N/S McFadden 4.27 (MEGA MERGED x4) (1 Viewer)

Exactly how are they bogus? Everyone runs in the same outfits, on the same track, under the same conditions. It's only the most accurate way to judge it, chief. If you put pads on these guys the results would be almost identical since they're running in a straight line with a little added weight.

Who cares if you don't run 40 yards in a straight line during the game? You run 10 and 20 yards, and those times are just as important as their 40 times.

To your original awful statement that there's "not really" a big difference between 4.40 and 4.27. That's just laughable. That's the difference between Sammy Knight and Randy Moss when Moss used to routinely get over the top of Saints defense under Haslett. It's the difference between a guy like Stallworth taking a slant to the house and Lawyer Malloy taking the proper angle to tackle him. If he has the speed, he would take a different angle and in-turn make the tackle. But since he doesn't have that type of speed, he takes a slower angle to the ball carrier, which gives Stallworth the crease he needs to take it to the house.

Get it?:9:

I somewhat agree with your sentiment, but not your example. Randy Moss and Sammy Knight? Try the difference b/w a 4.3 and a 5.0. So of course you'll see a drastic difference.

Difference b/w a 4.27 and a 4.4 would be Bullocks trying to run down Vick in the open field (I know he's not a 4.27 but he's close enough). Bullocks might catch him, he might not. It all depends on different variables. Angle, starting point, obstacles, etc. If it's a straight-line play, Vick will probably prevail everytime, but how many plays are straight-line? Most plays deal with one or more of the variables I mentioned before, which is why I believe the shuttle and 3 cone drills are the most important ones. The fact that you take a "slower" angle doesn't necessarily mean you're running a slower 40 time. It could mean you had a blocker to fight off. Or, it could mean you can't change directions fast enough (3 cone drill/shuttle). Or...it could mean the defender is just not very astute, and he took too many "false steps" before finally settling on his "slower" angle. It's not all about the 40, but the 40 is not irrelevant either (as others have been arguing).
 
Then how do you propose getting some kind of number down for these guys? Set up an obstacle course? Should we make these guys run a mile and then have them run to simulate their speed in the middle of the 4th quarter? Trust me, putting them in pads wouldn't change squat or it would have already been implemented.

Im not saying the 40 is irrelevant, just vastly overrated. To make it more realistic they could put the players in pads. This will never happen because the players and the agents wouldnt stand for it. I still dont see how you dont think it would make a difference to have them in pads though. It would make a huge difference.
 
I somewhat agree with your sentiment, but not your example. Randy Moss and Sammy Knight? Try the difference b/w a 4.3 and a 5.0. So of course you'll see a drastic difference.

The fact that you take a "slower" angle doesn't necessarily mean you're running a slower 40 time.

Oh yeah, trust me I wasn't saying Knight could run a 4.4.:hihi: I was just trying to find a Saints relevent example.

It doesn't mean you're running slower, but it does help you instinctively decide what route you're taking to the ball carrier. Example...a faster player would undercut a pulling guard and take the inside route to the ball carrier while a slower guy like Knight would have to take an outside angle, thus yielding more yards.


It's not all about the 40, but the 40 is not irrelevant either (as others have been arguing).

I agree with you, but I still think its one of the most important measurables in talent evaluation. You can be the most heady player in football history, but if you don't have the speed to actually translate onto the field there's no room for you in the NFL except on the sideline as a coach.
 
Against LSU, he broke a run for 80 yards or so but Ali Highsmith almost caught him and got blocked at the last second. McFadden ran a 4.27 and Highsmith almost caught him? He would be a great LB to draft in the second round.

McFadden apparently had some off the field issues earlier in his career but he's over all that stuff now. He also has some ball security problems.

That was Chad Jones.
 
Im not saying the 40 is irrelevant, just vastly overrated. To make it more realistic they could put the players in pads. This will never happen because the players and the agents wouldnt stand for it. I still dont see how you dont think it would make a difference to have them in pads though. It would make a huge difference.

Sure, it would make a difference in the times because you're adding more weight to each guy. But every player would be running under these circumstances so why would it matter? I guess I just don't get what you're insinuating? That some players would run faster than others with the pads on? I mean I'm sure you would see that in some cases, but there wouldn't be an abundance of it.

When you're talking about measuring a guys "game speed", it can't be measured running the 40 yard dash no matter how they run it. Game speed doesn't mean running in full pads, it's how fast you're able to diagnose plays, read & react, taking proper angles, etc. That's why I don't think it would matter if they wore pads or not. It's a dead sprint and any way you slice it a very important NFL measurable.
 
Sure, it would make a difference in the times because you're adding more weight to each guy. But every player would be running under these circumstances so why would it matter? I guess I just don't get what you're insinuating? That some players would run faster than others with the pads on? I mean I'm sure you would see that in some cases, but there wouldn't be an abundance of it.

Im saying that some guys would retain a bigger percentage of their speed with the pads on and some would have big drops. Thats where we disagree, you dont think there would be an abundance of guys affected but I think that just about every player would be affected a little differently. No, this wouldnt measure game speed like you said, but it would be closer than having them in shorts.
 
I'm sorry, I'm just not buying the McFadden hype. Of course he's good, but I'll be very surprised if he comes close to Adrian Peterson in the pros. DMC ran behind the best o-line in the country and ran a lot of plays from the Wildcat formation, which would never work in the NFL. He has great speed, but he isn't really elusive and doesn't have great vision. AD has all of it and more.

JMO, but DMC needs to go to a decent team with a better o-line to have a 800 yd. rushing season. Being in a two back system would also help him.

A little late to the thread, but where on Earth did you hear that Arkansas had the best OL in the country? Did you make that up, or did someone actually say this? I can tell you for a fact that we didn't have the best line in the country. Second, he ran in the Wildcat because we didn't have a single serviceable qb on the roster. The coaching staff decided that they wanted Darren to touch the ball as much as possible, and not just on designed runs. That was what gave our offense the best chance to move down the field and had NOTHING to do with what suited Darren's game.

I do think you're right on the elusiveness, though a lot of people disagree with me. He certainly doesn't have APs moves and sometimes tries to just run over the first guy, which won't work very well in the pros. He's more in the mold of Deuce (23 year old Deuce anyway) than AP. He's got some moves, but not LT or AP type moves.

Oh, and regarding him almost getting caught by the LSU player, that's because Darren was cruising in for what he thought would be an easy 6. He even flexed his bicep at about the 20 yard line. Nobody in the country would suck him up in the open field.

/not a huge DMAC fan, just setting the record straight after watching him in every college game
 
Shouldnt the title of the thread be changed since he didn't run a 4.27?
 
did anyone expect McFadden to run a 4.7? His question marks lie in off the field issues.
 
Patrick Willis ran McFadden down at the sideline on a stretch play. But Willis ran a, what?, 4.38 or something?

Not important I just wanted to share that :)
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom