For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the NFL

[Dee Dub]

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


[url="http://www.nfl.com/combine/story/09000d5d81e75746/article/dont-be-so-quick-to-judge-a-player-by-his-40-time"]http://www.nfl.com/combine/story/09000d ... is-40-time[/url]


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

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

[url="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"]http://www.nfl.com/combine/top-performe ... CB-OL-SPEC[/url]

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

So what, Chris Johsnon couldn't cover Mike Wallace anyway.

[aggiebones]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

My 40 is awful at this point.

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

[Slapstick]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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...

[Oviedo]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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]

Re: For the Record, Mike Wallace isnt the fastest man in the

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...

my paws, i mean hands are amazing