Heights & weights updated on SK
- Thread starter Mac36
- Start date
All but Hamilton are the same as last year. Lambert's program weight was 260, JPO 275, and Wilkins 295.
But JPO is moving to DE from 3-tech DT .. thus a larger DE than Mera. And Hamilton is larger than JPO at 3-tech DT.
JPO is alternating between the two positions right now.
Some players who have put on some serious size (according to the school site) are
DE Carter 240 to 268
DE Previlon 255 to 271
OG Muller 310 to 319
TE Flanagan 240 to 255
LB Roberts 220 to 234
DT Wiafe 280 to 290
LB Russell 225 to 234
OG Miller 285 to 292
LB Clayton 205 to 217
I like him as a prospect, but you can't judge him by just his weight.
That is very true, but it was good to hear the positive mention of Seymour in yesterday's scrimmage report.
A few players seemed to have lost an inch of height, is that part of our S&C program? :-) Darius is now listed at 6'3". I remember hearing from his recruitment that his actual height is more like 6'2.5". Both Laviano and Rettig were listed as 6'3" last year, but it is obvious to all that HR is at least an inch taller. HR is still listed as 6'3", but CL is now listed at 6'2".
The most impressive weight gains seem to be among the LBs.
Bigger/stronger = better only if it's "good" weight. That seems to be the case with what I've been reading about our new strength and conditioning program.
Still not big enough all-around, height-or-weight, but nice improvement no doubt!
ANY weight is "good" weight if the body is strong enough to carry it without slowing down,.
Those days will never be over. Some guys are just made to play OL and others are better suited as DL. The weight is not a reason to stay or leave the DL. It's all about footwork for OL and being "sudden" for DL. It's more than that but how much they weigh is not the determining factor and never was.
Great to see such big strides being made by our young players, especially the LB's and DL's. It is great to give all of the credit to the new S&C staff but keeping it real, these guys were likely bulking up already. I am certain we have enhanced how we are doing this and that it is more about good weight and all of that. But the dividends will not be seen just yet. This will be a long process to get to where we need to be.
I'd like to see our MLB weight in the 250 area, with a solid height of 6'2. OLB should be around 235-245 area and possibly slightly taller and longer for the pass rushing LB's.
275 is very good weight for JPO. I actually feel JPO and DH are both best suited as a DE in the 3-4 defense.
275 is very good weight for JPO. I actually feel JPO and DH are both best suited as a DE in the 3-4 defense.
WOW they are so much bigger where is Al we will be heading to the Rose bowl:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
Now that the joy of size has reached all the males in the room here is the truth of all this boner swelling
last year we were an average of 1 Lb. heaver then MSU's D line.
This year we are 12 Lbs. heaver then last year.[banana]
as a female sports fan put it put it to me once , "he can have the biggest dong but if does not know how to use he won't score a touchdown with me" :( this is so profound but no one sees it! or also put It is not the dog in the fight but it is the fight in the dog.
IT COLLEGE BALL not the Pros
Now that the joy of size has reached all the males in the room here is the truth of all this boner swelling
last year we were an average of 1 Lb. heaver then MSU's D line.
This year we are 12 Lbs. heaver then last year.[banana]
as a female sports fan put it put it to me once , "he can have the biggest dong but if does not know how to use he won't score a touchdown with me" :( this is so profound but no one sees it! or also put It is not the dog in the fight but it is the fight in the dog.
IT COLLEGE BALL not the Pros
Sorry, should have had the sarcasm button on. Agree that each case may be different on moving OL to DL or vice versa. Just seemed under prior regimes, just when we had a DL big enough he got switched.
If we judged solely by weight many of us would be superstars. :fries:
I think a WILL at the college level at 225-230 who runs a 4.6 would work out just fine.
In Ash's scheme it is the SAM position that is a LB Safety hybrid, where you would want the smaller faster guy.
To your point, the program weights of the 6 1st and 2nd team All B1G LB's were 225, 230, 235, 236, 240, and 254. Pretty much all over the place.
Other than OSU's Joshua Perry, you'll find few LB's in the B1G as big as 250 and just as few OLB's near 245. This isn't the NFL. As been said with all the spread offenses college LB's seem to be in the 6-2, 225-235 range.
Your point is valid and we have gotten a lot bigger in just 2-3 years. I can't remember a DL with this size and depth since I've been a fan.
With the new emphasis of athletic OL I'm wondering if we will see even more of the bigger DLs moved over to OL than we did under Schiano.
Yep. And there are also the intangibles. Sure we want offensive linemen who play with a nasty streak but it takes a different kind of toughness to play on the DL and at LB for that matter. Not all big bodies have that toughness even if they have the footwork, hands and leverage needed to play on the DL.
Check the size of OSU's LB's last year including Darron Lee who is 228 and projected as a 1st round pick. And perhaps you didn't see the recent quote from the RU DC where he said that the position that Clayton has been working at is basically a hybrid LB/S?
Some posters confuse pro size players with college. I know people will debate me on this, but Rutgers has never been super small compared to other B1G teams the last 2 seasons. This year Rutgers is on point, yet people continue to say Rutgers has to get bigger. Just look at the LB position around the B1G. Michigan State has only 3 LB over 230 on the roster. Wisconsin's starters were under 230 except for one. Outside of Michigan everyone else is about the same.
Last edited:
Great point, doug. I remember posters in 2014 making a big deal on how our D didn't match up with Wisky's size on O, yet our D was actually bigger than Wisconsin's D and they shut us out.
Last year the Rutgers DL was the same size (+-5lbs) as Iowa and MSU according to program weights.
People need to put the size of the defenses of the past in the rear view mirror. It has no relation to what RU puts out there now.
Agree with the last few posters. Our success on D in 2006 and 2012 was not based on size. It was talent and experience. Our struggles recently have not been size either since we did get a lot bigger. It was throwing True freshman players out in key positions which causes you to play uphill instead of downhill like 2006 and 2012. I also did not love some of our schemes and concepts but they were fine inn2012.
Also completely agree on size of LB's and will bump the Clayton thread where I said the same thing as many of the last few posters.
Also completely agree on size of LB's and will bump the Clayton thread where I said the same thing as many of the last few posters.
Similar threads
