Ok. I'll continue this only because you question validity.
The point of reference is vague. When one says bigger and faster in an fourteen word doctoral (not my words-Beans' words), I would not normally ask what is the measurement instruments? Are we discussing weight or height? Please define all your measurement indicators. When we say faster, are we discussing ten yard splits or 40 yard splits or three or seven cone drills. So again apples to oranges. Since you indicate height above, now show the relationship and transfer of your above reference to the football field. It's indicative and a macro study but you assume a direct projection across to an unusual subset and that is not definite. The methodology and transfer is lacking. But I will give you that it probably transfers to the subset.
I generously addressed my contradictions as an anomaly but believe there are few more. Ignore them if you will because it will indicate conflict with the fourteen word doctoral. This anomaly and question is name one DE that was both taller and better by sacks and balls batted down than the 6' 9" Too Tall Jones. I might add that no DE was 6' 9" at the combine and none in the whole of the NFL. Here's another, name one CB better (whatever measurement you want) and faster than the low 4.2s of prime time-Dion Sanders. I might add no CB was under 4.3 at the combine and none in the whole of the NFL. So how do we reconcile these as I generously labeled anomalies but are they indicative of something more?
I don't think there is anyone who has the specific empirical data and other subjective add-ons to scientifically prove this one way or another. So I would hesitate to use the word fact. As I have admitted previously, the empirical data suggests the supposition to be true. That is all I can surmise, but if you want to label it as fact, be my guest.
What more did you want to say to me besides I'm right or wrong?