85SugarVol
I prefer the tumult of Liberty
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 32,133
- Likes
- 62,977
DBs have always been smaller than WRs.I'm curious though...and you didn't address it in my last post, so I'll ask it again...why do you think it's illogical to believe a 5-10 kid is a better fit at WR due to his size if from that position he's more likely to be matched up against guys (DBs) who are more similarly-sized?
From afar, it appears that your argument/justification (that WRs are bigger than DBs) works against your opposition to my preference to play him on offense due to his size. Is he not at a bigger disadvantage playing DB against bigger players (WRs) where he often has to win at the catch point than he is playing WR against smaller players (DBs) where he can win in space and his size is of no consequence?
WRs have the inherent advantage of “knowing where they are going”. DBs don’t know - they must be agile and fast enough to “flip and run” with the WR.
That usually translates to smaller, more athletic players at DB.
If Boo was 6’2” if he would be more well suited for WR.
Doesn’t mean he can’t play either. But he can only be more suited for one or the other.