He should have ran it at his pro day then. Yes, I am nitpicking, that is what the draft is all about.
Dude.. OBJ is not the best comparison in terms of WR overall comparisons. OBJ and Jackson are on par with the speed of Jackson. Its not even a good argument. You act like .5 seconds is a huge difference and its just not, especially when you put on those pads. It's a whole different thing at that point and all three of them play very fast. Its a moot argument.
I've never met someone who handles opposite opinions worse than you. Either way, you had no desire to compare the way they play on the field because all you responded with was comparison between their 40 times. No shit on a straight line with no defenders DeSean is faster, and how many times will that happen over the course of an NFL game? Beyond that, I care more about the players quickness than their speed. Can they blow by their man at the line of scrimmage? Can they cut on a dime? I'm not saying that you don't give a shit about this kind of stuff but I'm just going based off what you posted. All you posted were 40 times and called it a day.
One is faster than the other. You said they're equal - they're not. It's been measured. So stop saying it. OBJ is better comparison speed wise. We were talking about speed. Playstyle he's not like DeSean either, he's more like Devery Henderson or Kenny Stills.
You're right; I chose to enter the discussion about who is faster! that was my decision! That is what I was interested in talking about! God, forgive me! The next time I chime in on a thread about some random singular point of discussion I'll remember to email you my full scouting report and analysis of all players involved. Now bugger off.
im not really concerned about durability and toughness. and i like the pick. but ive watched every second of game film i could find on the kid and cant really see why anyone would compare him to desean jackson. the torrey smith comparisons seems closer but even then smith i think is shiftier. i like him as a deep threat, or someone who might seperate on a cross or slant. but i dont see the catch a bubble screen and make a big play or the take an end around and make guys miss type stuff you see from guys like DJ.
It's just the Internet, relax. Like I said its 2015 I think everyone knows that combine numbers means dick in a game.
Again, I wasnt saying you were wrong, i was just hoping you could show me some links where he does that sort of thing. i was able to find 3 of his games from last yea rand didnt see much of it and watched every highlight i could find. comparing him to Desean Jackson purely as a WR, i just dont see the players where he catches the ball at or behind the line of scrimmage, makes multiple guys miss and goes for a big gain 2 end around touchdowns. i know we are comparing them as WR's only, but its the punt return type abilities that make jackson special as a player. when he gets it on an end around or a screen it becomes like a punt return where he can make a few guys miss in tight quarters and go a long way. I'll keep watching the his full games i can find, but so far i havent seen stuff like that.
the difference between 4.42 speed and 4.35 speed if you where to run them side by side for 40 yards is 6 inches. less then a foot of seperation, and thats after no, actually, there isnt. if you take all the 40 times, and plot them against success, you basically get a flat line. there are just as many poor and average players with elite speed times in the 40 as there are good and great players. same is true in reverse. take the all-pro roster and look at the 40 times. it fluctuates from super slow to insanely fast: Demarco murray 4.37 LAveon Bell 4.46 Marshawn Lynch 4.46 Antonio Brown - 4.56 Dez Bryant 4.52 Jordy Nelson 4.51 Demaryious Thomas 4.38 Darelle Revis - 4.38 Richard Sherman - 4.56 Chris Harris - 4.48 Brent Grimes - 4.47 those were their combine times. I think it is pretty clear that 40 yard time isnt a great indicator of NFL success or lack of success. Nor how it translates to being a big play threat. some of the slower guys are just as big threats, brown for example
This is what we have been trying to tell him but he only wants to talk about 40 times. I don't know why he's under the impression this is important when talking about how speed translates on the field, but I'm just letting you know you're wasting your time.
thats fine, i figured id just post the facts. if he wants to debate facts then he i just being a troll or is simple dense. 3 of the 4 all-pro WRs ran a 4.50+ 40 time. one of them was one of the bigger deep threats in football
First, we are talking about WR only. Second, we are not talking about poor or average players. This study took the top 125 WR performances over the last ten years and plotted them against 40 time. Here is the summary of the findings. https://m.numberfire.com/nfl/news/1810/what-a-strong-40-yard-dash-means-for-elite-wide-receivers
Here's the thing, 40 times measure how fast a player can go from standing still to crossing a line 40 yards away. That's it. There are so many nuanced variables to how that actually translates to play on the field, especially when you're talking about a deep threat WR. For instance, turning one's head around to track a ball high in the air while running slows down every player, but it slows down every player differently. Making small adjustments in direction while running all out also causes players to slow down, but not at any kind of set decrease. Acceleration and deceleration abilities mid stride also effect a players deep threat qualities. Just because a one player has 4.42 speed when running flat out when compared to another player has 4.36 speed when running flat out doesn't mean the one with 4.36 speed is going to get to a 70 yard bomb first.
Exactly. This is where the 40 discussion ends. They are like PER in basketball... cool numbers to discuss, not numbers indicative of play.
This is a pretty poor study. they rate top performances by receptions, or more specifically, their own metric "net expected points" which is based on "a look at the number of points added by a receiver on receptions only". They never show you the calculation for this metric. They never tell you how its weighted, and it appears it doesnt take yardage or touchdowns into the equation. It also sets the bar MUCH different then you do. the bar isnt a 4.40 or 4.45. its at 4.50. it is basically calling someone with 4.49 speed "fast". it is also a one sided study, in that it never tells us how many sub 4,5 players are in tier's 4 and 5. in other words it tells us few slow guys are in tier 1, but omits how many fast guys are in tier 5 last, and most importantly, it ranks the top 125 performances, NOT the top 125 players. this means that certainly players will show up multiple times in this study. for of those 11 instances of 4.5 higher in tier 5, that could consist of 1 player doing it 7 times(i.e. he had a NEP score that ranks in tier 5 for 7 seasons in a row). You cant say one way for sure, because they never list the raw data and show the players/seasons for tier 5(or any tier) and even go so far as to say "i wont bore you with the specific players". We dont know how many players are in the study. it could be 10 players (each having 12-13 seasons each within the NEP score range consisting of those 125 performances) or we could have 125 players (each having 1 season within the NEP score range). they never show us the data set So basically you have a study that: 1) ranks using a metric made by themselves, one that they DONT define the calculation for 2) ranks based on the top performances, NOT by player allowing for a player to show up multiple times on this list and a much smaller sample size 3) there threshold for "speed" is very high: their "average" speed for a tier 1 performance was a 4.44 40-time 4) it is an incomplete study(or at least an incomplete list of the studies findings) in that they never show the comparison to how many "fast" players showed up in the lower tiers They DONT show us the calculations for their metric the study is based on = FAIL They DONT show us the pool of data (i.e. the top 125 performers they rank = FAIL They DONT show us the raw data(all top 125 performs with rank and NEP score) = FAIL this study fails in all aspects.
and most imporantly, when you run your 40 at the combined you dont have anyones hands/arms on you and no one is contacting you right off the starting line
Lol! You're so predictable. You make a half-ass list of a few random players forty times and use that as "evidence" but then you are here desperately trying to poke holes in a legit study but a reputable analytics company. Too funny.
in what way was my list "random" I took last years NFL All-Pro roster. I would say that players elected as All-Pro's would be a better measure then "NEP" unless you prefer NEP, which i doubt, since they never show us how it is calculated. as far as "predicable" im not sure it gets more predictable then posting a meme when you get called out. "respectable analytics company". I would debate that. Especially when they reveal next to no data
Guys you are arguing with somebody that watches the draft with a spreadsheet full of combine numbers in front of him and admits that he rules players out for consideration because of combine numbers (Mauldin), kind of a waste of an argument
