forums

Clyde Pinder Jr.

Advertisement
Tee3000 said:
Gotta read fam. None of those guy the bill of a short DT outside of Maryland... under 6’2

I have no idea what you were arguing.....I just know we are not talking OL or DE. I don't mind shorter house bullies in the middle.

Sure, I would prefer them in a range...and I don't know about this kid, but a lot of our dumb *** young fans think a 6'5-6'6 DT is preferable...LMFAO.

UM
Click to expand...
 
STA's Gene Atkins. One of the most disruptive DTs in the NFL the last 10 years. 6'1/293 at the combine
 
Advertisement
Are there great DT’s under 6’2”? Sure there are. But you can count them on two hands. They are the exception not the rule. You can’t use exceptions for examples instead of the rule. You gotta get separation and it’s hard to do that being shorter without length unless you have orangutang arms a la Dumervil, Von Miller, Donald, etc.

You can get away with it in high school on raw talent. but when those OL you’re playing against in college are now longer AND also coached properly, different ball game. Forget what your chick tells you at night, length matters.
 
Advertisement
FreePawn said:
STA's Gene Atkins. One of the most disruptive DTs in the NFL the last 10 years. 6'1/293 at the combine
Click to expand...

I hate when we reference outliers.

Have you ever looked at Atkins? He ain't some 6'1" fat kid. The dude is a rocked up 293lbs. He's a freak. He legit looks like a body builder who plays football.

80733
 
RC26 said:
Are there great DT’s under 6’2”? Sure there are. But you can count them on two hands. They are the exception not the rule. You can’t use exceptions for examples instead of the rule. You gotta get separation and it’s hard to do that being shorter without length unless you have orangutang arms a la Dumervil, Von Miller, Donald, etc.

You can get away with it in high school on raw talent. but when those OL you’re playing against in college are now longer AND also coached properly, different ball game. Forget what your chick tells you at night, length matters.
Click to expand...

Because they never got a realistic chance , because of not being a” prototype”.

If you were 6 ft you rarely got a shot, if ever . Just like shorter QBs. Of course the data will show they’re outliers lol. Hard to have data on someone that wouldn’t even get a look at one point.

As mcshay said the nfl is getting away from that nonsense.

I get arm length or hand size for obvious reasons but 6’0 and 6’2 isn’t much of a difference if you can play. Especially playing inside.
 
RC26 said:
Are there great DT’s under 6’2”? Sure there are. But you can count them on two hands. They are the exception not the rule. You can’t use exceptions for examples instead of the rule. You gotta get separation and it’s hard to do that being shorter without length unless you have orangutang arms a la Dumervil, Von Miller, Donald, etc.

You can get away with it in high school on raw talent. but when those OL you’re playing against in college are now longer AND also coached properly, different ball game. Forget what your chick tells you at night, length matters.
Click to expand...

And those guys who are the exceptions usually have some freak/rare attribute that allows them to succeed. (ex: Donald's 4.6-4.7 speed)
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Cuban-Cane said:
Why all the drop Riggins talk?
Click to expand...
I looked at his tape, and he doesn't look as good compare to our other targets, he is injured and know one that has seen him play say that he is dominant or a great DT prospect for this class. A lot of people think he is a rotational player at best at the next level, but we will see maybe he will progress his senior year.
 
twes.305 said:
I looked at his tape, and he doesn't look as good compare to our other targets, he is injured and know one that has seen him play say that he is dominant or a great DT prospect for this class. A lot of people think he is a rotational player at best at the next level, but we will see maybe he will progress his senior year.
Click to expand...

He has had a lot of early hype. Was a DE but as he is developing, may be more of a tweener between DE and 3 Technique.
 
Fightinibis said:
Yeah dip****...Wilfork was 100 years ago. …:zczkqmritjdsoaq.jpg::zczkqmritjdsoaq.jpg::zczkqmritjdsoaq.jpg::zczkqmritjdsoaq.jpg::zczkqmritjdsoaq.jpg::zczkqmritjdsoaq.jpg:

You know how many squads would take him RIGHT NOW as he was in 2000?

:rk5i6fxwjlgev5j6.jpg::rk5i6fxwjlgev5j6.jpg::rk5i6fxwjlgev5j6.jpg::rk5i6fxwjlgev5j6.jpg::rk5i6fxwjlgev5j6.jpg:Your no Cane if you think those DTs were bums...
Click to expand...
I can answer that... EVERY squad would take him. That combination of size, strength & quickness was, is and likely for a long time to come will be. Guys that big should not move that quickly, especially so violently.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top