how fast can professional football players run 400m

Forgot to address the OP. I doubt any could run the times you posted w/o specific training. 1:56 is most likely

Now really have you seen some of the shit they take? I will give you they would destroy in a 100 maybe even a 2 but a 400 is. 5x longer then they ever have to run. If your a great miler and that's all you train chances are 5is gonna burn like shit

Whoever is saying Vick can't break 62 is on crack. That man is as fast as most WRs, he has the perfect build for the 400m. He can definitely go sub 50.

SMacL wrote:

I'll start by listing the quarterbacks I think are capable of running run 400m in 62 seconds:

Donovan McNabb? (No.)

Peyton Manning? (No.)

Tom Brady? (No.)

Jason Campbell? (No.)

Kurt Warner? (No.)

Eli Manning? (No.)

Philip Rivers? (No.)

Jay Cutler? (No.)

Michael Vick? (No!)

Really? Do you know how slow 62 is? Are you claiming this because your PR is 62?

Now really have you seen some of the shit they take? I will give you they would destroy in a 100 maybe even a 2 but a 400 is. 5x longer then they ever have to run. If your a great miler and that's all you train chances are 5is gonna burn like shit

abacus wrote:

Really? Do you know how slow 62 is? Are you claiming this because your PR is 62?

Aha! The classic LetsRun tactic: the ad hominem argument.

Whether I can or can't run that time is irrelevant to my argument. (Full disclosure: I can't.)

Like I already said, I concede Vick likely could have run that time before his incarceration, and perhaps even could do so now. (Really, what the hell do I know.)

But this isn't a thread about Michael Vick, and my original post was about QBs in general.

So, again, just go through current rosters and name the QBs you think could run that time.

I think some nfl'ers would be faster than those times.

But then again, i remember Steeler LB James harrison of last yr's superbowl, nearly dying after sprinting/lumbering 99 yards. Take his equipment off, and maybe he sprints/lumbers 150 yds. Cant' see him or any others of his size going under 60. 72 seems reasonable.

I suspect that all DB & WR can go under 60 with ease. Probably a high majority can break 50.

RB, probably a just a bit less capable than DB & WR?

QB, few could break 60. Vick could probably break 50.

Linemen, very few can break 70?

I had high 15 5k speed and 2:05 800, but don't think I could break 50. Did 57 after some other races in the same day. 53 maybe?

It's very relevant when you can't even f***ing run 62 seconds for a 400. How in the hell can you even speculate about something you can't even do.

And by that twisted logic we all ought to stop discussing most of things discussed on this board.

Sportswriters, they better just put down their pens right this minute. And those uppity coaches, how dare they offer an opinion on something they can't do.

You ask if I am an athlete -- and clearly don't consider me one -- because I admit I can't run 400m in 62s. Are you so one-dimensional that someone who can't do this falls outside the boundaries of what you consider an athlete?

Whatever.

You guys are kidding yourselves if you think that some of these guys can't run sub 50.

We had this black varsity receiver run track + xc his senior year, except for XC he only ran the district/regional race.

Off of no training, he pr'ed at regionals running 18:20ish for a 5K (surprised the crap out of me).

During track, he ran around a 48-49 flat 400.

Ridiculously talented kid...

Let's not underestimate how fast a sub 50 is. 47.8 400m = world class. Here are some comparable performances at other distances.

A 49 400m is about the same as these times:

4:13 - mile

1:55 - 800

14:20 - 5K

I think we do need to consider the fact that just because a person is good at thing A, it does not follow that they are also good at thing B.

Sportswriters and coaches actually talk to people and study things. Have you played high-level football, been to 20 years of combines, digested volumes of exercise physiology, or sniffed a piddling 62 for a quarter? No. You propound theories based upon nothing other than removed and irrelevant personal experience and conjecture, and then whine that people are attacking you ad hominem.

You lose, forever.

DIII safety on my team, about 5'10" 185 lbs ran 48.

There's no question that skill players in the nFL could easily break 50

Linebackers are quick. Probably run 51 easy

Wideouts and defensive backs take the cake here. Sub 50 for anyone catching passes in the NFL

Quarterbacks are going to have the biggest range. Vick could run 4x, but a guy like Brett Favre may not break 60. They don't have to have speed.

Tailbacks are going to run 50 even for the bigger guys.

Defensive ends are going to run 52. Super explosive. A nose tackle or center, though, is going to look a lot like those throwers did back in high school.

warren buffett wrote:

Sportswriters and coaches actually talk to people and study things. Have you played high-level football, been to 20 years of combines, digested volumes of exercise physiology, or sniffed a piddling 62 for a quarter? No.

Well, have you? What makes your body of work more relevant than mine?

Because you're clearly refuting my claim that Vick cannot run that time -- which I've conceded he likely can -- and thus to offer an informed opinion on the matter must have spent those 20 years studying this and that, talking to such and such, digested those volumes.

[quote]Plenty Fast wrote:

The fastest WRs and DBs could definitely run 47.mid. I'm not even talking with specific training, take them mid season and put them on the track.'

Vous parlez la merde!

Merde!

Your smoking crack... go back to playing Wii and calling yourself an athlete.

Robert Smiths college time has already been mentioned. He ran 46.41 in high school. Teddy Ginn ran 46.57 in High school. Brandon Saine who is still at Ohio State ran 46.69 at 210 lbs!! in high school. Brian Hartline ran the 300 hurdles .01 faster than Teddy Ginn so no doubt he would have been 47 or under. That is two running backs and two receivers.