There is Something Fishy About All These Incredible 40 Times...

[CaptainAmerica]

...call me skeptical, but I've followed the draft for a while and there has NEVER been this many guys who have tested out this fast at so many positions. A guy running 4.45 is commonplace now, at almost any position.


I'm not saying the numbers are "juiced" or they aren't accurate, but I am saying that imo, it's a combination of the newer track at Indy being faster than the old surface and, more importantly all these guys now working with trainers to the point that they come in specifically trained to run a 40 like a sprinter in the Olympics. By that I mean they work on the start, their form, etc.

It tells me that these incredible 40 times, (more now than ever), aren't a true indication of the actual speed many of these guys play at when they put on the pads.

Comments?

[Muhast]

add .15-.20 on all the times you hear.

Thats the standard reaction different in electronic and handheld.

that doesnt mean all the guys are blazers, it means all these coaches fingers arent that quick

[SkinsHokieFan]

Use it to compare players to each other. Don't look at the times themselves but compare Chad Jackson to another WR. Or D'Brickshaw Fergusan to another lineman

That is how the 40 times should be used

[Rush 2112]

To me it's the big guys closing the gap on the little guys.

DL and LB's closing the gap on the WR's.

I've thought the DL and LB times have been far more impressive than the WR's.

Who was scorching the track on O besides Chad Jackson and McNeal?

[NorTex]

Its all about the specialized training that these guys get nowadays.

[aznhalf]

I'm not saying the numbers are "juiced" or they aren't accurate, but I am saying that imo, it's a combination of the newer track at Indy being faster than the old surface and, more importantly all these guys now working with trainers to the point that they come in specifically trained to run a 40 like a sprinter in the Olympics. By that I mean they work on the start, their form, etc.


You know I was having the exact same thought today, glad you took the time to post.

I've seen a couple blogs and articles allude to a faster surface at Indy which I believe is the biggest factor. I think a faster surface really only affects the guys running sub 4.6 who are lighter on their feet. Its hard to gauge these players with so many unknowns!!

[ddh33]

If I were an agent, I would tell all of my guys to run. And if I were a player, I wouldn't need to be told. Those guys should get out there...

[Muhast]

One truth of the combine is that bench, and wonderlic wont drop a skill guy quicker than a bad 40 time.

Each year we hear cb's, rbs, or Wr's fall... no better yet PLUMMET b/c of a bad 40 time. A 4.6 40 has become a thing of the past for most guys. Matt Jones wasnt even a 3rd or 4th rnd prospect untill he ran that 4.3 40 to go along with being 6'5. If he ran a 4.5 or 4.6 he wouldnt have been a first day pick, yet he runs a 4.3 and goes in the middle/late of the first

[PrimeTime22]

The times are unusually fast because of the track, and the official times are electronic. All scouts and GMs take fast tracks into consideration, and the times are really just used for comparison purposes.

I'm sure no one is fooled by the times.

[Ken]

I just think it is funny when guys are penalized for obviously not having a clue how to get a good start.

Not to mention to funky, completely wrong, start they are forced to use.


The start can make or break a lot of these guys, and clearly some are getting bad start and adding .2 to their times. In football, your not starting from that position. Most times, your catching a ball in stride or getting a handoff or whatever in stride. To me, they should be taking the times from 10 yards to 40. That would give you the true barometer of how fast these guys are.

[Dough Boy]

...call me skeptical, but I've followed the draft for a while and there has NEVER been this many guys who have tested out this fast at so many positions. A guy running 4.45 is commonplace now, at almost any position.


I'm not saying the numbers are "juiced" or they aren't accurate, but I am saying that imo, it's a combination of the newer track at Indy being faster than the old surface and, more importantly all these guys now working with trainers to the point that they come in specifically trained to run a 40 like a sprinter in the Olympics. By that I mean they work on the start, their form, etc.

It tells me that these incredible 40 times, (more now than ever), aren't a true indication of the actual speed many of these guys play at when they put on the pads.

Comments?

Great post. I agree 100%. I don't think they are juiced. I think it is the isolated training these guys now get prior to the combine. If you listen to the players on the NFL Network, they give a great deal of insight. They now practice the 40, the way sprinters have practiced for years. They run splits. They work on the start. Staying low and exploding. They work on the first 10 yards. Then they work on the first 20 yards. The know exactly when to rise their heads and they know when to "kick".

With all that being said, I think the NFL has drove players to this point. How big has the 40 become. Your draft stock can rise or fall on your 40 time. Ask T. Suggs. Remember him coming out of ASU. He ran the slow 40 and a top 5 pick slipped down the Ravens at 10. Before the draft, no one thought he would fall past us. The guy was coming of a 24 sack season, with (2) 10 sack seasons prior to that. He had production. He fell b/c of the 4.8 forty that he ran. The guy lost a lot of money on that fall.

Conversely, look at Matt Jones last year. He played QB his whole life. He is projected to a new position and the Jags spend a first on him. Why... He ran a 4.3 forty. He went to one of those pre-draft workout camps and learned how to trim valuable tenth of seconds off his time.

In my opinion, the NFL has forced the player to concentrate on the 40. Why, it’s worth money. The higher I'm drafted the more I make up front of signing bonus because of the slotting the NFL uses for rookie contracts.

[Chocolate Lab]

Yep, most 40 times are baloney. And you definitely can't compare times run now to times run in years past. Same with all the other tests like the vertical... The training for these specific "events" has become so specialized and sophisticated now, and athletes in years past didn't have access to the same training.

Like CA says, if these were all apples-to-apples comparisons, players from only a couple of years ago wouldn't even be able to keep up with this year's crop. Yet you can see on the field that that isn't the case.

But at least the combine gives you some kind of standardized conditions... Pro Day times are at least 99.9% B.S. You have stories of 1% downhill grades, 39-yard tracks, all kinds of crazy stuff as these schools build tracks specifically designed to make their players look good. It's a good recruiting tool.

[CaptainAmerica]

Great post. I agree 100%. I don't think they are juiced. I think it is the isolated training these guys now get prior to the combine. If you listen to the players on the NFL Network, they give a great deal of insight. They now practice the 40, the way sprinters have practiced for years. They run splits. They work on the start. Staying low and exploding. They work on the first 10 yards. Then they work on the first 20 yards. The know exactly when to rise their heads and they know when to "kick".

With all that being said, I think the NFL has drove players to this point. How big has the 40 become. Your draft stock can rise or fall on your 40 time. Ask T. Suggs. Remember him coming out of ASU. He ran the slow 40 and a top 5 pick slipped down the Ravens at 10. Before the draft, no one thought he would fall past us. The guy was coming of a 24 sack season, with (2) 10 sack seasons prior to that. He had production. He fell b/c of the 4.8 forty that he ran. The guy lost a lot of money on that fall.

Conversely, look at Matt Jones last year. He played QB his whole life. He is projected to a new position and the Jags spend a first on him. Why... He ran a 4.3 forty. He went to one of those pre-draft workout camps and learned how to trim valuable tenth of seconds off his time.

In my opinion, the NFL has forced the player to concentrate on the 40. Why, it’s worth money. The higher I'm drafted the more I make up front of signing bonus because of the slotting the NFL uses for rookie contracts.

I agree the NFL teams have brought this about. That was really the point of my original post. Players' stock rise and fall DRAMATICALLY based on a 40 time, which everyone should realize is not necessarily a true indicator of football speed or the ability to play at the NFL level.

The training techniques they use now to run the 40 can, in actuality, give a false impression of how fast, (or slow, depending on your viewpoint), the player actually is.

[nathanlt]

Here's a website that tests your reaction time.... Pretty cool.

http://www.getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html

The fastest reaction times add roughly .2 to the 40 time.

For handheld times, it might seem that it wouldn't make a difference, since the reaction would be delayed .2 for the start and .2 for the finish.

However, the human eye can predict motion and lead the stop of the stopwatch to coincide with exactly crossing the finish line. I think it's why we can throw a football to lead a reciever with innate skill and sense of timing. This all comes into play for the finish, but is of no use in the start. By the time the player has begun his motion, all stopwatches are already .2 seconds behind.

[Dough Boy]

If I were an agent, I would tell all of my guys to run. And if I were a player, I wouldn't need to be told. Those guys should get out there...
Why would you do that? You have to realize we are fans, but for the agent its business. He/She is trying to accent all the great qualities and hide the flaws without being deceitful. If I had a slow client, that was very productive in college, no way I would let him run at the combine. To do so, would be negligent on the agents part.

[Dough Boy]

I agree the NFL teams have brought this about. That was really the point of my original post. Players' stock rise and fall DRAMATICALLY based on a 40 time, which everyone should realize is not necessarily a true indicator of football speed or the ability to play at the NFL level.

The training techniques they use now to run the 40 can, in actuality, give a false impression of how fast, (or slow, depending on your viewpoint), the player actually is.

I think you are right. These players will not use the same techique on the field. The best indication of playing speed, is game flim and watching the guy live go against competition.

[Everlastingxxx]

Here's a website that tests your reaction time.... Pretty cool.

http://www.getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html

The fastest reaction times add roughly .2 to the 40 time.

For handheld times, it might seem that it wouldn't make a difference, since the reaction would be delayed .2 for the start and .2 for the finish.

However, the human eye can predict motion and lead the stop of the stopwatch to coincide with exactly crossing the finish line. I think it's why we can throw a football to lead a reciever with innate skill and sense of timing. This all comes into play for the finish, but is of no use in the start. By the time the player has begun his motion, all stopwatches are already .2 seconds behind.

That was cool, my average was .241

[CaptainAmerica]

Here's a website that tests your reaction time.... Pretty cool.

http://www.getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html

The fastest reaction times add roughly .2 to the 40 time.

For handheld times, it might seem that it wouldn't make a difference, since the reaction would be delayed .2 for the start and .2 for the finish.

However, the human eye can predict motion and lead the stop of the stopwatch to coincide with exactly crossing the finish line. I think it's why we can throw a football to lead a reciever with innate skill and sense of timing. This all comes into play for the finish, but is of no use in the start. By the time the player has begun his motion, all stopwatches are already .2 seconds behind.


It's funny you mention this. A crazy idea came to me during the combine this past Sunday.

While I was watching the NFL Network coverage, I actually took off my wristwatch and tried to time the players as they ran the 40. Due to the cameral angles, it was difficult, at times, to know exactly when to start the time or when the player actually hit the tape.

I tried it several times and found that I was almost always .2 seconds slower or faster than the announced time.

There was only one run where I hit it. The Tennessee WR ran his first 40 and I matched the offcial time at 4.49.

I know some of you may think I'm definitely a "draftnik", but it actually was fun and interesting to see how my stopwatch matched the official times.

[CaptainAmerica]

I think you are right. These players will not use the same techique on the field. The best indication of playing speed, is game flim and watching the guy live go against competition.


Absolutely!!

[nathanlt]

That was cool, my average was .241


Oh yeah... well, MY average was a .2089 :strongarm


:nana:

[k19]

A lot of players are going to different places for specialized training. A guy that runs one of them was on NFL Radio sunday and a few of his guys ran incredible 40 times. The same places also help them prep for the wonderlic and works on other combine drills like the high jump and things of that nature. I don't think its as much "juice" as it is "trained"

[k19]

Oops forgot the links, these things are kinda intersting

http://www.xplosivespeed.com/new%20programs/nfl_combine.htm

http://www.cuttingedgeathletics.com/precombine.htm

http://www.procombinetraining.com/h/m2/default.asp?lang=&nCategory=215

[Rockytop6]

...call me skeptical, but I've followed the draft for a while and there has NEVER been this many guys who have tested out this fast at so many positions. A guy running 4.45 is commonplace now, at almost any position.


I'm not saying the numbers are "juiced" or they aren't accurate, but I am saying that imo, it's a combination of the newer track at Indy being faster than the old surface and, more importantly all these guys now working with trainers to the point that they come in specifically trained to run a 40 like a sprinter in the Olympics. By that I mean they work on the start, their form, etc.

It tells me that these incredible 40 times, (more now than ever), aren't a true indication of the actual speed many of these guys play at when they put on the pads.

Comments?

I think you make a good point. Now, even your big men are scat backs. lol

[superpunk]

Oh yeah... well, MY average was a .2089 :strongarm


:nana:


:bow::bow::bow:

[Bullet22]

The players are not starting out of a block either...so the times are very good..

[trueblue1687]

I agree the NFL teams have brought this about. That was really the point of my original post. Players' stock rise and fall DRAMATICALLY based on a 40 time, which everyone should realize is not necessarily a true indicator of football speed or the ability to play at the NFL level.

The training techniques they use now to run the 40 can, in actuality, give a false impression of how fast, (or slow, depending on your viewpoint), the player actually is.

A couple of points on this, for what it's worth. It is true that running on a track (commonly called a fast track due to rubberized surface) does remove some time from a sprint...but not that much. You're talking in the thousandths and not much more. Further, I played college football as several others on here did and can tell you from experience that 40 times in the 4.4 and under range are FAST! In my best day I ran a 4.47 40yd as a SS. A 4.4 would have a step on me straightaway in about 20 yards...there is a significant difference. The low times are only good for players who play skilled positions or cover skilled positions. More important (for most other positions, as well as skilled positions) and what alot of folks may not realize is that the first 10 yards are split timed against your 40 time. These times are especially important for linemen, RB's, etc. Just less media attention on them. The track gives a benefit in traction only and while it may be more comfortable to the runner, it offers an advantage only in traction (rubber on textured rubber and some kind of abrasive type stuff - not asphalt or sand). Make no mistake about it, though...there is nothing deceptive about the times...only how alot of fans interpret them. Couple that with improved training regimens and better nutrition, better coaching and years of steroid fed beef and poultry:) and you're gonna continually see faster times.

[Dough Boy]

A couple of points on this, for what it's worth. It is true that running on a track (commonly called a fast track due to rubberized surface) does remove some time from a sprint...but not that much. You're talking in the thousandths and not much more. Further, I played college football as several others on here did and can tell you from experience that 40 times in the 4.4 and under range are FAST! In my best day I ran a 4.47 40yd as a SS. A 4.4 would have a step on me straightaway in about 20 yards...there is a significant difference. The low times are only good for players who play skilled positions or cover skilled positions. More important (for most other positions, as well as skilled positions) and what alot of folks may not realize is that the first 10 yards are split timed against your 40 time. These times are especially important for linemen, RB's, etc. Just less media attention on them. The track gives a benefit in traction only and while it may be more comfortable to the runner, it offers an advantage only in traction (rubber on textured rubber and some kind of abrasive type stuff - not asphalt or sand). Make no mistake about it, though...there is nothing deceptive about the times...only how alot of fans interpret them. Couple that with improved training regimens and better nutrition, better coaching and years of steroid fed beef and poultry:) and you're gonna continually see faster times.
I think you may have missed CA's point. The decpetion that he speaks is with the copious amount of traing that players now do pre combine. Years ago, players didn't train as much per se. They just ran and got in shape. They didn't attempt to learn and perfect a technique. They ran the forty with the same techique that they ran on the football field. Players from 10 years ago, didn't practice splits. Heck, a true football player that did run track wouldn't know what a split was.

This is one fact that I will make about this draft. First combine TE to run a 4.3 forty. A host of QBs running sub 4.6 forty's. A 306 lb - DT running a 4.99 forty. A 247 DE running a 4.4 forty. How many DB ran a sub 4.4 this year. Just three years ago, Newman ran a 4.38 and was the toast of the draft. How many DB's ran faster than him today. The deception is that players are inherently faster today than 10 years ago. Maybe that's true, but without removing the speacilized training that players recieve today, one will not know. What we do know, players today receive better training and coaching in how to run the forty than players 10 years ago.

FYI: I've never seen so many 4.4 and 4.3 forty's. At this combine they are common place. For example, Last year Josh Bullock was one of the better saftey prospect. Many here wanted us to draft him. He was considered the faster of his twin brother Daniel Bullock. Josh ran a 4.58 last year and he was alledegly the faster brother. Daniel ran today, 4.41 and 4.45. Does any one think the NFL is sending a message. This is a fast track. Run here. We now have a reality TV show for ppl to watch you run. Nawwww, I'm just going off on a tangent. ;)

[TwentyOne]

Sorry guys if the following sounds a bit big-headed (it isn't meant that way) but that's the way i know and experienced things.

I try to start with a question: Do you all really believe that just by chosing other (better) training methods you can improve your sprinting ability by 0.1-0.2secs on a 40yds dash in a month or two?

If you really think so let me tell you this: You can't!

First of all we don't talk about casual players here. In college the competition between the players is really high and already there is a lot of money involved. That means already in college these are well trained athletes who compete at their performance limits. You might be able to improve at such a high pace when you don't work out at all but not when you are a trained athlete.

Second point i like to mention is: When Donovan Bailey (i guess you all know him but for all who don't: he is a canadian 100meter Track&Field star who ran a new World record a few years ago. I guess his final time was 9.86 - but i maybe wrong, but i am sure it was 9.8x) ran the above mentioned World record they stopped his 40yds time and it was 4.3secs. Just to emphasise this point: Donovan Bailey does nothings else then training sprints. He does that for his living. He was the best in the world and before him (except Ben Johnson, and his time was "deleted" because he used illegal substances) nobody was able to crack the 9.8x barrier. So do you really believe that a guy who is running a 4.5 for instance is able to improve his time to a 4.3 or 4.2 just by changing his training methods? And what's more the guys we are talinkg about outweight Bailey by about 20-25 pounds.

I know this is going to be long but let me tell you another story (btw i love this one ;)):
You all (may) know Linford Christy? He also was a famous 100m Track&field star a few years ago. For all of his long career he was always a runner up but at the ending he won the World Championship with 34years of age. And believe me this is really old for a sprinter. But anyways shortly he retired. At the time he did germany was in search of a coach for their track&field 100m athletes (as you all know germany is not the biggest player in the 100m dash - and i must know, i am from germany ;)) Linford was offering his knowledge to germany to coach our athletes but germany denied and Linford became the "personal" trainer of a 24year old british sprinter (i don't remember his name). At that time this sprinter ran the 100m dash in 11.5secs. Two years later the same guy ran a 10.0 secs at a worlwide event. Now you all can easily imagine that the whole world was fingerpointing at germany how "stupid" we were when we denied Linford's proposal.
But the story doesn't end here. It's safe to say that you can consider a 24year old 100m dash athlete in the prime of his career. If he isn't able to run a good 100m dash time by then he probably never will. Of course with a trainer on his side with the knowledge and experience of Linford Christy he may be able to improve his time dramatically. But to imagine that such an athlete is able to improve his personal best by about 1 and 1/2 sec in just to years is - let me say - far reached. Anyways... 1-2 years later a old test of Linford failed a new examination and he was accused guilty of taking Nadrolon (a kind of anabol steroid) during his active career.
Now i let you do the math what kind of "knowledge" Linford "handed over" to this 24year old athlete. Btw if some german people really felt hurt when the whole world was fingerpointing at them this must have been a late soothing for them ;)

Now after all these "fairy tales" :D let me write my humble opinion:
Of course you can't compare old 40yds time with new ones because of better training methods, better equipment and better tracks but to think that a athlete can improve his time by 0.1-0.2 secs just because he is training differently for 1 or 2 months is rediculous.
As a writer above already mentioned the draft is all about the number you will be picked at. The higher you getting picked the bigger your paycheck will be. And we don't talke about hundreds of dollars. We talk about deals were your whole family is safe (and doesn't have to work anymore) for generations. This is about the big bucks. And when the reward is high you take a higher risk easier. Now here is my point: to take illegal substances is a high risk. First for yourself and your health and second when you get caught. But when the reward is high people are willing to take higher risks.

So to me these faster times mainly come because of better "pills" these athletes use. This is all a question of dosage and having the better pharmacist. If you can afford both you are able to minimize risk to get caught and as written above the gain of performance is just amazing. You are able to minimize the risk because when you know (and are able to pay the right people) you are able to invent or use new kind of substances where there are no working drug tests to detect your abuse.

Does anyone know how the doping tests in the offseason work in the states? As i know it there are 2 announced tests each year. If it's like that this proceeding is by far not sufficient to limit the use of illegal substances. But i remember the big scandal when a lot of u.s. track&filed stars were tested positive of using illegal substances. This was a few years ago so maybe they changed their proceeding by now.

So to me all those fast times are just a source of doping. To me it is not possible that an athlete who weights around 200 pounds is faster then the reigning world champion in the 100m dash, even when it on the first 40yards. To me it's not possible to improve your time for around 0.2 secs without doping - not when you are already have a personal best that is comparable with the times only the best athletes in the world are able to run.

[Pokes28]

I just think it is funny when guys are penalized for obviously not having a clue how to get a good start.

Not to mention to funky, completely wrong, start they are forced to use.


The start can make or break a lot of these guys, and clearly some are getting bad start and adding .2 to their times. In football, your not starting from that position. Most times, your catching a ball in stride or getting a handoff or whatever in stride. To me, they should be taking the times from 10 yards to 40. That would give you the true barometer of how fast these guys are.


They should have to run the 40 in pads. That would give a better idea of football speed.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh

[CaptainAmerica]

Sorry guys if the following sounds a bit big-headed (it isn't meant that way) but that's the way i know and experienced things.

I try to start with a question: Do you all really believe that just by chosing other (better) training methods you can improve your sprinting ability by 0.1-0.2secs on a 40yds dash in a month or two?

If you really think so let me tell you this: You can't!

First of all we don't talk about casual players here. In college the competition between the players is really high and already there is a lot of money involved. That means already in college these are well trained athletes who compete at their performance limits. You might be able to improve at such a high pace when you don't work out at all but not when you are a trained athlete.

Second point i like to mention is: When Donovan Bailey (i guess you all know him but for all who don't: he is a canadian 100meter Track&Field star who ran a new World record a few years ago. I guess his final time was 9.86 - but i maybe wrong, but i am sure it was 9.8x) ran the above mentioned World record they stopped his 40yds time and it was 4.3secs. Just to emphasise this point: Donovan Bailey does nothings else then training sprints. He does that for his living. He was the best in the world and before him (except Ben Johnson, and his time was "deleted" because he used illegal substances) nobody was able to crack the 9.8x barrier. So do you really believe that a guy who is running a 4.5 for instance is able to improve his time to a 4.3 or 4.2 just by changing his training methods? And what's more the guys we are talinkg about outweight Bailey by about 20-25 pounds.

I know this is going to be long but let me tell you another story (btw i love this one ;)):
You all (may) know Linford Christy? He also was a famous 100m Track&field star a few years ago. For all of his long career he was always a runner up but at the ending he won the World Championship with 34years of age. And believe me this is really old for a sprinter. But anyways shortly he retired. At the time he did germany was in search of a coach for their track&field 100m athletes (as you all know germany is not the biggest player in the 100m dash - and i must know, i am from germany ;)) Linford was offering his knowledge to germany to coach our athletes but germany denied and Linford became the "personal" trainer of a 24year old british sprinter (i don't remember his name). At that time this sprinter ran the 100m dash in 11.5secs. Two years later the same guy ran a 10.0 secs at a worlwide event. Now you all can easily imagine that the whole world was fingerpointing at germany how "stupid" we were when we denied Linford's proposal.
But the story doesn't end here. It's safe to say that you can consider a 24year old 100m dash athlete in the prime of his career. If he isn't able to run a good 100m dash time by then he probably never will. Of course with a trainer on his side with the knowledge and experience of Linford Christy he may be able to improve his time dramatically. But to imagine that such an athlete is able to improve his personal best by about 1 and 1/2 sec in just to years is - let me say - far reached. Anyways... 1-2 years later a old test of Linford failed a new examination and he was accused guilty of taking Nadrolon (a kind of anabol steroid) during his active career.
Now i let you do the math what kind of "knowledge" Linford "handed over" to this 24year old athlete. Btw if some german people really felt hurt when the whole world was fingerpointing at them this must have been a late soothing for them ;)

Now after all these "fairy tales" :D let me write my humble opinion:
Of course you can't compare old 40yds time with new ones because of better training methods, better equipment and better tracks but to think that a athlete can improve his time by 0.1-0.2 secs just because he is training differently for 1 or 2 months is rediculous.
As a writer above already mentioned the draft is all about the number you will be picked at. The higher you getting picked the bigger your paycheck will be. And we don't talke about hundreds of dollars. We talk about deals were your whole family is safe (and doesn't have to work anymore) for generations. This is about the big bucks. And when the reward is high you take a higher risk easier. Now here is my point: to take illegal substances is a high risk. First for yourself and your health and second when you get caught. But when the reward is high people are willing to take higher risks.

So to me these faster times mainly come because of better "pills" these athletes use. This is all a question of dosage and having the better pharmacist. If you can afford both you are able to minimize risk to get caught and as written above the gain of performance is just amazing. You are able to minimize the risk because when you know (and are able to pay the right people) you are able to invent or use new kind of substances where there are no working drug tests to detect your abuse.

Does anyone know how the doping tests in the offseason work in the states? As i know it there are 2 announced tests each year. If it's like that this proceeding is by far not sufficient to limit the use of illegal substances. But i remember the big scandal when a lot of u.s. track&filed stars were tested positive of using illegal substances. This was a few years ago so maybe they changed their proceeding by now.

So to me all those fast times are just a source of doping. To me it is not possible that an athlete who weights around 200 pounds is faster then the reigning world champion in the 100m dash, even when it on the first 40yards. To me it's not possible to improve your time for around 0.2 secs without doping - not when you are already have a personal best that is comparable with the times only the best athletes in the world are able to run.

Something is up. But I find it hard to believe that many players are doping before the combines.

That being said a while back I heard, (from a friend of a friend who is in the know), that there is a major steroid ring under investigation at the present time and rumors are there will be major arrests sometime later this year. Lots of sports athletes involved from what I heard. Don't know if there is anything to it, but this guy told me it's more widespread than you can imagine and he said the ringleaders are making hundreds of thousands of dollars in cold hard, cash/profit each MONTH.

[TEK2000]

I went to high school with a guy that was 6'5" and 230-240lbs... ran a 10.5 in the 100M dash and a 4.45 in the 40. This same guy picked watermelons as his summer job. You tell me how a guy that picks watermelons for money can afford to buy steroids.

If some guys are using steroids... shame on them. But I don't put it out of the relm of reality for big guys to run fast.. I've seen it in person.

[trueblue1687]

I think you may have missed CA's point. The decpetion that he speaks is with the copious amount of traing that players now do pre combine. Years ago, players didn't train as much per se. They just ran and got in shape. They didn't attempt to learn and perfect a technique. They ran the forty with the same techique that they ran on the football field. Players from 10 years ago, didn't practice splits. Heck, a true football player that did run track wouldn't know what a split was.

This is one fact that I will make about this draft. First combine TE to run a 4.3 forty. A host of QBs running sub 4.6 forty's. A 306 lb - DT running a 4.99 forty. A 247 DE running a 4.4 forty. How many DB ran a sub 4.4 this year. Just three years ago, Newman ran a 4.38 and was the toast of the draft. How many DB's ran faster than him today. The deception is that players are inherently faster today than 10 years ago. Maybe that's true, but without removing the speacilized training that players recieve today, one will not know. What we do know, players today receive better training and coaching in how to run the forty than players 10 years ago.

FYI: I've never seen so many 4.4 and 4.3 forty's. At this combine they are common place. For example, Last year Josh Bullock was one of the better saftey prospect. Many here wanted us to draft him. He was considered the faster of his twin brother Daniel Bullock. Josh ran a 4.58 last year and he was alledegly the faster brother. Daniel ran today, 4.41 and 4.45. Does any one think the NFL is sending a message. This is a fast track. Run here. We now have a reality TV show for ppl to watch you run. Nawwww, I'm just going off on a tangent. ;)

I didn't miss CA's point. He stated that there is deception relative to the times these prospects are running. There isn't deception. The same training methods were available ten years ago...just not many people used them. The 40 is just a barometer that measures one vs another...it could just as easily be 50 yards, but someone thought 40 yards was a realistic "long run" for a football player, or so it was always explained to us when I played. Who knows. Regardless, players today ARE faster and ARE stronger. If you doubt that, look back 10 or 15 years ago and tell me that the STANDARD for any O-Lineman was 300+ lbs. Players are bigger, stronger, faster than ever and next year there will be more prospects that run low 4.4s or 4.3s. As for the track, it isn't really reputed to be any faster than any other "fast track" out there...they're all pretty much the same. Indy is supposedly a convenient locale for everyone...sort of mid-way I guess. Anyway, there isn't a deception...players have evolved (for lack of a better term) past players of old. FYI: Not to be condescending at all, but there are always plenty of guys running 4.4s every year at the combine. Just not at 258lbs like Vernon Davis:eek: ...technically 4.37.

Twentyone: I won't quote your post due to bandwidth restrictions:laugh2: , but you are mostly correct in your assessment of training, etc. relative to 40 times. At best, one can look for thousandths of a second difference. You gotta be fast to begin with. Either you are or you aren't. For those that think "supplement" use doesn't help with speed, see former olympic gold winner Ben Johnson and his love affair with a "designer" steroid that most of us who played sports knew by the name of Winstrol-V. Factor that into the equation and you ARE shaving up to tenths of a second off...with training, etc.

[nathanlt]

You know, if we really wanted accurate 40 times, we would need to break down the film, and count the frames, and divide by frames per second. No errors with human reaction times or anticipating hitting the finishing tape.

[Bizwah]

I'd be more suspicious of the forty times if the vertical jumps weren't as good.

But the VJs are good too.

And on a side note.....

It drives me crazy to have someone say, "Well, you can't possibly believe a football player can run a sub 4.4 when SomeBigTimeTrackStar (insert name) can't run that."

That may be true.......

But I'm not into comparing football players and track guys. I'm comparing football players with other football players.

In other words, there's a track forty and a football forty.

So, if a football guy runs a 4.3, then he runs a 4.3. That's a fast time compared to other football guys.

So please stop bringing up Donovon Bailey, Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, etc....

[TwentyOne]

I'd be more suspicious of the forty times if the vertical jumps weren't as good.

But the VJs are good too.

And on a side note.....

It drives me crazy to have someone say, "Well, you can't possibly believe a football player can run a sub 4.4 when SomeBigTimeTrackStar (insert name) can't run that."

That may be true.......

But I'm not into comparing football players and track guys. I'm comparing football players with other football players.

In other words, there's a track forty and a football forty.

So, if a football guy runs a 4.3, then he runs a 4.3. That's a fast time compared to other football guys.

So please stop bringing up Donovon Bailey, Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, etc....

I guess you missed my point.

I didn't bring up Track stars because they are Track stars. I used this example to show one thing and that is: i can't believe that someone who only works out for one purpose is not able to be better then another person who works on that particular thing for maybe only have of his training time.

And to be more specific i also mentioned that i can't believe it because those footbal players are 20-25 lbs heavier then those Track "stars".

To me there are some points i have to consider when looking at those times:

1. abuse of illegal substances & the way the league tries to prevent players from using them (as i already mentioned above)
2. the context in which the 40yds time was archived. is this context the same as the context compareable (with other events for example). E.g. times stopped by humans or machines, what kind of turf was used etc...

Sure if you want to compare those times only among football players it is your right to do so. For me i only wanted to give this thread another aspect which IMO shouldn't be ignored. Remember the origin of this thread had to do with the changes those 40yds times underwent in recent history and it's reasons.

[TwentyOne]

I went to high school with a guy that was 6'5" and 230-240lbs... ran a 10.5 in the 100M dash and a 4.45 in the 40. This same guy picked watermelons as his summer job. You tell me how a guy that picks watermelons for money can afford to buy steroids.

If some guys are using steroids... shame on them. But I don't put it out of the relm of reality for big guys to run fast.. I've seen it in person.


10.5secs in the 100m dash isn't that fast. If you work out well most people are able to run that kind of times (of course this is only my experience - from the people i trained with and the people i discussed such topics with). The breaking point (and that's also based on my experiences) is around 10.3 secs. Only a few people are able to break that barrier. For the states as i was told there are always a few hundred Tracks stars that are able to run the 100m dash under 10.0 secs. But most of them never get recongnition because only a handfull is able to make it to the bigger events (because there are only 8 lanes to fill ;)).

But 10.5 secs for a guy his size and his weight is really good. And to run a 4.45 is just amazing. If you are tall you normaly have a disadvantage against smaller guys on a short distance race (like 40yds or 60m) - remember how quick Ben Johnson was coming off the blocks but how often he broke down after 60m against Carl Lewis.

Anyway...

Why shouldn't this guy be able to afford stereoids or other illegal substances. Those are not that expensive. I know you can buy Naposim (anabolic stereoid) for about 30$ for 100 pills. Of course it depends on the amount you take but if you don't go crazy you can spread those pills over 1/2 month easily. I know this is not the way pros use stereoids but i just wanted to show that is isn't that expensive to use stereoids.

I don't want to say that your "buddy" used illegal substances and i don't want to offend anybody. I just wanted to show that it isn't that expensive to get this stuff.

[Bizwah]

I guess you missed my point.

I didn't bring up Track stars because they are Track stars. I used this example to show one thing and that is: i can't believe that someone who only works out for one purpose is not able to be better then another person who works on that particular thing for maybe only have of his training time.

And to be more specific i also mentioned that i can't believe it because those footbal players are 20-25 lbs heavier then those Track "stars".

To me there are some points i have to consider when looking at those times:

1. abuse of illegal substances & the way the league tries to prevent players from using them (as i already mentioned above)
2. the context in which the 40yds time was archived. is this context the same as the context compareable (with other events for example). E.g. times stopped by humans or machines, what kind of turf was used etc...

Sure if you want to compare those times only among football players it is your right to do so. For me i only wanted to give this thread another aspect which IMO shouldn't be ignored. Remember the origin of this thread had to do with the changes those 40yds times underwent in recent history and it's reasons.

I understood your point.

I just used your post as an opportunity to rant about something that irks me.

I know what your post is saying.......But the track references were enough for me to rant.

Sure performance enhancers may have something to do with the times.

Sorry to "use" your post.

[TwentyOne]

Twentyone: I won't quote your post due to bandwidth restrictions:laugh2:

:p:

, but you are mostly correct in your assessment of training, etc. relative to 40 times. At best, one can look for thousandths of a second difference. You gotta be fast to begin with. Either you are or you aren't. For those that think "supplement" use doesn't help with speed, see former olympic gold winner Ben Johnson and his love affair with a "designer" steroid that most of us who played sports knew by the name of Winstrol-V. Factor that into the equation and you ARE shaving up to tenths of a second off...with training, etc.

I have a friend who was a really good sprinter and we used to work out alot together. He told me that there is a "rule" (in germany we call those rules "thumb rules". That means it's just a rule easy to remember and very easy to use/handle. Nothing that someone really has proved) for the relation betweens training sessions and yourself beeing able to run better times.

For every 0.1 secs you want to get better you have to double the amount of your training sessions

Now my buddy trained around 10-12 times a week and ran a 10.4-10.5 in the 100m dash. He wasn't doing that professionally, he had to go to work also and did this in his leasure time. So you can imagine he wasn't willing to put that amount of work in his hobby. When we later found that article about Linford Christy and this British guy he trained for 2 years, maybe you can imagine how my friend felt....

[TwentyOne]

I understood your point.

I just used your post as an opportunity to rant about something that irks me.

I know what your post is saying.......But the track references were enough for me to rant.

Sure performance enhancers may have something to do with the times.

Sorry to "use" your post.


I didn't feel offended.

But thanks for the apologies. No problem at all! ;)