Old Man Mike
Fast as Lightning!
- Messages
- 8,975
- Reaction score
- 6,464
Something to muse upon during these doldrums: We often hear on this board concerns voiced about the size, or perceived lack thereof, usually of weight, of certain recruits that we are going for. I wondered what teams have been doing and who was succeeding. I looked at the top rated linemen in the country, currently on rosters, to assess what sort of physical specimens they were.
Centers: The top centers in the country average 6'3 1/2" in height and almost half weigh less than 300 pounds. Approximately 90% of elite US centers are in the 6'2"-6'5" range. There is one center who is 5'11" and one who is 6'7". They are as is obvious, quite the outliers, but show that you cannot perfectly predict excellence by body type. Nevertheless, aiming for a center in the 6'3" to 6'4" range, who you think will play at a mature weight of about 295-300 is not bad odds. To further support the type, the following teams' centers meet this mold: Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Oregon, Stanford etc. Our own great center, Braxton, is slightly heavy as to measurables, but my assessment of that is that it is because he is a packed muscle-stud of very unusual sort, and the extra 5-10 pounds does not hurt his speed nor mobility.
Guards: The top guards in the country average about 6'4" to 6'4 1/2" in height and the nation is split on how much they should weigh. 85% of guards are in the 6'2' to 6'6' range. No elite guard is less than 6'2'. As to weight: The nation's best are split almost evenly between the "smaller" guard [from 305 down to less than 290 --- there are three elite guards less than 290] and the mammoth [from 310s up to infinity]. Unsurprisingly, Alabama likes them big. So does Wisconsin. But few other top programs are going that way. Even Oklahoma is "split" on the issue [as i believe that Stoops likes to load one side and have a quicker other]. Oregon unsurprisingly wants to be more nimble. Surprisingly LSU trends a bit that way. We haven't "made up our mind" yet, but i wouldn't be stunned to see Kelly go more Oregonish [trimmer at least, if not actually lighter --- one of the intuitions that I've worried about with Hanratty --- and in my opinion we looked more nimble when Watt got to replace Stewart last year].
Tackles: The top tackles in the country average about 6'5 1/2" to 6'6". The nation is again split on weight. 94% of elite tackles are between 6'4" and 6'7". There are NO elite tackles shorter than 6'4". [I'm using Phil Steele's data here if you want to know]. The weight issue is almost exactly split between "smaller" tackles in the 290s-300s, and big ones in the 3-teens on up. Once again, Alabama likes them big, but this is not universally true in the SEC. LSU and Ole Miss follow that lead, but other programs are split. Wisconsin [naturally] and Nebraska want to shove it in your face and prefer elephantine lines. Oregon has a mixed opinion about this and seems to want one big tackle on the field. I believe that OUR Coach Kelly is trending this way, too. One extremely nimble tackle [ex. Hegarty] bracketed with a giant [Nichols/Decker et al]. Both Dever and Zach Martin tend towards the nimble group.
As to the extreme height that shows up on our recruiting board here and there. There are two elite 6'8" tackles, and 13 6'7" ones. When speaking of tackles, height is good. All of this is a statistical pattern, but one which in some form or another is probably in every good recruiter's head. Players will come up who defy the statistics. But the statistics must tell us something at least about the human body and what it is likely to be able to do. My concern in all this is that we not "chase size". Speed and quickness [and strength] are the way to the future. Height is valuable for it's accompanying arm length and levers, but not at the sacrifice of nimble playing in space nor explosiveness. Surely, The Coach has it all under control.
Centers: The top centers in the country average 6'3 1/2" in height and almost half weigh less than 300 pounds. Approximately 90% of elite US centers are in the 6'2"-6'5" range. There is one center who is 5'11" and one who is 6'7". They are as is obvious, quite the outliers, but show that you cannot perfectly predict excellence by body type. Nevertheless, aiming for a center in the 6'3" to 6'4" range, who you think will play at a mature weight of about 295-300 is not bad odds. To further support the type, the following teams' centers meet this mold: Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Oregon, Stanford etc. Our own great center, Braxton, is slightly heavy as to measurables, but my assessment of that is that it is because he is a packed muscle-stud of very unusual sort, and the extra 5-10 pounds does not hurt his speed nor mobility.
Guards: The top guards in the country average about 6'4" to 6'4 1/2" in height and the nation is split on how much they should weigh. 85% of guards are in the 6'2' to 6'6' range. No elite guard is less than 6'2'. As to weight: The nation's best are split almost evenly between the "smaller" guard [from 305 down to less than 290 --- there are three elite guards less than 290] and the mammoth [from 310s up to infinity]. Unsurprisingly, Alabama likes them big. So does Wisconsin. But few other top programs are going that way. Even Oklahoma is "split" on the issue [as i believe that Stoops likes to load one side and have a quicker other]. Oregon unsurprisingly wants to be more nimble. Surprisingly LSU trends a bit that way. We haven't "made up our mind" yet, but i wouldn't be stunned to see Kelly go more Oregonish [trimmer at least, if not actually lighter --- one of the intuitions that I've worried about with Hanratty --- and in my opinion we looked more nimble when Watt got to replace Stewart last year].
Tackles: The top tackles in the country average about 6'5 1/2" to 6'6". The nation is again split on weight. 94% of elite tackles are between 6'4" and 6'7". There are NO elite tackles shorter than 6'4". [I'm using Phil Steele's data here if you want to know]. The weight issue is almost exactly split between "smaller" tackles in the 290s-300s, and big ones in the 3-teens on up. Once again, Alabama likes them big, but this is not universally true in the SEC. LSU and Ole Miss follow that lead, but other programs are split. Wisconsin [naturally] and Nebraska want to shove it in your face and prefer elephantine lines. Oregon has a mixed opinion about this and seems to want one big tackle on the field. I believe that OUR Coach Kelly is trending this way, too. One extremely nimble tackle [ex. Hegarty] bracketed with a giant [Nichols/Decker et al]. Both Dever and Zach Martin tend towards the nimble group.
As to the extreme height that shows up on our recruiting board here and there. There are two elite 6'8" tackles, and 13 6'7" ones. When speaking of tackles, height is good. All of this is a statistical pattern, but one which in some form or another is probably in every good recruiter's head. Players will come up who defy the statistics. But the statistics must tell us something at least about the human body and what it is likely to be able to do. My concern in all this is that we not "chase size". Speed and quickness [and strength] are the way to the future. Height is valuable for it's accompanying arm length and levers, but not at the sacrifice of nimble playing in space nor explosiveness. Surely, The Coach has it all under control.