"Michael Vick Ran a 4.2 40!!!!!"

I'm pretty sure that a gazelle could still run pretty fast even with 25lbs of pads on

No matter how you slice it, dice it, or twist it, 4.2 is fast!!

Queston: Why do they do a 40yard sprint? So they will not be compared to the 50 yard times from years ago.

Football is a different sport from track. F-ball requires different muscles, hard knocks, and dipsy-doodle moves - that may not carry the speed forward.

Track requires strength and fluid movement to carry the same, the same movement over a longer running area. No need to go around a 350 lb. guy in your way.

The 40 yard times will always be suspect, i.e., until they do them with FAT and standardize the "barometer for speed." Sometimes you see some of the football players getting timed who use a running start, timed by coaches who want to make sure their players are recorded faster than other schools/teams.

Sure, some of the football players are fast (and quick), some of the times are suspect, especially the 280+ lineman. Enough!!

Emmitt Smith

Dan Marino

Jerry Rice

None of the above ran a great 40 time entering the draft. How many season and career records do they all hold between them?

has anybody been watching the nfl combine on nfl network the past couple of days? the top guy i think in the 40 was a reciever from hampton who they said was an all-american 200m runner, and i think his time was high 4.2, low 4.3s

They had Matt Jones, the QB from Arkansas, at 4.40 in the 40m. That's faster than nearly every WR, not to mention QBs.

Oh yeah, Clarett stunk it up.

Not to mention that Matt Jones is a legit 6'6", 245 lb, and tested out at 39.5" in the vertical leap. McDonnell should have had him running the hurdles.

You guys are all just jealous of football players because they get all the chicks.

When I was a sprinter in college....i ran the 40 in 4.2 sec. and that was an average of three runs. Now, that was hand timed and the coach started the timer when our back foot left the ground. there was no gun or anything like that. we just started when we were ready. With that in mind, 4.2 is not as spectacular as it sounds. Add on atleast .5 seconds for handtiming and the fact that we did not have to react to a gun. My FAT 55m and 100m bests were 6.46 and 10.80. Certainly not blazing. Now that's not to say that Vick is only capable of 6.4 and 10.8 speed. I'm sure he could run faster. What I am saying though, is that 40 times mean very little usually. I ran "amazing" 40 times, but that was very misleading as to how fast I actually was.

10.80 isn't blazing?

That's faster than 95+% of everyone and probably more.

Why is it that everyone feels the need to spout off their very good to excellent times with the disclaimer, "But, you know, my times stink royally, of course."

Wrong.

Well, in respect to the general population, yes my 10.80 was "blazing". But in respect to other D-I sprinters, no it's not. I was only the 4th fastest guy on my team alone. Let alone the conference. Let alone the nation. In DI track, a 10.8 PR is average. But I see what you're saying. I get mad when people say they "only" run a 15:20 in the 5k and how much that sucks. I can barely break 19 in the 5k. But as a former sprinter, I see 10.8 as average to below average.

...This year, one glaring omission might have been fullback Matt Pagel of Wisconsin-LaCrosse. The 5'11", 238-pounder recently ran, we're told, a blazing 4.38 in the 40, timed with three watches.

this is from profootballtalk.com

*** He ran 10.69 last year outdoor, 6.32 indoor. ***

Name wrote:

this is from profootballtalk.com

*** He ran 10.69 last year outdoor, 6.32 indoor. ***

They have a slight problem here. You see, the 60m indoor WR is 6.39. Unless they really mean 55m (which isn't exactly fast by sprinting stnadards), this is an example of why all football "speed" times should be considered bullshit until proven otherwise.

The 4.38 40y, timed by three watches....you don't have 3 watches unless it's hand timed, so add 0.24-0.28 for automatic timing and you get something like 4.65.

They really need to make up better stories....

The world record for the 40 is 4.127

[quote]Mac wrote:

Maurice Slpits from his 9.80 run at the '99 WC

10m 1.86

20m 2.29

30m 3.81

WAIT A MINUTE. His first 10 meters were 1.86, his second 0.43 and his third 1.52?! Something's off here

These are Mo's splits (10 meter times) from his 9.79 WR (from IAAF):

1.86

1.02

0.94

0.9

0.85

0.83

0.83

0.86

0.85

0.85

So, you have 4.42 for 40y, automatic timing. And we've been told that a quarterback can beat that? Uh huh.

Heh, some fat guy at the combine was clocked at 4.4, maybe 4.3

The Hampton guy has run 20.31 for 200M and competed in the 2004 Olympic Trials.

Here's the deal (again). From the combine...

"Mathis, who played at Hampton in Virginia, was the fastest wideout at 4.32. Brandt and Cowboys coach Bill Parcells caught him in an incredible 4.25, which would have broken the best registered combine time of 4.28 by Deion Sanders.

That time could shoot Mathis' value way up. A small college All-American, Mathis certainly improved his stock. He already had a big Gridiron Classic, scoring on a 26-yard reception and a 38-yard run off a reverse. Mathis had 108 yards of total offense in that game.

Jones has become an intriguing prospect. A quarterback at Arkansas, where he also played basketball, his 4.41 time was the fastest ever by a quarterback at the combine."

According to Track and Field News, Jerome Mathis ran 20.32 for 200 meters in 2004, which didn't (quite) put him in the top 10 on the track. But the combine would have you believe that he is not just faster--but significantly faster--than what Tim Montgomery, Mo, Carl, and Ben did on Mondo, in track spikes and speedsuits (only).

Just another example of how far out of step with reality the NFL times really are.

100