theogt
Surrealist
- Messages
- 45,846
- Reaction score
- 5,912
I still don't understand. Emmitt was a bigger back than Deangelo.Yeagermeister said:Oh yeah I forgot he was 6'5
I still don't understand. Emmitt was a bigger back than Deangelo.Yeagermeister said:Oh yeah I forgot he was 6'5
same height but Emmitt was a little thicker but not by much. DeAngelo is the same size Emmitt was when he was drafted.theogt said:I still don't understand. Emmitt was a bigger back than Deangelo.
theogt said:I still don't understand. Emmitt was a bigger back than Deangelo.
They're clearly not the same height. Not the same size either.Yeagermeister said:same height but Emmitt was a little thicker but not by much. DeAngelo is the same size Emmitt was when he was drafted.
Dickerson is one of the few upright rb's that were very successful.summerisfunner said:Emmitt was still considered a smallish back
have you ever heard of upright running style and low center of gravity? I suggest you read up on the 2 terms, most of the top backs in the league don't stand over 5'10"
Yeagermeister said:Dickerson is one of the few upright rb's that were very successful.
theogt said:They're clearly not the same height. Not the same size either.
Yeagermeister said:Per NFL.com
Emmitt 5-10 216
DeAngelo 5-9 217
Yeah you are right Emmitt is HUGE by comparison
DeAngelo is *******CLEARLY******* smaller than Emmitt, who himself was considered smallish. Why are you arguing about this?Yeagermeister said:Per NFL.com
Emmitt 5-10 216
DeAngelo 5-9 217
Yeah you are right Emmitt is HUGE by comparison
summerisfunner said::laugh2:
and I saw alot of mags in the past that listed Emmitt at 5'8" 209
I'm not arguing just stating facts. I'm saying they are basically the same size as rookies.theogt said:DeAngelo is *******CLEARLY******* smaller than Emmitt, who himself was considered smallish. Why are you arguing about this?
It's because of their agility/speed, not because of their height, but that's a different story.summerisfunner said:the ogt, why do you think runners such as Barry Sanders and Julius Jones were/are so good at making people miss? hint: both are under 5'10"
Yeagermeister said:Heights are always fudged same as basketball. There is no way Barkley was 6-7. he was 6-5 or 6-4 at best but still a baller.
theogt said:It's because of their agility/speed, not because of their height, but that's a different story.
And I'm stating that they're not the same size. Every scout in the nation pegged him as ALMOST too small to play in the league.Yeagermeister said:I'm not arguing just stating facts. I'm saying they are basically the same size as rookies.
Agility comes from many things--low center of gravity being one of the less meaningful contributions.summerisfunner said:agility comes from low center of gravity
theogt said:Agility comes from many things--low center of gravity being one of the less meaningful contributions.