Not sure why this is so difficult. Having big hands is better than having small hands for a position that requires you to hold onto the ball on every play. No one is saying it's a determining factor of anything. It's just another thing that scouts examine.
This shyt about Teddy Bridgewater is disgusting.
- Thread starter ScottyG
- Start date
Not sure why this is so difficult. Having big hands is better than having small hands for a position that requires you to hold onto the ball on every play. No one is saying it's a determining factor of anything. It's just another thing that scouts examine.
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
The question is not whether big hands are better overall, the question is to what extent hand size matters in conjunction with other football salient variables. Arm strength isn't wholly dependent on hand size and arm talent isn't either. Turnover rate might be connected but David Carr had almost 10 inch hands and he was a turnover machine.
Again, this isn't something that's absolute. Vick and Kitna both have small hands and both fumbled the football at a much higher than average rate. Gripping the ball while being flushed out of the pocket is something that occurs for a QB. Add in elements and such too if you like. It's certainly a nice bonus...especially for shorter QB's like Brees and Wilson.
@CrimsonTider whats ypur thoughts on this. ? 
@CrimsonTider whats ypur thoughts on this. ?
I never respond to this.
Bridgewater hands are really an issue.
