game speed vs track speed

realitybytes

Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
Messages
4,900
Reaction score
4,154
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/sports/football/nfl-speed-leonard-fournette.html

really interesting article in the new york times about the fastest players in the nfl. buried near the bottom of the article is a chart showing the average game speed of the wide receivers on every nfl team. not surprisingly, the packers are dead last with the slowest receivers by far.

Team Avg. Top Speed
Los Angeles Rams* 13.32 m.p.h.
Jacksonville Jaguars* 13.09
Cleveland Browns 13.08
Buffalo Bills* 12.97
Los Angeles Chargers 12.93
Chicago Bears 12.90
New England Patriots* 12.84
Seattle Seahawks 12.83
Indianapolis Colts 12.83
Kansas City Chiefs* 12.71
Washington Redskins 12.66
Dallas Cowboys 12.64
San Francisco 49ers 12.58
Tennessee Titans* 12.58
Pittsburgh Steelers* 12.56
Miami Dolphins 12.52
Baltimore Ravens 12.51
Minnesota Vikings* 12.50
Philadelphia Eagles* 12.50
Atlanta Falcons* 12.49
Arizona Cardinals 12.48
Cincinnati Bengals 12.47
New Orleans Saints* 12.46
Carolina Panthers* 12.40
Detroit Lions 12.38
Houston Texans 12.33
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 12.29
New York Jets 12.25
Denver Broncos 12.24
New York Giants 12.20
Oakland Raiders 11.96
Green Bay Packers 11.74
 
There's two types of speed. Blazing speed, which works indoors, and on warm field carpets. Then there's the mudder, who can make cuts, and do what's needed, on fields with taller grass, and less footing.

In Green Bay, you find the latter, because the quickest aren't usually the ones who are sure-footed.
 
There's two types of speed. Blazing speed, which works indoors, and on warm field carpets.

gotta wonder if you actually read the article. to be clear, the speeds listed in the chart are actual game speeds measured from game tapes. not the speed of guys running in shorts on a fast track. there's some great video in the article showing some of the fastest measured speeds. also forgot to note that all of the teams with asterisks are the ones that made the playoffs.

also note that the patriots and steelers - who play in conditions similar to green bay - are much faster. and teams that play in domes on carpet - vikings, saints, falcons - tend to be slower. kind of opposite of what you might expect, huh?
 
funny thing is all those top speed teams aren't the feared wr groups. Until you get to the steelers Id say the teams ahead of them are average.
 
gotta wonder if you actually read the article. to be clear, the speeds listed in the chart are actual game speeds measured from game tapes. not the speed of guys running in shorts on a fast track. there's some great video in the article showing some of the fastest measured speeds. also forgot to note that all of the teams with asterisks are the ones that made the playoffs.

also note that the patriots and steelers - who play in conditions similar to green bay - are much faster. and teams that play in domes on carpet - vikings, saints, falcons - tend to be slower. kind of opposite of what you might expect, huh?

Yes. I read it. I go back to what I said. Blazing speed is great on fields that are made for it. On fields that spend 2/3 of the time damp, wet, and mushy, being super fast doesn't matter as much as being sure-footed. It's one of the reasons that teams like GB have always had to emphasize that running the route properly, with all the right reads, is how you do it, and just because you're super fast doesn't mean you're gonna get the ball. You have to be able to get open, and when you're slipping and sliding on unfriendly turf, that's not happening.

I look back, over the years, and even now, and the best receivers aren't all speedsters. The majority of them are quick, deceptive, and know their reads, routes, and have sure hands. One look, at Stafford's group being so far down the line, and the Packers being where they are, and I ask one question. If they're so slow, why is it Stafford keeps putting up 4,000 yard seasons, and Rodgers and his crew are known for their ability to score from anywhere on the field, through the air?

I understand what they're saying, but I don't totally agree that speed is always the deciding factor. If that was the case, the Browns would be in the playoffs, considering where they are on the list.

Just my opinion.
 
Just another note. The Packers, over the years, have left their grass longer on the field than anyone else. There's been a reason. Taller grass narrows the speed difference between faster and slower players. That's called "home field advantage," and it's as real in football as it is in baseball.

Never underestimate the value of all the little nuances teams use to determine the make-up of their own teams.

Then there's the underground heating system at Lambeau. I'd be willing to bet a shiny penny that they use that to either soften, or firm the field, depending on who is coming to visit, in cold weather.
 
These speed stats are very deceiving. Over half the passes Hundley completed were WR screens where none of the receivers really ran routes. If they are looking at every play and averaging the top speeds the plays called have to impact that number greatly. I'm not saying GB has super fast receivers but we had a very bad offense which has to project to these lower numbers.
 
These speed stats are very deceiving. Over half the passes Hundley completed were WR screens where none of the receivers really ran routes. If they are looking at every play and averaging the top speeds the plays called have to impact that number greatly. I'm not saying GB has super fast receivers but we had a very bad offense which has to project to these lower numbers.

I am sorry but explains plenty. Speed kills. When your not a threat deep than as a DC I can really adjust my coverage and go balls to the walls after your QB. No one takes our run game serious because MM goes away from it or Rodgers checks out... well hells bells If I know I have the speed to neutralize your WR. I am blitzing your butt early and often.
 
Back
Top