Bob Sacamano
Benched
- Messages
- 57,084
- Reaction score
- 3
SLATEmosphere;3293547 said:
If the 13th rated dude is available at 27, at a position of need, **** yeah. There's nothing funny about that.
SLATEmosphere;3293547 said:
SLATEmosphere;3293547 said:
It's not "proof" at all. You guys are taking a computer splice job and saying it is better than the actual time they ran.Bluestang;3293533 said:This makes you wonder how many other guys got screwed in their 40 time. At least it is proof that with all the tech behind the combine that it is indeed flawed. I think there are going to be alot of surprises at Pro Day for alot of guys.
Bob Sacamano;3293549 said:If the 13th rated dude is available at 27, at a position of need, **** yeah. There's nothing funny about that.
SLATEmosphere;3293566 said::laugh2: :laugh2:
DFWJC;3293551 said:4.43...it's official. That tape is a montage and a splice job, not the real thing.
Here we go again.![]()
DFWJC;3293551 said:4.43...it's official. That tape is a montage and a splice job, not the real thing.
Here we go again.![]()
No way the timing should be off by two tenths.DFWJC;3293551 said:4.43...it's official. That tape is a montage and a splice job, not the real thing.
Here we go again.![]()
DFWJC;3293559 said:It's not "proof" at all. You guys are taking a computer splice job and saying it is better than the actual time they ran.
Look, if those guys were actually running together and the one in front got a slower time than the one trailing, then yes, something would be amiss. But this is a computer animmated effort to splice few guys running solo..and hoping that the thing is synchonized perfectly to the 100th second.
It is not.
I don't care who beat who...I'm just telling you that the gizmo used for TV purposes is not as accurate as the real electronic clock...that's all. I think Eisen may be assuming it is, but he's not a techie by any means. It's not an effort to make one look better than the other, I'm just saying that the odds are much greater that the independent electroin clock is more accurate than something that splice job to illustrate a point.
If Mays ran better than a 4.43, good for him.
DFWJC;3293559 said:It's not "proof" at all. You guys are taking a computer splice job and saying it is better than the actual time they ran.
Look, if those guys were actually running together and the one in front got a slower time than the one trailing, then yes, something would be amiss. But this is a computer animmated effort to splice few guys running solo..and hoping that the thing is synchonized perfectly to the 100th second.
It is not.
I don't care who beat who...I'm just telling you that the gizmo used for TV purposes is not as accurate as the real electronic clock...that's all. I think Eisen may be assuming it is, but he's not a techie by any means. It's not an effort to make one look better than the other, I'm just saying that the odds are much greater that the independent electroin clock is more accurate than something that splice job to illustrate a point.
If Mays ran better than a 4.43, good for him.
Bob Sacamano;3293549 said:If the 13th rated dude is available at 27, at a position of need, **** yeah. There's nothing funny about that.
Did I say Mays beat Holiday? Uh no. I said synchonizing a digital output of their races was flawed and you could not rely on that. But then again, the poster before you seems to think otherwise...saying that unless the times less than .16 seconds apart you will have no issue. He is assuming that they have taken the time to get the near perfect start time synchronized in the station. He is comparing stop watch vs 1060 digital output--which is not an independent electronic timing. BUt who knows, maybe I'm just a digging a hole here.dcfanatic;3293577 said:You are starting to sound really dumb here.
If Mays beat Holliday.
Then how the heck can Mays time be slower than Hollidays time?
:laugh1:
I think you're taking the 40 times personal in a way but it's all good. Just give us Earl Thomas.DFWJC;3293586 said:Did I say Mays beat Holiday? Uh no. I said synchonizing a digital output of their races was flawed and you could not rely on that. But then again, the poster before you seems to think otherwise...saying that unless the times less than .16 seconds apart you will have no issue. He is assuming that they have taken the time to get the near perfect start time synchronized in the station. He is comparing stop watch vs 1060 digital output--which is not an independent electronic timing. BUt who knows, maybe I'm just a digging a hole here.
Anyway, I don't really care what the times were...I should bail out of this before someone starts taking it personal.
He could turn into another Thomas Davis situation imo.jobberone;3293592 said:He needs to be an OLB in the 4-3 or a Mike.
DFWJC;3293586 said:Did I say Mays beat Holiday? Uh no. I said synchonizing a digital output of their races was flawed and you could not rely on that. But then again, the poster before you seems to think otherwise...saying that unless the times less than .16 seconds apart you will have no issue. He is assuming that they have taken the time to get the near perfect start time synchronized in the station. He is comparing stop watch vs 1060 digital output--which is not an independent electronic timing. BUt who knows, maybe I'm just a digging a hole here.
Anyway, I don't really care what the times were...I should bail out of this before someone starts taking it personal.
DAL @ GB
