Bryant’s height will always be an issue for him ... if he was 2-3 inches taller he’d have had a ton of offers out of HS
He will also be picked 1-2 rounds later than his talent because of his height
For as much as people like to say I’m a doog, its kinda funny to me to have people act like doogs in telling me how I’m wrong
If he was taller/big yes he would have been better and get drafted earlier... awesome hot take...
Bryant, even with his height, was very good and would fit right in on a championship CFB defense as long as he isnt asked to play Safety/Striker/OLB like he was for UW because the LBs sucked.
He was a very good slot/nickel corner that was well above average in edge/run support.
I can't think of a top 10 defense on which he'd be penciled in as a starter. Nickel/slot, sure, if there were nobody else.
Nickel/Slot is a starter for nearly all teams these days...
Seriously. I doubt there are 10 teams in the country he wouldn’t start or receive considerable playing time for.
In a discussion about Myles Bryant's height impacting the impression many have of him as a football player, you responded with "In an athletic endeavor involving physical actions that are done more easily, more consistently or even at all with the benefit of height, height, itself, is part of the talent equation.
There are no "talented"5'11" centers in basketball."
Either this was a non sequitur that you typed for the fun of it, or your implication is that playing hybrid corner/safety in a base-nickel defense, as Myles Bryant does and almost certainly would at the NFL level or for any top-10 college team, is such an endeavor where height is a prerequisite for talent.
Of course, twitch and hips and all that shit matter ... a lot. But every coach in the US wants length. Sure, the premium on that for nickel guys is different.
Which is exactly Teq's point. He basically stated exactly this, followed by this being the reason Bryant will be valued below his talent level. You countered by way of analogy that, in certain endeavors at least, height IS talent, or at least a prohibitively important component. To which I responded that, while this is true, one then must prove that playing Bryant's position is such an endeavor or else a point really hasn't been made. In other words, "The coaches aren't wrong about knocking Bryant for his height because coaches want height" is a tautological argument.
I always assume the guys on the field are better than the guys not on the field, until it's proven otherwise (which, as we well know with some of the receivers, happens).
I don't know what the seniority argument is. That's presumably for someone else. I think Bryant is fine, but he's not a nationally elite defensive back. I don't know that he'd crack the starting lineup at Oregon. Who would he bump?
This was me just trying to head that argument off that pass. My point was that, barring some kind of criticism of the staff's choice of playing him, Bryant has already proven to be better than players much taller and more highly rated than him. I think if he were given a fair chance at a top-10 program, I don't see why it's impossible he would do the same there. Hell, Ern's point that he did, indeed, start on a top-10 defense shouldn't be so casually dismissed.
And I watched exactly one play of Oregon football this year, on the shitter at Home Depot, so I can't answer that last question.
You're looking too deeply into this. My point was that "talent but but height" is a bit of a simplification because height matters. I would say the real problem with my analogy is that height matters a lot more for an BB center than it does for a corner. But it does matter ... there's a reason coaches want it. It's really less about absolute height and more about length. It's easy to understand why length matters in a corner. I didn't mean to suggest "no height = no talent". That's something Ballz would say. I'm no Ballz.
I think the best point made was by FKA - that nickel guys these days are legitimate starters. That is a fair point.
He reminds me of Thomas Graham at Oregon, but slightly shorter. Graham is 5'10" or 5'11". When he was a freshman and soph I thought he was awful, and his lack height and length was on display as he did, in fact, struggle against big receivers. Graham has, however, made himself into a damn good corner; he made a lot of key plays against the pass and run for Oregon last season, including in the Rose. But he has limitations ... and his limitations are Bryant's limitations, but Bryant's will be even more exaggerated because he's even shorter.
I was thinking about good short corners in the NFL ... Revis, Pacman ... that type. They're all in the 5'10" / 5'11" range. 5'8" is just a height you don't see often. Terrell Buckley was very short and even he went 5'10" or so, which means he was really like 5'9".
Also, I'm not saying Bryant's a bad corner. Just that he has limitations. And he does.
Lastly, I haven't said or implied that every tall corner is better than Bryant. That would be an absurd thing to say.
I do think that, all else being equal, you want a guy who at least has some reach with his arms. Bottom line: 5'8" corners present issues and limitations.
Also, the point that he started for a top 10 defense isn't that persuasive to me, so I do casually dismiss it. As I said, in 2020, San Diego State, Buffalo, and UAB were top 10 defenses. Oregon wasn't even in the top 20 and you'll have to make the case that he would start there. Freshman sensation and talented af Mykael Wright didn't start.
In a discussion about Myles Bryant's height impacting the impression many have of him as a football player, you responded with "In an athletic endeavor involving physical actions that are done more easily, more consistently or even at all with the benefit of height, height, itself, is part of the talent equation.
There are no "talented"5'11" centers in basketball."
Either this was a non sequitur that you typed for the fun of it, or your implication is that playing hybrid corner/safety in a base-nickel defense, as Myles Bryant does and almost certainly would at the NFL level or for any top-10 college team, is such an endeavor where height is a prerequisite for talent.
Of course, twitch and hips and all that shit matter ... a lot. But every coach in the US wants length. Sure, the premium on that for nickel guys is different.
Which is exactly Teq's point. He basically stated exactly this, followed by this being the reason Bryant will be valued below his talent level. You countered by way of analogy that, in certain endeavors at least, height IS talent, or at least a prohibitively important component. To which I responded that, while this is true, one then must prove that playing Bryant's position is such an endeavor or else a point really hasn't been made. In other words, "The coaches aren't wrong about knocking Bryant for his height because coaches want height" is a tautological argument.
I always assume the guys on the field are better than the guys not on the field, until it's proven otherwise (which, as we well know with some of the receivers, happens).
I don't know what the seniority argument is. That's presumably for someone else. I think Bryant is fine, but he's not a nationally elite defensive back. I don't know that he'd crack the starting lineup at Oregon. Who would he bump?
This was me just trying to head that argument off that pass. My point was that, barring some kind of criticism of the staff's choice of playing him, Bryant has already proven to be better than players much taller and more highly rated than him. I think if he were given a fair chance at a top-10 program, I don't see why it's impossible he would do the same there. Hell, Ern's point that he did, indeed, start on a top-10 defense shouldn't be so casually dismissed.
And I watched exactly one play of Oregon football this year, on the shitter at Home Depot, so I can't answer that last question.
You're looking too deeply into this. My point was that "talent but but height" is a bit of a simplification because height matters. I would say the real problem with my analogy is that height matters a lot more for an BB center than it does for a corner. But it does matter ... there's a reason coaches want it. It's really less about absolute height and more about length. It's easy to understand why length matters in a corner. I didn't mean to suggest "no height = no talent". That's something Ballz would say. I'm no Ballz.
I think the best point made was by FKA - that nickel guys these days are legitimate starters. That is a fair point.
He reminds me of Thomas Graham at Oregon, but slightly shorter. Graham is 5'10" or 5'11". When he was a freshman and soph I thought he was awful, and his lack height and length was on display as he did, in fact, struggle against big receivers. Graham has, however, made himself into a damn good corner; he made a lot of key plays against the pass and run for Oregon last season, including in the Rose. But he has limitations ... and his limitations are Bryant's limitations, but Bryant's will be even more exaggerated because he's even shorter.
I was thinking about good short corners in the NFL ... Revis, Pacman ... that type. They're all in the 5'10" / 5'11" range. 5'8" is just a height you don't see often. Terrell Buckley was very short and even he went 5'10" or so, which means he was really like 5'9".
Also, I'm not saying Bryant's a bad corner. Just that he has limitations. And he does.
Lastly, I haven't said or implied that every tall corner is better than Bryant. That would be an absurd thing to say.
I do think that, all else being equal, you want a guy who at least has some reach with his arms. Bottom line: 5'8" corners present issues and limitations.
Comments
I think the best point made was by FKA - that nickel guys these days are legitimate starters. That is a fair point.
He reminds me of Thomas Graham at Oregon, but slightly shorter. Graham is 5'10" or 5'11". When he was a freshman and soph I thought he was awful, and his lack height and length was on display as he did, in fact, struggle against big receivers. Graham has, however, made himself into a damn good corner; he made a lot of key plays against the pass and run for Oregon last season, including in the Rose. But he has limitations ... and his limitations are Bryant's limitations, but Bryant's will be even more exaggerated because he's even shorter.
I was thinking about good short corners in the NFL ... Revis, Pacman ... that type. They're all in the 5'10" / 5'11" range. 5'8" is just a height you don't see often. Terrell Buckley was very short and even he went 5'10" or so, which means he was really like 5'9".
Also, I'm not saying Bryant's a bad corner. Just that he has limitations. And he does.
Lastly, I haven't said or implied that every tall corner is better than Bryant. That would be an absurd thing to say.
I do think that, all else being equal, you want a guy who at least has some reach with his arms. Bottom line: 5'8" corners present issues and limitations.