Just for the sake of discussion, is there a correlation between size and injury?

[ECHornet]

2 minutes ago, rightturn said:

Why haven't there been more qbs under 6ft in the nfl?  This isn't hard bro

Because they haven't had Bryce Young's talent to overcome it. There ya go.

[stan786]

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

Yeah to me height/overall size is more important than weight. 

Yeah as I said somewhere else i'm suprised with the "I'm not worried about his height, i'm worried about his weight" crowd. Feel like his height is something that everyone should worry about a bit when factoring in his profile.

[ECHornet]

2 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

Because he'll be the smallest QB in the NFL. Start with that and work backwards.

He was likely one of the smallest in college too, right? Hold on a sec while I go google how that worked out for him.

[ForJimmy]

3 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

Correct and OP even stated as much. Even the article addressed that more research in that area was needed. That doesn't mean evidence exists that smaller QBs are at more risk. I think the obvious conclusion is QBs of all sizes have a risk of injury, and size, history, decision making, and chance will decide their fate. How heavily you weigh each of those factors determines which side of this argument you're on.

No this data shows that smaller QBs won't be as successful in the NFL.  That a player of Young's size will be less accurate and throw less TDs than a player 6'2" or taller.  This is all about relating physical data to QB success right?  Or does it only count when he helps the particular player you are wanting?

[panthers55]

15 minutes ago, stan786 said:

You are telling me bigger guys are more resistant but then i'm showing you an example of a guy who is big and had the same thing happen. Stroud's extra 2 inches make that impossible though?
 

If we need a big framed guy why arent we arguing for Levis or Richardson. Stroud is closer to the Bridgewater Tua mold than he is to a big bodied QB.

Richardson is surely in the discussion with his size and arm strength as is Levis. I agree that Stroud is not as big as you would like but he seems to have a bigger frame to build upon. I would feel much better if he were a little bit meatier. That again is what bothers me about Young. He is small, has a slight frame isn't likely to stack much more muscle which protects guys from injury. The fact that Stroud isn't that much bigger doesn't suggest we should go even smaller with Young as much as a guy like Stroud is likely the minimum we want to play with if we want to use the qb in the running game at all.

[rightturn]

5 minutes ago, stan786 said:

Because they generally arent good enough to avoid the position swap that happens to guys that are athletic or small and aren't developing at the right pace. Its like what used to happen to more mobile QBs, and happens with Bigger Athletic QBs. There is a prototype for sure in the NFL and Bryce is an outlier for that, i dont imagine anyone is denying that.

ec clearly is

[stan786]

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

No this data shows that smaller QBs won't be as successful in the NFL.  That a player of Young's size will be less accurate and throw less TDs than a player 6'2" or taller.  This is all about relating physical data to QB success right?  Or does it only count when he helps the particular player you are wanting?

I'd say that in 2009 when this was published that was probably more true than now, things like the fact most short QBs were probably backup level at best and whatnot. But I'd love to see some more data on all this, its just interesting stuff.

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, ECHornet said:

He was likely one of the smallest in college too, right? Hold on a sec while I go google how that worked out for him.

Eric Crouch, Baker Mayfield, Johnny Manziel, and Troy Smith all crushed it as undersized college QBs.  How did that work out for them?

[stan786]

1 minute ago, panthers55 said:

Richardson is surely in the discussion with his size and arm strength as is Levis. I agree that Stroud is not as big as you would like but he seems to have a bigger frame to build upon. I would feel much better if he were a little bit meatier. That again is what bothers me about Young. He is small, has a slight frame isn't likely to stack much more muscle which protects guys from injury. The fact that Stroud isn't that much bigger doesn't suggest we should go even smaller with Young as much as a guy like Stroud is likely the minimum we want to play with if we want to use the qb in the running game at all.

Thats fair, I just think Stroud probably doesnt get used much in the running game either with his athletic profile, and build. I dont think anyone is going to be very worried about defending any designed QB run with Bryce or Stroud.

[ECHornet]

3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

No this data shows that smaller QBs won't be as successful in the NFL.  That a player of Young's size will be less accurate and throw less TDs than a player 6'2" or taller.  This is all about relating physical data to QB success right?  Or does it only count when he helps the particular player you are wanting?

My comment was directed to this from you:

"Again most QBs are going to fall into the 6'2" and over group so I think the data is going to be heavily skewed."

I was agreeing that the data is skewed. Now you don't want it to be for this article? 

[stan786]

2 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Eric Crouch, Baker Mayfield, Johnny Manziel, and Troy Smith all crushed it as undersized college QBs.  How did that work out for them?

Matt lienart, Marcus Mariota, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Sam Bradford, Jameis Winston on the other side. Plenty of NFL meh on all sides of this argument.

[rightturn]

2 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Eric Crouch, Baker Mayfield, Johnny Manziel, and Troy Smith all crushed it as undersized college QBs.  How did that work out for them?

He is failing to understand that at the lower levels guys his size are not giving the opportunity to play qb due to injury concerns.  Its just universal accepted that you need to be bigger to play the position.

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, ECHornet said:

My comment was directed to this from you:

"Again most QBs are going to fall into the 6'2" and over group so I think the data is going to be heavily skewed."

I was agreeing that the data is skewed. Now you don't want it to be for this article? 

Most QBs fall into a certain height/weight range.  So looking at previous data (especially when dealing with one as unique as Young) seems pointless to me.  My point is if we want to review this OP's data and claim Young will be healthy I can pull other data showing he will suck.  Too many variables like how good was the OL, What kind of offense did they run, what was the injury etc...

[stan786]

5 minutes ago, rightturn said:

He is failing to understand that at the lower levels guys his size are not giving the opportunity to play qb due to injury concerns.  Its just universal accepted that you need to be bigger to play the position.

Why do you assume injury concerns? There is plenty of reasons besides injuries that lead to the bigger Prototype in the NFL being the go to. Passing windows and Pro style offenses operating with shorter drops making it harder for small qbs to see the field. Tendancy for smaller QBs to have weaker arms because they cant get the same torque on the ball. Smaller players tending to be more athletic allowing them to move to other positions and still play.

Most of this gets decided even before college really, there are plenty of examples of small college qbs holding up just fine, but in general the Football mentality is what it is. And end of day it makes sense that smaller QBs with generally smaller hands and less body mass arent going to throw the ball as well as these prototypes.

Doesnt mean there cant be outliers.

Edited March 27, 2023 by stan786