Merry Mockmas

[*ochocincos*]

(01-10-2018, 02:21 PM)Jpoore Wrote: No bc if u have good coverage lbs ur not giving up 50-60 pounds on a team like u are with most safety's. Most lbs are 6"3-6"4 245 or so. Most safety's are 6"0-6"1 and about 210. Most tes are about 6"6 and 255-270

(01-11-2018, 05:42 AM)Jpoore Wrote: I didn't say that. Safety's are important. My rd1 target is Derwin James bc he can play lb and Safety. 

So wait, you're in favor of a LB covering a TE because most LBs are near the size of TEs but yet you're in favor of Derwin James because he can play LB and Safety?
But Derwin James is only 211 lbs. That's 40+ lbs less than most TEs, which you are saying is too light to cover a TE.

Wouldn't the Bengals be better off putting Iloka in coverage on a TE? He's 6'4", 225 lbs.

With that said, LBs are becoming smaller nowadays because it's much more difficult to find someone at 240 lbs or bigger that can cover compared to someone who is 210-225 lbs. And with the way passing has become much more of an emphasis across the league, coverage ability is starting to take priority over sheer size to stop the run. Reuben Foster and Roquan Smith are both under 230 lbs, which would have been unheard of even 10 years ago to play ILB in the NFL.