PDA

View Full Version : What'd you time Mays at?


foozball
03-02-2010, 09:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY4JTHu7uP8

Go ahead and pull out your cell phone stop watch. Each time, I get is sub 4.43 and most are around 4.28-4.34. It's almost impossible to actually time him at higher than 4.40

Paranoidmoonduck
03-02-2010, 09:12 PM
Ran it a couple times for fun...

I'm getting 4.28-4.30 consistently, with me stopping the timer exactly on the finish chime.

PossibleCabbage
03-02-2010, 09:16 PM
I watched it in super slow mo, and I got about four and a half minutes.

TACKLE
03-02-2010, 09:18 PM
Timed it about 10 times. All of them were in the 4.29-4.33 range.

wonderbredd24
03-02-2010, 09:21 PM
seriously?

Isn't enough that's he very fast? That's the least of his problems.

TACKLE
03-02-2010, 09:27 PM
seriously?

Isn't enough that's he very fast? That's the least of his problems.

I think its more of a concern about the timing system than Mays. We can all agree that Mays clearly ran faster than a 4.43 which leads us to question the accuracy and reliability of these "official times". It is bothersome to think that these "official times" may not be as official as we think. If the official times are off and the pro-day times are off, what times can we trust.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
03-02-2010, 09:29 PM
How awesome is all this contreversy over this particular player? I love it, this is interesting stuff :) How is all this possible? I got late 4.1s to mid 4.3s.

SloppyJoe
03-02-2010, 09:29 PM
i timed it 10 times. had it between 4.28 and 4.32

cvv84
03-02-2010, 09:30 PM
Too much time on your hands?

Draft King
03-02-2010, 09:31 PM
Curse you NFL Combine!!!

TitanHope
03-02-2010, 09:32 PM
Only did it once a little while ago, and I timed him at 4.35 40. Of course, I've never done that before and going off YouTube is meh. Mays has a unique launch stance where he doesn't have his foot on the line like the other runners do, so I wonder if misjudging his start time could be contributing to all the conflicting reports.

I do not think he ran in the 4.2's, but don't think he ran his official 4.43 either. I'm thinking he's somewhere in the mid-late 4.3's, which while it isn't a 4.24, would still be dumbfoundingly impressive considering his size.

TitansCJftw
03-02-2010, 09:33 PM
5 tries all 4.3s but 3 4.36s :cool:
edit: if there's some type of laser electronic blah blah end time how come their cant be an electronic start thing that goes off when they go through it that is turned on like after they're set? also i didnt even know my cell phone had a stop watch haha thanks

foozball
03-02-2010, 09:36 PM
Too much time on your hands?

Not enough time on yours?

brat316
03-02-2010, 09:41 PM
why not simul-cast Mays, Ford and Spiller?

Then we'll know the truth.

brat316
03-02-2010, 09:44 PM
What were his split times?

Paranoidmoonduck
03-02-2010, 09:46 PM
What were his split times?

I did a few splits, but I was getting pretty big variations on them while the changes at 40 were within about .06. The problem is that they turned off the beeps at 10 and 20 after the few couple days (I have no idea why) and so you have to anticipate them coming from off screen instead of having that auditory cue.

ElectricEye
03-02-2010, 09:46 PM
Had him between 4.28 to 4.34 after doing it quite a few times.

Saints-Tigers
03-02-2010, 09:46 PM
I got 4.35 when I did it.

Michigan
03-02-2010, 09:49 PM
getting mid 4.3's, but who cares? Mays is fast.

ElectricEye
03-02-2010, 09:50 PM
oDhYKZHKh4Q

This pretty much says it.


This opens an entire door about how accurate the official 40's really are. I really thought they were fairly legit until this, but wow. Doesn't really matter much given that we know Mays is an AMAZING athlete, but still.

cvv84
03-02-2010, 09:52 PM
Not enough time on yours?

Not enough to time a Youtube video on a pretty meaningless arbitrary number. Put on pads and backpedal then you have something that's actually meaningful.

Mr.Regular
03-02-2010, 09:59 PM
How could 'official' times be so off? Something fishy about this

Raider_fan_Canada
03-02-2010, 10:00 PM
That 4.43 is BS.

I have him at 4.32 consistently, with the same delay after start then after he crosses the 40 yard line.

Morton
03-02-2010, 10:04 PM
He's definitely, 100% without a doubt SUB 4.4.

So even if it's a high 4.3 like 4.38 or something, that's still amazing for a 6'3" 230lb guy.

Woody56
03-02-2010, 10:10 PM
4.29 once and 4.31 twice

billsfootball15
03-02-2010, 10:10 PM
ive gotten 4.28 3 times in a row

wordofi
03-02-2010, 10:48 PM
I've timed Mays at about a 4.35 for every one of my timings. There's no way that Mays ran a 4.43 forty.

D-Unit
03-02-2010, 10:55 PM
What does it matter? The team that gets him is going to be happy. Period.

Clarkw267
03-02-2010, 10:59 PM
I had Mays between 4.28-4.32 on 5 times.

I went back and did Holliday's as well and was at 4.3 flat 3 times in a row.

I think Ford ran faster than a 4.28

akvikefan89
03-02-2010, 11:29 PM
Did 5 times and got between 4.25 and 4.30 on all of em. I'm not trained on the stopwatch, though...

the_dark_knight
03-02-2010, 11:32 PM
I think its more of a concern about the timing system than Mays. We can all agree that Mays clearly ran faster than a 4.43 which leads us to question the accuracy and reliability of these "official times". It is bothersome to think that these "official times" may not be as official as we think. If the official times are off and the pro-day times are off, what times can we trust.

The game tape.

foozball
03-02-2010, 11:42 PM
What does it matter? The team that gets him is going to be happy. Period.

It matters because these official times are seemingly bogus. Some guys make money on the 40, whether it's Mays or some unknown guy who shows up at the combine and runs a 4.30. If that nobody runs a 4.30 but the official time lists him at 4.50, you think he goes just as high as he would if he ran a 4.30?

descendency
03-02-2010, 11:43 PM
I'm getting 4.29

Which at 230 lbs is just BAT**** INSANE speed.

I'm not saying he's a better football player because of it, but holy **** does he have some upside...

BeerBaron
03-02-2010, 11:57 PM
oDhYKZHKh4Q

This pretty much says it.


This opens an entire door about how accurate the official 40's really are. I really thought they were fairly legit until this, but wow. Doesn't really matter much given that we know Mays is an AMAZING athlete, but still.

Was going to post that same vid myself if I didn't already see it here...

There is just something ****** up in this all. "Official" 40 times are flawed or something...

WCH
03-03-2010, 12:10 AM
Was going to post that same vid myself if I didn't already see it here...

There is just something ****** up in this all. "Official" 40 times are flawed or something...

It would be VERY easy for somebody to type 4.43 instead of 4.33. The "4" is right next to the "3." Typists make this kind of mistake all the time, but the spell-checker usually picks it up. Spell-check won't know that "4.43" should be "4.33," and a sloppy NFL intern might not double check the figures.

The questions are: how often does this happen, and will the NFL admit their screw-up and correct the numbers?

TitansCJftw
03-03-2010, 12:18 AM
well joe hawley did have a 105 inch vertical jump according to nfl.com for several hours :D

akvikefan89
03-03-2010, 12:27 AM
I don't see why teams don't just look at those overlapping videos instead of a bunch of different/inaccurate times... :p

PossibleCabbage
03-03-2010, 12:27 AM
well joe hawley did have a 105 inch vertical jump according to nfl.com for several hours :D

I wish I lived in a world where Joe Hawley could jump nearly nine feet in the air. If feats such as this were possible, life would be much more entertaining.

VoteLynnSwan
03-03-2010, 12:49 AM
I've never really cared about what the times actually were since varying field conditions and stop watch users can cause inaccuracy, the best use is as a gauge to determine who's faster than who... Watching the simulcast, it's clear that Mays is faster than Best, who's listed as having a faster official 40 time. This throws a huge wrench into the mix... If the times are inherently inaccurate, that's one thing, as long as they're consistently inaccurate. But when you start saying a guys is slower than another when that simply isn't the case, well then we have a problem on our hands.

When I timed Mays, I got consistent 4.32 numbers... That would be logical given his relative position to Ford (4.28) and Best (4.35).

Again, to reiterate... the issue is not the time itself... it's that he's listed as being slower than guys he is clearly not. This indicates a flaw in the system. As long as the fastest guys record the fastest times, it really doesn't matter what the time actually is.

Oaktown1981
03-03-2010, 12:59 AM
4.29, 4.29. 4.31. 4.30

D-Unit
03-03-2010, 01:09 AM
I think the bench press numbers are flawed too.

mellojello
03-03-2010, 01:38 AM
Fun stuff.

How long before some shmuck posts how irrelavent straight-line speed is and proceeds to give us a laundry list of reasons why Mays is a bust or at best, a mid-2nd rounder?

HotRod35
03-03-2010, 01:40 AM
The interesting thing is just go back and read the posts and you see how much of a variance there is for all you guys timing him. It just goes to show you how much of a very, very, slight difference 2/100s of a second is to your finger on a button. But in real life it does shows up much more clearly.

Be that as it may, I also know that when it comes to football, all this means so very little on the field. I am not saying speed doesn't matter; it does, but so many other variables come in to play, on any given play. All sorts of other types of speed, such as lateral speed, to name just one. Also, anticipation, and hesitation.

You are timing the same guy, effectively on the same play, off the same computer, and same video, and you are getting significant variations. Now maybe your computer stream is varying, but more likely it is your own reaction time.

That's why I think a range of speed is important. That is to say, you need to be within a certain range, to play a certain position; but inside that range it is all about how you play and so many other factors. For 20 years now, recruiting and drafting have been so much about speed, speed, speed, and less about play, play, play.

Again, not saying speed is not important, and all other factors being the same, between two players, you are going to pick the one with speed. But there is so much more to the game. I know that fastest guys on my high school, and college football teams were not anywhere near the best player. Yet, regarding the kid in high school, no one was close to him in the 100.

I am an FSU guy and you see how "slow" Myron Role ran. I mean I ran that fast, or close to it, in the 9th grade, with no training. But he was a very effective player for FSU. Not saying he is NFL superstar material or even that he makes it in the NFL, just that you don't have to be 4.5 to be an effective DB, in college. Some guys still say he is going to be drafted despite his 4.7 40.

The most prolific running back in the history of the NFL was no were near the fastest. I mean some had him running 4.7 and most were over 4.6. We can all have a debate of where he ranks in terms of the all time greats, but two things that are not debatable: 1) he carried the ball further than anyone, and 2) he was a special running back with special talents. And that's coming from a died in the wool Seminole.

Before the combine a number of people on this site, and others, were ridiculing Gerhart, the nation's leading rusher, and the all time single season leading rusher in the History of Stanford, by 80% or so. Yet so many people were saying: well, if he doesn't run 4.5 he can't play running back at the next level. Yet anything less than 4.6 is probably faster than the most prolific running back in the history of the NFL. And this says nothing of the fact that Gerhart is bigger, stronger, and all around more athletic than the NFL's All Tim leading rusher.

Same with other players as well. I am sure there are still guys on here that want to argue that Gerhart doesn't have the speed or athleticism to be a productive running back in the NFL despite, his better than average speed for his size; his better than average Vertical Jump; his better than average, shuttle, his better than average size, and his better than average strength.

Yet, on the other hand, the CB that was on a lot of peoples list as the number one CB, in the draft, apparently ran slower than Gerhart. And this is a corner back that Gerhart outweighs, by what, nearly 40 lbs? No one dares questions his ability to play CB in the NFL, and most still have him highly rated draft wise?

One site reads that Joe Haden ran a 4.57 and a 4.60 in the 40, but not to worry: "That said, NFL analyst and former pro scout Bucky Brooks cautioned against reading too much into the slow 40 time, because Haden's tape and credentials are so impressive." Really?

And Gerhart, had to run fast at the combine because....what? He doesn't have tape and credentials? He only led the nation in scoring and total yards rushing, but he has to run fast just to prove he can play the position from which he led the nation last year?

Apparently Haden's credentials and tape are so impressive that the one position, above all others, for which we are told speed is all important, is now well, suddenly it's not that important. It doesn't trumps all else, because, well suddenly..... play on the field and credentials are what's really important. All that speed stuff..... well sure it's nice to have but what is a good 40 time, when you have credentials and tape?

I mean he is a frigging Corner Back for Pete's sake, and all of a sudden it's OK to run a 4.6 forty. I mean there are those saying, that despite his slow footedness, not only do we not dare question his ability to play CB, why we think he should still be drafted, in the first round.

Something tells me that if the leading rusher and scorer, in the nation last year, ran as bad of a 40, for a running back as Haden did for a CB (which would be what? 4.75 or so?) people would be screaming for him to be a FB! They sure as hell wouldn't be talked about as being a first round draft choice at running back.

Apparently though, it is hard, as a running back, to amass good credentials and film when all you do is lead the nation in scoring; lead the nation in rushing; have back to back 1,300 and 1,900 yard seasons; run for more yards than anyone in the 100 year history of your program, TWICE, no less; break the PAC 10 all time touchdown record; be a consensus ALL America; win the Doak Walker Award as the nation's best "Running Back"; and finish second in the closest voting every for the Heisman.

No, no credentials to fall back on there.

This man Gerhart, who led the nation, in rushing and scoring as as a running back, must run fast at the combine; Joe Haden, as a potential first round draft choice at corner back........ not so much!

Now, I am not saying Haden isn't an outstanding prospect, but come on he is a corner back.

Monomach
03-03-2010, 01:54 AM
I don't see why teams don't just look at those overlapping videos instead of a bunch of different/inaccurate times... :p

Who says that video was put together correctly? Wouldn't be the first time a network screwed up when manipulating a video.

Side note: the very fact that there are so many different times in this thread means that anyone believing a hand-timed 40 to be more accurate than the electronic one is a dumbass.

HotRod35
03-03-2010, 02:02 AM
I've never really cared about what the times actually were since varying field conditions and stop watch users can cause inaccuracy, the best use is as a gauge to determine who's faster than who... Watching the simulcast, it's clear that Mays is faster than Best, who's listed as having a faster official 40 time. This throws a huge wrench into the mix... If the times are inherently inaccurate, that's one thing, as long as they're consistently inaccurate. But when you start saying a guys is slower than another when that simply isn't the case, well then we have a problem on our hands.

When I timed Mays, I got consistent 4.32 numbers... That would be logical given his relative position to Ford (4.28) and Best (4.35).

Again, to reiterate... the issue is not the time itself... it's that he's listed as being slower than guys he is clearly not. This indicates a flaw in the system. As long as the fastest guys record the fastest times, it really doesn't matter what the time actually is.

I agree. There is no 100% comparison I suppose, and there have been rumors and some actual evidence to support that this particular surface is a "slow" one. As you point out, that is OK as long as it affects everyone the same.

What I don't understand, is why they don't do the whole thing electronically. The runner should have to go on a sound, and light, or just sound. The clock starts when the sound does; the end of the run is triggered by laser or other similar electronics.

This eliminates the human factor triggering the start. Moreover, it also then more resembles football speed in that all football play is off of a reaction. It can be the QB's sound if on offense or visual reaction of the ball, or player movement on defense. In my opinion this would give a better indication of football speed then the runner going on his own, and having someone watch that and react to it.

HotRod35
03-03-2010, 02:15 AM
I've never really cared about what the times actually were since varying field conditions and stop watch users can cause inaccuracy, the best use is as a gauge to determine who's faster than who... Watching the simulcast, it's clear that Mays is faster than Best, who's listed as having a faster official 40 time. This throws a huge wrench into the mix... If the times are inherently inaccurate, that's one thing, as long as they're consistently inaccurate. But when you start saying a guys is slower than another when that simply isn't the case, well then we have a problem on our hands.

When I timed Mays, I got consistent 4.32 numbers... That would be logical given his relative position to Ford (4.28) and Best (4.35).

Again, to reiterate... the issue is not the time itself... it's that he's listed as being slower than guys he is clearly not. This indicates a flaw in the system. As long as the fastest guys record the fastest times, it really doesn't matter what the time actually is.

I agree. There is no 100% comparison I suppose, and there have been rumors and some actual evidence to support that this particular surface is a "slow" one. As you point out, that is OK as long as it affects everyone the same.

What I don't understand, is why they don't do the whole thing electronically. The runner should have to go on a sound, and light, or just sound. The clock starts when the sound does; the end of the run is triggered by laser or other similar electronics.

This eliminates the human factor triggering the start. Moreover, it also then more resembles football speed in that all football play is off of a reaction. It can be the QB's sound if on offense or visual reaction of the ball, or player movement on defense. In my opinion this would give a better indication of football speed then the runner going on his own, and having someone watch that and react to it.

TitansCJftw
03-03-2010, 02:29 AM
"HotRod", you first began posting in a gerhart thread dominated by psychos from caste football about your gerhart love that was eventually locked, and further posted your love for gerhart... now you're writing short essays about... gerhart... in a taylor mays thread... and claiming you ran faster than myron rolle in 9th grade while claiming to be an fsu grad(further making you look foolish for trash talking one of your own)... and now gerhart is a better athlete than emmitt smith(i know it pained you not saying that gerhart is a better rb too good effort holding that back), nice...

Addict
03-03-2010, 03:31 AM
well joe hawley did have a 105 inch vertical jump according to nfl.com for several hours :D

Yeah I saw that too, but this is different. This was all over the news and one can hardly imagine that the NFL would allow such a mistake to 'stand'.

Really I think this is a pretty big deal, we've seen players selected very high or go undrafted or freefall based on these 40 times (sometimes in spite of running faster on a Pro Day). If the official times can be off by what I can only tell to be at least .1 second (Mays ran at least a 4.33 since he was faster than holliday), then what does that say about the forty in years past?

Scotty D
03-03-2010, 07:13 AM
claiming you ran faster than myron rolle in 9th grade while claiming to be an fsu grad(further making you look foolish for trash talking one of your own)

I enjoyed this.

Jimmy
03-03-2010, 08:17 AM
This is really upsetting, ive always reffered to the combine official times because i figured they were most accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDhYKZHKh4Q&feature=player_embedded#at=26

idk what is causing guys like mays and spiller to get their times shed by .1 seconds + but i get the feeling that both of them ran much faster.

They need to change the system, or improve the technology. I get the feeling that they are flinching at the start and that is starting the clock a little early, maybe they should just get a panel of 20 hand-held timers and average all the hand taken times, and get rid of any outliers (those whose fingers slipped or are clearly off)

ntodd51
03-03-2010, 09:46 AM
I have to get something off my chest. I am SHOCKED that no one has stepped up and explained how these 40 times can vary. First, you have to take some of these times with a grain of salt when it comes to an "official" vs. "unofficial" time. The way this works is NFL network has a guy timing these prospects with a hand held watch which is how they get the "unofficial" times so quick. So how do they get the "official" time? Well they have what it's called and electric eye which registers a time as soon as the player breaks the plane at the 10, 20 and 40 yard mark.

The issue is how they start the timer. There are actually three ways you can start the timer for this way of timing the 40. You can start it electronically by placing a pad where the players put their hands which then starts when they lift up their hands, it’s a nice way to get an accurate time for a player which removes most of the variables, but limits the prospect from having a start that might be unique to them and there are some tricks to getting a little fast time. The second way to start this is by using a whistle, gun or automatic start, the problem with this is you then create a reaction time for the prospects and some of them take longer than others to get into their stances so it’s not a viable option in this format. The last way is to start manually on the prospects first movement. This last way is how they do it at the NFL combine. This is probably the best way for them to go through multiple prospects at a time, problem is when you put in a human element you then have more errors. The start is subject to a person pressing the button, which believe it or not can introduce plenty of errors especially in as little of time as .1 of a second. If you know anything about timing or running 40's you know that .1 of a second actually is pretty quick and hard to duplicate over and over. An example of what I am talking about is in track and field at lower levels that don't have electric eye, where they only have stop watches. The track rule is there is it takes a timer .24 seconds to react to someone crossing the line. So if someone runs a 4.50 hand timed 40 in a true electric eye they would be closer to 4.74.

So after reading that I hope you all are totally confused, but the explantion is very simple WHY Mays ran an official slower time than Holliday when the simulcast clearly shows Mays beating Holliday. The reason that is the human start. The person obviously was a little slow on the trigger for Mays and or may have been a little bit faster on the trigger for Holliday. It's an inexact science which then the question is raised how fast is Chris Johnson? Did he really run a 4.24 40? I remember the unofficial time for him was in the mid to low 4.3's, which is fast, but not 4.24 fast. Could the starter have been a little quick on the trigger? It's really hard to say exactly what his time was, but does it matter? We know Johnson is REALLY fast.

Probably the best and most accurate way of doing it is to use the technology the NFL Network possess in which they know how long a frame takes and can measure how long EXACTLY it takes from first movement until they cross the line. This is something I can see them implementing sometime soon especially after people are questioning the timing system.

boknows34
03-03-2010, 11:26 AM
That 4.43 is BS.

I have him at 4.32 consistently, with the same delay after start then after he crosses the 40 yard line.

I had him at 4.32 as well. The simulcast with Ford's 4.28 would suggest that too.

boknows34
03-03-2010, 11:36 AM
This is really upsetting, ive always reffered to the combine official times because i figured they were most accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDhYKZHKh4Q&feature=player_embedded#at=26

idk what is causing guys like mays and spiller to get their times shed by .1 seconds + but i get the feeling that both of them ran much faster.

They need to change the system, or improve the technology. I get the feeling that they are flinching at the start and that is starting the clock a little early, maybe they should just get a panel of 20 hand-held timers and average all the hand taken times, and get rid of any outliers (those whose fingers slipped or are clearly off)


In 2010 you'd think they would have the technology to get accurate readings. In track and field they can accurately measure an athlete's reaction time to the gun to the thousandth of a second. Why not have a bleeper to officially start the clock with a timer on the screen like they do with track and then subtract each runner's reaction time? When Usain Bolt runs we all know what his time is the instant he crosses the line. Bolt's 100m WR of 9.58 is even more impressive when you subtract the reaction time of approx 0.13-0.15.

phlysac
03-03-2010, 11:46 AM
Obviously, the NFL needs to fix their "Official" timing devices but beyond that, I don't think it's as big of a deal as many are making it.

It's been said FOR YEARS that scouts and coaches trust their stopwatches more than "official" times anyways. In some cases, these scouts and coaches don't even refer to the "official" times.

If this discrepency factors into who your team drafts then your team should hire a new GM.

PossibleCabbage
03-03-2010, 12:20 PM
Couldn't we remove all the room for error by having the guys start their run on an electronic signal or a beep or something? It seems like hand-timing the start is the only place that error can creep into official times.

Sure, it may hurt some people's times to have them have to react to a "start running" signal, but it's not as though that's at all unrealistic in a football context.

steelcrew43
03-03-2010, 12:50 PM
use your cell phone ... start the time and immediatly stop it ... thats how you can mess up on hand time ... i get .14 everytime... so his alleged 4.24 could be correct add .14 and you get a 4.38 ... 40 times are soo inconsistant

RealityCheck
03-03-2010, 01:25 PM
As I've done earlier, timed it 10 times and NEVER got more than 4.31.

Phillysteeler
03-03-2010, 01:49 PM
Like a lot have said most coaches go on their own time so that way from year to year as long as they react the same, then they can compare old times with current ones. Official times seem to be there more just for the media.

HotRod35
03-13-2010, 11:15 AM
"HotRod", you first began posting in a gerhart thread dominated by psychos from caste football about your gerhart love that was eventually locked, and further posted your love for gerhart... now you're writing short essays about... gerhart... in a taylor mays thread... and claiming you ran faster than myron rolle in 9th grade while claiming to be an fsu grad(further making you look foolish for trash talking one of your own)... and now gerhart is a better athlete than emmitt smith(i know it pained you not saying that gerhart is a better rb too good effort holding that back), nice...

This is so well written, I don't know exactly how to respond. The lack of punctuation, the poor development of an ill-thought-out response, together with inaccurate quotes, are mind boggling. It is hard to know where to begin.

I will respectfully request one thing from you. Please, if you are going to quote, or otherwise attribute, statements to me, will you at least make a modicum of an effort to get them correct?

As just one example of your sloppy response, you write: "and claiming you ran faster than myron rolle in 9th grade while claiming to be an fsu grad(further making you look foolish for trash talking one of your
own)"

I actually wrote:"I am an FSU guy and you see how "slow" Myron Role ran. I mean I ran that fast, or close to it, in the 9th grade, with no training. But he was a very effective player for FSU.

The difference should be clear, but in the event that it is not, please note that I never claimed I ran faster than Rolle.

Moreover, I fail to see how anything I wrote amounts to "trash talking" of Myron Rolle.

FUNBUNCHER
03-13-2010, 11:31 AM
Laron Landry ran an 'unofficial' 4.35 at the combine on NFL Network. Guess what his official was, (from the sources I could find)? 4.35.

Calvin Johnson ran an 'unoffcial' 4.35 at the combine on NFL Network. Same deal.
Same for Michael Huff too.

I don't know how NFL Network and the combine can be so in synch in previous years on the times prospects run, yet the last couple of combines, the times are wildly skewed in every direction.

All I know is that I saw a 6'3, 230# safety run a 4.24 and a 4.34 at the combine.
It's not like Mays was wearing track spikes exploding out of blocks; his time began on crouched movement, not that hard to do for someone practiced with a stopwatch.
Mays is the biggest, fastest secondary player I've ever seen in my life, and that 'rumored' USC time of 4.28 IMO was confirmed at Indy as FACT.

FWIW, I believe Mays ran a legit sub 4.28 his first run.

Job
03-13-2010, 12:11 PM
So after reading that I hope you all are totally confused, but the explantion is very simple WHY Mays ran an official slower time than Holliday when the simulcast clearly shows Mays beating Holliday. The reason that is the human start. The person obviously was a little slow on the trigger for Mays and or may have been a little bit faster on the trigger for Holliday. It's an inexact science which then the question is raised how fast is Chris Johnson? Did he really run a 4.24 40? I remember the unofficial time for him was in the mid to low 4.3's, which is fast, but not 4.24 fast. Could the starter have been a little quick on the trigger? It's really hard to say exactly what his time was, but does it matter? We know Johnson is REALLY fast.


You have that part the wrong way dude.

phlysac
03-13-2010, 02:07 PM
I believe Mays ran a legit sub 4.28 his first run.

What do you guesstimate that Jacoby Ford ran, then? He was nearly 2 yards faster than Mays.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2010, 02:17 PM
What do you guesstimate that Jacoby Ford ran, then? He was nearly 2 yards faster than Mays.

If that simulcast video is to be trusted, Mays is maybe 2 to 2.5 feet behind Ford, not 6 feet.

FUNBUNCHER
03-13-2010, 05:43 PM
Ford is faster than Mays.

I really think Jacoby posted a time equal or better than Chris Johnson.