PDA

View Full Version : These 40 times from everyone were shocking..I think it was a SLOW track.


NMUBurner22
02-26-2009, 01:22 AM
Lucas Field must have a slow track...right??

Crickett
02-26-2009, 01:24 AM
DHB - 4.3 flat.
Aaron Curry 4.56 40

Slow track you say?

NMUBurner22
02-26-2009, 01:32 AM
DHB - 4.3 flat.
Aaron Curry 4.56 40

Slow track you say?

DHB was a burner...we knew that.

4.56 as an OLB is fast but 4.39 as aMLB Patrick Willis is SUPER fast.


The 40 times were slow...all you did was pick two of the fastest times for their positions..

Halsey
02-26-2009, 01:35 AM
It's hard to say. It may have been a little slower. Perhaps Heyward Bey would have run in the 4.2's last year. It doesn't really matter though. If it was slower that affects everyone, so relative speed between prospects shouldn't change. NFL teams would likely know if there was a difference.

ThePudge
02-26-2009, 01:36 AM
DHB - 4.3 flat.
Aaron Curry 4.56 40

Slow track you say?

While you have a point, remember DHB has ran in the 4.2s and even high 4.1s so we know he can run faster.

As for Curry, I have no excuse as that's an excellent time and better than really any of us expected. If he runs in the 4.48-4.53 range at his Pro Day, I will grow very skeptical about this year's Combine times.

nyqua
02-26-2009, 01:45 AM
Aren't pro day times usually faster than combine times?

ThePudge
02-26-2009, 01:50 AM
Aren't pro day times usually faster than combine times?

Typically, but mostly for schools such as Ohio State or USC. Those type of schools typically try to help their players a bit by running them on faster tracks. Unfortunately, scouts know these tracks and adjust their 40 times as such. Most schools just run it on their football field whether it be natural grass or artificial turf so it's simply a matter of an extra couple weeks, perhaps a month extra of training for the 40.

Paranoidmoonduck
02-26-2009, 01:54 AM
I suspect that if anything was the matter, it was the electronic timer. It seemed to greatly differ in its disparity from most of the hand-times you saw coming out on particular days. As we know, the electronic time is started by hand but finished by electronic sensors, so maybe there was something weird going on with the guy in charge of starting the timer.

I really don't know. Since all the groups ran at the same time, it might be wise to measure them just against each other instead of as a whole.

ThePudge
02-26-2009, 02:03 AM
I really don't know. Since all the groups ran at the same time, it might be wise to measure them just against each other instead of as a whole.

Exactly. The 40 yard dash is still going to work for Chris Wells over Knowshon Moreno, Aaron Curry over Brian Cushing, DHB over Percy Harvin, etc. They all ran on the same surface and can be compared to one another, not necessarily those from the past.

ElectricEye
02-26-2009, 02:10 AM
I'm thoroughly convinced that the track is slow or the timer was off. DHB and the rest of the receivers absolutely torched it, but other than that all the times were a bit slow IMO.

LonghornsLegend
02-26-2009, 02:47 AM
I'd love to see what Orakpo would run on a fast track if that's the case.

LonghornsLegend
02-26-2009, 02:49 AM
I'm thoroughly convinced that the track is slow or the timer was off. DHB and the rest of the receivers absolutely torched it, but other than that all the times were a bit slow IMO.

Coaches are getting their own times though and timing each player from the stand so they will have their own time to compare, we are only getting the official numbers but if they are way off from what the coaches have then they can adjust accordingly.

Monomach
02-26-2009, 03:38 AM
The receivers and D-Line were plenty fast. The track is not slow.

killxswitch
02-26-2009, 07:16 AM
I suspect that if anything was the matter, it was the electronic timer. It seemed to greatly differ in its disparity from most of the hand-times you saw coming out on particular days. As we know, the electronic time is started by hand but finished by electronic sensors, so maybe there was something weird going on with the guy in charge of starting the timer.


I agree, I think it was the crappy timer. If the electronic timer was reliable coaches wouldn't all be using their own stopwatches.

Smokey Joe
02-26-2009, 07:40 AM
Perhaps the coaches wanted a bit of a slower track to get more realistic times that coincide with what they feel a players game speed is. I think a lot of the coaches were getting sick of 4.2-4.4 from players who they knew weren't that fast, at least not in pads.

bitonti
02-26-2009, 07:51 AM
if the track was slow it was maybe .05 at most. no way DHB runs a 4.1

by the way some of these pro days times will be on rubber tracks

well they don't play football on rubber tracks

they do actually play football on LOS surface.

tylerb929
02-26-2009, 08:26 AM
Yeah, I think it has to do with the timer not being 100% accurate. They showed a video on NFLN with the top TEs 40 yard dashes transposed on top of each other. So in this video you could see the distance between the TEs and how there relative times related to the distance between them. Anyhow, in this video the guy in first (Cook) was way out in first, and the 2 guys in 2nd and 3rd were neck in neck (meaning they should have ran an identical time), with the guy in 4th lagging a little behind. The problem is, the guy in 2nd and 3rd's times were .1 seconds off? So how could they be crossing the line at the same time? Something about the video just seemed fishy.

Dr_X
02-26-2009, 09:20 AM
Perhaps the coaches wanted a bit of a slower track to get more realistic times that coincide with what they feel a players game speed is. I think a lot of the coaches were getting sick of 4.2-4.4 from players who they knew weren't that fast, at least not in pads.

they should probably run them in a helmet and pads.. it'd a be a lot more relevant, as the same people running without it will not be the same people people who run fastest WITH 25 lbs. worh of equipment on.

but i guess since you're really only comparing players at the same positions, which are generally of similar size, and thus perhaps similarly effected, it's not worth the trouble.

nhlkdog411
02-26-2009, 10:08 AM
While you have a point, remember DHB has ran in the 4.2s and even high 4.1s so we know he can run faster.

As for Curry, I have no excuse as that's an excellent time and better than really any of us expected. If he runs in the 4.48-4.53 range at his Pro Day, I will grow very skeptical about this year's Combine times.

Who says he runs in the high 4.1s...random reports from his school, which like all schools makes everyones time WAY better than they really are. 4.1 would be the fastest combine time ever..you really think he's the fastest player to ever come out of college? I sure don't.

MetSox17
02-26-2009, 10:18 AM
Typically, but mostly for schools such as Ohio State or USC. Those type of schools typically try to help their players a bit by running them on faster tracks. Unfortunately, scouts know these tracks and adjust their 40 times as such. Most schools just run it on their football field whether it be natural grass or artificial turf so it's simply a matter of an extra couple weeks, perhaps a month extra of training for the 40.

Don't forget about Virginia Tech. They swear that every year they have a guy that runs a 4.1

Cicero
02-26-2009, 10:57 AM
While you have a point, remember DHB has ran in the 4.2s and even high 4.1s so we know he can run faster.

As for Curry, I have no excuse as that's an excellent time and better than really any of us expected. If he runs in the 4.48-4.53 range at his Pro Day, I will grow very skeptical about this year's Combine times.

Do you have a link to those DHB numbers?

Menardo75
02-26-2009, 11:11 AM
4.56 as an OLB is fast but 4.39 as aMLB Patrick Willis is SUPER fast.

Comparing every linebackers stats to Willis is really not fair to them.

fear the elf
02-26-2009, 11:57 AM
something was off for sure, whether it's a slow track or bad equipment, all you need to do is look at the db's. normally there are a couple guys in he 4.3's and plenty in the 4.4's, but this year according to Scott's official times, there were 2 cb's and 2 safties in the 4.4's and NO 4.3's.

it could be just a slow group this year, but that seems like a large dip in db times.

SchizophrenicBatman
02-26-2009, 12:06 PM
So NMUBurner how did the combine go for you? Are you mad about the track because you ran a 4.7 or something?

GBahDunka
02-26-2009, 12:11 PM
40 times are rediculous. They should take players, make them put on pads and run the 40, do agility drills because thats what really matters

make them chase somebody or be chased. Running in underarmour and a girdle doesnt show ANYTHING about football other than some people are track stars some people are not.

fear the elf
02-26-2009, 12:17 PM
i agree, put them in pads for all the drills. is there a reason they haven't? it makes way more sense.

Brent
02-26-2009, 12:21 PM
So NMUBurner how did the combine go for you? Are you mad about the track because you ran a 4.7 or something?
Haha, I think he was mad that he wasn't invited.

PossibleCabbage
02-26-2009, 12:25 PM
For people who are blaming it on the electronic timer, isn't it possible that the electronic timer is actually correct and that for years there was a bias in the methodology for hand taking 40 times that tended to make everybody look faster than they were? So these 40 times were truer than the 40 times we've grown accustomed to which were, err..., less true?

I think anyway we're going to need another year or so of 40 times before we can really say anything about the speed of the track. It's possible, and indeed probable, that we all just thought a lot of these guys were faster than they are.

Matthew Jones
02-26-2009, 12:38 PM
Something that was mentioned was that a number of the players who posted the fastest times came from the same pre-draft preparation program. I don't really put much stock into 40 yard dashes as is, but in this case, it could be a case of the best prepared players.

Source: Draft Daddy

"It was Bizarro Sunday in Indy. For a while, at least, it seemed everything was in reverse for the running backs, as some of the top superstars (Wells, Greene, Moreno) posted average, or worse than expected, 40 times, while several second-tier type prospects blazed the track. Here's a notable fact: Quite a few of the tailbacks and wide receivers that really surprised scouts today trained at the same east coast speed school, which may indicate part of their success had to do with better preperation and coaching for the Combine."

edgrenade
02-26-2009, 02:12 PM
I think they were slower this year because they ran on the white part this year...

griff2213
02-26-2009, 02:16 PM
YES it had to be a slow track. All the drills that didn't have to do with running were on par with other years results and displayed elite athleticism in many players, why would only the 40s be suspiciously different from the results of years before. DHB probably would have matched Chris Johnson's time if he were at last years combine.

NMUBurner22
02-28-2009, 12:01 AM
Derrick Williams and Harvins time sealed the deal for me.

No way Williams runs a 4.67.

BroadwayJoe10
02-28-2009, 12:07 AM
Derrick Williams and Harvins time sealed the deal for me.

No way Williams runs a 4.67.

But would taking .07 seconds off really be that much of a difference?? In order for him to get the time that he was expected, you'd be taking off 2 tenths.

It is unlikely that DHB ran a 4.1 flat, and that 10+ receivers ran sub 4.3.

It is just the case that there were a lot of people who were expected to run fast and just didn't show up. There were some fairly impressive times, which I think negate the idea that it's a slow track.

Smokey Joe
02-28-2009, 01:20 AM
they should probably run them in a helmet and pads.. it'd a be a lot more relevant, as the same people running without it will not be the same people people who run fastest WITH 25 lbs. worh of equipment on.

but i guess since you're really only comparing players at the same positions, which are generally of similar size, and thus perhaps similarly effected, it's not worth the trouble.
nah, the combine is fine without pads. The combine is basically a workout.

I'd prefer to see another bowl game though where juniors can participate as well. The Senior Bowl and bowls like that are far better for scouting then the combine is.

metafour
02-28-2009, 06:02 AM
I agree with everyone who said its likely an electronic timing error. The track may be a bit slower but the way the "official" times were so inconsistently curved up suggests to me that its more likely a timing error. The CB who ran the fastest time reported by NFLN (in the 4.3's) got curved up by like a full tenth of a second on the NFL.com times.

hockey619
02-28-2009, 08:32 AM
I dont think it was a starting error, but rather an error at the tape. I dont think the electronic timer was registering until after people were a little passed the usual 40 yard point.

Babylon
02-28-2009, 11:53 AM
If i was grading on a curve i'd adjust everyone down .50, 4.6 would be 4.55 etc.

batsandgats
03-11-2009, 04:40 PM
For people who are blaming it on the electronic timer, isn't it possible that the electronic timer is actually correct and that for years there was a bias in the methodology for hand taking 40 times that tended to make everybody look faster than they were? So these 40 times were truer than the 40 times we've grown accustomed to which were, err..., less true?

I think anyway we're going to need another year or so of 40 times before we can really say anything about the speed of the track. It's possible, and indeed probable, that we all just thought a lot of these guys were faster than they are.
ding ding ding, we have a winner

TPac
03-13-2009, 02:21 PM
Willis ran an official 4.51 at the combine

bored of education
03-13-2009, 02:22 PM
If i was grading on a curve i'd adjust everyone down .50, 4.6 would be 4.55 etc.

that would be a huge curve. i hope you meant 0.05 seconds

Babylon
03-13-2009, 02:27 PM
that would be a huge curve. i hope you meant 0.05 seconds

Exactly. Seems with some of these scorching times at Pro Days it was indeed a slow environment in Indy.

batsandgats
03-13-2009, 05:11 PM
players get enormous benefit from pro day's "homefield advantage"