AFJF Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Jerry Rice ran a 4.6 40 and nobody could ever run him down from behind. I think Mick meant you cant just judge it on 40 times alone. some players play faster (a lot faster) than their 40 times. Good article btw Thanks. I hope I wasn't implying that speed was the be all/end all. That's why I started it by saying the Raiders had it wrong by relying solely on speed, and the Jets were wrong to neglect it for so long..hence the need to land somewhere in the middle. Fast football players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I'd say that producing between 1,400-1,600 yards on average is better than just successful when your QB play is suspect at best. To each his own. Would he be in your top ten of all time? HOF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Would he be in your top ten of all time? HOF? Nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Thanks. I hope I wasn't implying that speed was the be all/end all. That's why I started it by saying the Raiders had it wrong by relying solely on speed, and the Jets were wrong to neglect it for so long..hence the need to land somewhere in the middle. Fast football players. As noted in my earlier responses, I didn't interpret it that way. My take-away was that you were trying to illustrate the commitment to adding explosiveness, and were using all the 40 times as a quantitative example one dimension (team speed) that has been improved. While I agree with the argument that 40 times aren't the sole metric to latch onto. I will say, if you add 7 new guys all of which run sub 4.4 forty's, you are likely going to find at least a couple guys that translate that speed to playmaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Jerry Rice ran a 4.6 40 and nobody could ever run him down from behind. I think Mick meant you cant just judge it on 40 times alone. some players play faster (a lot faster) than their 40 times. Good article btw Somewhere on here I tracked down a bunch of stuff on Rice's 40 and the 4.6 is a myth. He ran faster and that was when it was handtimed, so the numbers were all over the map. Would he be in your top ten of all time? HOF? His career isn't over. What did Curtis Martin do that he didn't? He might well make the HOF. He is not in my top 10, but there is a huge gap between successful and HOF/top ten. Nobody is saying speed = success, just that it is a good thing to have. When in doubt, pick the faster guy. Reynaldo Neiamiah, Saalim Hakim and Jeremy Reeves may not be successful NFL players, but their speed provides a puncher's chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 As noted in my earlier responses, I didn't interpret it that way. My take-away was that you were trying to illustrate the commitment to adding explosiveness, and were using all the 40 times as a quantitative example one dimension (team speed) that has been improved. While I agree with the argument that 40 times aren't the sole metric to latch onto. I will say, if you add 7 new guys all of which run sub 4.4 forty's, you are likely going to find at least a couple guys that translate that speed to playmaking. Bingo...bring in a bunch of fast skill players, if a couple pan out, it's more than we've had in what seems like forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.