Defensive Evolution

[atapcl]

What prevents linebackers from becomming larger in the NFL. Mike Curtis was 6-3 232, Dick Butkus 6-3 245, Ray May 6-1 230, Ray Nitchke 6-3 235, and Ted Hendricks 6-7 220. In the 60s and early 70s these LBs were as big as offensive guards in the NFL. Fullbacks are now 250lbs or larger. Bart Starr, John Unitas, and Roger Stauback were all about 6-1 to 6-3 and under 200lbs. Now QBs are an average of 6-4 and 240lbs. John Mackey, and Mike Ditka were 6-2 to 6-3 and under 230 lbs as TEs. Now TEs are 6-4 or taller and 250lbs or heavier. The offensive line in the 60s averaged 230 - 240lbs and now very few are under 300 lbs. Teams now want receivers to be 6-2 or larger and weigh 220 lbs or more. Every position is evolving fast except LB and CB. LBs the size of Ray Lewis (6-1 250) should be rare not the norm. It seems to keep up with the offense that LBs should be 6-4 to 6-5 and weigh 260 -280 lbs with the same agility as TEs and FBs. Maybe the colleges are not developing them. A few come out of college each year that can make it in the NFL but it seems there should be a lot more.

[Gavin]

What prevents linebackers from becomming larger in the NFL. Mike Curtis was 6-3 232, Dick Butkus 6-3 245, Ray May 6-1 230, Ray Nitchke 6-3 235, and Ted Hendricks 6-7 220. In the 60s and early 70s these LBs were as big as offensive guards in the NFL. Fullbacks are now 250lbs or larger. Bart Starr, John Unitas, and Roger Stauback were all about 6-1 to 6-3 and under 200lbs. Now QBs are an average of 6-4 and 240lbs. John Mackey, and Mike Ditka were 6-2 to 6-3 and under 230 lbs as TEs. Now TEs are 6-4 or taller and 250lbs or heavier. The offensive line in the 60s averaged 230 - 240lbs and now very few are under 300 lbs. Teams now want receivers to be 6-2 or larger and weigh 220 lbs or more. Every position is evolving fast except LB and CB. LBs the size of Ray Lewis (6-1 250) should be rare not the norm. It seems to keep up with the offense that LBs should be 6-4 to 6-5 and weigh 260 -280 lbs with the same agility as TEs and FBs. Maybe the colleges are not developing them. A few come out of college each year that can make it in the NFL but it seems there should be a lot more.

the reason for the bigger linebackers is if you have undersized linebackers running into bigger backs or receivers they will likely bounce off the offensive player, something which the Colts linebackers did several time in the last 14 years because of poor tackling and bouncing off of players, plus those undersized linebackers seemed to wear down as the game went on faster

[21isSuperman]

I think it's based on a number of things:

1) better knowledge. We know better diet and exercise routines to help us build more muscle and build it faster

2) as one goes up, so does its opponent. That is to say if the offense is getting bigger, then the defense will try to get bigger to keep up; this is especially important in a physical game like football

3) more demand. Everyone wants their players to be bigger, faster, stronger, etc. so they can do more. If a coach has a choice between a big, fast player, a big player, and a fast player, he will almost certainly go with the big, fast player

[atapcl]

the reason for the bigger linebackers is if you have undersized linebackers running into bigger backs or receivers they will likely bounce off the offensive player, something which the Colts linebackers did several time in the last 14 years because of poor tackling and bouncing off of players, plus those undersized linebackers seemed to wear down as the game went on faster

My premise is that they should be even bigger than they are now. Those LBs in the 60s were as big as the LBs now. We should be growing 6-4 to 6-5 and 260 to 280 lb linebackers. Imagine a MLB who is 6-5 and 280 with 4.5 speed. Some of our DL last year was not as big as that. An outside LB at 6-5 280 with 4.5 speed and agility could match up well with the Gronkwski TEs of the NFL. We have gotten basketball players to play football because most of them have hands good enough to play TE in the NFL. What about those that can't play TE? Maybe some of these guys who can not make it in the NBA can play defense.

[Blackhawk4]

Humans have gotten bigger, stronger and faster over time....It only makes sense that NFL players do as well (Especially when you consider how nutrition and ability to taking care of their bodies has advanced over the years).

[Gavin]

My premise is that they should be even bigger than they are now. Those LBs in the 60s were as big as the LBs now. We should be growing 6-4 to 6-5 and 260 to 280 lb linebackers. Imagine a MLB who is 6-5 and 280 with 4.5 speed. Some of our DL last year was not as big as that. An outside LB at 6-5 280 with 4.5 speed and agility could match up well with the Gronkwski TEs of the NFL. We have gotten basketball players to play football because most of them have hands good enough to play TE in the NFL. What about those that can't play TE? Maybe some of these guys who can not make it in the NBA can play defense.

Maybe, I am all for bigger players if they can play and keep up with the Gronkowskis of the NFL

[atapcl]

Humans have gotten bigger, stronger and faster over time....It only makes sense that NFL players do as well (Especially when you consider how nutrition and ability to taking care of their bodies has advanced over the years).

Thats what I'm talking about. LBs should be bigger but they are about the same size as the players from the 1960s. Most other positions have bigger players. CB and LB have not evolved as much as the other positions.

[Superman]

My premise is that they should be even bigger than they are now. Those LBs in the 60s were as big as the LBs now. We should be growing 6-4 to 6-5 and 260 to 280 lb linebackers. Imagine a MLB who is 6-5 and 280 with 4.5 speed. Some of our DL last year was not as big as that. An outside LB at 6-5 280 with 4.5 speed and agility could match up well with the Gronkwski TEs of the NFL.

Sounds like Adalius Thomas. I don't know what happened to him, but he was 6'3", 270 pounds, and ran a 4.5 forty. He played for the Ravens, and went from defensive end to inside linebacker to outside linebacker to strong safety to corner, from play to play to play. Freakish athleticism. Then he signed with the Pats, had a couple decent seasons, got hurt, started butting heads with Belichick, and is now out of the league. He really was a unique talent, not prototypical at all, but could legitimately play two or three different positions in any defensive scheme, and well.

I don't think linebackers need to be that versatile, though. Defenses can throw a lot of different looks at offenses. If you have a couple linebackers who can play multiple roles, you can switch in and out of three-down and four-down fronts without subbing, and when you change the scheme you change the linebackers' responsibilities. Sounds like you want Captain America.

[atapcl]

Sounds like Adalius Thomas. I don't know what happened to him, but he was 6'3", 270 pounds, and ran a 4.5 forty. He played for the Ravens, and went from defensive end to inside linebacker to outside linebacker to strong safety to corner, from play to play to play. Freakish athleticism. Then he signed with the Pats, had a couple decent seasons, got hurt, started butting heads with Belichick, and is now out of the league. He really was a unique talent, not prototypical at all, but could legitimately play two or three different positions in any defensive scheme, and well.

I don't think linebackers need to be that versatile, though. Defenses can throw a lot of different looks at offenses. If you have a couple linebackers who can play multiple roles, you can switch in and out of three-down and four-down fronts without subbing, and when you change the scheme you change the linebackers' responsibilities. Sounds like you want Captain America.

Captain America would be a start. Add Hulk and Iron Man and that would be a defense. The average LB is not fast enough to cover Gronkowski and the average safety is too small. The LBs have to evolve or coaches have to find the ones who can do the job.

[Superman]

Captain America would be a start. Add Hulk and Iron Man and that would be a defense. The average LB is not fast enough to cover Gronkowski and the average safety is too small. The LBs have to evolve or coaches have to find the ones who can do the job.

Rob Gronkowski is nothing new. Remember Tony Gonzalez, statistically the best tight end in NFL history? Or what about Kellen Winslow, or Shannon Sharpe, or Jason Witten, or Antonio Gates? I really don't understand the recent hype surrounding the tight end position, specifically Rob Gronkowski. If you have a mega athlete like you're describing, you find as many ways to use him so you can maximize his value. But you don't reinvent an entire position just because there are a few good tight ends in the league now. There have always been good tight ends. You find a way to control their impact on the team, but you don't create a super athlete (you're talking about a 270 pound man who can run a 4.5 forty, which will always be rare) just because you're worried about Rob Gronkowski.

[The Peytonator]

Look at it this way. LBs are going to be slightly smaller than TEs, for the same reason CBs are slightly smaller than WRs. Smaller players typically have more agility. When covering somebody, agility/change of direction are more important than straight-line track speed or size. Ideally, it would be nice to have a linebacking core of the Hulk, Ironman, Captain America, and Thor, but they just don't make 6'5, 280 lb players with 4.5 speed.

[Smonroe]

Did you ever think that the examples you gave weren't the norm for their day? To truly do a comparison you'd need to get the average size for a LB in the 60s/70s and compare them with those today.

I think you'd find that todays are on average bigger and certainly a lot faster. (It is a passing league now after all)

[The Peytonator]

Did you ever think that the examples you gave weren't the norm for their day? To truly do a comparison you'd need to get the average size for a LB in the 60s/70s and compare them with those today.

I think you'd find that todays are on average bigger and certainly a lot faster. (It is a passing league now after all)

Very true. I find it funny when people say how much better the 'insert random 1960s powerhouse team' were than the better teams from this day and age. When they talk about how they knew how to play the game back in the day. I'd laugh to see some big, nasty, 6' tall, 200 lb MLB from the day get thrown around like a peewee football kid by some scrub TE from this age.

These guys are MEN, with track speed, hitting each other at full force. Back in the day, I'd be bigger than your average LB. In this day, I'm no bigger than Pat McAfee.

[buccolts]

Very true. I find it funny when people say how much better the 'insert random 1960s powerhouse team' were than the better teams from this day and age. When they talk about how they knew how to play the game back in the day. I'd laugh to see some big, nasty, 6' tall, 200 lb MLB from the day get thrown around like a peewee football kid by some scrub TE from this age.

These guys are MEN, with track speed, hitting each other at full force. Back in the day, I'd be bigger than your average LB. In this day, I'm no bigger than Pat McAfee.

You shouldn't find it all that funny. It's reasonable to believe players from back in the day, on average, were much more fundamentally sound than today's players, on average.

They were MEN also, 'cept Broadway Joe perhaps.

Plus I'd bet that 6' 200 lbs guy wouldn't be playing LB in this day & age.

Comparing different eras, and expecting them to translate to each other is just dumb.

That's why, to get in the HOF, you're expected to be a dominant player at your position during your career, not someone elses.

[21isSuperman]

Didn't Dwight Freeney run a 4.4 40? And he weighs 270 lbs

[The Peytonator]

You shouldn't find it all that funny. It's reasonable to believe players from back in the day, on average, were much more fundamentally sound than today's players, on average.

They were MEN also, 'cept Broadway Joe perhaps.

Plus I'd bet that 6' 200 lbs guy wouldn't be playing LB in this day & age.

Comparing different eras, and expecting them to translate to each other is just dumb.

That's why, to get in the HOF, you're expected to be a dominant player at your position during your career, not someone elses.

Well sure they were dominant in their era. But that doesn't mean they would do jack against the guys now. The league is not only getting bigger, faster, and stronger, but they are also getting smarter. Back then the players didn't have the advanced teachings of 15 different specialty coaches. They didn't have the advancements in nutrition and weight training. Back then a lot of players worked other jobs in the offseason. Fundamentally, the players are better now. Mean Joe Greene was the nastiest DT in the game back then. In this day he's no bigger than your average pass rusher....and probably not as fast or smart with pass rush moves.

I agree though. Comparing players past vs present is dumb. That's why I find it funny when my grandpa talks about how much tougher they were back in his day. How he would just bowl these modern day players over. I've tried to tell him, you were a 6'2 180 lb MLB. If you tried to tackle a 6'2 235 lb RB coming at you at 20 MPH, you wouldn't be trying that again.

[NewColtsFan]

Did you ever think that the examples you gave weren't the norm for their day? To truly do a comparison you'd need to get the average size for a LB in the 60s/70s and compare them with those today.

I think you'd find that todays are on average bigger and certainly a lot faster. (It is a passing league now after all)

That's my guy! You beat me to it, SMonroe....

I was going to say the same thing. The examples given were the exceptions to the rule of their day. Most of the other linebackers back then were much, much smaller. 210-225. And there are a number of monster LB's these days who're in the 255-270 range. But, bottom line is the game is fast. And you're asking LB's to do more and more. And while these jumbo LB's have a place in today's NFL, you've still got to be able to move... to drop and fill zones, to flair out and cover RB's out of the backfield. And did I mention rush the QB? You need speed and quickness to go with the power. Which is why most of today's LB's are 235-250.

NewColtsFan

[buccolts]

Well sure they were dominant in their era. But that doesn't mean they would do jack against the guys now. The league is not only getting bigger, faster, and stronger, but they are also getting smarter. Back then the players didn't have the advanced teachings of 15 different specialty coaches. They didn't have the advancements in nutrition and weight training. Back then a lot of players worked other jobs in the offseason. Fundamentally, the players are better now. Mean Joe Greene was the nastiest DT in the game back then. In this day he's no bigger than your average pass rusher....and probably not as fast or smart with pass rush moves.

I agree though. Comparing players past vs present is dumb. That's why I find it funny when my grandpa talks about how much tougher they were back in his day. How he would just bowl these modern day players over. I've tried to tell him, you were a 6'2 180 lb MLB. If you tried to tackle a 6'2 235 lb RB coming at you at 20 MPH, you wouldn't be trying that again.

That's all fine, but it doesn't mean they were any less MEN, or football players, or athletes, just because things have advanced since then.

I'm quite the Bear's hater, but I don't consider the '85 Bears defense to be 'lesser' players than what we see today. I don't care what side of the steroid revolution the fall on.

[atapcl]

Rob Gronkowski is nothing new. Remember Tony Gonzalez, statistically the best tight end in NFL history? Or what about Kellen Winslow, or Shannon Sharpe, or Jason Witten, or Antonio Gates? I really don't understand the recent hype surrounding the tight end position, specifically Rob Gronkowski. If you have a mega athlete like you're describing, you find as many ways to use him so you can maximize his value. But you don't reinvent an entire position just because there are a few good tight ends in the league now. There have always been good tight ends. You find a way to control their impact on the team, but you don't create a super athlete (you're talking about a 270 pound man who can run a 4.5 forty, which will always be rare) just because you're worried about Rob Gronkowski.

I am not trying to reinvent the LB position just surprised that nearly all the positions in the NFL have gotten bigger while CB and LB have not in almost 40 years. The athletes have to be out there but only a few come out every year. There should be more.

[GrizzColt]

My 2 cents. I'm gonna have to disagree with the whole "humans have evolved to be bigger and faster" theory. History has accounts of many tall (giant) people. I look around me and see lots of small people who married other small people and had small babies...then there are large guys who marry small women and have some small kids and some big kids. There isn't a whole bigger, faster thing going on...in fact, our gene pool is being dilluted as we go forward if anything. Also, it has to do with which sport is attracting the biggest and best athletes. Michael Jordan, Lebron James, etc...played basketball. If they had excelled at baseball and/or football we would believe we were evolving this new athlete, when in reality we aren't. Great and special people come along every once in a while and they are a product of hitting the genetic Lotto.