Listed size vs. what I saw

[Limp Lizard]

First of all, the guy I was sitting next to at the scrimmage pointed out to me that there did not look like a 4-inch difference between Pachall and Gallegos (Pachall is listed 6-5 and Gallegos 6-1) when they were standing on the sideline. So is Pachall, shorter, Gallegos taller, or was it just an optical illusion?

Number 97 was listed as Jon Koontz at 6-2, 230, but he sure looked bigger that that when he was out on the field, especially taller than 6-2.

Matthew Tucker looked bigger than 210, and Griffin looked a lot bigger than 295.

Give me some reality, guys.

 

[gdu]

QUOTE(Limp Lizard @ Apr 12 2010, 01:55 PM) [snapback]543447[/snapback]
First of all, the guy I was sitting next to at the scrimmage pointed out to me that there did not look like a 4-inch difference between Pachall and Gallegos (Pachall is listed 6-5 and Gallegos 6-1) when they were standing on the sideline. So is Pachall, shorter, Gallegos taller, or was it just an optical illusion?

Number 97 was listed as Jon Koontz at 6-2, 230, but he sure looked bigger that that when he was out on the field, especially taller than 6-2.

Matthew Tucker looked bigger than 210, and Griffin looked a lot bigger than 295.

Give me some reality, guys.

Koontz looked taller than 6-2. Some of the new, younger lineman looked shorter than advertised. Pachall looks 6-4 and Gallegos 6-1 or 6-2.

 

[NativeFrog]

QUOTE(Limp Lizard @ Apr 12 2010, 01:55 PM) [snapback]543447[/snapback]
First of all, the guy I was sitting next to at the scrimmage pointed out to me that there did not look like a 4-inch difference between Pachall and Gallegos (Pachall is listed 6-5 and Gallegos 6-1) when they were standing on the sideline. So is Pachall, shorter, Gallegos taller, or was it just an optical illusion?

Number 97 was listed as Jon Koontz at 6-2, 230, but he sure looked bigger that that when he was out on the field, especially taller than 6-2.

Matthew Tucker looked bigger than 210, and Griffin looked a lot bigger than 295.

Give me some reality, guys.


Oh, no....hate to tell you, but perhaps everything you see appears larger than it actually is!

 

[Baja Frog]

dddadfdsf

asdfasdfasdfsadfasdfsadfaQUOTE(Limp Lizard @ Apr 12 2010, 07:55 AM) [snapback]543447[/snapback]
First of all, the guy I was sitting next to at the scrimmage pointed out to me that there did not look like a 4-inch difference between Pachall and Gallegos (Pachall is listed 6-5 and Gallegos 6-1) when they were standing on the sideline. So is Pachall, shorter, Gallegos taller, or was it just an optical illusion?

Number 97 was listed as Jon Koontz at 6-2, 230, but he sure looked bigger that that when he was out on the field, especially taller than 6-2.

Matthew Tucker looked bigger than 210, and Griffin looked a lot bigger than 295.

Give me some reality, guys.


Thought the exact same thing about Koontz and Tucker. Koontz looked about 6-5 270 lbs and Tucker looked like he has put on 15 lbs of upper body strength.

 

[neo926]

Gallegos wears lifts in his shoes. But don't tell anyone.

 

[TCUFrogs]

Pachall is 6'5" when standing up straight. Legit.

 

[Limp Lizard]

Remember when a 6-5 guy would really stand out on our sidelines?

When he first took over, Wacker towered over most of our players.