Gibbs and AU DB's

[Aubie7 0]

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

217318[/snapback]

All 7 years of CTT tenure are in there. Irony? I think not. So, is there a problem? What does 18.7 attemtpts prove anyway? Is that a national average for "greatness" or just another "stat" that is useless?

Discuss among yourselves.

[Aubie7 0]

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

217318[/snapback]

Here is a "stat" for you:

All 7 of CTT's years are on this list vs. only 4 of CPD's

What does this mean?

[SupperClub 0]

Wait...the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

EDIT: Sorry, it was an obvious quote from Animal House. Please continue.

[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]

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]

I hope you aren't studying to be a lawyer. If so, your client fries. You took a whole lot of "nothing" , added more "nothing" and put back a heaping pile of..."nothing"!

It always makes me laugh when these "coaches" get on here and start talking like they have been at NFL combines for years, or they pretend to be experts in areas they are generally clueless. Such is the case with your "argument". Keep watching SportsCenter, or wherever you got your mumbo-jumbo reply from. That should really help pay off on those exams.

[Aubie7 0]

Wait...the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? 

EDIT:  Sorry, it was an obvious quote from Animal House.  Please continue.

217530[/snapback]

Thanks for playing!

[TitanTiger 20,499]

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?

217523[/snapback]

Actually in your original post, you were griping about us signing a 5-11 guy. If you've since changed to being opposed to 5-8 guys, you should be happy with Zaccheus Etheridge, the only DB we offered and signed this year. According to Rivals, he's 6-0 and Scout has him at 5-11. He's right at the average height of many successful corners in college and the NFL.

As to why we gave up huge yardage in those three games, I'd say Gibbs departure might speak volumes on this point. His specific area of coaching was the DBs. Sounds like a philosophy/technique problem to me.

[vatz22au 142]

Why bother? It's the same merri-go-round with this guy....

[AUesquire 1]

To follow up on Titan's point, in checking the depth chart from this year, Jonathon Wilhite. at 5'11" was the only player listed under 6'. Most of what I have seen on Zach Etheredge has him at 6' as well. DB was the one area where we didn't recruit very many kids because CTT has hit that position hard the last couple of years and we have good numbers there.

7, this is just my armchair analysis, but I truly think we have good size at that position and most of what we saw this year was not a problem with DBs getting beat one on one. It seemed to me to be total confusion at times in the secondary. Starting with LSU, then Kentucky, UGA and finally Wisconsin, I saw very uncharacteristic blown coverages, where receivers were running completely free in the secondary. I lay that more at the feet of coaching than a lack of size or athleticism. Hopefully, this will be a focus for the new DC.

[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.

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.

217521[/snapback]

Why are you talking about basketball? That is not even relevant. So if your best reciever is your best cover guy do you play him both ways the whole game? No(unless you have serious depth problems). They have already explained to you why shorter guys are better at covering due to low center of gravity, being able to shift easier, etc. Why do you continue to argue. Obviously if we could have 6'3"corners that could play the position that would be great, but these player are not to common. It is an issue of availibility that you just don't seem to understand. How many people have to tell you you are wrong before you realize you are?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just for fun, I checked the rosters of this year's playoff teams in the NFL. I only listed CBs since they are the primary cover guys (safeties are more for help) and because Etheridge is projected to play CB at Auburn:

Denver Broncos

Champ Bailey, 6-0, 192

Dominique Foxworth, 5-11, 180

New England Patriots

Asante Samuel, 5-10, 185

Randall Gay, 5-11, 186

Duane Starks, 5-10, 174

Tyrone Poole, 5-8, 188 (NOTE: Poole was the starter but was injured early in the year. He's a Pro Bowl CB)

New England used the other three pretty much interchangeably so I listed them all.

Cincinnati Bengals

Tory James, 6-2, 192

Deltha O'Neal, 5-11, 185

Indianapolis Colts

Nick Harper, 5-10, 182

Jason David, 5-8, 172

Jacksonville Jaguars

Rashean Mathis, 6-1, 200

Kenny Wright, 6-1, 207

Tampa Bay Buccanneers

Ronde Barber, 5-10, 184

Brian Kelly, 5-11, 193

NOTE: They have 6 CBs on roster and only one was 6ft tall or more.

NY Giants

Will Allen, 5-10, 196

Corey Webster, 5-11, 204

Washington Redskins

Carlos Rogers, 5-11, 199

Shawn Springs, 6-0, 204

Chicago Bears

Charles Tillman, 6-1, 196

Nathan Vasher, 5-10, 180

Carolina Panthers

Chris Gamble, 6-1, 200

Ken Lucas, 6-0, 205

And from our Super Bowl teams:

Seattle Seahawks

Andre Dyson, 5-10, 183

Marcus Trufont, 5-11, 199

Pittsburgh Steelers

Deshea Townsend, 5-10, 190

Ike Taylor, 6-1, 191

So 9 out of the 26 are 6-0 or taller and 9 of them are 5-10 or shorter, meaning the other 8 are 5-11, Etheridge's height. The Bucs had the NFL's #1 defense this year and both of their starters were under 6-0. Three of the four starting corners in the Super Bowl are under 6-0, two are 5-10.

Just a little perspective. Height is nice, but not at the expense of quickness, speed, technique, strength and instincts apparently.

[SKCAUB 0]

You said...

We signed one DB and he was 5-11 in height. This realy irks me. Time and time again, over several years, going back to CTB's days, we haved lined up 5-8 to 5-11 DB's against 6 foot plus receivers from other teams. It is a losing battle. I know there are big DB'S out there because other schools have them in place. AU just doesn't sign them, or go after them.

The stats I posted were to refute the comments you made in your initial post. You made it sound like CB's who are 5-8 to 5-11 is a negative thing, so I posted the top CB's in the NFL this past season in terms of interceptions. You also stated that we we have consistently signed short corners since the Terry Bowden era, so I posted the height of our 4 CB's on the depth chart. The shortest one was 5-11.

217145[/snapback]

I agree with Aubie7's second point...disagree with the first. BUT, to put things in perspective...when I was 18, I was 5' 11"...when I was 21, I was 6' 1". So the new db could be 6' or 6' 1" before he's through.

[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.

217329[/snapback]

I hope you aren't studying to be a lawyer. If so, your client fries. You took a whole lot of "nothing" , added more "nothing" and put back a heaping pile of..."nothing"!

It always makes me laugh when these "coaches" get on here and start talking like they have been at NFL combines for years, or they pretend to be experts in areas they are generally clueless. Such is the case with your "argument". Keep watching SportsCenter, or wherever you got your mumbo-jumbo reply from. That should really help pay off on those exams.

217534[/snapback]

Yessir, I am studying to be a lawyer. Also thank you for noticing my heaping pile of nothing. This is very observant, since I didn't make an argument. Didn't try to. In fact, I even pointed out that I DID NOT have the facts and numbers in front of me...that I was just stating an off the cuff opinion.

The only thing I was trying to do was point out how you were not refuting anyone's comments...they were apparently just wrong because you willed it to be wrong. You are yet to provide any basis for why you believe what you believe, especially considering that several here have shown FACTS that show that our DB's have not been as short as you claim they have been, as well as other FACTS that show that statistically the majority of DB's are not terribly tall. It has also been explained why it makes sense that a DB is going to be shorter than a WR.

Also, thank you for the personal attack and the whole armchair quarterback who thinks he's an expert thing. Don't know where that came from, since again, I didn't make an argument. I just pointed out what you were doing and the facts others had stated that you were ignoring.

You may be right. Or maybe not. I do know that at this rate we will never know because you are yet to show why you are right, and you are yet to show why the mountain of evidence that others have posted is wrong. All you've done is come up with inflammatory replies that have avoided the issue every time someone has said anything contrary to what you believe. I'm sure everyone here will be more than willing to agree with you as soon as you can explain why I am taller than any of the 26 primary cover corners on Titan's list. Surely if taller is better, then they would be there. I mean after all, there are plenty of 6'2" + receivers. Right? Discuss amongst yourselves.

[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.

217521[/snapback]

Why are you talking about basketball? That is not even relevant. So if your best reciever is your best cover guy do you play him both ways the whole game? No(unless you have serious depth problems). They have already explained to you why shorter guys are better at covering due to low center of gravity, being able to shift easier, etc. Why do you continue to argue. Obviously if we could have 6'3"corners that could play the position that would be great, but these player are not to common. It is an issue of availibility that you just don't seem to understand. How many people have to tell you you are wrong before you realize you are?

217564[/snapback]

Once again, you are clueless when it comes to high school football. You put your best 11 players out there, and yes Sherlick, some play both ways at a lot of high schools.

[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]

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]

I hope you aren't studying to be a lawyer. If so, your client fries. You took a whole lot of "nothing" , added more "nothing" and put back a heaping pile of..."nothing"!

It always makes me laugh when these "coaches" get on here and start talking like they have been at NFL combines for years, or they pretend to be experts in areas they are generally clueless. Such is the case with your "argument". Keep watching SportsCenter, or wherever you got your mumbo-jumbo reply from. That should really help pay off on those exams.

217534[/snapback]

Yessir, I am studying to be a lawyer. Also thank you for noticing my heaping pile of nothing. This is very observant, since I didn't make an argument. Didn't try to. In fact, I even pointed out that I DID NOT have the facts and numbers in front of me...that I was just stating an off the cuff opinion.

The only thing I was trying to do was point out how you were not refuting anyone's comments...they were apparently just wrong because you willed it to be wrong. You are yet to provide any basis for why you believe what you believe, especially considering that several here have shown FACTS that show that our DB's have not been as short as you claim they have been, as well as other FACTS that show that statistically the majority of DB's are not terribly tall. It has also been explained why it makes sense that a DB is going to be shorter than a WR.

Also, thank you for the personal attack and the whole armchair quarterback who thinks he's an expert thing. Don't know where that came from, since again, I didn't make an argument. I just pointed out what you were doing and the facts others had stated that you were ignoring.

You may be right. Or maybe not. I do know that at this rate we will never know because you are yet to show why you are right, and you are yet to show why the mountain of evidence that others have posted is wrong. All you've done is come up with inflammatory replies that have avoided the issue every time someone has said anything contrary to what you believe. I'm sure everyone here will be more than willing to agree with you as soon as you can explain why I am taller than any of the 26 primary cover corners on Titan's list. Surely if taller is better, then they would be there. I mean after all, there are plenty of 6'2" + receivers. Right? Discuss amongst yourselves.

217663[/snapback]

Is there any way that you could possibly take up more space to say NOTHING, than what you just did?

[jumbo 0]

I guess this is the Bu$$.... you talk about when your program has lost 3 games in the past 2 years and looks to contend this year for another title thanks for wasting my time with 5 pages of this crap AUBIE7

[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]

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]

I hope you aren't studying to be a lawyer. If so, your client fries. You took a whole lot of "nothing" , added more "nothing" and put back a heaping pile of..."nothing"!

It always makes me laugh when these "coaches" get on here and start talking like they have been at NFL combines for years, or they pretend to be experts in areas they are generally clueless. Such is the case with your "argument". Keep watching SportsCenter, or wherever you got your mumbo-jumbo reply from. That should really help pay off on those exams.

217534[/snapback]

Yessir, I am studying to be a lawyer. Also thank you for noticing my heaping pile of nothing. This is very observant, since I didn't make an argument. Didn't try to. In fact, I even pointed out that I DID NOT have the facts and numbers in front of me...that I was just stating an off the cuff opinion.

The only thing I was trying to do was point out how you were not refuting anyone's comments...they were apparently just wrong because you willed it to be wrong. You are yet to provide any basis for why you believe what you believe, especially considering that several here have shown FACTS that show that our DB's have not been as short as you claim they have been, as well as other FACTS that show that statistically the majority of DB's are not terribly tall. It has also been explained why it makes sense that a DB is going to be shorter than a WR.

Also, thank you for the personal attack and the whole armchair quarterback who thinks he's an expert thing. Don't know where that came from, since again, I didn't make an argument. I just pointed out what you were doing and the facts others had stated that you were ignoring.

You may be right. Or maybe not. I do know that at this rate we will never know because you are yet to show why you are right, and you are yet to show why the mountain of evidence that others have posted is wrong. All you've done is come up with inflammatory replies that have avoided the issue every time someone has said anything contrary to what you believe. I'm sure everyone here will be more than willing to agree with you as soon as you can explain why I am taller than any of the 26 primary cover corners on Titan's list. Surely if taller is better, then they would be there. I mean after all, there are plenty of 6'2" + receivers. Right? Discuss amongst yourselves.

217663[/snapback]

Why are you taller than 6-2? I have no idea. What does that have to do with this thread? Maybe your mamma and daddy are tall? Who knows. However, that one statement alone makes about as much sense as the rest of your ramblings. Please don't get in the way if you have nothing to add (which it is obvious that you don't).

[Aubie7 0]

I guess this is the Bu$$.... you talk about when your program has lost 3 games in the past 2 years and looks to contend this year for another title thanks for wasting my time with 5 pages of this crap AUBIE7

217800[/snapback]

What is BU$$? What is that...BU money? What is BUmoneymoney then? What are you about? Is it because you can't write complete sentences or is it becasue you are tired of being you? What?

PS

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Aubie, why do you never address the arguments made? You just cherry pick a few comments that you feel you can counter effectively, then ignore the points that undermine your point. Numerous people, including myself, have pointed out that not only is Auburn not recruiting the 5-8 CBs you don't like, but also point out that your gripe about the only CB we went after this year being 5-11 doesn't make much sense in light of the height of successful CBs on the next level and in college now.

Have you seen the light on this and that explains why you're ignoring those posts, or do you have a counter argument that you're still forumlating? I mean, all the personal smack talk is fun as far as it goes, but at some point you need to actually address the original argument and the responses to it if you care anything about being taken seriously.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just so we're clear as to the posts that you are not addressing at all or are skirting around by parsing words:

TitanTiger #1

You did respond, but chose only to address the "sunshine" remark portion and ignored the comments on our roster regarding the kids we've signed the last couple of years, all of which are 6-0 or taller.

StatTiger #1

You responded to this, but only with a smartalec quip about how many played at Auburn, when Stat was just trying to demonstrate the fallacy of your gripe about height as an indicator of success. Then when Stat pointed this out, you responded with some nonsensical thing about him proving your point, which he didn't. You made TWO contentions: that we don't need 5-8 guys back there (which no one disagreed with) and that us signing a 5-11 guy this year was a problem:

We signed one DB and he was 5-11 in height. This realy irks me. Time and time again, over several years, going back to CTB's days, we haved lined up 5-8 to 5-11 DB's against 6 foot plus receivers from other teams. It is a losing battle.

The other thing Stat's post (and mine) showed you was that we actually have signed bigger DBs, contrary to your contention that this coaching staff has only pursued shorter ones.

TitanTiger #2

This was the list of cornerbacks (which Zaccheus Etheridge, our 2006 signee, is projected to play at 5-11) in the NFL who made the playoffs this year. This list pretty much crushes your concerns that 5-11 is too short to be successful at the position. And don't start in with the 5-8 stuff again. You griped about 5-8 to 5-11 DBs and said it irked you that this 5-11 guy was the only one we went after. Apparently, there are many other factors involved in being a good DB besides height, even when you have to defend against the likes of Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Rod Smith, Plexico Burress and so on.

[AURainman 6]

Just so we're clear as to the posts that you are not addressing at all or are skirting around by parsing words:

TitanTiger #1

You did respond, but chose only to address the "sunshine" remark portion and ignored the comments on our roster regarding the kids we've signed the last couple of years, all of which are 6-0 or taller.

StatTiger #1

You responded to this, but only with a smartalec quip about how many played at Auburn, when Stat was just trying to demonstrate the fallacy of your gripe about height as an indicator of success.  Then when Stat pointed this out, you responded with some nonsensical thing about him proving your point, which he didn't.  You made TWO contentions:  that we don't need 5-8 guys back there (which no one disagreed with) and that us signing a 5-11 guy this year was a problem:

We signed one DB and he was 5-11 in height. This realy irks me. Time and time again, over several years, going back to CTB's days, we haved lined up 5-8 to 5-11 DB's against 6 foot plus receivers from other teams. It is a losing battle.

The other thing Stat's post (and mine) showed you was that we actually have signed bigger DBs, contrary to your contention that this coaching staff has only pursued shorter ones.

TitanTiger #2

This was the list of cornerbacks (which Zaccheus Etheridge, our 2006 signee, is projected to play at 5-11) in the NFL who made the playoffs this year. This list pretty much crushes your concerns that 5-11 is too short to be successful at the position. And don't start in with the 5-8 stuff again. You griped about 5-8 to 5-11 DBs and said it irked you that this 5-11 guy was the only one we went after. Apparently, there are many other factors involved in being a good DB besides height, even when you have to defend against the likes of Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Rod Smith, Plexico Burress and so on.

218224[/snapback]

Anticipated Aubie7 comment....

See you just proved my point.  Jibba jabba jib.

What a waste of a 5 page thread. Aubie 7 just might get the ignore treatment from now on...

[vatz22au 142]

Why even bother giving him the attention he so desires?

[tgr4lfe 220]

I hope you aren't studying to be a lawyer. If so, your client fries. You took a whole lot of "nothing" , added more "nothing" and put back a heaping pile of..."nothing"!

It always makes me laugh when these "coaches" get on here and start talking like they have been at NFL combines for years, or they pretend to be experts in areas they are generally clueless. Such is the case with your "argument". Keep watching SportsCenter, or wherever you got your mumbo-jumbo reply from. That should really help pay off on those exams.

217534[/snapback]

Oh, now we all see...coaches like you Will you please post your resume now?? Did you only start this thread to getting into pissing matches with everybody or to just continue your usual negativity.

Stat shot down your posts. The AU coaching staff is going to recruit the best athletes that fit into the Auburn system, whether it is the quickest and fastest 5'5" 250# DB, with a 43" vert or a 6'6" fast and quick BD with a 12" vert.

Height a great DB does not make. Great DBs (as everyone else has said) are the ones that are in position where and when they should be. They have great closing speed and great instincts. Carlos Rogers had these...his INT against UGA. He fell down...recovered, b/c of closing speed got back in position quick enought to bait Greene into throwing to the "open" WR in the endzone. To which CR picked it off. I think one of our biggest problems last year was the inexperience we did have back there. We had some talented guys step in who were young and inexpereinced, but they won't be next year. The schemes we ran maybe were too complicated for the young guys, who knows. The UK game saw a lot of the 3rd teamers playing. The UGA game was destined to be a shoot out from the get go. I think if Sears played LB that game, we had a better matchup on their big TE and the game is a little different, IMO. I think we were not ready to play in the bowl game all around from the coaches to the players to the water boys/girl.

I think you just wanted an argument.

[SKCAUB 0]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical. 

217249[/snapback]

NOT necessarily. The 6'1" guy also has LONGER ARMS. Which gives him a better shot at knocking the ball away or picking it off. I'm 6' 1", so I should know.

[WaDE'05 8]

5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical. 

217249[/snapback]

NOT necessarily. The 6'1" guy also has LONGER ARMS. Which gives him a better shot at knocking the ball away or picking it off. I'm 6' 1", so I should know.

218356[/snapback]

I'm 5'9" and I know I wouldn't have a shot at knocking any ball away, because after reading five pages of this thread, I decided it would be more enjoyable to stick toothpick under my toenail and kick a wall. That added about 8 tenths to my 40 time.

[Aubie7 0]

I hope you aren't studying to be a lawyer. If so, your client fries. You took a whole lot of "nothing" , added more "nothing" and put back a heaping pile of..."nothing"!

It always makes me laugh when these "coaches" get on here and start talking like they have been at NFL combines for years, or they pretend to be experts in areas they are generally clueless. Such is the case with your "argument". Keep watching SportsCenter, or wherever you got your mumbo-jumbo reply from. That should really help pay off on those exams.

217534[/snapback]

Oh, now we all see...coaches like you Will you please post your resume now?? Did you only start this thread to getting into pissing matches with everybody or to just continue your usual negativity.

Stat shot down your posts. The AU coaching staff is going to recruit the best athletes that fit into the Auburn system, whether it is the quickest and fastest 5'5" 250# DB, with a 43" vert or a 6'6" fast and quick BD with a 12" vert.

Height a great DB does not make. Great DBs (as everyone else has said) are the ones that are in position where and when they should be. They have great closing speed and great instincts. Carlos Rogers had these...his INT against UGA. He fell down...recovered, b/c of closing speed got back in position quick enought to bait Greene into throwing to the "open" WR in the endzone. To which CR picked it off. I think one of our biggest problems last year was the inexperience we did have back there. We had some talented guys step in who were young and inexpereinced, but they won't be next year. The schemes we ran maybe were too complicated for the young guys, who knows. The UK game saw a lot of the 3rd teamers playing. The UGA game was destined to be a shoot out from the get go. I think if Sears played LB that game, we had a better matchup on their big TE and the game is a little different, IMO. I think we were not ready to play in the bowl game all around from the coaches to the players to the water boys/girl.

I think you just wanted an argument.

218343[/snapback]

Finally, some sign of intelligent life. I do disagree about the UGA game being destined to be a shootout. I feel we had a much better defense than they had offense. Poor play and poor schemes didn't help that night. With any amount of effort, from both players and coaches, that game would not have been close.