Bigger is better?

Bill Connelly finds a correlation between weight and a team’s S&P+ performance.

Backfield size doesn’t matter all that much, but offensive line size certainly seems to. And while size makes a bit of a difference on offense, it makes a much larger impact on defense.

Tactically, you can scheme your way to a strong offense. But with defense, size and recruiting rankings end up telling us quite a bit about what we need to know.

Now, one potentially obvious caveat: size and recruiting rankings are not isolated factors. We know a more fully developed offensive lineman (6’6, 305 pounds) is more likely to receive a four-star ranking than a 6’7, 245-pounder with a great frame and solid athleticism. We know that a 205-pound, carved-out-of-granite safety is going to draw the eyes of Rivals’ evaluators more than a 175-pounder with potential.

O-line didn’t surprise me too much, although like many of you, I can remember Georgia’s huge offensive line from a few years ago that never really amounted to much.  Defensive back, though, does at first thought surprise a little, but given what a lot of coordinators now require out of their schemes, it does make sense.  (Nor does it surprise me that Smart has put a big emphasis on size in both places.)

In any event, give his post a read.  It’s certainly interesting.