PDA

View Full Version : Who REALLY Cares About "40" Time??



DolfanDonny
02-08-2007, 05:00 PM
Sure it's the end-all, be-all of the combine for receivers and running backs. But, come on...let's be real. That kind of time difference (i.e. between a 4.4 and a 4.6) doesn't matter a hill of beans when you're on the field.

Have you ever tried to count to 10 over the span of one second? Now imagine doing that, but stopping at "2." Probably can't be done. IF it can, could you even distinguish between when the first guy runs past you from the second at the 40-yard mark??? 4.4 speed at WR also doesn't matter if you're matched up with 4.4. speed at CB.

I don't think I could blow a fart past you in the .2 of a second everyone is squabbling about.

What matters is elusiveness, ability to stop, start and change directions, ability to "separate" and a decent pair of hands. Let's find a receiver with multiple qualities instead of one with "break-neck speed" who can mythically "stretch the field." If you're blazing toward the goal line, 10 yds behind your CB, but you can't catch the ball, you don't make it in my offense.

Dolfan984
02-08-2007, 05:03 PM
Honestly and I just say this from experience. (my team just ran 40s 2 weeks ago) The difference between a 4.4 and a 4.6 is a pretty dang large step. One step is huge in the NFL.

It's just one of the things that goes into evaluating athletic ability, the other stuff you mentioned is more important, but pure speed isn't worthless.

Slappy8800
02-08-2007, 05:04 PM
i dont get why they do these workouts sans pads....i wanna see how fast this kid is in pads.

zonk4ever
02-08-2007, 05:08 PM
The way "40 times" are measured is equivalent to EPA ratings for gas mileage.

DolfanDonny
02-08-2007, 05:08 PM
Honestly and I just say this from experience. (my team just ran 40s 2 weeks ago) The difference between a 4.4 and a 4.6 is a pretty dang large step. One step is huge in the NFL.

It's just one of the things that goes into evaluating athletic ability, the other stuff you mentioned is more important, but pure speed isn't worthless.

Here was my quote addressing yours: Have you ever tried to count to 10 over the span of one second? Now imagine doing that, but stopping at "2." Probably can't be done. IF it can, could you even distinguish between when the first guy runs past you from the second at the 40-yard mark??? .

These 40 times are for straight-line speed, not when you're running patterns, cutting and trying to find a soft spot in coverage. My point is that there's just TOO MUCH emphasis placed on "40" times rather than the collective things I mentioned.

If you look back at the history of successful receivers in this league, you'd be hard-pressed to find many who consistently ran at sub-4.5 speed. Now, there are the Steve Smiths of the world who are the exception, not the rule...

BAM!!! There went another fart by you...did you catch it in time? :D

Dolfan984
02-08-2007, 05:11 PM
Here was my quote addressing yours: Have you ever tried to count to 10 over the span of one second? Now imagine doing that, but stopping at "2." Probably can't be done. IF it can, could you even distinguish between when the first guy runs past you from the second at the 40-yard mark??? .

These 40 times are for straight-line speed, not when you're running patterns, cutting and trying to find a soft spot in coverage. My point is that there's just TOO MUCH emphasis placed on "40" times rather than the collective things I mentioned.

If you look back at the history of successful receivers in this league, you'd be hard-pressed to find many who consistently ran at sub-4.5 speed. Now, there are the Steve Smiths of the world who are the exception, not the rule...

Well I was agreeing and disagreeing with you. The only reason I disagree is because I recently watched a 4.4 guy run a 40 next to a 4.6 guy, and it was clear who won the race. It isn't a big deal, especially before the catch, but after the catch is when straight line speed is more important. It could be the difference between a 10 yard completion, getting tackled, and being able to just outrun the guy and burning everyone for a TD. Agility is more important, but speed will always be speed.

DolfanDonny
02-08-2007, 05:14 PM
Well I was agreeing and disagreeing with you. The only reason I disagree is because I recently watched a 4.4 guy run a 40 next to a 4.6 guy, and it was clear who won the race. It isn't a big deal, especially before the catch, but after the catch is when straight line speed is more important. It could be the difference between a 10 yard completion, getting tackled, and being able to just outrun the guy and burning everyone for a TD. Agility is more important, but speed will always be speed.

Very true, and agree on several points. CBs are drafted for the same reason though, so all things being equal...receivers need to learn how to run patterns first, then catch the ball. Eluding the defense (where, yes, speed can be a huge factor) all comes AFTER the catch. Given that, unless a receiver is hit in stride with open field in front of him, he may never attain the straight-line 4.4 speed so many teams clamor over...

csabe
02-08-2007, 05:14 PM
i dont get why they do these workouts sans pads....i wanna see how fast this kid is in pads.

That would be ideal. Then we could see how fast it translates to the field.

BillsFanInPeace
02-08-2007, 05:18 PM
I think 40 times are too over-rated. Really the times you should be looking at are "football" speed. A guy that runs a 4.3 forty might actually have horrible football speed and that is what really matters

DolfanDonny
02-08-2007, 05:20 PM
I think 40 times are too over-rated. Really the times you should be looking at are "football" speed. A guy that runs a 4.3 forty might actually have horrible football speed and that is what really matters

Thank you. My point exactly.

arsenal
02-08-2007, 05:22 PM
well if a cornerback gets beat at the line of scrimmage and the WR runs a go route, the difference of .2 seconds on a 40 time is the difference between that CB being able to catch that WR...

also looking at 10 and 20 second segments of a 40 show you a players acceleration, etc...

its a useful tool in evaluating players since you cant just see them all lined up against each other to see whos best...

Pocoloco
02-08-2007, 05:27 PM
there is certainly too much emphasis placed on 40 times, but there is a profound difference between a 4.3 (Ginn Jr.) and a 4.6 (Jarrett) if you're goal is to stretch the field and put the safeties on their heels.

frankly, I don't know why they don't make the guys do the 40, and the shuttle cones, in full pads. That's what they're gonna get paid to do anywya.

rayfinkle5
02-08-2007, 05:29 PM
These are the most athletically tested and physically subjected individuals in the world prior to draft day. Don't give the 40 times more credit than they deserve. Are they important? Yes, the NFL game is so fast that even the slightest difference in speed is huge. Don't put to much importance on it however because unlike your statement I don't believe teams do.

ckparrothead
02-08-2007, 05:36 PM
40 times matter. As do 10 yard and 20 yard splits, shuttle and cone drill times, and all the other stuff they do.

The physics of the game are important.

Mr.Majestik
02-08-2007, 05:37 PM
Forty times are of minimal usefulness as a measuring stick. The forty times you read about at the combine are generally averages, players can run the forty multiple times, so they might have one spectacular time and a couple mediocre ones. Secondly the times are not recorded on grass, and the players do not wear equipment, which skews the results further. Thirdly, receivers rarely run in straight lines in an NFL game. It's stop and go, cut and turn. DBs are backpedaling, which gives even slower receivers a huge advantage over faster DBs. Shuttle runs are supposedly a more useful tool in measuring a receiver's movement skills.

Fresh
02-08-2007, 05:38 PM
It really depends on the player.

Some guys like Jerry Rice are so in tune with the speed of the game that it doesn't matter. Others like Oronde Gadsden are just slow as hell..........

ckparrothead
02-08-2007, 05:39 PM
there is certainly too much emphasis placed on 40 times, but there is a profound difference between a 4.3 (Ginn Jr.) and a 4.6 (Jarrett) if you're goal is to stretch the field and put the safeties on their heels.

frankly, I don't know why they don't make the guys do the 40, and the shuttle cones, in full pads. That's what they're gonna get paid to do anywya.

By whom? Fans? Media? Or teams?

The truth is that the 40 has become a "speed index" term used to describe the differences in players' speeds. That is why you hear about the 40 time all the time and are under the false impression that it is this all-important tool in personnel evaluation.

It is important. It really is. But the reason that the 40 has become largely synonimous with a player's speed rating, is simply a matter of public convenience and has nothing to do with what the scouts and personnel people do.

ckparrothead
02-08-2007, 05:41 PM
Forty times are of minimal usefulness as a measuring stick. The forty times you read about at the combine are generally averages, players can run the forty multiple times, so they might have one spectacular time and a couple mediocre ones. Secondly the times are not recorded on grass, and the players do not wear equipment, which skews the results further. Thirdly, receivers rarely run in straight lines in an NFL game. It's stop and go, cut and turn. DBs are backpedaling, which gives even slower receivers a huge advantage over faster DBs. Shuttle runs are supposedly a more useful tool in measuring a receiver's movement skills.

When I read criticisms like this I can't help but think that most people just totally misunderstand the purpose behind the 40 yard dash time as an evaluation tool.

DolfanDonny
02-08-2007, 05:44 PM
When I read criticisms like this I can't help but think that most people just totally misunderstand the purpose behind the 40 yard dash time as an evaluation tool.

I don't believe Mr. Majestik was criticizing anything.

Tell us exactly what the true purpose of the 40-yard dash is. What does it really evaluate?

NJL52
02-08-2007, 05:57 PM
Yes 40 times matter.

The difference between a 4.4 and a 4.6 isn't just their 40 speed. There is no straight 40 time gene, if you are faster in the 40 you are more explosive in everything.

A 40 time isn't very important by itself, it's the effect it has on every other aspect of athleticism that makes it important.

NJL52
02-08-2007, 06:02 PM
I don't believe Mr. Majestik was criticizing anything.

Tell us exactly what the true purpose of the 40-yard dash is. What does it really evaluate?

Athleticism

Take a 4.6 guy and a 4.4 guy. 99.9% of the time the 4.4 guy will jump higher, make cleaner/faster cuts, have a more explosive first step and so on and so forth.

JFoxx
02-08-2007, 06:17 PM
While the 40 isn't the exclusive most important thing that makes a player rated high, it is one of the more important pieces. Much like a guys vertical jump, shuttle, etc. Why? Because those things cannot be taught. If two WR's are equal in every category except speed and routes. One can run a 4.3 40 and has sloppy routes and the other has a 4.5 40 and crisp routes, 9 out of 10 teams will grab the guy who's faster. Why? Because they feel they can teach him how to run crisp routes. They can't make the 4.5 guy faster. Now if that same 4.5 guy can out-jump everone else by 6 inches, then his stock now goes up. RB's are given a little more flexibility with the speed thing, because there are a lot of other factors involved. Come game-time the difference in the two slight speeds is easily shown by the run of R.Bush pulling away from B.Urlacker in the NFC championship game. Urlacker is pretty fast for a LB, but probably .2-.3 slower than Bush. Even though he had the angle on him, the difference in that .2 resulted in a TD, not a tackle at the 30 yard line.

Mr.Majestik
02-08-2007, 06:51 PM
When I read criticisms like this I can't help but think that most people just totally misunderstand the purpose behind the 40 yard dash time as an evaluation tool.

I don't misundestand the dashes purpose. I simply point out that as an evaluation tool it is highly suspect to what it's supposed to measure, for the reasons I pointed out. If it were a scientific experiment, it would be the most crudely engineered test you could propose: Let's have a bunch of guys do forty-yard dashes on a track surface, sans equipment, in ideal weather conditions, run in a straight line, and do it two, or three times, instead of 40, or 50 times like a receiver is expected to do in a game, then let's use that number to quantify fast and slow. As a tool it's inferior to the shuttle run, that's not my opinion, that's what scouts say. And yes, I realize that personnel people in the NFL attach less relevance to the forty then the media, or fans do. It's like an IQ score, people use it to quantify things it doesn't measure.

Ark139954
02-08-2007, 08:40 PM
40 times do matter...travis daniels runs like a 4.65 or sumthing and could nevere cover steve smith who prob. runs a 4.4

Crowder52
02-08-2007, 10:35 PM
By whom? Fans? Media? Or teams?

The truth is that the 40 has become a "speed index" term used to describe the differences in players' speeds. That is why you hear about the 40 time all the time and are under the false impression that it is this all-important tool in personnel evaluation.

It is important. It really is. But the reason that the 40 has become largely synonimous with a player's speed rating, is simply a matter of public convenience and has nothing to do with what the scouts and personnel people do.

That's interesting if it's true. Is it really not heavily emphasized by personnel departments? How else would we account for meteoric rises in draft stock based what appears to be solely on blazing 40 times (see: Fabian Washington, Troy Williamson, etc).

The player who comes to mind first is actually Jon Alston from last year's draft. I follow Stanford football closely and Alston was a solid player, but nothing special. He runs in the 4.4 range at the combine (he's a LB) and all the sudden he is taken in the early 3rd round. This kid wasn't even 3rd team All-Pac 10!

And how do we account for the falling stock of players like Chad Johnson from years back following poor 40 times at the combine?

PhinSoldia
02-08-2007, 11:13 PM
While the 40 isn't the exclusive most important thing that makes a player rated high, it is one of the more important pieces. Much like a guys vertical jump, shuttle, etc. Why? Because those things cannot be taught. If two WR's are equal in every category except speed and routes. One can run a 4.3 40 and has sloppy routes and the other has a 4.5 40 and crisp routes, 9 out of 10 teams will grab the guy who's faster. Why? Because they feel they can teach him how to run crisp routes. They can't make the 4.5 guy faster. Now if that same 4.5 guy can out-jump everone else by 6 inches, then his stock now goes up. RB's are given a little more flexibility with the speed thing, because there are a lot of other factors involved. Come game-time the difference in the two slight speeds is easily shown by the run of R.Bush pulling away from B.Urlacker in the NFC championship game. Urlacker is pretty fast for a LB, but probably .2-.3 slower than Bush. Even though he had the angle on him, the difference in that .2 resulted in a TD, not a tackle at the 30 yard line.

exactly-Speed is God given and can only be honed a SMALL bit- Routes and hands are gained through experience and proper teaching-

saves
02-08-2007, 11:42 PM
Sure it's the end-all, be-all of the combine for receivers and running backs. But, come on...let's be real. That kind of time difference (i.e. between a 4.4 and a 4.6) doesn't matter a hill of beans when you're on the field.

Have you ever tried to count to 10 over the span of one second? Now imagine doing that, but stopping at "2." Probably can't be done. IF it can, could you even distinguish between when the first guy runs past you from the second at the 40-yard mark??? 4.4 speed at WR also doesn't matter if you're matched up with 4.4. speed at CB.

I don't think I could blow a fart past you in the .2 of a second everyone is squabbling about.

What matters is elusiveness, ability to stop, start and change directions, ability to "separate" and a decent pair of hands. Let's find a receiver with multiple qualities instead of one with "break-neck speed" who can mythically "stretch the field." If you're blazing toward the goal line, 10 yds behind your CB, but you can't catch the ball, you don't make it in my offense.

Run some 40's competitively. Better yet, spend a few years running 40's with a wide array of different athletes. You'll realize you don't have a clue how big of a difference a 4.6 is from a 4.4. And in a game of inches, that is a HUGE difference.

twix2500
02-09-2007, 12:23 AM
RB LaDainian Tomlinson(5-10, 222, 4.55) Texas Christian, Ricky Williams, Emmett Smith, Shaun Alexander, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Tiki Barber, OJ McDuffie, Jerry Rice all slow runners in the combine, but no one can catch them on the football field.

Mr.Majestik
02-09-2007, 02:16 AM
Run some 40's competitively. Better yet, spend a few years running 40's with a wide array of different athletes. You'll realize you don't have a clue how big of a difference a 4.6 is from a 4.4. And in a game of inches, that is a HUGE difference.

Take a guy who runs a 4.4 on a track in ideal conditions, let him sprint up and down a football field for three quarters, and see if he's running a 4.4 in the fourth quarter. Bill Walsh was once asked why Jerry Rice, who timed poorly in the forty, had no peer in yards after catch, and Walsh responded that Rice may have been slower then many of the DBs pursuing him in the first-quarter, but he was faster in the fourth quarter. You could literally create a list of hundreds of great players that didn't time well in the forty, and you could create another list of players with great measurables who didn't amount to much of anything. Zach Thomas came into the NFL with no speed, he had anticipation. Edgerrin James and Ricky Williams didn't possess blazing speed, neither does LaDainian Tomlinson, or Shaun Alexander, or Curtis Martin, nor did Terrell Davis, or Emmitt Smith. Chad Johnson is not a burner. Marvin Harrison is more quick, then fast. Two of the most prolific active receivers have been slow pokes their entire careers--Keenan McCardell and Rod Smith. Some guys aren't necessarily fast, but they are quick. How many burners are great players? Santana Moss, Randy Moss, Joey Galloway. Jevon Kearse had astounding speed for his position, but he's been no better, and arguably much worse then some guys lacking anywhere near his quickness, or straight line speed. It's a highly overrated aspect of a player's makeup.

Fresh
02-09-2007, 02:56 AM
RB LaDainian Tomlinson(5-10, 222, 4.55)

You have GOT to be ****ing kidding me? :eek:

Crowder52
02-09-2007, 03:00 AM
You have GOT to be ****ing kidding me? :eek:

He is kidding you. Tomlinson ran a 4.38. Here's the link to Kiper's combine recap from that year

http://espn.go.com/melkiper/s/2001/0227/1113401.html

PewterKrew
02-09-2007, 06:51 AM
well, the only number i like to look at is the ten yard burst and the 3 cone drill that will tell you more about a player in a short area. when you look at the 10 yard burst when 2 players have a 4.4 and a 4.6 40 if the 10 yard burst are the same then the 40 time doesnt mean squat

saves
02-09-2007, 11:15 AM
Take a guy who runs a 4.4 on a track in ideal conditions, let him sprint up and down a football field for three quarters, and see if he's running a 4.4 in the fourth quarter.

Okay over-rated? Probably. But he still is faster than that other person at that given time. That is is. It is impossible to practically measure a persons 4th quarter speed, nor is it neccessary. The 40 is the best way we have, along with the splits, to measure a athletes short distance speed. Objective and intelligent people know how to use that information and factor it into a complete analysis of a prospect. Those that are not as objective know how to either call it the "key" measurement, or discount it entirely because of lack of education and information on how the sprint works and what its implications are.

zodiak
02-09-2007, 03:24 PM
the 40 time is an over rated tool for the "media" history has shown that the games best WR's all would lose a foot race to these 40 yard dash speedsters.

Steve Largent
Art Monk
Fred Belitnekoff(sp)
Micheal Irvin

hall of famers

Randal Hill
James Pruitt
Ashley Lellie
David Boston, might all out run those hall of famers but NONE will be in the HOF so IMO the 40 yard dash is overrated.

DolfanDonny
02-09-2007, 04:11 PM
I'm sorry, but NONE of the arguments talking about why 40's are important have impressed me. The gist of my post was...

Compare the miniscule time between a 4.4 runner and a 4.5 runner. There's only ONE TENTH OF A SECOND difference, yet that "gap" (to some) is as wide as the Grand Canyon.

What can anyone physically do that only takes one tenth of a second to accomplish, from the start of one thing, to the start of another thing? In other words, a blink of an eye? .5 seconds.

Maybe I'm just nit-picking here. Here's the best analogy I could give...

Start two runners, one with 4.4 speed (fast guy), the other with 4.5 speed (slow guy), on the same line at the combine, and have them run straight ahead. Take a snapshot at the string a la a horse race finish. Are you people telling me that there would be NOTICEABLE SEPARATION between the two? And if so, does that REALLY translate to the field?

It just really irks me that one player is considered a better WR because of 40-time alone (the biggest measuring stick)...there's more to it than that...

CANDolphan
02-09-2007, 04:45 PM
Art Monk isnt a hall of famer, FYI

IluvJuMiami
02-09-2007, 06:34 PM
Sure it's the end-all, be-all of the combine for receivers and running backs. But, come on...let's be real. That kind of time difference (i.e. between a 4.4 and a 4.6) doesn't matter a hill of beans when you're on the field.

Have you ever tried to count to 10 over the span of one second? Now imagine doing that, but stopping at "2." Probably can't be done. IF it can, could you even distinguish between when the first guy runs past you from the second at the 40-yard mark??? 4.4 speed at WR also doesn't matter if you're matched up with 4.4. speed at CB.

I don't think I could blow a fart past you in the .2 of a second everyone is squabbling about.

What matters is elusiveness, ability to stop, start and change directions, ability to "separate" and a decent pair of hands. Let's find a receiver with multiple qualities instead of one with "break-neck speed" who can mythically "stretch the field." If you're blazing toward the goal line, 10 yds behind your CB, but you can't catch the ball, you don't make it in my offense.

The real difference is between timed speed and game speed. Some players are fast in shorts and a wife-beater but when they put on pads lose a whole lot of mobility.

Ronnie Brown registered a 4.4 in the 40. Do even the biggest of all homers on this forum really think that Brown runs a 4.4 in pads? Brown can't run away from anyone in the secondary. The avid and sensible Dolfan who doesn't miss a game knows Ronnie Brown does not possess 4.4 speed on game day.

Ted Ginn Jr is explosive on and off the field. Watch his highlight reel and if you argue that the guy is not explosive, you're bias. The hits on Ginn are bad route running and size. Route running can be taught, learned, refined and chambers is 5'11 as someone alluded to earlier. Make no mistake about it, ted Ginn Jr has the biggest upside potential of ANY player in this years draft. He could be one hell of a bust aswell, but that's true of all players in the draft.

Mr.Majestik
02-09-2007, 06:41 PM
Okay over-rated? Probably. But he still is faster than that other person at that given time. That is is. It is impossible to practically measure a persons 4th quarter speed, nor is it neccessary. The 40 is the best way we have, along with the splits, to measure a athletes short distance speed. Objective and intelligent people know how to use that information and factor it into a complete analysis of a prospect. Those that are not as objective know how to either call it the "key" measurement, or discount it entirely because of lack of education and information on how the sprint works and what its implications are.

The sprint doesn't measure anything of great consequence. That's the rub. It's like an IQ test, its proponents tell you it is a valid measure of a quantity of intelligence called g, but it only measures one aspect of intelligence, problem solving, and one aspect of problem solving, speed in problem solving. If you take an IQ test without the time limit, you can raise your score 30-40 points, which is profound. The forty-yard dash, combined with some other testing metrics like the high jump, etc, has sent bad players soaring up draft charts, we've seen this again and again, so we know that some front offices become enamored with this test data. We've got good front offices and bad ones in the NFL, and the bad ones are more likely to abandon sound personnel evaluation then good ones.

I can disprove the underlying hypothesis of the forty-yard dash by compiling a list of great players who were not fast-footed as measured by the forty, in fact, that list would be much longer then the list of great players with speed. No one disputes that the forty has some utility, but if a large percentage, if not a majority of stars in the NFL did not record overly impressive forty times, we must conclude that whatever utility the forty has, is small. But the major point of this thread was that at the lower end of the spectrum, assuming the sprint does tell us something, one guy running a 4.4, the other guy running a 4.5/40, is a difference so slight as to be irrelevant, for mere hundreds of a second, the difference is absurd.

The testing protocal is also suspect, because some guys play faster on grass then they run on track surfaces, but the testing is done on tracks. In fact, many players refuse to run at the combine because they don't like the surface they're to run on, so they opt instead for a private workout at a facility of their choice, so they can run on surfaces that make them appear faster then they might otherwise be, how these subtle differences in forty times translate into data that deterimes a player's functional speed on a field is not clear to me. Thy installed field turf at the combine last year so the forty times would more resemble what might be achieved in a game situation, and players refused in mass to run on it. At UVA players ran on a tartan surface. At NCSU and BC they ran on rubber. USC ran outdoors with a big crosswind. Why such a big deal is made about a sprint that isn't run on surfaces, or in conditions that are even remotely similar is a mystery. If a guy at USC ran on one surface, and a guy at NCSU ran on another, and they both posted 4.5/40s, who then is faster? It doesn't matter, it's only when the differences become profound, 4.5 compared to a 4.7 that we should be much concerned.

Stitches
02-09-2007, 10:25 PM
If anyone remembered the "Playmakers' show they used to show on ESPn, it showed really great how important a 40yard dash speed could be. The vet RB on the team ran all the drills that you would run at the combine, and posted the same times and measures he had as a rookie, except for his 40 yard dash which was fractionally slower. The coach then showed him film of another RB(either the new guy or a different RB from the league who had a faster 40), and broked it down into tenths of a second. That fraction of a secon dwas the determining factor between being tackled for a 3 yard gain(like the vet would have been) or bursting just far enough past the tacklers to get the long TD run.

To think the 40 holds no relevance to on the field play is naive(i.e. Jarrett). To use it as the only determination of talent is naive too(i.e. Ginn). The other drills like 3 cone drill are great too, but the 40 is very important, as well as the 10, 20, 30 yard splits that get recorded.

Crowder52
02-09-2007, 11:18 PM
If anyone remembered the "Playmakers' show they used to show on ESPn, it showed really great how important a 40yard dash speed could be. The vet RB on the team ran all the drills that you would run at the combine, and posted the same times and measures he had as a rookie, except for his 40 yard dash which was fractionally slower. The coach then showed him film of another RB(either the new guy or a different RB from the league who had a faster 40), and broked it down into tenths of a second. That fraction of a secon dwas the determining factor between being tackled for a 3 yard gain(like the vet would have been) or bursting just far enough past the tacklers to get the long TD run.

To think the 40 holds no relevance to on the field play is naive(i.e. Jarrett). To use it as the only determination of talent is naive too(i.e. Ginn). The other drills like 3 cone drill are great too, but the 40 is very important, as well as the 10, 20, 30 yard splits that get recorded.

Come on Stitches! I think you are a good poster on these boards but please don't bring up Playmakers in a serious discussion. That show was the most sensationalized rendition of football I've ever seen.

Stitches
02-10-2007, 03:42 AM
Come on Stitches! I think you are a good poster on these boards but please don't bring up Playmakers in a serious discussion. That show was the most sensationalized rendition of football I've ever seen.

Yes, it was sensationalized, and dramatically out there for a reason. But the illustration of tenths of a second in regards to game speed still holds true.

DeDolfan
02-11-2007, 01:14 PM
Sure it's the end-all, be-all of the combine for receivers and running backs. But, come on...let's be real. That kind of time difference (i.e. between a 4.4 and a 4.6) doesn't matter a hill of beans when you're on the field.

Have you ever tried to count to 10 over the span of one second? Now imagine doing that, but stopping at "2." Probably can't be done. IF it can, could you even distinguish between when the first guy runs past you from the second at the 40-yard mark??? 4.4 speed at WR also doesn't matter if you're matched up with 4.4. speed at CB.

I don't think I could blow a fart past you in the .2 of a second everyone is squabbling about.

What matters is elusiveness, ability to stop, start and change directions, ability to "separate" and a decent pair of hands. Let's find a receiver with multiple qualities instead of one with "break-neck speed" who can mythically "stretch the field." If you're blazing toward the goal line, 10 yds behind your CB, but you can't catch the ball, you don't make it in my offense.

I've pretty much always doubted the accuracy of the 40 times anyway. About 10 yeats ago, SI did an article about just that. While I don't rmemebr all the actual particulars, the general jist of it was this. Back in to 00 Olympics or when ever it was, Donvan bailey won the gold in the 100 meter. he was later DQd for steroid use, etc. They mentioned that his time in that race was on the fastest track with the most sophisitcated timing equipment and the whole 9 yards, in other words, the most perfect conditions possible. They had also mentioned that there was this old engineer fellow present and wondered what Bailey's 40 time would equate to be that the NFL uses so much. He gets out his slide rule, converted meters to yards and eveything, and calculated that Bailey's 40 time would be right at 4.29 secs. It was determined that at best, bailey might have and they reiterated might, have ran a 4.35 in a 40 in the way NFL players are timed. All in all, I found that story quite interesting in that if you look around and see how many players run a 4 flat or lower, this makes you want to raise an eyebrow. but SIs point was that if a drug induced worldclass sprinter that TRAINED solely for this alone would only run a 4.35 at best, then how is it that so many NFL players do on imperfect conditions. Well, IMO, it's a point well taken however, I do agree that a 4.6 plaer is not much different than a 4.4 player on the field. Maybe both actually run a true 4.5 maybe. IMO, the times only separate the guys in categories of being either slow, fast or just average. But if the nFL teams want to use the combine 40 times for evalutaion, then why not run all players at a position at the same time. You have to figure that the first guy that runs and the last guy, the field can not be level so to speak. I would imagine the grass will be worn quite alot for the last guy. Anyway, just a thought. :)

ChambersWI
02-11-2007, 01:51 PM
40 times are important in a way, but I think it's silly for some players to just fly up boards because they're fast. Some people (mainly fans and media) put too much emphasis on how fast someone is and it makes their jaw drop when they don't go first round (Sinorice Moss last year is a good example).

I do think you've got to take flyers when players run slow 40 times though. Jamaal Brimmer (a formr S from UNLV; same draft class as Vernon Carey) was considered a solid second round pick, bt he ran a 4.9 40 and went undrafted, same goes for Ernest Shazor and Brandon Browner.

I think there are other things more important than 40 times

NorFlaFin
02-11-2007, 03:11 PM
Art Monk isnt a hall of famer, FYI

Monk should be, but that will never happen.

DeDolfan
02-12-2007, 02:29 PM
40 times are important in a way, but I think it's silly for some players to just fly up boards because they're fast. Some people (mainly fans and media) put too much emphasis on how fast someone is and it makes their jaw drop when they don't go first round (Sinorice Moss last year is a good example).

I do think you've got to take flyers when players run slow 40 times though. Jamaal Brimmer (a formr S from UNLV; same draft class as Vernon Carey) was considered a solid second round pick, bt he ran a 4.9 40 and went undrafted, same goes for Ernest Shazor and Brandon Browner.

I think there are other things more important than 40 times

personally, I think reflexes, reaction and quickness [vs actual speed] are more important. put a bunch of DBs together and have them go thru these agility drills particualry where they kind of high step in place and see how quick they react to change directiond when a coach waves the ball over his head, back and forth. I'm sure there's a name for it but "stupid is as stupid does" ! :D :D