Originally Posted by bah007
Just because you were right about a bigger back does not mean that every position on the field needs to be filled with bigger guys.
Here's a question. Did Foster lead the NFL because of his size or because of his ability? His size is definitely a contributing factor, but it would be outrageous to say that it is THE reason.
I think Foster was good not only because of his abilities to see a cut back lane or a hole but to have the power to rip past tacklers and out of their tackles. His bulk also allowed him to hold up better to blows (same for linemen).
You need to pause and read or remember threads about WRs, TEs, LBs and DBs being bigger and faster. It is not just RBs. Remember all the posts about Chris Myers and his size? He has developed into a better player as he matured in the system but we still get calls for a bigger center. If you placed a poll Myers over a 310lb center with equal skills who'd get most votes? Myers advantage is his knowledge.
I never said a bigger NT would be the better choice than a better player at a smaller size. I do say all things reasonably the same, bigger is usually better. For example, I championed 5'10" Brandon Harris over Prince Amukamara 6' 2 206. Talent over size.