Sperm Edwards Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 What did Colston run? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2006/draft/players/27260.html 4.55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 What did Colston run? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2006/draft/players/27260.html 4.55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share Posted March 10, 2008 The suggestion is not that speed is unimportant. But rather that it is not ALL-important. NFL CB's have speed also. You need more than just speed to get separation, particularly within 20-30 yards (where over 95% of all plays occur). Exactly SE, speed can be very important, but it can't be the only factor.... Also, I guess I was lashing out a bit some media types. You know the type that are beat writers for the Daily News, Newsday, The Post, ect... Like trained Seals, they'll constantly say and write things like the Jets (or any team) need more speed at linebacker!.......or the Jets need more speed in the secondary....or the Jets need more speed at wide receiver....or the Jets need more speed wherever? But can these stoodges tell me where all these talented fast players are, when the N.F.L. hand picks the top 30 college cornerbacks and they average 4.51 (handtimed) at the Combine? Granted, some of the slower Combine players will be weeded out and will never make it....but if the N.F.L. shunned every receiver that ran a 4.6 or worse, over 60% of the wide outs in the league would be gone. ******** Gibbon, no doubt, size is important to note when looking at a players speed. Particularly at linebacker.....Tony Dungy and the Colts found out the hard way a few years ago that having "fast linebackers and small, nimble DT's" was a good way to make draftniks drool, but how can 220 pound linebackers (i.e. Cato June, Gilbert Garner) and 275 pound DT's effectively stop the run? Colts basically stayed afloat in those days (and even prospered) because their offense could put up 38 points a game against anyone? ********* Fla Green is correct, Lav. Coles was very fast coming out of college....the amazing part, was his teammate Peter Warrick ran about a 4.6 40 @ about 5' 9" and was the 4th overall pick.... I can remember, back then, thinking Coles was the better prospect -- better size and speed.....but Coles' off-field issues muddled things a bit for him, back then. ***** Bit, no doubt, it seems the best young linebackers in football were "about" 4.8 types at the Combine.....David Harris was not fast......Patrick Willis had "slightly dissapointing times"......Lofa Tatupu ran almost 5.0 flat @ 5' 10".....Greenway and Pozlusny, who showed a lot when they have played, ran close to 4.8's....the list can go on and on. As Charles Davis of the NFL Network noted, if a 4.5 linebacker has poor instincts and takes the wrong first step, he becomes 5.0 flat linebacker.....but if a 5.0 linebacker has great instints and takes the correct first step, he becomes a 4.5 linebacker? ***** Don't have Coltson's official times, but I thought his official times were lower than 4.55.....the mediocre 40 time likely explains why he was like the next to last player picked in 2006, a few months after absolutely dominating the East-West game and causing a huge buzz.....basically all them omentum he had built up at Hofstra and in all-star games was wiped in 4.7 seconds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share Posted March 10, 2008 The suggestion is not that speed is unimportant. But rather that it is not ALL-important. NFL CB's have speed also. You need more than just speed to get separation, particularly within 20-30 yards (where over 95% of all plays occur). Exactly SE, speed can be very important, but it can't be the only factor.... Also, I guess I was lashing out a bit some media types. You know the type that are beat writers for the Daily News, Newsday, The Post, ect... Like trained Seals, they'll constantly say and write things like the Jets (or any team) need more speed at linebacker!.......or the Jets need more speed in the secondary....or the Jets need more speed at wide receiver....or the Jets need more speed wherever? But can these stoodges tell me where all these talented fast players are, when the N.F.L. hand picks the top 30 college cornerbacks and they average 4.51 (handtimed) at the Combine? Granted, some of the slower Combine players will be weeded out and will never make it....but if the N.F.L. shunned every receiver that ran a 4.6 or worse, over 60% of the wide outs in the league would be gone. ******** Gibbon, no doubt, size is important to note when looking at a players speed. Particularly at linebacker.....Tony Dungy and the Colts found out the hard way a few years ago that having "fast linebackers and small, nimble DT's" was a good way to make draftniks drool, but how can 220 pound linebackers (i.e. Cato June, Gilbert Garner) and 275 pound DT's effectively stop the run? Colts basically stayed afloat in those days (and even prospered) because their offense could put up 38 points a game against anyone? ********* Fla Green is correct, Lav. Coles was very fast coming out of college....the amazing part, was his teammate Peter Warrick ran about a 4.6 40 @ about 5' 9" and was the 4th overall pick.... I can remember, back then, thinking Coles was the better prospect -- better size and speed.....but Coles' off-field issues muddled things a bit for him, back then. ***** Bit, no doubt, it seems the best young linebackers in football were "about" 4.8 types at the Combine.....David Harris was not fast......Patrick Willis had "slightly dissapointing times"......Lofa Tatupu ran almost 5.0 flat @ 5' 10".....Greenway and Pozlusny, who showed a lot when they have played, ran close to 4.8's....the list can go on and on. As Charles Davis of the NFL Network noted, if a 4.5 linebacker has poor instincts and takes the wrong first step, he becomes 5.0 flat linebacker.....but if a 5.0 linebacker has great instints and takes the correct first step, he becomes a 4.5 linebacker? ***** Don't have Coltson's official times, but I thought his official times were lower than 4.55.....the mediocre 40 time likely explains why he was like the next to last player picked in 2006, a few months after absolutely dominating the East-West game and causing a huge buzz.....basically all them omentum he had built up at Hofstra and in all-star games was wiped in 4.7 seconds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 R44-Great job as always. Some people (the Bradways of teh world included) just salivate at the site of an athelete with great numbers. It is like the baseball sabremetricians with their stats and they relate the sport to numbers on a sheet of paper and don't look deeper. Atheleticism doesn't necessariy transfer on the field. Show me how they play with the equipment on. Show me how they react and process the game. What is their dedication? Do they like the sport and what they are doing. The Jets went overboard with their "leadership and good guy" qualities, but they got a part of teh equation right. A Dan Connor, or a David Harris, guys that don't pop at you with raw skills, but they know how to play the game and are football players first and foremost. It is in their DNA. Scouting is so much more than 40 times and vertical leaps. Thanks for the reply, SE. You're wise and you are correct. Arizona has great receivers and none is a blazer....I think Boldin ran like a 4.79 @ the Combine. What made me think about this? A few days ago an agent of a small school superstar (WR Curtis Hamilton, Western Kentucky) sent his kids' Pro Day times to me at DD.com and showed Curtis ran 4.58. My first thought was "the kid is sunk" with those times.....but when I thought about it a little more, I figured as long as he ran on a reasonable track, 4.58 is actually "average" for a N.F.L. WR prospect, contrary to the media myth that all DB, RB and WR prospects run sub 4.5's. Now Hamilton is still a long shot, but 4.58 isn't that bad, in reality? P.S: Thanks Max....but just let everyone know you are just kidding....I love posting at JN, but DD.com eats up so much computer time, it's tough.....Also, one of the reasons I haven't posted much, is my computer is so fouled up, I can't enter JN from the front page -- (computer crashes), so I surf in from the baseball forum.....Also, don't worry about me abusing "smileys", they don't work for me here, either LOL . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 R44-Great job as always. Some people (the Bradways of teh world included) just salivate at the site of an athelete with great numbers. It is like the baseball sabremetricians with their stats and they relate the sport to numbers on a sheet of paper and don't look deeper. Atheleticism doesn't necessariy transfer on the field. Show me how they play with the equipment on. Show me how they react and process the game. What is their dedication? Do they like the sport and what they are doing. The Jets went overboard with their "leadership and good guy" qualities, but they got a part of teh equation right. A Dan Connor, or a David Harris, guys that don't pop at you with raw skills, but they know how to play the game and are football players first and foremost. It is in their DNA. Scouting is so much more than 40 times and vertical leaps. Thanks for the reply, SE. You're wise and you are correct. Arizona has great receivers and none is a blazer....I think Boldin ran like a 4.79 @ the Combine. What made me think about this? A few days ago an agent of a small school superstar (WR Curtis Hamilton, Western Kentucky) sent his kids' Pro Day times to me at DD.com and showed Curtis ran 4.58. My first thought was "the kid is sunk" with those times.....but when I thought about it a little more, I figured as long as he ran on a reasonable track, 4.58 is actually "average" for a N.F.L. WR prospect, contrary to the media myth that all DB, RB and WR prospects run sub 4.5's. Now Hamilton is still a long shot, but 4.58 isn't that bad, in reality? P.S: Thanks Max....but just let everyone know you are just kidding....I love posting at JN, but DD.com eats up so much computer time, it's tough.....Also, one of the reasons I haven't posted much, is my computer is so fouled up, I can't enter JN from the front page -- (computer crashes), so I surf in from the baseball forum.....Also, don't worry about me abusing "smileys", they don't work for me here, either LOL . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.