I recently wrote an article where I claimed that San Diego Chargers running back Darren Sproles' performance against the Colts on Saturday had finally put his critics to rest.
His five receptions for 45 yards, 23 carries for 105 yards, and two touchdowns should have done the job.
However, I've just learned that it's basically impossible for a 5'6" athlete to be an every-down back.
It seems that this past week, some of the best scientists in the world came together and conclusively decided that 5'7" is the height limit for running backs who aim to be an every-down back in the NFL.
After the Chargers victory on Saturday, I read numerous article claiming that Sproles can't be an every-down back just because of his size.
While critics haven't said "he's too weak" or "he isn't good enough", they have all agreed that Sproles is "too small".
They might as well have just looked at his bio, saw his height, and made the same claim.
I would have thought by now that society would have realized that size doesn't have to matter in sports. There have been a great deal of athletes in the history of sports that have defied the odds even though they were said to be too small.
Former Detroit Lions running back Barry Sanders, arguably the greatest running back to play the game, was only 5'8", two inches taller than Sproles.
Former NBA power forward Dennis Rodman was considered too small at 6'6", while the same could be said for Charles Barkley, clocking in at 6'5".
Both were always doubted because of their size and each night, both men had to go up against much taller players.
However, that didn't stop either of them from breaking into NBA history. Barkley is known as one of the the greatest power forwards of all time, while Rodman has been said to be the greatest rebounder of all time.
It seems to me that if players don't fit the mold expected of them in their sport, they have to work even harder to prove that they can be successful in their sport.
Why does a power forward have to be taller than 6-8?
Why does a quarterback have to be taller than 6-2?
Why does a linebacker have to be taller than 6-0?
Size shouldn't have to matter if the player is successful in their own way.
When all is said and done, there are a great deal of undersized players playing professional football right now that are considered superstars.
Indianapolis Colts safety Bob Sanders, who was last year's NFL Defensive Player of the Year, is 5'8" yet is known to be one of the hardest hitting safeties in the game.
Former Dallas Cowboys linebacker Zach Thomas, who is "undersized" at 5'11", is one of the best linebackers of all time, currently ranking fourth in tackles in NFL history.
Not enough? Take New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees. The 6'0" athlete is one of the smallest quarterbacks in the league, yet was named the NFL's 2008 Offensive Player of the Year.
Carolina Panthers wide receiver Steve Smith, at 5'9", is smaller than most receivers but can be considered one of the best in the league with his 1,461 yards in 14 games this season.
I find it amazing that people assume that because Sproles' is a few inches shorter than the norm, he cannot support an every-down role that would require 20 or more carries in a game.
Where's the evidence coming from? The statistics.
In 2007, he had 25 carries for 122 yards and two touchdowns against the Lions in week 15. On Aug. 25, in a preseason game against the Seattle Seahwaks, Sproles had 13 carries for 102 yards and a touchdown.
In Week 17 against the Denver Broncos, Sproles had 14 carries for 115 yards and a touchdown. In the wild-card matchup against the Colts, he had 23 carries for 105 yards and two touchdowns.
See the pattern? When Sproles gets the ball, he is going to deliver.
In fact, in every game he has gotten over 13 carries, he has also gotten over 100 yards rushing.
In San Diego's last game against the Colts, Sproles had 35 total touches for 328 yards. While this might tire some athletes, he looked just as "fresh" in overtime when he scored the game-winning touchdown as he did when he had his first touch of the day.
In college, Sproles was a "do it all" workhorse back for Kansas State with 4,769 rushing yards on 787 carries in 39 games from 2002-2004, while being a great return specialist and receiver out of the backfield as well.
So what's the problem?
I understand that the NFL is not the same as college football, but Sproles' performances have proven that he's capable of being an every-down back more than they haven't.
Even if his statistics speak for themselves, some still don't realize that he is extremely strong for his size, surpassing many linebackers when it comes to strength.
At the NFL Combine, Sproles bench-pressed 225 pounds a total of 23 times, which was more than his fellow draftee, Pro Bowl linebacker Shawne Merriman.
I know that it is uncertain if Sproles can play 16 games in the NFL as an every-down back, but how can he be shot down without an opportunity to prove himself?
When running back Adrian Peterson was drafted by the Minnesota Vikings, many skeptics thought that due to his up-right running style he would be too injury prone to last in the NFL.
They were wrong.
There have been many players in NFL history who were big in stature that didn't make it the NFL because they couldn't handle the 16 game grind.
The truth is, we don't know if any player can make it in the NFL as a starter until they are given a chance. It's unfair to claim Sproles can't make it when there is no evidence to prove he can't handle it except for being "undersized".
Sproles is a unique talent that doesn't come around very often. I hope his career doesn't get wasted as a kick returner and situational back because of skeptics who only consider his height.
The story of David and Goliath is one that many know across the world. Like David, I hope Sproles, while small in stature, proves his doubters wrong as he defies the odds as as every-down back in the NFL.
25 comments Last one added 5 months ago — Leave a Comment
Seattle Lion Fan 5 months ago
This crap of how players should fit a certain mold, like a 3rd baseman is supposed to hit 35 home runs instead of being a .330 hitter of better...Sproles is successful in the NFL because he's good, simple as that. What difference does it make where a player is successful?
5-6 as a running back isn't a disadvantage in the NFL...if anything, it becomes an advantage as a theory of a running back's success is his ability to "get small" so that defensive linemen can't pick up quickly behind massive offensive linemen...When Sproles gets small, he's harder to find than an Adrian Petersen...plus, like another small running back named Barry Sanders, Sproles has a lower center of gravity and makes people miss.
On top of all that, he is downright fast...he can break on just about any play and is always a threat to score from anywhere on the field.
I hope he gets a chance....with Tomlinson more than likely to be out, Sproles will get that chance against the Steelers...
Edit Comment Cancel
Ari Horing 5 months ago
Very well said, I completely agree. In every sport, a player has to fit a certain mold.
The players who don't fit the mold but are still talented have to work extra hard to make sure they make it in their sport.
However, as we find out with certain undersized players, there disadvantages sometimes actually end up as advantages.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gus HowT 5 months ago
Good article. James Harrison is another good example of the undersized football player who over performs. Listed at 6 feet tall, this guy went from being undrafted rookie cut 3 times by the Steelers before finalizing his role on the Steelers. The San Diego Union Tribune even went so far as to call him "height-challenged". Anyway, it's not about the size, but that god given ability to play the sport you love so much.
On a side note, tiny Sproles will be crushed by tiny Harrison this Sunday.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ari Horing 5 months ago
Thanks. Harrison is another great undersized player and the Steelers defense will most likely win the battle against Sproles this weekend. Nobody has been able to run on the Steelers all year.
In fact, no running back has gotten close to getting 100 yards on them this season... but watch out for Sproles in the passing game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gus HowT 5 months ago
If there's any type of "kryptonite" that can screw up the Super Steeler D, it's speed backs. Historically, speed backs are more effective against us than power backs. This year, we played two running backs who might qualify as a "speed back": Tashard Choice from Dallas and Chris Johnson from Tennessee. Both had good games against us. Sproles, also a speed back, touched the ball three times the first time we played them, while the not-100% LT got the majority of the carries. With an effective running game, Rivers is a different quarterback... as evidenced by their recent run of wins, which somewhat coincides with Sproles taking on the majority of the workload.
Edit Comment Cancel
Roberto Arevalo 5 months ago
just a small critique- AP hasn't quited his critics due to not being injury prone but rather that he can be succesful with his up-right running style that allows defenders to deliver more blows. which leads him to injuries and in the long run probably limit his career.
overall, good article though.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ari Horing 5 months ago
Obviously he hasn't completely quieted his critics because he is still young, but he hasn't missed too many games in his career. Obviously I'm not comparing Peterson's situation exactly to Sproles because even with all of the critics, Peterson was still the number 7th pick. My point is that we really don't know if anyone can make it the NFL as a 16 game back.
Edit Comment Cancel
Roberto Arevalo 5 months ago
understood. I think the intangibles that make a running back are hard to judge til you see them on Sundays.
however I think most people will tell you AP has in fact quited his critics b/c he has shown his style can be effective in the NFL. I think he showed that after he set the single-game rushing record as a rookie. then followed that by being the mvp in the pro bowl, leading the league in rushing this season, and arguably taking over LTs spot as the games best RB. it's safe to say we know what we got with AP barring some unfortunate injury.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ari Horing 5 months ago
Agreed as well. Thanks for the critique though. I added that part in just to be specify why critics thought Peterson might be injury prone.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lucia G. 5 months ago
Don't forget "Little Train" James who played with Dan Fouts! Tiny, highly effective running back!
GO CHARGERS!
Edit Comment Cancel
Jordon Tefft 5 months ago
Size helps but really means nothing.
Good article!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Ari Horing 5 months ago
Thanks a lot!
Edit Comment Cancel
Russell Fike 5 months ago
Is two seasons "lasting" in the NFL? Adrian Peterson hopefully has a lot of football ahead of him, but Runningbacks tend to have a short life in the NFL. True, Edgerrin James has had a bit of a resurgence with ONE playoff game, but after leading the NFL in rushing yards his first two years his numbers immediately began to decline.
The truth is there probably isn't such a thing as an "every down" back in the NFL anymore. Larry Johnson set the NFL record for carries in a season and immediately succumbed to injury. The NFL is simply too brutal and hence a two-pronged attack such as the Carolina Panthers utilize is likely the future for NFL Runningbacks.
I am a huge fan of Sproles (except that he's on the Chargers), but found him an exciting prospect out of Kansas State. However, this is not a skill question, but a durability question. Having been limited in my own attempts to play football due to nothing more than weight, I know that Sproles can get knocked around with a minimum of effort by the players in the NFL.
I do believe Sproles can be part of a very good duo, but the "every down" back itself is the misconception.
Edit Comment Cancel
James Williamson 5 months ago
I loved it Ari. POTD 5 stars.
Only one thing: I would have mentioned Joe Montana. He was 6 feet tall.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ari Horing 5 months ago
Thanks for the pick, I appreciate it.
True, I didn't even think about Montana but I definitley should have mentioned him.
Edit Comment Cancel
Joe Mikolai 5 months ago
no he can't be an every down back. He's too small but unfortunately for the Chargers, he's a FA-to-be and I expect some loser team like the soon to be Larry Johnsonless Chiefs to sign him and hope he's the 2009 version of Michael Turner-ironically off the LT tree. We'll see.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bing Wang 5 months ago
Bob Sanders has only played in 45 games since entering the league. Thats an average of 9 games a year, two years he played for 15 and 14 games, the other three he played in 6, 4, 6 games. His style and because he is not the size of your average hard hitting safety makes him very injury prone.
A.P really hasn't proved that he can last, he missed two games last year and this year he even said that he had played the last few weeks of the season this year with an injury. That is being tough, but it is not good if he wants to last longer.
Being taller as a QB helps you see over the offensive lineman, and improves your reading ability, while that is not always needed if ur as good as Brees; it certainly does help.
The rip on Sproles being undersized its cuz he is listed at 180 pounds. That's smaller than Wes Welker, the small New England WR who has to protect himself every play. Even Barry Sanders, the smallest of those prolific backs, was 200. And as good and elusive as Sproles is, Sanders is one of a kind. No other back will ever be able to do what he does the way he did it.
"Everydown" backs are generally those who can run between tackles and get yards consistently throughout the entire game. that means a lot of beatings from those linebackers, that is why he is more of a complementary back.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ari Horing 5 months ago
I know that he is 180 and i know Sanders is 200. Either way the knock on Sproles is his size. I wrote he is not considered an every-down back because of his size. Size includes weight.
Sanders is one of a kind, but so is Sproles.
Did he not have 23 carries with many of them being between the tackles, 5 receptions, and 7 returns in the game and yet he looked more than fine.
I don't really see also why your saying he can't get yards consistently. Sproles didn't just have one or two runs but had many great runs in the game. He has an amazing YPC average for a reason.
Not to mention "if" there were a couple plays where he might have lost yardage because of his size, it cancels out with the long runs he has.
Barry Sanders wasn't known for running through the tackles and actually there were many plays where he lost yardage. Sanders had more plays that resulted in a loss of yards than pretty much every other back in history, but Sanders just like Sproles had ability to take it the distance. So I'll take a few shorter runs, if it means he'll have more longer runs.
But even with all of that said, that only applies if I concede the fact that Sproles can't run between the tackles well. However, I beleive that Sproles is a better goal line back than people give him credit for because he is so hard to see and squeezes through holes bigger backs couldn't get through.... not to mention as I said in my article, he is freakishly strong.
All I can say is just watch Sproles play and after eveyone of his plays ask yourself if he was bigger would he have done better on the play. I guarantee you the answer way more often than not will be no.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bing Wang 5 months ago
I realize, and stated that he is considered undersized because of his weight. It is not so much of his height which is what your article seemed to imply, as his weight that makes him not a good idea to give the ball 20+ times a game.
Sproles is good, but not one of a kind in the same sense that Barry Sanders was. He is your typical speedy back that can break off long runs and make good yards. A player like Ahmad Bradshaw comes to mind, their stats are very similar in their two year careers. However that is not the type of runningback that you would want to make those tough yards for you, to take the beating it takes to survive in the NFL with the majority of the carries.
His smaller stature is why he can make more yards on some plays than if he was bigger, but because he isn't bigger his durability being hit by linebackers with generally 40-60 pounds more weight than him is going to be questioned, and I don't think he can take it. I think it'll be hard for even Michael TUrner the bowling ball to keep running that much. That is why you have third down backs and complement backs, players like that who are much more versatile, with the ability to catch outta the backfield and make long runs when given the chance.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ari Horing 5 months ago
Thanks for the comments.
I know I mentioned the word height, but I mentioned the word size more. But thats not really important and I understand what your trying to say and I agree with you that it's his size more than his height perse.
However, I have to disagree about Sprole not being a special back. I have followed this guy for a long time and whether it's in the passing game or the running game, Sproles is the quickest and most explosive back in the game today and that makes him one of a kind.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leon Horne 5 months ago
Size for one does matter, that is why "most" wide recivers are tall, most basketball players are very tall and the average height of an olympic free style swimmer is 6'6". Nobody can say size doesn't matter.
However, I emphasize the word "most", cause there will always be exceptions, Boykin, Steve Smith, Maurice Jones-Drew, Warrick Dunn etc. etc.
Darren Sproles can be productive on every down despite his size and he has prooven that in his performances. That being said, this is a collision sport and being 5'6" 175lbs is on the very very small side. I think what the coaching staff probably worries about is if you give him 20-30 carries a game all season he is going to sustain injuries.
Aside from that, I think he can play every down and is a great asset to the San Diego Charges. My brothers old football team had a 5'6" 160lbs starting running back, he always had 100 yards a game and he had 11 special teams TD's in a 10 game season.
Edit Comment Cancel
tom thunm 5 months ago
Toughness means more than size in some positions. Reggie Bush is a wuss and runs for the sidelines every play. He's a little bigger than Sproles, but his heart isn't.
Tyrone Wheatley was a big back, but was afraid to get hit. Sproles is a tougher runner inside than Wheatley ever was.
Edit Comment Cancel
AUme87 AUme87 5 months ago
Ari,
Nice article. "Size" does matter! In a game of "Giants" - AVE 6 ft or taller, 200 lb+, being small and quick have its effectiveness ... Ask the ladies! :)
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeremy Kaufman 5 months ago
Good article, but the fact is size will always matter to a degree, especially with running backs. Darren Sproles is extremely talented, and he could potentially be an all star with more playing time. However, if he ever became an "every down" back, he would likely endure a great deal of punishment, and his career would be cut much shorter than it needs to be. In fact, very few teams still use an "every down" back, instead electing to use a committee of 2 or even 3 backs. Even the greatest backs of all time usually don't excel past the age of 28, and that is because of the punishment that running backs inheritably take. And, by being as small as Sproles is, he would be that much more suceptible to injury. Therefore, Sproles is best fit to be the "lightning" in a lightning and thunder running system, similar to the one the Giants use with Brandon Jacobs, Ward, and Bradshaw.
Edit Comment Cancel
Raider Rodney 5 months ago
I think Sproles and Jones-Drew have more than proven that they can be an every down back. The changing philosophy in the NFL is that no team wants that one back though. As others have said the average career length of backs is very low therefore teams have finally figured out that they need 2 or 3 good backs to compete.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.