Why is Duke Johnson considered too small but Emmitt wasn't?

[esloan]

I have heard a lot of people say Duke Johnson is too small to be a feature back. Yet, Johnson is 5'9" and 206lbs. Emmitt was 5'9" 210lbs. Why is Johnson too small but Emmitt was not?

For that matter, why is Johnson too small but Melvin Gordon (6'1" 210lbs) is not? Or Tevin Coleman (5'10" 206lbs)

Heck, most of the RBs in the draft are within one or two inches of Johnson and 5-10 lbs.. I am not saying Duke Johnson should be the pick or that he will ever be anywhere close to Emmitt, I am just wondering why I always here that Johnson is small.

 

[CATCH17]

Body frame

 

[esloan]

Body frame

Maybe. He doesn't look that thin to me though. He looks pretty solid.

 

[Thatkidbob]

By no means is he too small to be a feature back.

 

[esloan]

By no means is he too small to be a feature back.

I don't think he is either. I haven't kept up with him a lot but I have recently been watching him. I think he may bring the most bang for the buck in later rounds.

 

[Rogerthat12]

The question for Duke was not only size but the ability to run inside with power.

I do not think Duke has the lower body power and ability to run inside as Emmitt.

So the question is size and inside running ability in order to carry the load as a featured back in a ball control offense.

That said, Duke is explosive and has probably the best hands out of the back field in this draft.

He would be perfect in the later rounds if available assuming Dallas fails to grab a RB early
and goes with the platoon approach.

 

[DFWJC]

Body frame

Exactly.

Guys like Smith, Sanders, Rice, MJD....those guys have powerful legs and thick bones.
Rock em Sock em robots...if anyone knows what those where.

Having said that, I think Duke Johnson would be fine in this scheme and behind this line. We'd never load the guy with 400 touches, so he'd be ok. Not my top choice, but ok enough.
It's not.ike he's tiny...the guy is built fairly sturdy himself.

 

[texbumthelife]

Emmitt WAS considered too small when he came out. He simply proved people wrong. Which is what Duke Johnson will have to do.

 

[Leadbelly]

I think Duke is plenty big enough but I'll just remind that Emmitt started his NFL career 25 years ago.

It's also not just about the starting weight. It's about projecting how NFL training can add weight/strength. Teams might feel Duke won't be able to add much, while they think Tevin Coleman and Gordon can. 25 years ago, I don't think that part of the game was as developed or valued as it has become.

And, as others have said, he had some thick legs.

 

[Spectre]

There has been a trend of 'bigger backs' in recent years, brought about by the likes of guys such as Arian Foster & Demarco Murray, but history shows those guys break down quicker and the under 6'/under 215 lbers are almost always the more ideal rb to have, imo. How the weight is distributed is the difference. Coleman, Gordon have a thicker frame in different areas even though their measurements aren't far from Duke.

 

[Silver N Blue]

I don't think he is either. I haven't kept up with him a lot but I have recently been watching him. I think he may bring the most bang for the buck in later rounds.

I agree and he is in my 4th best RB. I'm with you with the measurables and will throw in he was the bellcow at a good college program. I don't get all the to small talk either.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I think the guy would make for a very good back for this team. I think he's capable of running the ball 18 times a game.

 

[CATCH17]

Emmitt WAS considered too small when he came out. He simply proved people wrong. Which is what Duke Johnson will have to do.

People might've thought he was too small because of his height.


To me, a RB's height doesn't matter. In some cases the shorter the better.

I just don't want a guy that skinny.

Duke Johnson is skinny.


Give me a Emmitt, Ray Rice, MJD build any day of the week but I don't want a short skinny guy that runs a 4.5 at the combine.

 

[jobberone]

I think he'd be fine.

 

[xwalker]

I have heard a lot of people say Duke Johnson is too small to be a feature back. Yet, Johnson is 5'9" and 206lbs. Emmitt was 5'9" 210lbs. Why is Johnson too small but Emmitt was not?

For that matter, why is Johnson too small but Melvin Gordon (6'1" 210lbs) is not? Or Tevin Coleman (5'10" 206lbs)

Heck, most of the RBs in the draft are within one or two inches of Johnson and 5-10 lbs.. I am not saying Duke Johnson should be the pick or that he will ever be anywhere close to Emmitt, I am just wondering why I always here that Johnson is small.

There was a tread about this awhile back. Weight can be deceiving with players. The build/frame can vary drastically for players with similar height/weight measurements. Duke Johnson just doesn't have the build that Emmitt had with massive legs and a wide frame. There is also the issue that players gain or lose weight for the combine. Emmitt probably came in on the low side in an attempt to put up a good forty. Duke Johnson probably came in with some extra weight to show that he is big enough. Emmitt's playing weight with the Cowboys was reported to be about 218. Duke Johnson probably played at sub 200 in college.

I once stood next to Emmitt on a driving range and he seemed huge compared to me, and I'm 5-10, 200.

 

[HellCrowe]

Like many are saying. Physically, Duke looks solid. However, he doesn't seem to have those thighs or big frame (bones) the HOF shorter RBs have. These backs also have an exceptional center of gravity which allows them to shed and take on tackles between the tackles. Duke just doesn't have it.

 

[Chuck 54]

I think those who say he's too small are under the impression that we want Murray's replacement to be another Murray.

I would actually prefer Duke Johnson over most of the backs. It's not just about size, weight, and speed....this guy is a natural running back with jump stops and change of direction. I would love to have him.

 

[Derinyar]

I'm not sure if he's too small, but I still think even size comps to HOF players are specious at best. A HOF player is, by definition, at least 15 years from his draft. Especially in the last 15 years the size and speed of players has changed dramatically, or at least it feels that way.

 

[texbumthelife]

I certainly don't see how anyone can claim Emmitt had significantly thicker legs (if at all) than Duke Johnson...

Even with all the padding, his hamstrings and quads are pretty small. Emmitt's physical build was never a strong suit. It was his vision and ability to get small when contact came. He took very few big shots. I think the biggest contrast between the two, is Duke Johnson seeks out contact and will grind down because of it. Emmitt learned how to get every yard without initiating a lot of contact.

Their builds, however, certainly aren't all that disimilar. At least, not while in college.Some of you are projecting him against Emmitt after being in the NFL. That just isn't fair or right. Duke Johnson won't even look the same by the end of this season. Let alone 3-4 years down the line.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There was a tread about this awhile back. Weight can be deceiving with players. The build/frame can vary drastically for players with similar height/weight measurements. Duke Johnson just doesn't have the build that Emmitt had with massive legs and a wide frame. There is also the issue that players gain or lose weight for the combine. Emmitt probably came in on the low side in an attempt to put up a good forty. Duke Johnson probably came in with some extra weight to show that he is big enough. Emmitt's playing weight with the Cowboys was reported to be about 218. Duke Johnson probably played at sub 200 in college.

I once stood next to Emmitt on a driving range and he seemed huge compared to me, and I'm 5-10, 200.

Yep. Emmitt may have come into the league around 210 or whatever it was but he certainly didn't play at that weight. I'm guessing more like 225 but who really knows?