XxSpearheadxX Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Just an interesting thing I read in an ESPN magazine a few months ago. They were talking about running the 40 yard dash in pads as opposed to guys who are trained in sprinting and style. It is pretty much known that a slow forty doesn't mean the guy isn't fast, but it is very very rare for a guy to run a fast forty and then be real slow on the field. They can still be stupid though (see: Raiders Secondary) How much does pads affect 40 yard time? Might a slight frame be unable to bear the weight? Many skill players wear thin gel kneepads or no pads at all to shave precious time off their movement speed. Anyway I remember the guys wouldn't run a 40 (for obvious reasons) but they ran 25 yard dash I think. Most of them didn't slow down much in pads. However then they talked about how running with the ball should slow you down, because of aero-dynamics and the recycling of energy through arm pumping. To a man, however, they all increased edit: their speed by 10%. Even the Offensive lineman and other players who don't normally play with the ball. Either these physicists are way off on their math, or more likely the physcological effect of having the ball makes them run harder. I just thought that was neat. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 10% faster with the ball in their hands, huh? Now that is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SackMachine Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 The thing is when you have the ball in your hand, theres about 11 people trying to kill you, so yes your going to run like a mad man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 The thing is when you have the ball in your hand, theres about 11 people trying to kill you, so yes your going to run like a mad man. LOL :laugh: Yeah I'm pretty sure this was in a controlled environment. I wonder if they ever could study the effect of a linebacker chasing you. I just can't find an online version of the story, it was one of those side bar pieces - I really thought it was interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeenzfan Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 running in a staright line without pads and with no fear of getting laid out is different from acutally being able to get open on a football field. I think quickness is more important than straight line speed. Every year some team falls in love with the 40 yard times and makes horrible choices like the raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 10% faster with the ball in their hands, huh? Now that is interesting. That sounds like total BS to me. :bsflag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GestMuddaTruckaEver Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 i read the article as well, and its true.... its not some mathematical blunder, they tried it out with a bunch of nfl players, whose names i cant recall. assuming those stats are correct, lol, i cant believe this, but reggie bush runs a 3.897 with a ball in his hands. the math: 4.33 (his 40 time) * .10 (ten percent increase of time, according to espn) = 0.433 (10% of his 40 time). then 4.33 (40 time w/o ball) - .433= 3.897. that is absolutely rediculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 He said their times increased, meaning they took longer. Thats the only way I could rationalize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 LOL :laugh: Yeah I'm pretty sure this was in a controlled environment. I wonder if they ever could study the effect of a linebacker chasing you. I just can't find an online version of the story, it was one of those side bar pieces - I really thought it was interesting. Back when I played football, long ago in olden-times, we ran some 40s in no pads to get a base time. My 40 when I just imagined 11 guys trying to kill me was around 4.8 and when I didn't, about 5.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuiceMan_74 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 running in a staright line without pads and with no fear of getting laid out is different from acutally being able to get open on a football field. I think quickness is more important than straight line speed. Every year some team falls in love with the 40 yard times and makes horrible choices like the raiders. TRUE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 running in a staright line without pads and with no fear of getting laid out is different from acutally being able to get open on a football field. I think quickness is more important than straight line speed. Every year some team falls in love with the 40 yard times and makes horrible choices like the raiders. Um, yes and no, Drills like the shuttle and cone are considered important too. The measure those attributes you say. These guys get paid to do this stuff, they know what they are doing. They do, as you say, make mistakes though. As you say, just look at the raiders. I think much of that comes from character issues and stupidness - not stiff hips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 He said their times increased, meaning they took longer. Thats the only way I could rationalize it. DOH! Sorry I'm a dumb idiot person. I meant they got faster. Sorry :( Faster with the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 i read the article as well, and its true.... its not some mathematical blunder, they tried it out with a bunch of nfl players, whose names i cant recall. assuming those stats are correct, lol, i cant believe this, but reggie bush runs a 3.897 with a ball in his hands. the math: 4.33 (his 40 time) * .10 (ten percent increase of time, according to espn) = 0.433 (10% of his 40 time). then 4.33 (40 time w/o ball) - .433= 3.897. that is absolutely rediculous. Yeah exactly, but no NFL player would ever run a 40 yard dash unless they had too. It could mean too much to them losing $. Reggie was most likely running a 30 yard dash. For those that say it is BS I swear on my mother's life it is 100% true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 That sounds like total BS to me. :bsflag: I'll second that, larger samples will probably brove that to be BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 i read the article as well, and its true.... its not some mathematical blunder, they tried it out with a bunch of nfl players, whose names i cant recall. assuming those stats are correct, lol, i cant believe this, but reggie bush runs a 3.897 with a ball in his hands. the math: 4.33 (his 40 time) * .10 (ten percent increase of time, according to espn) = 0.433 (10% of his 40 time). then 4.33 (40 time w/o ball) - .433= 3.897. that is absolutely rediculous. I'm not doubting that you guys read the article. I just find it extremely hard to believe their findings. It just doesn't make sense. I've seen statistical studies showing relay runners run significantly slower times with the baton in their hands so I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that running with a football, which inhibits your ability to swing your arms in a normal running motion, actually makes you faster. It just defies logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseGoForTheWin Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Yes, I agree with the comments about quickness and agility meaning more than straight up speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I'm not doubting that you guys read the article. I just find it extremely hard to believe their findings. It just doesn't make sense. I've seen statistical studies showing relay runners run significantly slower times with the baton in their hands so I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that running with a football, which inhibits your ability to swing your arms in a normal running motion, actually makes you faster. It just defies logic. I'm kinda with you on this. Of course being a side bar.. I'm betting they didn't include much along the line of numbers. How many players tested and their times in no-pads, pads, and ball in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangSteve Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 The thing is when you have the ball in your hand, theres about 11 people trying to kill you, so yes your going to run like a mad man. I cant disagree with that, many recievers have slow 40 runs but can out run a defense when there being chased. Darrell Green ran the 40 in 4.24 for 5 years in a row but when intercepting a pass he would jog and still out run recievers chasing him running at full speed. I will never forget the Monday Night game against Dallas when Darrell Green ran down Tony Dorsett in Greens rookie year, the whole NFL knew he was the fastest man before he even got to race the following year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.