PDA

View Full Version : For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the NFL



Dee Dub
11-30-2011, 09:06 PM
I love Mike Wallace but his claim to be the fasted man in the NFL is not true. Or at least if we go by Combine 40 times he isnt. Not even close. Here is what I have found.


Fastest 40s at combine since 2006 (top Ten)
Player Year Time
Chris Johnson 2006 4.24
Jacoby Ford 2010 4.28
DeMarcus VanDyke 2011 4.28
Yamon Figurs 2007 4.30
Darrius Heyward-Bey 2009 4.30
Tye Hill 2006 4.30
Tyvon Branch 2008 4.31
Jonathan Joseph 2006 4.31
Justin King 2008 4.31
Jason Hill 2007 4.32


http://www.nfl.com/combine/story/09000d ... is-40-time (http://www.nfl.com/combine/story/09000d5d81e75746/article/dont-be-so-quick-to-judge-a-player-by-his-40-time)


Mike Wallace? 4.33. (which is the same as what Darren McFadden recorded)

Here is the link to his official time....

http://www.nfl.com/combine/top-performe ... CB-OL-SPEC (http://www.nfl.com/combine/top-performers#year=2009-2011&workout=FORTY_YARD_DASH&position=QB-RB-WR-TE-S-DL-LB-CB-OL-SPEC)

Now I think that 40 time of Chris Johnson may get challenged this year by Jeffrey Demps. He ran a 10.01 100 meters. That may even challenge Deion Sander's 4.19 40 or Bo Jackson's 4.12 40.

I'm thinking some were between 4.19 and 4.24

RuthlessBurgher
12-01-2011, 11:18 AM
A 40 time on a track from a sprinter's stance in shorts is much different from game speed in full pads. The combine 40 time is horribly overrated.

phillyesq
12-01-2011, 11:24 AM
A 40 time on a track from a sprinter's stance in shorts is much different from game speed in full pads. The combine 40 time is horribly overrated.

Yup. Wallace may not be the fastest in shorts, but he has amazing game speed.

focosteeler
12-01-2011, 11:33 AM
I swear I have read somewhere he ran a 4.28 4.29 after the combine. Not everyone runs their best at the combine, so you cant really rely on simply combine numbers. Or even 40 times for that matter

Dee Dub
12-01-2011, 12:30 PM
A 40 time on a track from a sprinter's stance in shorts is much different from game speed in full pads. The combine 40 time is horribly overrated.

Excellent point Ruthless. Troy Polamalu ran a 4.37 40 but there isnt a faster, quicker player in all of the NFL on the field. He has the best closing speed there is.

But, I will say this, all of these players I listed (and their 40 times), were all timed at the same venue under the same conditions and there is a huge difference between a 4.24 40 and a 4.33 40.

flippy
12-01-2011, 12:34 PM
So what, Chris Johsnon couldn't cover Mike Wallace anyway.

aggiebones
12-01-2011, 12:51 PM
One day to the next are very different.

I guarantee you that Chris Johnson isn't running that fast anymore, neither is McFadden. Yesterday is not today.

You can't look at 40 times from years ago to make that determination. And the difference between 4.28 and 4.3 are minuscule. So close that if they ran side by side, the more competitive person would likely win most of the time.

Dee Dub
12-01-2011, 01:04 PM
One day to the next are very different.

I guarantee you that Chris Johnson isn't running that fast anymore, neither is McFadden. Yesterday is not today.

You can't look at 40 times from years ago to make that determination. And the difference between 4.28 and 4.3 are minuscule. So close that if they ran side by side, the more competitive person would likely win most of the time.

I beg to differ. Wallace didnt run a 4.3 he ran a 4.33. And Johnson ran a 4.24. There is a huge difference in the difference of those too. I doubt very seriously if Johnson has lost all that much over the course of the past few years.

NorthCoast
12-01-2011, 01:46 PM
One day to the next are very different.

I guarantee you that Chris Johnson isn't running that fast anymore, neither is McFadden. Yesterday is not today.

You can't look at 40 times from years ago to make that determination. And the difference between 4.28 and 4.3 are minuscule. So close that if they ran side by side, the more competitive person would likely win most of the time.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, you are looking at a difference of ~6.5 inches on a 20 yd pass....enough to make a difference??

Shoe
12-02-2011, 02:01 AM
One day to the next are very different.

I guarantee you that Chris Johnson isn't running that fast anymore, neither is McFadden. Yesterday is not today.

You can't look at 40 times from years ago to make that determination. And the difference between 4.28 and 4.3 are minuscule. So close that if they ran side by side, the more competitive person would likely win most of the time.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, you are looking at a difference of ~6.5 inches on a 20 yd pass....enough to make a difference??

It's not.
Frankly, it's all about how fast one recognizes whatever it is he's trying to recognize--and STARTS. That's all it is. That's why guys who don't time fast are actually faster on the field. Carrying your pads probably plays a small part. But just like competitive sprinting, the start usually determines the outcome, especially in a dynamic and short-burst sport like football.

For the record, I don't think Wallace is the "fastest man in the league". I happen to think at least Desean Jackson is the faster football player. And also for the record: CJ doesn't have the "same speed" as he did two years ago. He can't.

That being said, I'm happy with Wallace and his maybe-not -the-absolute-fastest-man-in-the-league speed.

feltdizz
12-02-2011, 09:25 AM
One day to the next are very different.

I guarantee you that Chris Johnson isn't running that fast anymore, neither is McFadden. Yesterday is not today.

You can't look at 40 times from years ago to make that determination. And the difference between 4.28 and 4.3 are minuscule. So close that if they ran side by side, the more competitive person would likely win most of the time.

I beg to differ. Wallace didnt run a 4.3 he ran a 4.33. And Johnson ran a 4.24. There is a huge difference in the difference of those too. I doubt very seriously if Johnson has lost all that much over the course of the past few years.

the difference between 4.3 and 4.24 is huge if you are in the olympics...

SidSmythe
12-02-2011, 09:42 AM
My 40 is awful at this point.

But i bet no one on this board could cover me.

Slapstick
12-02-2011, 10:07 AM
My 40 is awful at this point.

But i bet no one on this board could cover me.

Probably not...if you look anything like your avatar...but you probably can't catch worth a darn... :moon

Oviedo
12-02-2011, 11:36 AM
One day to the next are very different.

I guarantee you that Chris Johnson isn't running that fast anymore, neither is McFadden. Yesterday is not today.

You can't look at 40 times from years ago to make that determination. And the difference between 4.28 and 4.3 are minuscule. So close that if they ran side by side, the more competitive person would likely win most of the time.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, you are looking at a difference of ~6.5 inches on a 20 yd pass....enough to make a difference??

Exactly. It is really menaingless. Factors like acceleration, ability to change direction at speed, etc. are much more important than a 40 time.

SidSmythe
12-02-2011, 12:14 PM
My 40 is awful at this point.

But i bet no one on this board could cover me.

Probably not...if you look anything like your avatar...but you probably can't catch worth a darn... :moon

my paws, i mean hands are amazing :moon

Dee Dub
12-02-2011, 01:01 PM
One day to the next are very different.

I guarantee you that Chris Johnson isn't running that fast anymore, neither is McFadden. Yesterday is not today.

You can't look at 40 times from years ago to make that determination. And the difference between 4.28 and 4.3 are minuscule. So close that if they ran side by side, the more competitive person would likely win most of the time.

I beg to differ. Wallace didnt run a 4.3 he ran a 4.33. And Johnson ran a 4.24. There is a huge difference in the difference of those too. I doubt very seriously if Johnson has lost all that much over the course of the past few years.

the difference between 4.3 and 4.24 is huge if you are in the olympics...

Again...it's not 4.3 it's 4.33. And on a football field it's about a yard and a half. What happens when a player gets out in front by a yard and and half with this type of speed?

See ya.

flippy
12-02-2011, 01:40 PM
4.2, 4.3, 4.4, they're all fast, but they are in shorts and t-shirts.

And speed's important, but it's a small % of how someone performs.

Football is probably 60% mental, 30% recovery/pain threshold, and 10% athleticism of which speed is a small component.

There are many elite players at every position that do not have elite speed.

Granted, freakish speed can help, but it's not the be all end all.

On the same note, if you're a skill player running a 4.6 or slower, that guy likely has some limitations.

jj28west
12-02-2011, 08:31 PM
You probably saw this infamous thread http://www.gridironstuds.com/blog/the-f ... nt-page-1/ (http://www.gridironstuds.com/blog/the-fastest-40-yard-dash-ever/comment-page-1/)

but it looks like Deion was pretty damn fast.

The Steelers had a kid from Georgia that was fast but got cut a couple years ago. Having said this Torry Smith definately has killer speed also.

Shoe
12-02-2011, 10:32 PM
My 40 is awful at this point.

But i bet no one on this board could cover me.

I will most assuradly blanket you... and I'm a broken down loser.

WindyCitySteel
12-03-2011, 12:18 AM
Straight line speed in shorts doesn't mean d!ck on the football field. Steve Largent was slow, but routinely got wide open with quickness and sharp cuts. You make the defensive back hesitate for a second on a cut and you're wide open.

SteelAbility
12-03-2011, 12:15 PM
A 40 time on a track from a sprinter's stance in shorts is much different from game speed in full pads. The combine 40 time is horribly overrated.

Excellent point Ruthless. Troy Polamalu ran a 4.37 40 but there isnt a faster, quicker player in all of the NFL on the field. He has the best closing speed there is.

But, I will say this, all of these players I listed (and their 40 times), were all timed at the same venue under the same conditions and there is a huge difference between a 4.24 40 and a 4.33 40.

The problem is the variations in reaction time to the sound of the gun. In a combine format, the gun sound occurs anywhere between time X and time Y with a few seconds of spread in X and Y. One guy could be having a particularly good day reacting while another guy doesn't.

In game situations, where receivers already know the snap count, that reaction time variation is more neutralized/equalized.

What is really needed to tell who is fastest is a technology that detects a player's motion and starts time at the start of motion. Then, you could measure 10-time, 15-time, 20-time, 30-time, 40-time with very little variation (on a given player) from run to run. You could then measure reaction time separately. Obviously reaction time to a gun is a valuable metric. Having both separately will give you a very good feel for a player's effectiveness.

The 10-time, in particular is very useful. Almost every DB in the league could run down Barry Sanders, but none of them could beat him in the first 10-yards. Low gears. High gears. Sanders had insane low gears. At 5'8" he could easily dunk a basketball two-handed.

NJ-STEELER
12-03-2011, 03:26 PM
how the heck did jerry rice evere break open or run away from defenders on short routes

RuthlessBurgher
12-03-2011, 03:32 PM
A 40 time on a track from a sprinter's stance in shorts is much different from game speed in full pads. The combine 40 time is horribly overrated.

Excellent point Ruthless. Troy Polamalu ran a 4.37 40 but there isnt a faster, quicker player in all of the NFL on the field. He has the best closing speed there is.

But, I will say this, all of these players I listed (and their 40 times), were all timed at the same venue under the same conditions and there is a huge difference between a 4.24 40 and a 4.33 40.

The problem is the variations in reaction time to the sound of the gun. In a combine format, the gun sound occurs anywhere between time X and time Y with a few seconds of spread in X and Y. One guy could be having a particularly good day reacting while another guy doesn't.

In game situations, where receivers already know the snap count, that reaction time variation is more neutralized/equalized.

What is really needed to tell who is fastest is a technology that detects a player's motion and starts time at the start of motion. Then, you could measure 10-time, 15-time, 20-time, 30-time, 40-time with very little variation (on a given player) from run to run. You could then measure reaction time separately. Obviously reaction time to a gun is a valuable metric. Having both separately will give you a very good feel for a player's effectiveness.

The 10-time, in particular is very useful. Almost every DB in the league could run down Barry Sanders, but none of them could beat him in the first 10-yards. Low gears. High gears. Sanders had insane low gears. At 5'8" he could easily dunk a basketball two-handed.

There is no starting gun at the combine. The stopwatch starts on player motion.

SteelAbility
12-03-2011, 03:41 PM
A 40 time on a track from a sprinter's stance in shorts is much different from game speed in full pads. The combine 40 time is horribly overrated.

Excellent point Ruthless. Troy Polamalu ran a 4.37 40 but there isnt a faster, quicker player in all of the NFL on the field. He has the best closing speed there is.

But, I will say this, all of these players I listed (and their 40 times), were all timed at the same venue under the same conditions and there is a huge difference between a 4.24 40 and a 4.33 40.

The problem is the variations in reaction time to the sound of the gun. In a combine format, the gun sound occurs anywhere between time X and time Y with a few seconds of spread in X and Y. One guy could be having a particularly good day reacting while another guy doesn't.

In game situations, where receivers already know the snap count, that reaction time variation is more neutralized/equalized.

What is really needed to tell who is fastest is a technology that detects a player's motion and starts time at the start of motion. Then, you could measure 10-time, 15-time, 20-time, 30-time, 40-time with very little variation (on a given player) from run to run. You could then measure reaction time separately. Obviously reaction time to a gun is a valuable metric. Having both separately will give you a very good feel for a player's effectiveness.

The 10-time, in particular is very useful. Almost every DB in the league could run down Barry Sanders, but none of them could beat him in the first 10-yards. Low gears. High gears. Sanders had insane low gears. At 5'8" he could easily dunk a basketball two-handed.

There is no starting gun at the combine. The stopwatch starts on player motion.

Uggh. Did not know that. :lol: :oops:

RuthlessBurgher
12-03-2011, 03:45 PM
A 40 time on a track from a sprinter's stance in shorts is much different from game speed in full pads. The combine 40 time is horribly overrated.

Excellent point Ruthless. Troy Polamalu ran a 4.37 40 but there isnt a faster, quicker player in all of the NFL on the field. He has the best closing speed there is.

But, I will say this, all of these players I listed (and their 40 times), were all timed at the same venue under the same conditions and there is a huge difference between a 4.24 40 and a 4.33 40.

The problem is the variations in reaction time to the sound of the gun. In a combine format, the gun sound occurs anywhere between time X and time Y with a few seconds of spread in X and Y. One guy could be having a particularly good day reacting while another guy doesn't.

In game situations, where receivers already know the snap count, that reaction time variation is more neutralized/equalized.

What is really needed to tell who is fastest is a technology that detects a player's motion and starts time at the start of motion. Then, you could measure 10-time, 15-time, 20-time, 30-time, 40-time with very little variation (on a given player) from run to run. You could then measure reaction time separately. Obviously reaction time to a gun is a valuable metric. Having both separately will give you a very good feel for a player's effectiveness.

The 10-time, in particular is very useful. Almost every DB in the league could run down Barry Sanders, but none of them could beat him in the first 10-yards. Low gears. High gears. Sanders had insane low gears. At 5'8" he could easily dunk a basketball two-handed.

There is no starting gun at the combine. The stopwatch starts on player motion.

Uggh. Did not know that. :lol: :oops:

No problem. One of our scouts, Mark Gorscak, is the guy at the combine every year in Indianapolis who makes sure the players don't flinch at all before they start running.