over 225lbs. Avg weight is 215.3lbs.

To give a better idea of current day, of the 25 top all-time RB's, the only ones that are still active (listed on a roster) are:

CMart - 5'11"/207lbs - likely to hang 'em up

Faulk - 5'10"/208lbs - likely to hang 'em up

Edge - 6'0"/216lbs

Fred Taylor - 6'0"/231lbs

Dunn - 5'8"/178lbs

LT - 5'10"/220lbs

SA - 6'0"/218lbs

If you toss out the high and low of each (which turn out to be Warrick Dunn and Fred Taylor), the list becomes:

CMart - 5'11"/207lbs

Faulk - 5'10"/208lbs

Edge - 6'0"/216lbs

LT - 5'10"/220lbs

SA - 6'0"/218lbs

That's a pretty compact list. Height only varies by 2 inches; weight only varies by 13lbs. Avg is 5'11"/214lbs.

Just because I am bored, let's compare that to the most rushing yards over the last 5 years. Here is the top 10 list (I disagreed with some of the weights below, so I listed specs from NFL.com on the ones that differed by more than 5lbs):

LT - 5'10"/220lbs

Tiki - 5'10/195lbs

SA - 6'0"/218lbs (225lbs) - avg 221lbs

Edge - 6'0"/216lbs

Portis - 5'11"/205lbs (212lbs) - avg 208lbs

JLew - 6'0"/240lbs

Fred Taylor - 6'0"/231lbs

Priest - 5'9"/205lbs

Ahman - 6'0"/213lbs

Deuce - 6'1"/220lbs (232lbs) - avg 226lbs (although I think 232lbs is more accurate)

If you toss out the high and low of each (which turn out to be Priest/Deuce for height, Tiki/JLew for weight), the average becomes 5'11.5"/218lbs.

What does all this mean, besides the fact that I have no life? Seems that RB's are putting on a few more lbs to bulk up for the pounding they take. Overall, the average looks to be around 5'11"/215lbs.

 

[AnonymousBob]

What's the size of the average male?

 

[Ozymandias]

Jim Brown, 6'2" and 232 lbs.

O.J. Simpson, 6' 1", 212

Barry Sanders, 5'8", 203

Emmitt Smith, 5'9", 207

Bo Jackson, 6'1", 227

L.Tomlinson, 5'10", 220

W.Payton, 5"10", 200

E. Dickerson, 6'3", 220

Based on the above, the ideal size is somewhere between 5'8" and 6'3", and between 200 and 232 lbs.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Aren't most males between 5'8" and 6'3"?

 

[Ozymandias]

Aren't most males between 5'8" and 6'3"?

Good insight.

 

[Lash]

6'1", 227, sub 4.2 40

(Bo Jackson knows ideal)

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm thinking 40'8" tall, 8,000 lbs. would be pretty hard to tackle.

 

[redman]

This analysis provides about as much insight into what makes a good RB as the number of letters in his last name.

A lot of RB's have the physical attributes that teams theoretically want in their RB's. They do nothing but measure those things at the Combine each year.

The things that set the great RB's above the merely good ones (or even the busts) cannot be measured. How do you measure heart? How do you measure ability to avoid injury? How do you measure game sense?

That's what will always make this game fascinating to fans. You never know until afterwards who is good and who is not.

 

[H.K.]

I'm thinking 40'8" tall, 8,000 lbs. would be pretty hard to tackle.

 

[kensat30]

5'10" 220.

Big enough to break tackles, low enough to the ground to keep balance, and small enough to find holes.

 

[-primetime-]

it depends on where you are running the ball

goal line = jerome bettis, jamal lewis

backfeild = barry sanders, walter payton

 

[jurb26]

Whatever size it takes to get through the hole.

 

[zed2283]

It depends on what team he's on and who the announcers are for that particular game. Duce Staley was the "lightning" to Ricky Watters' "thunder". I don't remember Watters being considered a big back until he got to Philly. And Staley was considered a small guy in Philly and then when he signed with Pittsburgh everyone started talking about what a big back he was.

I don't remember Antonio Pittman ever being accused of being a big back, but just the other day on NFLN they were talking about how he would be a good sub for McAllister because he was "a hammer" who could pound the middle.

Maybe no one else has noticed this sort of thing, but it's always been a pet peeve of mine the garbage that spews out of announcers' mouths.

 

[Phlash]

If my guy can

Run through arm tackles

Block on 3rd down

Catch the ball

Play through minor injuries

Have the stamina to play for most of the snaps

Break a long one once in a while

I don't care if you're 5'2" 160lbs or 6'5" 280lbs, you can be my RB

 

[EBF]

Function follows form. I don't think it's a coincidence that Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith, Ahman Green, LaDainian Tomlinson, Shaun Alexander, Tiki Barber and Edgerrin James all fall into the range of 5'10"-6'0" and 205-225 pounds. This is the ideal range for an every down back.

Short backs = Too light (except MJD)

Tall backs = Too stiff, not enough lateral quickness, high center of gravity

Light backs = Too weak

Heavy backs = Too slow

 

[Bri]

there is none, it's a game Rang and Bloom do to mess with us.

 

[nygiants56]

If you can handle around twenty carries a game and not get hurt while averaging 4+ ypc then you're the ideal size.I really don't feel size is as big a deal as people try to make it. If you have talent and can take a pounding then then you're golden.

I disagree, to an extent.look at guys like Chris Brown, Leroy Hoard, Rod Bernstine, i.e., tall lanky runners that barely had 1 good season between them. on the flip side,you have Ahman Green, Emmitt Smith, LT, Corey Dillon, Priest Holmes. Terrell Davis.For small guys, you have Joe Morris, Barry Sanders, Dave Meggett, MJD, Warrick Dunn, etc..the 6'+ tall RB is not the prototype..Now I know Eric Dickerson was 6'3", but he's the exception to the rule.Most RB's that survive 5+ seasons, have a powerful lower body, huge legs, a tad on the short side ( usually between 5'9and 5'11)..and don't get hit straight-on..Warrick Dunn doesn't get crushed by 300LB linemen too often..Chris Brown got smacked by everyone , as did Leroy Hoard...

 

[The Mechanic]

Perfect body:

Size 11 feet

24 inch legs

large ###

36 inch body length..arms to match

24inch thick neck

small head

Total= 5foot 10ich and 213 lbs.

Now who's in charge of the cloning project?..

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

5'9 to 5'11

210-225

Former SEC or "the U" player

 

[jurb26]

5'9 to 5'11210-225Former SEC or "the U" player

Should probably throw a bone to SC as well.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'm thinking 40'8" tall, 8,000 lbs. would be pretty hard to tackle.

He should be able to kick your ###, too. However, about 6'1" and 205-220 seems to be the average size of most of the great heavyweight champions in boxing history too. I'd say the height favors the boxers a little in terms of reach advantage, but the size is eerily similar. Also similar is the speed/power ratio that makes good RBs. Of course, you can have your 6'5" 245 lb Lennox lewis or 6'3"235 lb Eddie George. But you can also get 5'8" 175 lb W.Dunn and 5'11" 185 lb Rocky Marciano or 6'1 187 lb Jack Dempsey. The point is, the average of the best and most dangerous athletes generally fall around the 6' 210-220 pound range.

 

[grind]

12" is too big and 3" is too small.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'm thinking 40'8" tall, 8,000 lbs. would be pretty hard to tackle.

He should be able to kick your ###, too. However, about 6'1" and 205-220 seems to be the average size of most of the great heavyweight champions in boxing history too. I'd say the height favors the boxers a little in terms of reach advantage, but the size is eerily similar. Also similar is the speed/power ratio that makes good RBs. Of course, you can have your 6'5" 245 lb Lennox lewis or 6'3"235 lb Eddie George. But you can also get 5'8" 175 lb W.Dunn and 5'11" 185 lb Rocky Marciano or 6'1 187 lb Jack Dempsey. The point is, the average of the best and most dangerous athletes generally fall around the 6' 210-220 pound range.

Coincidently, that's how big I am. I'm heading off to training camp now.

 

[switz]

I don't think there is an answer for this. I decided to look up the top 25 RB's in terms of career yardage. Granted, they played during different eras, but here are some facts about the all-time top 25 list (stats gathered from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/):

- None of the top 4 were over 6'0"

- None of the top 4 were over 210lbs

- Avg size of the top 4 is 5'9.5"/204.25lbs, with none of them off this target by more than 1.5" or 4.25lbs

- Only 3 of the top 10 were over 6'0"

- Only 2 of the top 10 were over 220lbs

- 4 of the top 25 were under 200lbs

- None of the top 25 are under 5'8" or over 6'3"

Top 25 by height

6'3" - 2

6'2" - 5

6'1" - 3

6'0" - 3

5'11" - 4

5'10" - 5

5'9" - 1

5'8" - 2

Twenty of the top 25 were between 5'10" and 6'2". I was surprised that the number over 6'0" was as high as it was. Avg height is 5'11.75"

Top 25 by weight

240lbs and over - 2

236-240lbs - 0

231-235lbs - 3

226-230lbs - 2

221-225lbs - 1

216-220lbs - 6

211-215lbs - 1

206-210lbs - 4

201-205lbs - 1

200lbs and under - 5

Seems like the weight is more distributed than the height. 10 are 210lbs and under, 8 are 211-225lbs, and 7 are over 225lbs. Avg weight is 215.3lbs.

To give a better idea of current day, of the 25 top all-time RB's, the only ones that are still active (listed on a roster) are:

CMart - 5'11"/207lbs - likely to hang 'em up

Faulk - 5'10"/208lbs - likely to hang 'em up

Edge - 6'0"/216lbs

Fred Taylor - 6'0"/231lbs

Dunn - 5'8"/178lbs

LT - 5'10"/220lbs

SA - 6'0"/218lbs

If you toss out the high and low of each (which turn out to be Warrick Dunn and Fred Taylor), the list becomes:

CMart - 5'11"/207lbs

Faulk - 5'10"/208lbs

Edge - 6'0"/216lbs

LT - 5'10"/220lbs

SA - 6'0"/218lbs

That's a pretty compact list. Height only varies by 2 inches; weight only varies by 13lbs. Avg is 5'11"/214lbs.

Just because I am bored, let's compare that to the most rushing yards over the last 5 years. Here is the top 10 list (I disagreed with some of the weights below, so I listed specs from NFL.com on the ones that differed by more than 5lbs):

LT - 5'10"/220lbs

Tiki - 5'10/195lbs

SA - 6'0"/218lbs (225lbs) - avg 221lbs

Edge - 6'0"/216lbs

Portis - 5'11"/205lbs (212lbs) - avg 208lbs

JLew - 6'0"/240lbs

Fred Taylor - 6'0"/231lbs

Priest - 5'9"/205lbs

Ahman - 6'0"/213lbs

Deuce - 6'1"/220lbs (232lbs) - avg 226lbs (although I think 232lbs is more accurate)

If you toss out the high and low of each (which turn out to be Priest/Deuce for height, Tiki/JLew for weight), the average becomes 5'11.5"/218lbs.

What does all this mean, besides the fact that I have no life? Seems that RB's are putting on a few more lbs to bulk up for the pounding they take. Overall, the average looks to be around 5'11"/215lbs.

nice job

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'm thinking 40'8" tall, 8,000 lbs. would be pretty hard to tackle.

He should be able to kick your ###, too. However, about 6'1" and 205-220 seems to be the average size of most of the great heavyweight champions in boxing history too. I'd say the height favors the boxers a little in terms of reach advantage, but the size is eerily similar. Also similar is the speed/power ratio that makes good RBs. Of course, you can have your 6'5" 245 lb Lennox lewis or 6'3"235 lb Eddie George. But you can also get 5'8" 175 lb W.Dunn and 5'11" 185 lb Rocky Marciano or 6'1 187 lb Jack Dempsey. The point is, the average of the best and most dangerous athletes generally fall around the 6' 210-220 pound range.

Coincidently, that's how big I am. I'm heading off to training camp now.

I'm 5'10'' 220lb myself, it just doesn't look the same as it did 8 years ago

 

[Two Deep]

Emmitt Smith was the perfect size. Strong enough to go between the tackles, quick enough to get outside and blockish enough so he was hard to wrap up.

Your tall, lanky running backs have the long arms and legs that make it easier to grab a hold of, not to mention they usually are wider in the shoulders and narrow in the hips that cause them to topple over easier. While your short blockish guys have a better base and are hard to knock off their short pegs.

 

[Ozymandias]

Emmitt Smith was the perfect size. Strong enough to go between the tackles, quick enough to get outside and blockish enough so he was hard to wrap up. Your tall, lanky running backs have the long arms and legs that make it easier to grab a hold of, not to mention they usually are wider in the shoulders and narrow in the hips that cause them to topple over easier. While your short blockish guys have a better base and are hard to knock off their short pegs.

So the ideal would be a 3 ft tall running back with 3 foot legs, weighing 250lbs.

 

[Routilla]

My parameters would be from Jones Drew to B. Jacobs since they are probably the 2 extremes on both ends.

 

[Two Deep]

Emmitt Smith was the perfect size. Strong enough to go between the tackles, quick enough to get outside and blockish enough so he was hard to wrap up. Your tall, lanky running backs have the long arms and legs that make it easier to grab a hold of, not to mention they usually are wider in the shoulders and narrow in the hips that cause them to topple over easier. While your short blockish guys have a better base and are hard to knock off their short pegs.

So the ideal would be a 3 ft tall running back with 3 foot legs, weighing 250lbs.

If he can run in the4.4-4.5 range I would say yes. No doubt he would break all the running back records.

 

[ExtraPoint]

Big backs and small backs tend to play different roles in the NFL and both are equally important to their team. For fantasy though, we want do-it-all types who score fantasy points more than anything else. That's why I like to see a back who is around 5'10" 220lbs. At that size, he should be able to take the pounding to play every down, should be fast enough to break the big runs, should be tough enough to run inside, and more likely to be better as a receiving threat than a blocker. In fewer words, I want them a bit short but not light with huge fast legs.

 

[Ilov80s]

Emmitt Smith was the perfect size. Strong enough to go between the tackles, quick enough to get outside and blockish enough so he was hard to wrap up. Your tall, lanky running backs have the long arms and legs that make it easier to grab a hold of, not to mention they usually are wider in the shoulders and narrow in the hips that cause them to topple over easier. While your short blockish guys have a better base and are hard to knock off their short pegs.

So the ideal would be a 3 ft tall running back with 3 foot legs, weighing 250lbs.

If he can run in the4.4-4.5 range I would say yes. No doubt he would break all the running back records.

He would be unstoppable- it would be like shooting a cannon ball downfield.