How Small Is Too Small?

[mcgufcm 4,107]

I keep hearing (not just here but from my dad and everyone else I talk to about Auburn football) that Auburn linebackers are too small. As I see it, that can only be directed at one guy, but I'm wondering whether people think the whole group is too small. Personally, I don't think it matters one iota (since small guys did just fine for years and years under Tuberville), but it's a common refrain echoed by none other than our new DC.

Here are the sizes for Auburn's current and future (the new signees) linebackers:

Jake Holland - 6'1" 235 lbs.

Daren Bates - 5'11" 205 lbs.

Jonathan Evans - 5'11" 225 lbs.

Jawara White - 6'2" 230 lbs.

Kris Frost - 6'2" 215 lbs.

Justin Garrett - 6'1" 200 lbs.

Chris Landrum - 6'3" 235 lbs.

Anthony Swain - 6'2" 205 lbs. (although I remember reading that he was much heavier and he certainly looked much, much heavier during the season)

Cassanova McKinzy - 6'2" 225 lbs.

Javy Mitchell - 6'2" 200 lbs.

So my question: who in that group is too small? How much bigger do we need to be? I'm assuming most think Daren is too small. I think Evans is very heavy for a guy his height. Is the bigger knock on our current starters HEIGHT (not weight)? Is there a guy on that list that you see the measureables for and say, "THAT is a linebacker!"??? I'm just wondering as I take a break from a busy day at work.

[Mikey 16,779]

I think people are repeating the "too small LB's" refrain because somebody told them that's what all the cool kids are saying. Nonsense says I. I'd rather have a 205# guy that hits and is fast than a bigger slow guy that watches the opponent's heels leave him.

Who started this crap or why they started it I don't know. Our LB's are plenty big. Don't confuse them with LB's in a 3-4 defense, those guys are mostly DE's that just happen to stand up while waiting for the snap.

[AUloggerhead 2,278]

NFL draft MLB prospects

Just looking at what the NFL is looking for on average, I'd say MLBs in the 235-240 range. OLB perhaps 5-10 lbs lighter. Maybe that's what our DC is talking about -- getting some more mass out there to take on the bigger backs when they run straight at you (i.e. LSU, the bammies, UGA, MSU.) That's not to say a 205-lb Bates can't play LB. But if I was the DC & AU somehow had another LB in the 240-250 range ready to step in at MLB, Bates would be practicing & playing safety. Small LBs can play effectively when the DL front plays "big" and allows the LBs freedom to move. When they're getting pushed around and knocked off the LOS ... ... I don't care how big or little the LBs are.

[TexasTiger 13,270]

I keep hearing (not just here but from my dad and everyone else I talk to about Auburn football) that Auburn linebackers are too small. As I see it, that can only be directed at one guy, but I'm wondering whether people think the whole group is too small. Personally, I don't think it matters one iota (since small guys did just fine for years and years under Tuberville), but it's a common refrain echoed by none other than our new DC.

Here are the sizes for Auburn's current and future (the new signees) linebackers:

Jake Holland - 6'1" 235 lbs.

Daren Bates - 5'11" 205 lbs.

Jonathan Evans - 5'11" 225 lbs.

Jawara White - 6'2" 230 lbs.

Kris Frost - 6'2" 215 lbs.

Justin Garrett - 6'1" 200 lbs.

Chris Landrum - 6'3" 235 lbs.

Anthony Swain - 6'2" 205 lbs. (although I remember reading that he was much heavier and he certainly looked much, much heavier during the season)

Cassanova McKinzy - 6'2" 225 lbs.

Javy Mitchell - 6'2" 200 lbs.

So my question: who in that group is too small? How much bigger do we need to be? I'm assuming most think Daren is too small. I think Evans is very heavy for a guy his height. Is the bigger knock on our current starters HEIGHT (not weight)? Is there a guy on that list that you see the measureables for and say, "THAT is a linebacker!"??? I'm just wondering as I take a break from a busy day at work.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Small is when you run up against a big OL and bruising RBs, and bama this past year. Under Tubs getting beat by Penn St. and Wisconsin come to mind. Small and speedy work sometimes and bigger works others. The best case is to have both.

[kickerman97 3]

I don't care how big they are as long as they can tackle.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Small is when you run up against a big OL and bruising RBs, and bama this past year. Under Tubs getting beat by Penn St. and Wisconsin come to mind. Small and speedy work sometimes and bigger works others. The best case is to have both.

Didn't we beat Penn State 13-9 and hold Larry Johnson to something like 70 yards? Did you mean Michigan perhaps?

[AUloggerhead 2,278]

Small is when you run up against a big OL and bruising RBs, and bama this past year. Under Tubs getting beat by Penn St. and Wisconsin come to mind. Small and speedy work sometimes and bigger works others. The best case is to have both.

Didn't we beat Penn State 13-9 and hold Larry Johnson to something like 70 yards? Did you mean Michigan perhaps?

That's right. Tiny Tot's team lost (badly) to PSU.

[nanatiger 3]

I don't care how big they are as long as they can tackle.

[weagl1 1,790]

It ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!

[Mikey 16,779]

Small is when you run up against a big OL and bruising RBs, and bama this past year. Under Tubs getting beat by Penn St. and Wisconsin come to mind. Small and speedy work sometimes and bigger works others. The best case is to have both.

Bowden's team was doing quite well against Penn State until Stephen Davis went out with a concussion. Next it started to rain and there ya' go.

Wisconsin, we sucked the whole game offense and defense. 250 pound linebackers wouldn't have made any difference in that one. A little inspiration instead of flatness and we win. Also, we played Wisconsin again two years later and beat them rather handily.

PS: An argument could be made for BETTER linebackers. Bigger, not so much.

[Grumps 3,705]

I agree that the size is not the issue. Wasn't Bates our leading tackler last year? Isn't 6'6" and 245# way to big to play QB!?????

[Sandstone 0]

I agree that smaller guys can be effective, but I do personally prefer seeing sizes like Frost, McKinzy as long as they can run and are sound fundamentally. If you asked me randomly and without context 'what is a good size for a linebacker?'...I'd probably say 6'2, 215-220 (in college). Slightly heavier in the NFL.

[McWeagle 4]

Don't we have to consider the overall composition of the LB corps?

Meaning... if our Sam and Mike average, say, 230lbs, is a 205lb Will so bad?

[bdc81 90]

Ever see 5'9" 230 lb Sam Mills play middle linebacker for the Saints, there are multiple exceptions for every generalization.

Had a friend walk on at Alabama in '62 after they won a MNC with "small fast linemen", great idea but their coach had gone out and recruited a lot of big fast linemen.

After dominating UF for years AU found itself outclassed at halftime in '73. Gary Sanders asked color man Gusty Yearout what was the problem, "Well they are big and fast and we are.... small and slow.

I think Pat Dye and other successful coaches knew a football player when he saw one, lots of factors, measureables are part assessment, not the only, may not be the most important. He saw Aundrey Bruce and knew he was a 6'6'' all SEC linebacker when no one else wanted to give a primarily basketball player a scholarship. HS coach called CPD and told him he had played Joe Frazier out of position at nose tackle and no one was offering a scholarship. Told him JF had won the state triple jump in T&F, CPD said send him over. CPD knew what a all SEC fullback "looked like".

I want a beauty pageant on NLI day like everyone else. What I love about AU football is watching the coaches make a NFL draft pick out of someone who did not have all the measureables on that day.

Little doc

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Small is when you run up against a big OL and bruising RBs, and bama this past year. Under Tubs getting beat by Penn St. and Wisconsin come to mind. Small and speedy work sometimes and bigger works others. The best case is to have both.

Bowden's team was doing quite well against Penn State until Stephen Davis went out with a concussion. Next it started to rain and there ya' go.

Wisconsin, we sucked the whole game offense and defense. 250 pound linebackers wouldn't have made any difference in that one. A little inspiration instead of flatness and we win. Also, we played Wisconsin again two years later and beat them rather handily.

PS: An argument could be made for BETTER linebackers. Bigger, not so much.

Flip the Wisconsin game. We won in 03 and lost to them in 05. Totally agree, the team was flat and didn't even seem to care in 05. Morning kickoffs were the bane of Tuberville teams along with Arkansas.

[kingfish 73]

All things being equal, I'll go with size.

[metafour 4,969]

Anthony Swain - 6'2" 205 lbs. (although I remember reading that he was much heavier and he certainly looked much, much heavier during the season)

Swain will probably be about 225-230 pounds this season. He has gained a lot of weight.

[Mikey 16,779]

All things being equal, I'll go with size.

Things aren't equal. Normally it's a trade off of size for speed. A 215 pound LB that's fast and can tackle is normally a better choice for an SEC team than a 250 pounder that has to lumber along.

[kingfish 73]

All things being equal, I'll go with size.

Things aren't equal. Normally it's a trade off of size for speed. A 215 pound LB that's fast and can tackle is normally a better choice for an SEC team than a 250 pounder that has to lumber along.

That is not the way VanGorder sees it. All things can be equal otherwise he would not be emphasizing getting larger at the position.

[Mikey 16,779]

All things being equal, I'll go with size.

Things aren't equal. Normally it's a trade off of size for speed. A 215 pound LB that's fast and can tackle is normally a better choice for an SEC team than a 250 pounder that has to lumber along.

That is not the way VanGorder sees it. All things can be equal otherwise he would not be emphasizing getting larger at the position.

VanGorder may see a huge, lightning fast linebacker in his dreams but he'll have to adjust. I do believe Chizik, being the boss, will soon remind VanGorder of the success Auburn has had with smaller, faster linebackers and we'll be seeing pretty much what worked so well for us during the years when Tuberville & Chizik were overseeing the defense.

[kingfish 73]

All things being equal, I'll go with size.

Things aren't equal. Normally it's a trade off of size for speed. A 215 pound LB that's fast and can tackle is normally a better choice for an SEC team than a 250 pounder that has to lumber along.

That is not the way VanGorder sees it. All things can be equal otherwise he would not be emphasizing getting larger at the position.

VanGorder may see a huge, lightning fast linebacker in his dreams but he'll have to adjust. I do believe Chizik, being the boss, will soon remind VanGorder of the success Auburn has had with smaller, faster linebackers and we'll be seeing pretty much what worked so well for us during the years when Tuberville & Chizik were overseeing the defense.

I doubt VanGorder is a dreamer. Not likely he and Chizik are on different pages here.

[Mikey 16,779]

I doubt VanGorder is a dreamer. Not likely he and Chizik are on different pages here.

Chizik recruited Mitchell, all 194 pounds of him to play LB this season and he was hard after Kwon Alexander at 210. They may well be on somewhat different pages.

If size and speed weren't normally inversely proportional to one another the world would be full of Bo Jacksons. Personally I think a few readers have taken VanGorder's comment way beyond anything he intended to say. Other than Holland putting on a few pounds of normal muscle gain over the off season, I don't expect Auburn's linebackers to be significantly bigger next year, or the year after that, than they were last year. Time will tell.

But now we're back to the original topic of this thread, aren't we? Just how big of a linebacker does anyone think VanGorder is talking about? Is Jake Holland too small at 235? If not, is Evans too small at 225? Is Bates too small at 215, which was his playing weight this season? If Holland, Evans and Bates are too small then by definition both of this year's recruits are too small and we don't have a LB on the team that's big enough.

Shall we move two defensive ends and a defensive tackle back there and give up the intermediate passing game and speed sweeps due to linebackers being too slow?

[JB33 1]

All things being equal, I'll go with size.

Things aren't equal. Normally it's a trade off of size for speed. A 215 pound LB that's fast and can tackle is normally a better choice for an SEC team than a 250 pounder that has to lumber along.

That is not the way VanGorder sees it. All things can be equal otherwise he would not be emphasizing getting larger at the position.

If the choice is between guys with equal speed, quickness, athleticism, etc., except that one weighs 215 and the other 250, of course you take the bigger guy. Point is that you almost never get to make that choice, so you have to make others. I don't think it's quite as simple as speed vs. size, but, for the sake of argument, give me the guy who can run, with a little room to grow. I like my chances making a fast guy bigger better than my chances making a big guy faster.

[AUloggerhead 2,278]

... Shall we move two defensive ends and a defensive tackle back there and give up the intermediate passing game and speed sweeps due to linebackers being too slow?

Whose entertaining putting a DT at LB? Talk about a strawman argument ... ... However, I have heard some rumors that Cory Lemonier may get a look at OLB. Lemonier is 6-4, 240.