Sean Tucker

[TexanMark]

Maybe in the upcoming years, the #44 will just be a higher paying position.

Yuck...I hope college football doesn't go down that path

 

[All4SU]

Yuck...I hope college football doesn't go down that path

That’s pretty much where this road leads...

 

[SWC75]

I posted the 100m time and Jordan's. I won't find the post. This thread isn't that long, it shouldn't be hard for you to find.

The conversions are off.

Yes, at a sub 11 sec 100m he is blazing fast.
I would be interested to know how many times in our history we have had more than one guy on the team that could run the 100 m in under 11 sec.

Don't conversions assume that all the runners are going at the same rate indicated by final time throughout the race? Is it really possible to 'convert' or 'project' a time in a race of one distance from a race at a different distance? Does a 100m time tell you a 40 yard time or a 60m time or a 200m time? Or 400m or a mile or a marathon, etc. ?

 

[sufandu]

Don't conversions assume that all the runners are going at the same rate indicated by final time throughout the race? Is it really possible to 'convert' or 'project' a time in a race of one distance from a race at a different distance? Does a 100m time tell you a 40 yard time or a 60m time or a 200m time? Or 400m or a mile or a marathon, etc. ?

I don't know what kind of formula is used in the conversions. Any good one would incorporate some rate of acceleration and not assume steady speed. Part of the problem with any of them is just the difference between individual sprinters. Some are better starters while some have better top end speed. Usain Bolt was a notoriously bad starter that tended to fly by everyone at around 60-70m.

The bigger the difference between distances the less you can compare them. Certainly a sprint doesn't translate to a marathon and beyond 100m guys begin to fatigue. You'll notice the body types of 400m guys are completely different than 100m guys because 400m is not a true sprint. It incorporates an aspect of endurance and pacing strategy not present in the true sprint races.

The idea of 40m with relation to football is that your essentially testing acceleration.

 

[SWC75]

I don't know what kind of formula is used in the conversions. Any good one would incorporate some rate of acceleration and not assume steady speed. Part of the problem with any of them is just the difference between individual sprinters. Some are better starters while some have better top end speed. Usain Bolt was a notoriously bad starter that tended to fly by everyone at around 60-70m.

The bigger the difference between distances the less you can compare them. Certainly a sprint doesn't translate to a marathon and beyond 100m guys begin to fatigue. You'll notice the body types of 400m guys are completely different than 100m guys because 400m is not a true sprint. It incorporates an aspect of endurance and pacing strategy not present in the true sprint races.

The idea of 40m with relation to football is that your essentially testing acceleration.

That's why i feel that football players would tend to do better in the first half of a 100m than the second half- they are more muscular and can explode out of the blocks faster. A slower time in the 100m would necessarily mean a slower time in the 40 yard dash.

 

[FrancoPizza]

The idea of 40m with relation to football is that your essentially testing acceleration.

Acceleration is really all that matters when hitting the hole. That and cutting ability which can’t be measured in any kind of a sprint.

 

[sufandu]

That's why i feel that football players would tend to do better in the first half of a 100m than the second half- they are more muscular and can explode out of the blocks faster. A slower time in the 100m would necessarily mean a slower time in the 40 yard dash.

Not really. Most sprinters are built like football players. Body types like Usain Bolt and Carl Lewis are the exception.

Edit: I read your post wrong. It probably depends on the position and player. Your short RBs with great burst (think Barry Sanders) would do better in the early part. Your long striding WRs (think Randy Moss) would do better in the last half.

 

[sufandu]

Acceleration is really all that matters when hitting the hole. That and cutting ability which can’t be measured in any kind of a sprint.

Absolutely. In fact 40 is probably too far when testing RBs. A 10 yard split would be better.

 

[upperdeck]

Nebraska did well measuring the 10Yd type sprints for years on its players.

 

[CuseOnly]

I don't know what kind of formula is used in the conversions. Any good one would incorporate some rate of acceleration and not assume steady speed. Part of the problem with any of them is just the difference between individual sprinters. Some are better starters while some have better top end speed. Usain Bolt was a notoriously bad starter that tended to fly by everyone at around 60-70m.

The bigger the difference between distances the less you can compare them. Certainly a sprint doesn't translate to a marathon and beyond 100m guys begin to fatigue. You'll notice the body types of 400m guys are completely different than 100m guys because 400m is not a true sprint. It incorporates an aspect of endurance and pacing strategy not present in the true sprint races.

The idea of 40m with relation to football is that your essentially testing acceleration.

Most simple formulas don't figure that because there really is no way to calculate acceleration because nobody really knows and it would differ greatly.

I did read where the worst predictor of speed is the 40 yard time. The 100m is the best indicator, kids that have fast 40 times can vary widely in the 100m. By several tenths.

Here it is - Indoor Track, the 100, 40 yard dash and Football -