Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 517338">Even taking what you say at face value, there's not much support for the contention that the Packers are bigger and more physical than last season.  Let's step away from "face value" for the moment.As much as I like McGinn's work, he is wrong about 6'4", 290 lb. being a prototypical 3-4 DE.  That's on the very low end of the scale.  There are few of the breed who go under 300 lbs. based on the weights listed at ESPN.com.  With Matthews injured, Neal's time at DT  in nickel may be over.  Otherwise, Jones/Neal are probably the smallest pair of interior nickel rush men in the league when they actually play there.Hyde was listed at 6'0", 197 lbs.  I would not call that above average for a nickel back.This team a long way from physical, and not any more than last year once you look past Lacy.In 2010 we had Jenkins, Bishop, Collins, Woodson (before his shoulder injury) and Williams (before his shoulder injury)...we do not have guys now who bring equivalent physicality to their positions, and THAT 2010 team was regarded as more finesse than physical.If the D looks more physical I'd say it's being confused with "more coherent".</blockquote>

Total: 272 (members: 2, guests: 270)