Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Why are the CB always shorter? « previous next »
Page: 1 2

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21579
Offline
#15 : March 26, 2009, 06:25:10 PM

Its hard to find taller guys who are as fluid and can turn their hips as well, thats why CBs tend to be shorter. And thats also why taller CBs are of more value, because they are hard to find

CB's are reactive not proactive on the field so they should, ideally, be quicker than the WR's they cover. Smaller guys are quicker than big guys so a big WR can still get open but big CB's would get run away from too easily.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21579
Offline
#16 : March 26, 2009, 06:25:57 PM

Because in HS and college, if you're fast enough to play CB and you are tall, the coach makes you into a WR.

Pretty much went like this:
1. Run the 40
2. Fastest guys are CB's and WR's
3. Throw ball to all of the guys in group 2
4. If you drop the ball you are a CB

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#17 : March 26, 2009, 08:07:04 PM

Its hard to find taller guys who are as fluid and can turn their hips as well, thats why CBs tend to be shorter. And thats also why taller CBs are of more value, because they are hard to find

Exactly.  It's the Lurch syndrome.  Tall people can't move as well and are generally not as good of athletes as shorter people.   But their height is such an advantage, that they are able to overcome their disadvantage of being less of an athlete.

TOP SECRET

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#18 : March 26, 2009, 09:11:27 PM

Taller guys are usually slower and stiffer, and when there is a big quick fast guy he usually scores a lot of TD's and that is a very valuable thing which makes him being a CB unlikely.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#19 : March 26, 2009, 09:15:50 PM

Because in HS and college, if you're fast enough to play CB and you are tall, the coach makes you into a WR.

Pretty much went like this:
1. Run the 40
2. Fastest guys are CB's and WR's
3. Throw ball to all of the guys in group 2
4. If you drop the ball you are a CB

Yeah, but if the guy is 6'3"+ the coach thinks "I can teach him to catch" or he gets the stickum.




Guest
#20 : March 27, 2009, 09:56:15 AM

CBs are usually shorter because it is easier for them to change direction in a hurry. The downside is taller WRs. This is why cover 2 came into play and taller CBs who are more physical are a good option. Most great man to man CBs are under 6 foot tall or right at it. Not many teams feature man to man as thier number one coverage anymore.

kmitchell

****
Starter

Posts : 964
Offline
#21 : March 27, 2009, 02:14:24 AM

Why are the CB always shorter then the WR?

Because in HS and college, if you're fast enough to play CB and you are tall, the coach makes you into a WR.

x2. In my class, we had a 6'4 220 pound player who dominated in football. The most important spot for a person of that size/speed is as WR. He dominated at WR, and also played DE. He plays TE for USC now, Anthony McCoy. He was ridiculous, would beat triple team coverage on deep passes all the time.


Tampa-Two

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3317
Offline
#22 : March 27, 2009, 08:19:02 AM

It has to due with the hips. Shorter players have an easier time of turning directions than taller players. And a position that places its fundamentals on how quick you can turn your hips, speed, acceleration, then well you can see how important loose hips are.
QFT

Shorter players are way more agile.  Aqib Talib and other tall corners, like 6'2'' nnamdi asomugha, are just freaks.


TBayXXXVII

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5846
Offline
#23 : March 27, 2009, 08:49:56 AM

For the most part, CB's are WR's who can't catch... so how come the Bucs never switched Clayton over to a CB????

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27713
Offline
#24 : March 27, 2009, 09:19:03 AM

Height for corners is good, but a bit overrated. If a 6' 3" receiver has good coverage on him, it's an extremely small window that will allow him to catch a ball a 6' 0" corner could get to but a 5' 9" corner couldn't. It places a ridiculous emphasis on accuracy for the quarterback that is nearly impossible in game conditions.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.



Guest
#25 : March 27, 2009, 11:26:35 AM

Height for corners is good, but a bit overrated. If a 6' 3" receiver has good coverage on him, it's an extremely small window that will allow him to catch a ball a 6' 0" corner could get to but a 5' 9" corner couldn't. It places a ridiculous emphasis on accuracy for the quarterback that is nearly impossible in game conditions.


3-5 inches for a CB is a HUGE difference

ryan24

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 10780
Offline
#26 : March 27, 2009, 11:28:29 AM

Why are the CB always shorter then the WR?

Because in HS and college, if you're fast enough to play CB and you are tall, the coach makes you into a WR.

In HS you play both.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27713
Offline
#27 : March 27, 2009, 11:32:37 AM

Height for corners is good, but a bit overrated. If a 6' 3" receiver has good coverage on him, it's an extremely small window that will allow him to catch a ball a 6' 0" corner could get to but a 5' 9" corner couldn't. It places a ridiculous emphasis on accuracy for the quarterback that is nearly impossible in game conditions.


3-5 inches for a CB is a HUGE difference
I'm saying the window to get the ball where a 5' 9" corner with good coverage could not intercept it, but a 6' 0" could is extremely small. You can't ask any quarterback to be that precise 10-20 yards down the field while rushers are trying to kill him.

This excludes the Moss and Fitzgerald type freaks who catch every jump ball.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

kmitchell

****
Starter

Posts : 964
Offline
#28 : March 27, 2009, 12:12:55 PM

Imagine it this way. A 6'5 CB trying to cover a 5'9 receiver. The shorter guy has the agility, and the CB would get torched. Press coverage would be entertaining to watch though.

Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Why are the CB always shorter? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools