game speed vs track speed

I read the article but not every word of it. Can someone explain the numbers. I get that they are measuring actual speeds during the game using a computer chip that is actually being worn. They show the top speeds of guys like Fournette, Goodwin, etc at about 22mph. They then show the "average top speed" for each teams WR and the fastest is 13.3mph as a group. This really doesn't make any sense, or at least the terminology doesn't make sense.

The whole term "average top speed" is kinda odd to me. There is average speed - say how fast someone is running when measured over a distance or time, and there is top speed - the maximum speed achieved over a distance or time. What the heck exactly is "average top speed"? They don't explain it. There is no way the top speed of the Packer's or any team's WRs is about half of Leonard Fournette's top speed. Doesn't make sense.

I suspect the numbers they are reporting for WRs is an average of the top speed they are running during all their routes. This doesn't tell us how fast the receivers "are", it tells us how hard they are running or trying. Looks like the Packers are just not running their routes hard or crisply, or they are just half-assing it out there a bunch of the time.
 
All good points 57!

One consideration that I haven't seen is evaluation of what type of routes are being run. Shorter routes, with one or more change of direction, or even a hook, will obviously reduce the speed. You don't go balls out on a shorter route because your job is more position than blazing speed.

That brings up an interesting point. What would be the average speed difference between WRs running routes with Rodgers in the game, and when Hundley is in the game. Since the Rodgers routes would obviously be longer in theory, the speeds would also be much faster.

I guess my point is there's speed, and there's useful speed. I'll settle for #2 anytime, and guys like Nelson provide it.
 
realitybytes said:
aaaarrrggghhh. once again, the article is talking about football speed - not straight forward, running in shorts and track shoes on a flat surface speed.
Click to expand...

I think its a great article. I wonder, comparatively, like the old Demovsky article I posted, if one could find out the combine speed for the exact same teams and how that lines up with the game speed rankings.
 
Budman said:
I think its a great article. I wonder, comparatively, like the old Demovsky article I posted, if one could find out the combine speed for the exact same teams and how that lines up with the game speed rankings.
Click to expand...

that would require hours of research, but yes it could be done.
 
Budman said:
If anyone can do it, it would be you!
Click to expand...

I appreciate the confidence, but that's an awful lot of 40 times to hunt down through an awful lot of combines and pro days. And unlike a bunch of the other research I do, it doesn't sound all that fun.

I was a 4.38 (pr) guy myself and shagged a hell of a lot of punts in college (b/c Dez only ever did it on game day) and can tell you that running with pads wasn't much different for me than without, but carrying that ball sure made a difference.
 
A couple of things here...

1.) 2 of the greatest WRs IMO were Rice and Sharpe. Both ran 40s between 4.58 and 4.6.

But yet would anyone have considered them slow? It was their hard work and dedication to be the best at their craft and attention to details, not to mention great hands also.

In other words there are many factors other then speed that make the difference between a great player and an average one....

2.) Surprised no one brought this out and if I missed it then my bad. But there is big difference between speed vs quickness. This has been covered and talked about during every draft season by myself and others. :)
 
Steve Largent. Also, isn't this pretty much the same thing as size (pause for chuckles). "A good big man is better than a good small man", and a good fast receiver is better than a good slow receiver. Pure speed, or ever quickness, doesn't necessarily make a great WR, but it's sure nice to have.
 
Sure is nice to have. Moss and Terminator had both size and speed. But to me seems speed ppl rely too much on their speed. Moss could have been best ever IF he would have had the work ethic and on field willingness of what players like Rice, Sharpe, Steve Smith had amongst others.

BTW was going to mention Largent. Glad u did :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top