Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

In listening to the recent Indianapolis-New England playoff game, I was interested when they said the Colts defensive line averaged 275 lbs. You may respond that the Colts defense is not all that good, but the point is they are an NFL team and not a bad one at that. I imagine that 275 lb. average is not all that much greater than BG's defensive line last year. I'm assuming this average includes defensive ends.

Also, I recall that in the 2004 playoffs, someone commented that the New England Patriots did not have a wide receiver or a secondary starter over 6 feet tall.

falconboy would have you hung for a post like this.

Wasn't the AFC's leading sack man from Indy... Dwight Freeny?

That is correct they have a very small defensive front. Dwight Freeney is a beast on the pass rush, but he's poor against the run. Their small defensive front probably had a lot to do with why they were in the bottom 10 in the NFL in rush defense. They would've been much worse if not for their offense forcing teams to no longer be able to run the ball.

Indianapolis is an NFL team that is built quite a bit like ours. Good running game, unstoppable passing game, porous secondary, and crappy run defense. It will win you a whole lotta ball games, but it'll never win you a championship.

Comparisons to an NFL team that always gets killed in the playoffs are not really a good thing.

As much as I hate this discussion every week, it is true that we are on the small size. The starting four d-linemen for BG averaged 257 and the best rush defense in college football was USC, who averaged 272.5. The NFL best rush defense this year, Denver, average 285 across their line. So we are a bit undersized, but what I also noticed is we were undersized at DT, not DE. Our DE's are comparable in size to USC and Denver's, with Parks being about 10 lbs light. The key is at DT, where Denver's two DT were 300 and USC's are 295 and 290, whereas BG's were 281 and 259 (and 276). Something to keep in mind though is we were playing two JRs and a SO, and USC was playing two Seniors. Thus a year in the weight room and some more time spent eating protein shakes and we should be bigger next fall. Give the team time. Williams, Thaler and Cooley will likely be bigger next season and hopefully shore up the run D.

UK Peregrine wrote: So we are a bit undersized, but what I also noticed is we were undersized at DT, not DE.

This has been my contention all along. I have no problems with smaller, quicker DEs. It allows them to get up field quicker and disrupt the play in the backfield. Generally their biggest responsibility in run defense is to maintain their backside containment and play with discipline. You can play that at any size.

However we have DTs who are very small if we're asking them to try and clog up the middle. Some bulk on our DTs will definitely help us stuff the run better in the middle of the field. That said our biggest problem against NIU was actually our DEs not playing disciplined football, Wolfe hit a LOT of cutbacks against us.

I'm not saying that we have no chance to succeed, I just think its a lot easier to consistently stuff the run if you add some bulk in the middle of the field.

Comparing us to the the Colts is....well not really much of a comparison is it? Big deal if one or two of the Colts defensive lineman is only 275 , he's probably at least amazingly quick and agile. But like Hammb said he probably doesn't do well at all against the run. And you all saw how effective Indy's defense was to the Patriots. Hammb's also right on the our DE's wich are comparable to most teams. NT and DT is where we pale in comparisons to even most good mid-majors like Utah and Bosie St. I think Brad Williams will make a much better DE or middle linebacker since it seems will have two new guys with Curtis and Davis playing the NT/DT positions. If Crossley doesn't get his grades in order we'll have no choice probably.