Really dissapointed in the 40s for these LBers who I thought might be 2nd/3rd round targets for the Rams
Thought the 4.9 Dawson put in isn't representative of his on-field speed. But I certainly agree. Not many great times from the backers
Really dissapointed in the 40s for these LBers who I thought might be 2nd/3rd round targets for the Rams
I don't care about 40 times for LBs.
Vontaze Burfict ran a 5.09 and he's one of the best ILBs in the NFL. It's more important for OLBs, I guess, but it's really not the be all and end all.
The question is how fast to guys play in pads, tired, in the 3rd quarter and the combine doesn't measure that.
"The curve" is what I like to look at. Some guys are super fast at first and dip precipitously. Others may not be as fast, but they maintain their speed through fatigue, with pads and even get faster in pursuit situations. THOSE are the guys who are football players.
I don't care at all about Dawson's 40 time. The film says it all with him.
I don't care about 40 times for LBs.
Vontaze Burfict ran a 5.09 and he's one of the best ILBs in the NFL. It's more important for OLBs, I guess, but it's really not the be all and end all.
The question is how fast to guys play in pads, tired, in the 3rd quarter and the combine doesn't measure that.
"The curve" is what I like to look at. Some guys are super fast at first and dip precipitously. Others may not be as fast, but they maintain their speed through fatigue, with pads and even get faster in pursuit situations. THOSE are the guys who are football players.
1. I would like to see a combine test implemented called the gauntlet. They could string together a bunch of drills meant to exhaust and record times at certain intervals to see who really has what when the going gets tough.
2. Bill Polian disagrees with anyone that says 40 times are not indicative of much for certain positions. He claims that through the years his studies continually proved that 40 times were one of the most accurate measures of a players ability at every position, except QB and Kicking. He said even Olinemen and Dlinemen. He also agreed that it does not seem to make sense, but it consistently proved to be true when reviewing 40 times for successful NFL players.
I agree it doesn't make sense........just passing it on.
Must be why Polian and Al Davis drafted so well since the 2000s.![]()
Well I am not a Polian fan. I agree that he lost his edge long ago. But what he was claiming was according to looking back in review, not as a drafting rule. He never spoke about that part, probably for good reason. He claimed that if you review successful players that they nearly always had good 40 times and he said it indicating that it defied logic. He said it was the most consistent measuring tool.
JMO but I think it's because people adjust the bar when looking at it on review.
For example, we wouldn't consider a 4.55 40 impressive for a WR but when looking back, I have a feeling they don't chalk that up as a negative. So it's easy to skew the results.
I can say that you can find quite a few productive players at all positions that put up underwhelming and even poor 40 times. I just don't see a strong correlation between the 40 and success. Sure, guys who put up disastrous 40 times and end up being productive aren't common...but I don't think that's saying much.
Don't forget his greatest role:I concur, plus his Grandfather was awesome on Hogan's Heroes and The Family Feud.