Kelly the Dog Posted December 22, 2004 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted December 22, 2004 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Just for curiosity's sake, how big was Barry Sanders? Not that Williams is any Barry Sanders... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 22, 2004 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted December 22, 2004 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted December 22, 2004 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 22, 2004 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeRay Posted December 22, 2004 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyebrian Posted December 22, 2004 Share 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts