CJ Leggett

[dressedcheeseside]

The stud bback for Ga So, Domonique Swope was 5'11", 218 as a jr. Leggett would only have to add 8 lbs to match his weight. That is very doable over the next 2 or 3 years and I don't see it taking away from his speed and agility.

 

[jeffgt14]

Don't think Bback needs to be a bowling ball either. Was saying that he will be short and round if he puts on weight. Would rather see him be an Aback where he won't have to put on a ton more weight and can keep his speed. He's in the Roddy Jones range. No one would have said that Roddy should be a Bback.

Roddy was at least 15 lbs lighter and slower.

 

[nodawgs]

Roddy was at least 15 lbs lighter and slower.

Based on what?

 

[nodawgs]

The stud bback for Ga So, Domonique Swope was 5'11", 218 as a jr. Leggett would only have to add 8 lbs to match his weight. That is very doable over the next 2 or 3 years and I don't see it taking away from his speed and agility.

That was at the FCS level and he is also 2 inches taller than Leggett.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

That was at the FCS level and he is also 2 inches taller than Leggett.

He ran all the hell over Bama. What in tarnation does his height have to do with it? The fact that he's shorter is actually a benefit (if two inches makes any difference at all). It means he's harder to tackle and has more leverage.

 

[takethepoints]

As everyone here knows, I like really big BBs. I think they are more consistent in the actual role of the BB in our O: punishing the D and getting to 4 ypg on the dive. Everything else is pure gravy. Needless to say, if you find another Dwyer, he's the ticket, but such players are generational.

For all that, however, I don't think you have to be Kyle Eckel to be effective at the position. There have been plenty of examples - especially at Navy - of BBs in the 210 - 215 range who have done pretty well. Also there have been some dinosaurs up there - Ketani - who never really lit things up consistently.

I think Leggett is a born BB myself and I'm pretty sure that, if he keeps to the position, he'll start for us one year soon and do just fine. He carries 205 easy now and will probably top out at 210 - 215. He knows how to run with tilt. He has an instinct for the crease and hit it decisively. He's no Dwyer, but, like I say, he doesn't have to be. So work on the blocking, C. J.

 

[nodawgs]

He ran all the hell over Bama. What in tarnation does his height have to do with it? The fact that he's shorter is actually a benefit (if two inches makes any difference at all). It means he's harder to tackle and has more leverage.

The taller you are the more weight you can comfortably carry.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The taller you are the more weight you can comfortably carry.

OK, you tell me how much weight he needs to carry at his current height to be effective and tell me why he can't get there.

 

[forensicbuzz]

BASTA!

 

[nodawgs]

OK, you tell me how much weight he needs to carry at his current height to be effective and tell me why he can't get there.

He needs to be at least 225. He can get there but will lose speed, quickness, and agility. Look Leggett can be a temporary fill in since Custis is gone, but making him a full time B back will not be putting him in the best position to succeed. It's simply wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.

 

[forensicbuzz]

From what I have heard, C. J. is pretty thick through the thighs. That would give him a solid base to work with, making him more stable running low through the line. His ability to survive and thrive as a BBack will be dependent on his ability to absorb punishment from the bigger defensive players. That strong lower body will help him absorb that punishment better.

Whether he would make a better A-Back or B-Back may never be known, but 5'9"/210 isn't a little guy. If he's as sturdy as has been stated, he should be able to be successful as a B-Back. I think his height is similar to Snoddy's, while he's 20 pounds heavier, and Snoddy wasn't moved to A-Back because of his inability to take the hit or always getting hurt.

PS: Try not to take it personally or to get personal. Your (as in all of you) chippy comments back and forth are not amusing, nor entertaining, nor interesting. Please stop.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

How are we still going in circles over this? Dwyer's size or Legget's doesn't matter so much. What coaches really look for in a BB is the 10-yard burst. 40 times don't matter that much and neither does size. I like Legget as a BB. The coaches' original plan was AB. If he moves to BB, I can assure you his height and weight will not determine his success there.

 

[ATL1]

He ran all the hell over Bama. What in tarnation does his height have to do with it? The fact that he's shorter is actually a benefit (if two inches makes any difference at all). It means he's harder to tackle and has more leverage.

Wow we agree on something. There's a blizzard in Hell.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Wow we agree on something. There's a blizzard in Hell.

I think we both want GT to kick butt, too, I'd wager.

 

[danny daniel]

Good ability matched to the requirements of the position makes a good BBack. If height and weight physical dimensions were a primary requirement we would be missing our starting BBack, Laskey, who started his GT career as a punt returner and safety and he is built more like a WReceiver. Laskey is a very effective and proven BBack and he looks nothing like all this rheteric about the physical requirements for the position.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The taller you are the more weight you can comfortably carry.

There is a difference between ideal size and effective size. Bigger size is certainly preferred all other things being equal. But it's foolhardy to say a Bback could never be effective if under 5'10".

 

[Squints]

One more time....By the time he puts on the necessary weight to take the punishment of the position he will look like a bowling ball, and will have lost his speed and agility. That's not hard to understand. Not sure why that bothers you so much. Move on!

It bothers me because you're basing you're opinion on something that's incorrect. Opinions are worthless without substantiation.

The taller you are the more weight you can comfortably carry.

Ok here we go. This is my last attempt. This is generally true. You are not wrong. However, when you're talking about a difference of something like two inches height is an insignificant factor in the ability to put on effective weight. This is what I'm trying to explain to you. It's not a difficult concept.

 

[Squints]

PS: Try not to take it personally or to get personal. Your (as in all of you) chippy comments back and forth are not amusing, nor entertaining, nor interesting. Please stop.

I don't think anything's gotten chippy or personal. Me and @nodawgs just disagree. It's no big deal to me. I mean it happened in another thread, went down very similar, and I actually learned something from the guy. If you don't like it just disregard it.

 

[nodawgs]

I don't think anything's gotten chippy or personal. Me and @nodawgs just disagree. It's no big deal to me. I mean it happened in another thread, went down very similar, and I actually learned something from the guy. If you don't like it just disregard it.

Agree Squints. Nothing personal, we just disagree on this issue. I may disagree, but I do respect your opinion.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I don't think anything's gotten chippy or personal. Me and @nodawgs just disagree. It's no big deal to me. I mean it happened in another thread, went down very similar, and I actually learned something from the guy. If you don't like it just disregard it.

It wasn't necessarily directed at you.