|
Post by Moo on Feb 25, 2008 11:14:13 GMT
Not in a car, Sonic.
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Feb 26, 2008 3:57:04 GMT
No, that wold be less than 3 secs. Sideways. I wasn't kidding earlier either.
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Feb 26, 2008 6:51:34 GMT
40 yards in just over 4 secs? I used to be able to do that. I might still. Um.... No, no you didn't. Starting from still? Just over 4 seconds is Olympic levels.
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Feb 26, 2008 7:40:54 GMT
It's not actually. 100m in about ~9.7 seconds is the WR approx. Half that and that's 50m. Now, what was I saying about 40 yards again?
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Feb 26, 2008 7:47:31 GMT
Ummm... Acceleration time?
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Feb 26, 2008 7:54:22 GMT
OFFS!
This computer is soo slow for some reason right now.
[Edit, it posted my fix as another post :moop: ]
It is possible Narkle, even if your being pessimistic about it.
There was a guy who could swim 50m freestyle in about 26secs when I was in year 9(~15yr). He was a natural.
I wasn't even the quickest. My problem with the 100m sprint was that I never got off the mark quick enough. I was better at about 400m or 200m than 100m.
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Feb 26, 2008 8:12:54 GMT
Ummm... Acceleration time? That's a ludicrous argument, as there are some runners who have such quick reflexes that the machines that see if they false start don't ping them for having ultra fast reflexes. Again Narkle, if we were talking metres, WR times would be on the cards. How many yards in a metre?
|
|
|
Post by elth on Feb 26, 2008 8:19:53 GMT
About 1.1 from memory. You're thinking feet, Sonic. 40 yards is approximately 36.5 metres, meaning an Olympic sprinter, assuming he was a fast starter, should be able to pull just over 4 seconds. So if you could do it in 4.25 seconds, you'd just about be the fastest man in Australia over the distance. Considering by your own admission you're a slow starter, I think it highly unlikely I'm the opposite, incidentally - very quick off the line but with a mediocre top speed.
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Feb 26, 2008 8:23:55 GMT
Ummm... Acceleration time? That's a ludicrous argument, as there are some runners who have such quick reflexes that the machines that see if they false start don't ping them for having ultra fast reflexes. Again Narkle, if we were talking metres, WR times would be on the cards. How many yards in a metre? How is it a ludicrous? It takes time to accelerate from 0m/s to 10m/s. No-one hits top speed in the first second. Except Superman.
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Feb 26, 2008 8:29:58 GMT
Just over 4 seconds to do 40 yards? That would be just under 12 seconds to run 100m. Way off the WR. Me thinks that the maths doesn't add up there. I'd say an Olympian would run it under 4 seconds, not over 4 seconds. Oh and when I meant slow starter, it wasn't off the blocks, it was getting to speed. I've always had quick reflexes. I generally had the quickest hands on a basketball court as I was very good at stealling the ball
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Feb 26, 2008 8:34:35 GMT
How is it a ludicrous? It takes time to accelerate from 0m/s to 10m/s. No-one hits top speed in the first second. Except Superman. Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word ludicrous. There are people who can do that though, but not like Superman.
|
|
|
Post by hornet on Feb 26, 2008 11:00:16 GMT
Sonic, why do you think the world record for the 200m (19.32s) is lower than twice the world record for the 100m (9.74s, so 19.48s extrapolated to 200m)? If you're right, and world-class athletes can more-or-less instantly get up to full speed, wouldn't you logically expect the 100m record to at the very least be the same as half the 200m record? In fact, the 100m record should probably be significantly quicker, since it's likely not realistic to expect 200m athletes to be maintaining their absolute top speed over twice the distance. Then there's the circumstantial evidence - the fastest halfbacks at the Combine this year are running around 4.2 seconds for the 40-yard dash. Given that 100m = 109.36 yards, if they're insta-accelerating this extrapolates out to 100m in 11.48s. Do you really think that there's nobody playing tailback in the college game who's a faster sprinter than that?Even the fastest WRs, clocking 40-yard times of around the 4.1s mark would only be doing 11.2 seconds over 100m. Surely you can see that that can't possibly be right? The reason the numbers don't add up is, as Nark was saying, that it takes 20-30m for a runner to get to his full speed - the acceleration phase.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Feb 26, 2008 11:28:25 GMT
Just over 4 seconds to do 40 yards? That would be just under 12 seconds to run 100m. Way off the WR. Me thinks that the maths doesn't add up there. I'd say an Olympian would run it under 4 seconds, not over 4 seconds. [/img][/quote] Dwaine Chambers is an Olympian with a pb in the 100 of 9.97 seconds whose season-best each year since he matured has been right around 10 seconds dead. His fastest time in the 40 when trying out for NFL Europe was 4.19. And Chambers was on the juice.
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Feb 26, 2008 11:38:38 GMT
Gah. I've no idea after reading this what the hell was going through my head. Sorry guys.
Ok, I used to be able to run the 100m in early 12's, and the 200m in about 22. I was never the fastest it has to be said, though found that I beat those who beat me in the 200 than in the 100. I once did have the 40m measured in 5 seconds. This was all when I was at school. Since then, I've had an arthroscope in one knee and a reconstruction in the other. Arthritis baby, here I come :moop:
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Feb 27, 2008 10:20:10 GMT
You have it in your heed as well.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Mar 2, 2008 14:06:47 GMT
So Stallworth to Cleveland, Asante Samuel to Philly. With Moss, Randall Gay, Gaffney, Bruschi on FA and Seau needing surgery on both shoulders, we're looking likely to lose a lot of experience this off-season. I'm not sure what is going happen with the Pats next season. (Like we ever do, I suppose.)
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Mar 2, 2008 14:13:32 GMT
Billy does.
He's seen the film.
|
|
|
Post by elth on Mar 2, 2008 14:40:05 GMT
Bruschi's already resigned, hasn't he? I think Moss will be back as well.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Mar 2, 2008 14:55:32 GMT
I had a feeling Moss might head off to Philly for big money and a chance to be the receiver they hoped TO might be, before people noticed he was, surprise, a fuckhead.
Mentioning TO, I'll be interested to see if Dallas appear for Moss. Dallas owner Jerry Jones appears determined to "break" the cap next season and force 2010 to be an uncapped year, (because the Cowboys are the team most likely to become the New York Yankees of an capless NFL), and so the Boys could offer Moss a contract that's thin up front with a huge amount of money for 2010 when it won't count against a cap because there wouldn't be one.
|
|
|
Post by elth on Mar 2, 2008 15:04:33 GMT
Moss and Owens on the same side. Surely the Cowboys wouldn't be that reckless with headcase wide receivers.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Mar 2, 2008 15:19:41 GMT
Jones is trying to break the thing that makes the NFL work. In light of that, putting Moss and TO together doesn't seem such bizarre behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Mar 4, 2008 14:34:15 GMT
ESPN have just announced Brett Favre has told Mike McCarthy that he has retired and will not be back next season.
I suspect the fact that it happened on the same day that Randy Moss didn't come to Green Bay is not a coincidence.
Moss re-signed for the Patriots for less money than Minnesota just gave to Bernard Berrian...
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Mar 4, 2008 15:46:23 GMT
ESPN have just announced Brett Favre has told Mike McCarthy that he has retired and will not be back next season. I suspect the fact that it happened on the same day that Randy Moss didn't come to Green Bay is not a coincidence. Moss re-signed for the Patriots for less money than Minnesota just gave to Bernard Berrian... Best news I've had this week.
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Mar 5, 2008 8:31:23 GMT
Moss re-signed for the Patriots for less money than Minnesota just gave to Bernard Berrian... The cap just isn't going to work if you can't rely on the base monetary greed of players.
|
|
|
Post by DC on Mar 5, 2008 13:29:37 GMT
Aye Sonic, there's a bit of a gap between 4.27 and 4.33 though - and it's a beggar to get it down any more. In the end McFadden is shoite and anyone who trades up for him is patently bonkers. He's quick, but he's shite up the middle and runs himself into trouble. Dallas are better served with Barber.
On that basis - the Phish will probably draft McFadden.
Apparently if you're picking in the top 10 you "can't miss" as the depth on the DT's, DE's is such that they're all worth taking somewhere. The rest of the draft is unimpressive so far apart from one of the corners (Johnson?) and a Punter that only Baz would draft in the first round.
|
|