philibuster

January 28th, 2011 at 6:10 PM ^

This is such a stupid story. The only way they could say this would be to contrast the numbers of DL coming from different regions with the other position groups. Surprise! The South has lots of talent!

Caesar

January 28th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^

Do you folks think the wheels came off towards the end? What in the world was all that mumbo-jumbo about barbecue and body fat?

Also, is it insensitive to point out that a legacy of slavery in the South might contribute to a disproportionate number of larger, stronger, and faster black dudes from the area? Though there are insensitive and racist jokes in there, I'm being serious with the question.

True Blue Grit

January 28th, 2011 at 7:31 PM ^

Interesting article, but bordering on some very sensitive subject areas.  Aside from the absurd "barbecue" reference, I found the statement: "While many of the linemen have low body-fat percentages now...." almost laughable.  Watching NFL games this year, I'd say a majority of them are fat by any health expert standards and more than just a few are total blimps (Wilfork of NE as my poster-child).  Granted, maybe they're agile blimps, but blimps nonetheless. 

But, aside from all this, the article points out the fact that Michigan must continue to recruit areas of the south for defensive linemen.  Our inroads to Florida paved by RR may continue to pay dividends in the future.

Gulogulo37

January 29th, 2011 at 6:09 AM ^

It's a weak argument for a few reasons, but there's one especially glaring. He simply asserts that Chip Kelly can pick athletes for his system wherever he wants, but he provides absolutely no data about how much NFL talent comes from the South in other positions. It's not like it would have been that hard to do. OK, the South has more NFL defensive linemen, but is it really so different for other positions? It's not like we never hear about 5 star WRs and RBs from Texas and Florida.