in the majority with college coaches

[BigJim]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

Steve Miller. He didn't break 4.8 in one of his runs, IIRC... that doesn't stop UF from drooling over him (with no shot ).

Originally Posted by jwinslow

You want more?

RB Kenny Hilliard, junior... offers: LSU, Da U, Tenn, ND. 40 Time? 4.86

LB Corey Nelson, big time junior recruit, his time last year? 4.77. This year? 4.58 and a filthy offer list.

WR Darius White.... 5* wr. Last year? 4.85. This year? 4.6

RB Michael Ford... ran a 4.69 as a senior. Still rated a 5*. Timed later at 4.49.

WLB Marquis Simmons... ran a 4.75 as a senior. #7 OLB & USC verbal.

S Eddrick Loften... ran a 4.90 as a junior. 4.55 as a senior. OU verbal.

RB Washaun Ealey... ran a 4.78 as a senior. later timed at 4.62. UGA verbal.

DE James Boyd... ran a 4.8 as a senior. USC still took him.




All of this is besides the point that 40 times are extremely overrated for running backs.

Please read my first post in this thread.

I'm not sure how extensive your research was, but after knocking the list down to what I was talking about, we're left with three.

RB Kenny Hilliard ran a 4.6.
Scout.com: Football Recruiting

RB Michael Ford ran a 4.49 (as you mentioned).

Washaun Ealy had been clocked at 4.4 40 in high school.
RB Washaun Ealey making the grades to play for UGA | Inside College Recruiting: Michael Carvell

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by BigJim

I'm not sure how extensive your research was, but after knocking the list down to what I was talking about, we're left with three.

You scoffed at the notion that many kids don't time well. Those other examples show exactly that. Either that or USC is taking a bunch of chumps.

Many have poor technique.
Many just don't turn in very fast times as youngsters despite being impressive on the football field.
Many don't benefit from generous timers, which is the biggest reason you see so far more 4.4 corners than there really are.

[BigJim]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

You scoffed at the notion that many kids don't time well.

Of course some players don't time well. I didn't mean to downplay that. My point was I'm still waiting to hear one example of a RB that timed as poorly as 4.8 and was still recruited heavily.

Which goes back to my original point that I am in a pretty clear majority with the coaches. I'm not saying other opinions on here about this are 100% wrong, I just don't agree with them.

Originally Posted by jwinslow

Those other examples show exactly that. Either that or USC is taking a bunch of chumps.

To me, there's a huge difference in how important speed is to other positions. I thought I made it pretty clear that I was referring to red flags in RB recruiting. If you want red flags to debunk in DL or LB recruiting that's completely different.

[jwinslow]

Of course some players don't time well. I didn't mean to downplay that. My point was I'm still waiting to hear one example of a RB that timed as poorly as 4.8 and was still recruited heavily.

I already gave it to you. Kenny Hilliard was timed at 4.88 Spring 08, but he was getting major offers, ATM, LSU...

Which goes back to my original point that I am in a pretty clear majority with the coaches.

Saying that doesn't make it true. Most coaches will tell you shuttle times are a much better measurable than 40 times. Quickness/burst is much more important than top-end speed.

Apples and oranges, but Boeckman & Troy had about the same 40 time. But other than when Todd snuck out unimpeded, his agility & quickness was much more important in traffic.

To me, there's a huge difference in how important speed is to other positions. I thought I made it pretty clear that I was referring to red flags in RB recruiting. If you want red flags to debunk in DL or LB recruiting that's completely different.

Who gets to run extended distances more often, a RB or a LB? I'd say speed is more important for an OLB than a RB.

[BigJim]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

I already gave it to you. Kenny Hilliard was timed at 4.88 Spring 08, but he was getting major offers, ATM, LSU...

I guess if you believe that the coaches thought he had 4.88 40 type of speed when they offered then there's not much I can say. I'd be willing to bet they knew he was at least a 4.6 or they would never have offered. I know I'm claiming something that will probably never be verifiable though so it's kind of a cop out.

Originally Posted by jwinslow

Most coaches will tell you shuttle times are a much better measurable than 40 times. Quickness/burst is much more important than top-end speed.

...

Who gets to run extended distances more often, a RB or a LB? I'd say speed is more important for an OLB than a RB.

I don't disagree with either of these but you're turning my argument into something that it wasn't meant to be. I think each position has it's red flags, including more than one for RBs. But no one was claiming shuttle times were overrated or 40 times for OLB were not important. People were saying that they don't care how slow RBs are. The fact that those things may be more important than 40 times are to a RB doesn't make a RB's 40 not a red flag.

If A is big but B & C > A, that doesn't mean A isn't still big. And I don't think disproving B disproves A either in this case.

[BigWoof31]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

I've been to about a dozen scout.com or school camps, and most kids are very mediocre at running 40 times.

True 4.4 kids, let alone 4.3 kids, are very rare.

QFT - and many of them aren't built for football or have trouble with the physical aspect of the game.

They ain't making many more Percy Harvins

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by BigWoof31

They ain't making many more Percy Harvins

Sure they are - Percy Harvin isn't a good football player because he's fast, he's a good football player because he's a good football player.

Being fast helps, but it's not the only thing.

[BUCKYLE]

40 times are great...for judging who can cover punts.

[BigJim]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

Sure they are - Percy Harvin isn't a good football player because he's fast, he's a good football player because he's a good football player.

Being fast helps, but it's not the only thing.

Thought it was worth unblocking you to see what you said here.

Percy Harvin is not the same player without his speed. Not even close.

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by BigJim

Thought it was worth unblocking you to see what you said here.

Percy Harvin is not the same player without his speed. Not even close.

No [censored] really?

Percy Harvin is a good player because he has been able to develop into a good player. Just having speed doesn't matter a damn bit if he didn't progress as a football player.

[BigJim]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

No [censored] really?

Percy Harvin is a good player because he has been able to develop into a good player. Just having speed doesn't matter a damn bit if he didn't progress as a football player.

Excellent reminder of why I have you blocked. Thanks, cya

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by BigJim

Excellent reminder of why I have you blocked. Thanks, cya

Given the carnage in this thread, maybe I should block your nonsense instead.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

Given the carnage in this thread, maybe I should block your nonsense instead.

I've decided to block everybody. Sure, that will mean I'm talking only to myself. But only rarely will I read anything that will really [censored] me off.

[NFBuck]

This whole speed argument is ridiculous. That Morgan Trent sure was a helluva player. There is an enormous list of RBs that were superstars in college that weren't burners. How people can get so upset over a three digit number that is rarely even accurate is beyond me. If you're so obsessed with "speed", you may fit in better with the m*ch*g*n crowd. All they've talked about the past 18 months is speed. Of course, that hasn't worked out all that well for them on the field.