I've seen several posts like this, but I think they're simply wrong.
If you look at starting DLs across the country, you will find that typically they are smaller–often much smaller–then the OLs they are up against. In today's "push and dance" blocking routines, the premium is on really big guys who essentially waddle to a place on the field and try to push D players out of the way so their RB can pick a hole. (Btw, if you are worried about this now, get ready; Woody's DLs are typically smaller then ours was this year.) Imho, it isn't the size difference between our DL and their OL that played us false against the Dwags; shoot, most of the decent teams we played this year (Duke, Miami, VT, Pitt; you can check) were just as big and we did well against them. Nope, it was the speed of their WRs and RBs. If you don't need a hole to stay open long or a route to take much time to develop–and they don't–then your OL can look like a champ. (I admit I was surprised by this, btw.) That they had some really good OLs out there helped them too, but not as much.
Could we use some bigger players on DL? Yes, and they are coming up; next year's DL (Adams, Owens, Glanton or Martin) should average either 295 or 293, depending. But we'll have to see what Woody wants to do with the DL; like I said, he seems to favor speed and agility over bulk.
