Kelly the Dog Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Shaud Williams is 5'7", 193. Always described as being way too small. There are backs in the league who are 5'11" 193, and while still pretty "small" for that position when there are Bettises and even Mcgahees around, would not be considered tiny. I would argue that a running back who is 5'7" and 193 is at least as "big" or even "bigger" than a RB at 5'11" 193. Certainly wider, almost certainly sturdier. Probably less likely to get worn down by the punishment (if all other intangibles are equal). If you were a CB the height could hurt you a lot more so that may be a factor, but a RB doesn't really need the extra height except for high passes. Sometimes the shorter height is even an advantage for RBs. I am not saying that Shaud Williams is not a tiny RB in the NFL, he is. But it is mostly because of his weight and not his height. Sometimes players who are shorter are actually a lot "bigger". London Fletcher comes to mind.
nick in* england Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 ya lost me. SW is 'big' for his height? Or 'little' for his weight. Or both? Or wait a minute... ummm... huh
Dr. K Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Just for curiosity's sake, how big was Barry Sanders? Not that Williams is any Barry Sanders...
VABills Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 193 is a lot of weight to carry on that frame. I am same height and not even close to that weight. When I used to be in great shape, the most I could ever put on muscle was about 155. I was lifting weights and running everyday 2-4 miles. He will get worn down carrying that much weight, even if it is mostly muscle.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 22, 2004 Author Posted December 22, 2004 Just for curiosity's sake, how big was Barry Sanders? Not that Williams is any Barry Sanders... 173324[/snapback] Barry Sanders was 5'8" 200 (or 203 depending on the two places I looked). That should answer VA's problem, too, it didn't make him wear down.
Mike in Syracuse Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 At my most fit I was 5' 10" and I still weighed 190 lbs. That was with 8% body fat. Then again, when you're working on a dairy farm that kind of build helps keep you alive.
Dr. K Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 One thing I noticed Williams do during the game against Cleveland was using his small stature to his advantage by "hiding" behind his blockers before making his break. He's short enough that the D-linemen and linebackers couldn't always see around the O-linemen. Thurman used to do this all the time, and it made him much harder to draw a bead on. I loved watching Thurman run (my favorite Bill all-time) and I'm really curious to see how Williams does Sunday.
Ramius Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Wow, am i the only one who thought "I'd go after a different woman" when i saw this thread title?
DeeRay Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 I just did the math... and 5'7" 193 is bigger....plus, low man usually wins the battle in quickness and leverage.
buckeyebrian Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Just for curiosity's sake, how big was Barry Sanders? Not that Williams is any Barry Sanders... 173324[/snapback] And Emmitt, and the "Thurminator"
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts