What you describe is what we did with the MMB line, and every other blade like club design we have done in recent years. That being said, I would not call the MMB-19 a mid size blade. It has a proper blade length to make it stable and a proper cg location to make it stable and more playable than other “blades” you might see from other brands. We have a philosophy on topline and offset and understand that you can’t please everyone. You won’t see a top line any thinner than our TE and the toplines on the MMB-17 and the TS-1, in my opinion, are optimal. If you get them too thin, the perception at address (in my opinion) is a lack of mass. There are ways to radius the top line to make them look thinner without actually being too thin and that is something we will do, depending on the design. As far as offset, .100″ is the minimum I like to see (what is on the TE and DBM). Short irons cold be as little as .080″. You have to have some or the blade looks like the face is forward of the leading edge of the hosel, which is not a good look or design feature.
I would consider the TE, DBM and especially the PTM to be mid size “blade” profiles, although not muscle back. The TE and DBM have been best sellers for years. The PTM did not meet the expectations we had for it from a sales standpoint, but is a awesome performer with great feel. When we do a new muscle back, or players cavity, our goal will be to have the highest playability in the category, which requires slightly longer blade lengths than other blades you might compare it to, but again a length that we believe is a proper length for a players profile blade (or cavity), not an outlier, extreme or what we would consider a midsize design.
Good question and thanks for the feedback and support.