Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Easier for lower center of gravity players to match cuts. When having to react to routes I'd rather have a 5'11" CB over a 6'3" CB. It is 100% the rules that have made offenses better. Defense can't hit to hard against their opponents. Offenses get rewarded if the ball is under thrown. Receivers can push off just not fully extend their arm but if a receiver slightly tugs on a receivers jersey it's a flag.
Crocker talks about it all the time. He's not about the big tall DBs. Unless you have crazy twitch/change of direction skills, which is rare for a DB that big.
The Seahawks had those big DBs and for a while other teams were trying to duplicate that model. The 49ers drafted Witherspoon because he was tall and rangy. The problem is there aren't enough tall and fast DBs unlike there are WRS. It creates a mismatch in some cases. I agree that shorter players can make adjustments quicker. We see that with running backs as well. They can make quicker cuts without slowing down.
Tall CBs make sense in a cover 3 when you're playing mostly on an Y axis. Now that we seem to be running different varying coverages and the NFL has adapted to the LoB cover 3 it makes sense to go back to the old faithful CB size. Sherman, Sauce and other taller CBs that stay in phase that well are unicorns.