Gibbs and AU DB's

[one 2]

Aubie7 didn't you plainly say in your original post that one of Auburn's secondary problems was that we sign too many small DBs?

And didn't Stat show clearly that we have several that are not small?

Just admit it. He refuted one of your points atleast, that one of our problems on defense is that we sign too many small DBs.

I like what Lovie Smith said about his mindset on defense. He used too just care about speed. Then he found out that sometimes you can have size and speed. That even better. But, if there is a choice between size or speed almost all 4-3 defenses will go with speed.

The top three things for a corner is the abiltity to to change direction quickly, recovey speed, and good hips for transiltion from backpeddle to forward run with no loss of momentum (only slightly different than the first thing). The next thing is leaping abiltiy and then size. (Just talking about the physical part of the game not the mental).

Any coach in America on any level at any time would rather have a 5'8" db who could fly move around with quickness, turn his hips, and had the mental edginess required for the position than a 6'2 guy who had trouble making the turn.

There are a gazillion more guys who are 5'10 or smaller who can make that all important turn and burn than guys who are 6 foot or bigger. Would you prefer to have someone who can do it all well? Sure, but there are only a 3-5 guys like that playing on average every year in college football and not too many more playing in the NFL.

I am not a big fan of our scheme from last year either though. I am more of a man coverage guy. Play real physical up front. Blitz from all over the place. Run 50 percent of your fronts from the 46 defense. Take chances. Do whatever you have to do to get to the QB. Not every team is going to be on the level of that little school a few hours to the north that just refuse to block you. Against some team you actually have to figure out a creative way to get to the QB.

[one 2]

When you have a kid in high school who is above 6 foot tall they usually stick him at reciever.  Corners are not as tall as recievers on average.  It makes sense, just think about it.

217120[/snapback]

Please re-read your post here. You make no sense at all. What 'makes sense" to you? So, in your thinking a 6-3 290 pound guy will make a better receiver than a 5-10 185 guy? Right? I mean, after all the 290 pound guy is taller!

217204[/snapback]

If you really think that you are refuting his argument by suggesting that in any way he was referring to someone who was 290 pounds then I obviously wasted my time trying to reason with you.

It is obvious to 99percent of the English speaking/ football intelligent world that he was referring to 6 ft. tall athletes. He assumed you would know that, that it was implied. Maybe we all assume too much with you. if you can't figure out that this guy was referring to a WR/DB body type then you are hopeless.

If English is not your native language, please accept my apoligies your errors are understandable.

[AUesquire 1]

I think the overall height of DBs in this game has to go up on average. It seems the height of most receivers over the past few years has really risen and it just stands to reason that you can't consistently be at a height disadvantage every time you cover someone. I think Tubby has made an effort to bring in taller guys during his tenure and I think they've done a good job for the most part. Our problems this past year stemmed more from blown coverages than getting beat in a fight for the ball.

With regard to tackling, last year Carlos Rogers was as sure a tackler as anyone in the country. This year, David Irons was virtually his clone when it came to stopping someone in their tracks. Carlos and DI seem to have that closing speed where they hit you before a fake can be made. I'm tall, old, white and slow so I don't know if that's natural ability or if it's coachable. I just know those two guys stand out from everyone else on the field.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Please don't respond to this post with "Sunshine" remarks. I am looking for intelligent feedback. Thanks.

217008[/snapback]

So intelligent feedback has to agree with your point of view or it's just "sunshine." Interesting world you live in.

I am just trying to follow the rules as you have set them. The "agree with me or you are wrong attitude" seems to be the norm around here. You are one of the biggest proponents of this style.

Now, go ahead and disagree with me on that!

217200[/snapback]

You post something that's basically pessimistic, then tell people not to post "sunshine" remarks in response....and you're accusing me and others of an "agree with me or you are wrong attitude"?

Beyond that confusion, care to discuss the rest of my post where the actual of our DB recruiting irking you is addressed?

[metafour 4,969]

I think the overall height of DBs in this game has to go up on average.  It seems the height of most receivers over the past few years has really risen and it just stands to reason that you can't consistently be at a height disadvantage every time you cover someone.  I think Tubby has made an effort to bring in taller guys during his tenure and I think they've done a good job for the most part.  Our problems this past year stemmed more from blown coverages than getting beat in a fight for the ball.

With regard to tackling, last year Carlos Rogers was as sure a tackler as anyone in the country.  This year, David Irons was virtually his clone when it came to stopping someone in their tracks.  Carlos and DI seem to have that closing speed where they hit you before a fake can be made.  I'm tall, old, white and slow so I don't know if that's natural ability or if it's coachable.  I just know those two guys stand out from everyone else on the field.

217229[/snapback]

CBs will ALWAYS be in the 5'10-6'0 range. Taller guys dont have the hips needed to play CB (backpeddling, hip-svivel, making the proper breaks on the ball etc). The height disadvantage will ALWAYS be a factor, and theres nothing you can do about it, because there are only a few rare athletes that have the height and athletic ability to play CB without being a liability. Sure, a 6'3 corner might be able to fight for the ball better against a tall reciever better than a 5'11 corner, however, unless the 6'3 guy is a freak athlete he will almost always get burned by quicker, shiftier recievers.

[WaDE'05 8]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical. Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal, more times than not he's faster, as well. 6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling off trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them. And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+. None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2".

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0".

[metafour 4,969]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical.  Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal, more times than not he's faster, as well.  6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling off trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them.  And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+.  None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4".  I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2".

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0".

217249[/snapback]

Finally, someone who has a clue.

[AUesquire 1]

With regard to size, I don't think Jason Wilhite is listed over 5'11" and I truly believe he's going to be incredible before he leaves AU. He was getting some serious PT by years end. In the Iron Bowl, there was one play where they threw a fade to the corner of the endzone. JW was one-on-one and I hollered out "LOOK UP WILHITE".(As if he needed my guidance from the scholly seats ) He adjusted and made the play, knocking the ball down like an all-pro.

The lady next to me just looked up at me and calmly said, "I believe he did."

[Aubie7 0]

Please don't respond to this post with "Sunshine" remarks. I am looking for intelligent feedback. Thanks.

217008[/snapback]

So intelligent feedback has to agree with your point of view or it's just "sunshine." Interesting world you live in.

I am just trying to follow the rules as you have set them. The "agree with me or you are wrong attitude" seems to be the norm around here. You are one of the biggest proponents of this style.

Now, go ahead and disagree with me on that!

217200[/snapback]

You post something that's basically pessimistic, then tell people not to post "sunshine" remarks in response....and you're accusing me and others of an "agree with me or you are wrong attitude"?

Beyond that confusion, care to discuss the rest of my post where the actual of our DB recruiting irking you is addressed?

217241[/snapback]

And your point is...?

[Aubie7 0]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical.  Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal, more times than not he's faster, as well.  6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling off trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them.  And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+.  None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4".  I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2".

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0".

217249[/snapback]

"usually"

"more times than not"

"if"

"but I'd bet the average"

"I didn't do the math"

These are your words. Not very convincing.

[Aubie7 0]

With regard to size, I don't think Jason Wilhite is listed over 5'11" and I truly believe he's going to be incredible before he leaves AU.  He was getting some serious PT by years end.  In the Iron Bowl, there was one play where they threw a fade to the corner of the endzone.  JW was one-on-one and I hollered out "LOOK UP WILHITE".(As if he needed my guidance from the scholly seats )  He adjusted and made the play, knocking the ball down like an all-pro.

The lady next to me just looked up at me and calmly said, "I believe he did."

217256[/snapback]

Good thing you were there! I guess you didn't make it to the bowl game to help the secondary out? What about the jump ball vs. UAT, at the goal-line? Maybe if they could have heard you, our guys could have OUTJUMPED THE BIGGER RECEIVER!

[WREGL3 0]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical.  Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal, more times than not he's faster, as well.  6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling off trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them.  And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+.  None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4".  I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2".

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0".

217249[/snapback]

"usually"

"more times than not"

"if"

"but I'd bet the average"

"I didn't do the math"

These are your words. Not very convincing.

217297[/snapback]

Aubie7....you are losing this arguement to everyone else and don't realize it. Go back through every post and read for comprehension. I beg you to do this because the horse you are beating might have been dead to start with.

[WeagleDMS 0]

When you have a kid in high school who is above 6 foot tall they usually stick him at reciever.  Corners are not as tall as recievers on average.  It makes sense, just think about it.

217120[/snapback]

Please re-read your post here. You make no sense at all. What 'makes sense" to you? So, in your thinking a 6-3 290 pound guy will make a better receiver than a 5-10 185 guy? Right? I mean, after all the 290 pound guy is taller!

217204[/snapback]

Wow that was stupid of you. Obviously I meant kids in the weight range of recievers. Next time you are trying to make a point you probably shouldn't twist someone's words to do so. I'm just amazed that you would actually think you made a legitimate argument. Let me rephrase so you can understand. You stick your tallest players at reciever if they have decent hands and have the speed. Don't lose me here though, this only applies to people the appropriate size for wide reciever. You still with me? Okay, so then you might end up with a 5'10" corner because you've got your playmakers on offense. What do you think it is harder to do in HS, defend the pass or complete one? I will not help you if you have any further comprhension difficulties.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Please don't respond to this post with "Sunshine" remarks. I am looking for intelligent feedback. Thanks.

217008[/snapback]

So intelligent feedback has to agree with your point of view or it's just "sunshine." Interesting world you live in.

I am just trying to follow the rules as you have set them. The "agree with me or you are wrong attitude" seems to be the norm around here. You are one of the biggest proponents of this style.

Now, go ahead and disagree with me on that!

217200[/snapback]

You post something that's basically pessimistic, then tell people not to post "sunshine" remarks in response....and you're accusing me and others of an "agree with me or you are wrong attitude"?

Beyond that confusion, care to discuss the rest of my post where the actual of our DB recruiting irking you is addressed?

217241[/snapback]

And your point is...?

217292[/snapback]

My point is, seeing how you live in a glass house, skipping stones across the floor might not be wise.

BUT PUTTING THAT IRONY ASIDE, please address what I said regarding what we have coming back, how people over 6ft have performed, and so on. Otherwise, just admit you don't know what you're griping about and move on.

[StatTiger 3,188]

Since 1961, Auburn has averaged an interception on every 18.7 pass attempts on defense. Here are the defensive squads that failed to meet the average...

Avg- Year

18.9- 1991

20.2- 2002

21.5- 1981

22.9- 2004

23.2- 2001

23.5- 1993

24.6- 1999

25.3- 1989

25.9- 2000

26.2- 1976

26.5- 1984

27.7- 1983

31.5- 1997

32.9- 2003

34.9- 1990

45.0- 2005

49.7- 1995

50.3- 1975

[AUesquire 1]

I should have gone to the bowl game and I'm sure I could have influenced the outcome. They couldn't hear me through the TV. I hope the tone of what I said came through. I was just at myself for being the armchair QB and hollering at the player. The lady kind of called my hand on it.

[AUTrey 0]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical.  Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal, more times than not he's faster, as well.  6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling off trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them.  And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+.  None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4".  I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2".

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0".

217249[/snapback]

"usually"

"more times than not"

"if"

"but I'd bet the average"

"I didn't do the math"

These are your words. Not very convincing.

217297[/snapback]

Trey steps in to clarify and elaborate on Wade's original post:

Ahem...

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical. Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal...and if given the choice, I'd rather have the guy who is USUALLY more athletic, with a lower center of gravity, who has better hips and better back pedal over the one who USUALLY DOES NOT have those things., more times than not he's faster, as well But in the minority of times, he is less athletic, and I'd rather take my chances with the guy who is more athletic more often than not. Editor's note: Does it not go without saying that the quicker, more athletic guy will usually be faster, as well? Surely, this goes without saying MORE TIMES THAN NOT. 6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling of of trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them. I have no idea how to clarify or elaborate the word IF. Instead, I'll just remove it. That should make the sentence more convincing according to Aubie7's logic..."I assure you they were, we'd have a crop of them." (Yep, that fixed it). And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+. None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2". Translation: I just gave the numbers a cursory glance, but I can tell you that 21 of the 23 were shorter than 6'1". None were taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math, but before you fire back and refute my argument and scream like a six year old, how about you do your homework and go over there and tell me what the average is. I just made a quick guess. This isn't exactly NASA here where we need exact figures. If the numbers are wrong...prove it. Why don't you inform us of the real average height of the NFL Rookie CB's?

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0". Really? I would believe you but you used words like "OR," "I'D BET," "BETWEEN," "THE," and then to prove your lack of mental prowess, you used "THE" again. You even used the word 6. Nothing kills an argument like 6.

Seriously Aubie, I don't have all the facts and numbers right in front of me like some others do, but I can make some logical statements. Lower center of gravity = good. WR's know where they are going, CB's don't know where the WR is going, so they need to be shifter, thus low is good. I'm between 6'2" and 6'3" depending on how happy I am, and weigh 185 lbs. You don't want to see me try to change directions quickly. (I'm also white, but I digress...) Also, remember something else CB's do that wideouts don't....tackle. When (insert favorite Non-AU running back here) is running at you, being shifty and low helps. If Ken Darby hits a corner, and Darby is lower, there is a good chance that Darby is not going to get tackled. Short = Low --> Closer to the knees.

Finally, learn to construct an argument. Several different people have told you they disagree with you, or attempted to point out that they thought you were wrong. Not once have you refuted any one's claims or numbers, nor have you told them why they were wrong. All you have done is responded with Mickey Mouse comments like "And your point is," or "Good thing you were there! I guess you didn't make it to the bowl game to help the secondary out? What about the jump ball vs. UAT, at the goal-line? Maybe if they could have heard you, our guys could have OUTJUMPED THE BIGGER RECEIVER!" Did you even watch the play? I'll wait while you go review it........ok, good. Did you notice how it went through the arms of AU players before it was caught? That's because size was irrelevant on that play.

Anyway, back to studying. Have a nice day all.

[AUesquire 1]

We need to recruit some boys that can block and tackle.

I guess that about covers it.

[sogaaufan 27]

The reason that the average DB is shorter than most reciever is no accident. If you notice, football insiders rarely speak of the height of DBs. If you remember, Carlos Rogers was only a hair over 6 feet tall and he was the best DB in the country. Height isn't worth a hill of beans to a DB. The main thing a coach is concerned with is a concept called closing speed. It will over come nearly any height advantage that a receiver may have. It means how fast the DB can react and change directions to stay with the receiver. Typically, a taller man with longer legs isn't able to change directions as quickly. They have a longer stride, and sometimes a better 40 time, but are not as fast in a backpedal and mirror situation.

Also, taller guys are usually are unable to get a leverage position for bump and run. The receiver is more likely to be able to run by him without taking a good chuck at the line. Also, tall and thin corners are usually horrible against the run for the same reason. They generally always lose leverage position on the lead blockers and get blown away.

So, to answer your question, the IDEAL height for a CB is between 5-10 and 6-1.

[WaDE'05 8]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical.  Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal, more times than not he's faster, as well.  6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling off trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them.  And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+.  None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4".  I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2".

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0".

217249[/snapback]

"usually"

"more times than not"

"if"

"but I'd bet the average"

"I didn't do the math"

These are your words. Not very convincing.

217297[/snapback]

Trey steps in to clarify and elaborate on Wade's original post:

Ahem...

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical. Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal...and if given the choice, I'd rather have the guy who is USUALLY more athletic, with a lower center of gravity, who has better hips and better back pedal over the one who USUALLY DOES NOT have those things., more times than not he's faster, as well But in the minority of times, he is less athletic, and I'd rather take my chances with the guy who is more athletic more often than not. Editor's note: Does it not go without saying that the quicker, more athletic guy will usually be faster, as well? Surely, this goes without saying MORE TIMES THAN NOT. 6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling of of trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them. I have no idea how to clarify or elaborate the word IF. Instead, I'll just remove it. That should make the sentence more convincing according to Aubie7's logic..."I assure you they were, we'd have a crop of them." (Yep, that fixed it). And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+. None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2". Translation: I just gave the numbers a cursory glance, but I can tell you that 21 of the 23 were shorter than 6'1". None were taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math, but before you fire back and refute my argument and scream like a six year old, how about you do your homework and go over there and tell me what the average is. I just made a quick guess. This isn't exactly NASA here where we need exact figures. If the numbers are wrong...prove it. Why don't you inform us of the real average height of the NFL Rookie CB's?

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0". Really? I would believe you but you used words like "OR," "I'D BET," "BETWEEN," "THE," and then to prove your lack of mental prowess, you used "THE" again. You even used the word 6. Nothing kills an argument like 6.

Seriously Aubie, I don't have all the facts and numbers right in front of me like some others do, but I can make some logical statements. Lower center of gravity = good. WR's know where they are going, CB's don't know where the WR is going, so they need to be shifter, thus low is good. I'm between 6'2" and 6'3" depending on how happy I am, and weigh 185 lbs. You don't want to see me try to change directions quickly. (I'm also white, but I digress...) Also, remember something else CB's do that wideouts don't....tackle. When (insert favorite Non-AU running back here) is running at you, being shifty and low helps. If Ken Darby hits a corner, and Darby is lower, there is a good chance that Darby is not going to get tackled. Short = Low --> Closer to the knees.

Finally, learn to construct an argument. Several different people have told you they disagree with you, or attempted to point out that they thought you were wrong. Not once have you refuted any one's claims or numbers, nor have you told them why they were wrong. All you have done is responded with Mickey Mouse comments like "And your point is," or "Good thing you were there! I guess you didn't make it to the bowl game to help the secondary out? What about the jump ball vs. UAT, at the goal-line? Maybe if they could have heard you, our guys could have OUTJUMPED THE BIGGER RECEIVER!" Did you even watch the play? I'll wait while you go review it........ok, good. Did you notice how it went through the arms of AU players before it was caught? That's because size was irrelevant on that play.

Anyway, back to studying. Have a nice day all.

217329[/snapback]

And as for you, Trey. Well, you sir, are a steely eyed missile man.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical.  Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal, more times than not he's faster, as well.  6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling off trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them.  And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+.  None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4".  I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2".

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0".

217249[/snapback]

Finally, someone who has a clue.

217251[/snapback]

Bah, I was the first to bring verticles and center of gravity, and ability to adjust to the argument

[Aubie7 0]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical.  Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal, more times than not he's faster, as well.  6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling off trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them.  And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+.  None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4".  I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2".

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0".

217249[/snapback]

"usually"

"more times than not"

"if"

"but I'd bet the average"

"I didn't do the math"

These are your words. Not very convincing.

217297[/snapback]

Aubie7....you are losing this arguement to everyone else and don't realize it. Go back through every post and read for comprehension. I beg you to do this because the horse you are beating might have been dead to start with.

217305[/snapback]

Giddy Up!!!

"Did we give up when the German's bombed Pearl Harbour!?"

[Aubie7 0]

When you have a kid in high school who is above 6 foot tall they usually stick him at reciever.  Corners are not as tall as recievers on average.  It makes sense, just think about it.

217120[/snapback]

Please re-read your post here. You make no sense at all. What 'makes sense" to you? So, in your thinking a 6-3 290 pound guy will make a better receiver than a 5-10 185 guy? Right? I mean, after all the 290 pound guy is taller!

217204[/snapback]

Wow that was stupid of you. Obviously I meant kids in the weight range of recievers. Next time you are trying to make a point you probably shouldn't twist someone's words to do so. I'm just amazed that you would actually think you made a legitimate argument. Let me rephrase so you can understand. You stick your tallest players at reciever if they have decent hands and have the speed. Don't lose me here though, this only applies to people the appropriate size for wide reciever. You still with me? Okay, so then you might end up with a 5'10" corner because you've got your playmakers on offense. What do you think it is harder to do in HS, defend the pass or complete one? I will not help you if you have any further comprhension difficulties.

217307[/snapback]

And how many years of coaching experience do you have? Obviously none. Which is harder in high school? Well, if I have a 6-5 receiver, who is also the center on my basketball team, and you run your 5-8 point guard out there to cover him, I am going to burn your A$$ all night rookie!

However, in high school..., (stay with me now, I know someone is probably having to read this to you, but hang on)... my best reciever is 99% of the time going to be my best cover guy, so it doesn't matter. If you have EVER coached high school ball or knew ANYTHING about it, you know that is true. Talk about STUPID...quit looking in that mirror.

[AUslug 1]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical.  Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal, more times than not he's faster, as well.  6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling off trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them.  And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+.  None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4".  I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2".

6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0".

217249[/snapback]

"usually"

"more times than not"

"if"

"but I'd bet the average"

"I didn't do the math"

These are your words. Not very convincing.

217297[/snapback]

Aubie7....you are losing this arguement to everyone else and don't realize it. Go back through every post and read for comprehension. I beg you to do this because the horse you are beating might have been dead to start with.

217305[/snapback]

Giddy Up!!!

"Did we give up when the German's bombed Pearl Harbour!?"

217518[/snapback]

NO!

[Aubie7 0]

Please don't respond to this post with "Sunshine" remarks. I am looking for intelligent feedback. Thanks.

217008[/snapback]

So intelligent feedback has to agree with your point of view or it's just "sunshine." Interesting world you live in.

I am just trying to follow the rules as you have set them. The "agree with me or you are wrong attitude" seems to be the norm around here. You are one of the biggest proponents of this style.

Now, go ahead and disagree with me on that!

217200[/snapback]

You post something that's basically pessimistic, then tell people not to post "sunshine" remarks in response....and you're accusing me and others of an "agree with me or you are wrong attitude"?

Beyond that confusion, care to discuss the rest of my post where the actual of our DB recruiting irking you is addressed?

217241[/snapback]

And your point is...?

217292[/snapback]

My point is, seeing how you live in a glass house, skipping stones across the floor might not be wise.

BUT PUTTING THAT IRONY ASIDE, please address what I said regarding what we have coming back, how people over 6ft have performed, and so on. Otherwise, just admit you don't know what you're griping about and move on.

217311[/snapback]

I said I don't want us recrutign 5-8 DB"S. In Addition the "big DB's" we have aren't covering, but I feel do have a better chance. Why are they not doing a great job? Why did we give up HUGE yardgage to , , and UW? Was it coaching, or lack of ability. Were our guys physically out manned, as the linemen were?