Surprised this priceless GIF hasn't been posted as its own thread yet:
This is while watching Te'o post a 4.83 in his 40 at the combine.
EDIT: McKayla weighs in:
will be michigan's highest pick in a while
John Harbaugh's reaction to Manti Te'o's 40 yd time
February 26th, 2013 at 1:50 PM
#1
John Harbaugh's reaction to Manti Te'o's 40 yd time
February 26th, 2013 at 1:53 PM | 
Someone who has a little bit
Someone who has a little bit
February 26th, 2013 at 3:27 PM |
Just out of curiosity, I
Just out of curiosity, I
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what Ray Lewis currently runs in the 40. I would bet it's no faster than Te'o.
February 26th, 2013 at 3:38 PM |
are we talking
are we talking
with or without Antler spray? Away from the cops after a knife fight?
ALWAYS remember the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules
February 26th, 2013 at 5:29 PM |
This post becomes infinitely
This post becomes infinitely
This post becomes infinitely better due to the avatar. I just see a retired, old Lewis mounted on the wall at this point.
February 26th, 2013 at 3:39 PM |
Ray Lewis is 37 years old and
Ray Lewis is 37 years old and
Ray Lewis is 37 years old and retired. Manti T'eo is in his early twenties and yet to play an NFL game. There is a big difference between the places in which they are in their career path.
February 26th, 2013 at 3:42 PM |
Lewis ran a hand timed 4.71
Lewis ran a hand timed 4.71
Lewis ran a hand timed 4.71 at the combine thats about a official 4.81
February 26th, 2013 at 4:14 PM |
In 1997 mlb weren't asked to
In 1997 mlb weren't asked to
In 1997 mlb weren't asked to cover TE that could run 4.4's. It was a different game and Lewis was a liability in the passing game for the last couple years but made up for it with his ability to align himself and the rest of the defense based off diagnosing the offense. Unless you think te'o is as good at diagnosing an offense as ray lewis then that 40 time is a huge red flag.
February 26th, 2013 at 5:00 PM |
No MLB can cover 4.4 guys.
No MLB can cover 4.4 guys.
Those guys require combo coverages(safety/corner with MLB help).
"The Ruhr will not be subjected to a single bomb. If an enemy bomber reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Hermann Göring: you can call me Urban Meyer!"
February 26th, 2013 at 5:12 PM |
I answered the question that
I answered the question that
I answered the question that was asked, I had no insight on the topic. I dont care about about Te'o unless the lions draft him. Now I will offer some insight, a 4.81 is nota red flag even in todays game case in point
Vontaze Burfict was undrafted last year ran 5.09 40 which was dead last in linebackers his rookie stats 73 solo tackles 54 assisted 1 sack 2 FR
Mychal Kendric was drafted 2nd rd pick 14 ran a 4.47 40 which was fastest his rookie stats 58 solo 17 assisted no other stats
Zack Brown was drafted 2nd rd pick 20 ran a 4.50 which was 2nd fastest his rookie stats 68 solo 25 assisted 1 ff 1 fr 3 int
Thats not a very big difference
Other notable slow 40 times for linebackers
James Laurinaitis
Brandon Spikes
Brian Cushing
Rey Maualuga
all of them have been productive in "todays nfl" so Im asking is your opionon on Te'o bias?
February 26th, 2013 at 6:47 PM |
How many of those are 3 play
How many of those are 3 play
How many of those are 3 play middle linebacker guys? burfict was out of shape at the combine and got himself turned around. I'm not saying te'o should go undrafted, you just don't take a guy in the first round you have to hide in pass coverage.
February 26th, 2013 at 8:15 PM |
Burfict played much better
Burfict played much better
Burfict played much better than those other 2 but didnt play pass coverage this yr
February 26th, 2013 at 10:23 PM |
Just another shread of evidence
Just another shread of evidence
This is another hint at how 40 times and "strength and conditioning" are a bit overplayed. Honestly, does .1 or .2 seconds in a 40 yard dash mean a player is better than another? No. 40 times have become an ego measuring contest more than anything at this point. It's just like "advances" in strength and conditioning. Don't get me wrong, being in shape is important, but there is absolutely no replacement for practicing and focusing on, you know, playing the actual game.
February 27th, 2013 at 7:49 AM |
Can guarantee one thing not damn important in 40 times
Can guarantee one thing not damn important in 40 times
He's a hell of a lot faster that Dick Butkus, as so too were many of the RBs Dick chased down from behind. The kid, no matter the recent bashing he has taken in the press, knows positioning, angles of pursuit and just has a head for the game. That might help explain just why he had so damn many interceptions this past year. If you don't think it was due to his knowing the game, you are only kidding yourself.
February 26th, 2013 at 5:48 PM |
NFL TE's also don't typically
NFL TE's also don't typically
NFL TE's also don't typically run 4.4s, unless they are named Vernon Davis.
February 26th, 2013 at 4:54 PM |
Jerry Rice ran a 4.6. Times
Jerry Rice ran a 4.6. Times
Jerry Rice ran a 4.6. Times have changed.
Not that I loved Rich Rod less, but that I loved Michigan more.
February 26th, 2013 at 5:09 PM |
I never really understood
I never really understood
I never really understood this argument. For some reason, there seems to be a widely-held belief that human beings are much faster now than they were ten years ago.
February 26th, 2013 at 5:24 PM |
They are!
They are!
Athletes today have better nutrition and dedicated 40 training, specifically the fast start, which were not as emphasized as in the past.
"They're stuck with that quarterback (sophomore Braxton Miller) for the next two or three years, that's fine with me. He throws worse than (Tim) Tebow. - Steve Everitt
February 26th, 2013 at 5:37 PM |
The past being 2004? I'm
The past being 2004? I'm
The past being 2004? I'm just not buying it until I see some evidence. Look at the top 15 receivers by total yards in the NFL and their corresponding 40 times.
February 26th, 2013 at 5:48 PM |
Well 40 times have certainly
Well 40 times have certainly
Well 40 times have certainly gotten progressively faster over time. I think that athletic training has become more of a science, and I think raw speed is also more of an emphasis now than it was in the 1990's. It doesn't mean that players are better athletes or faster, it just means that more effort is put into the technique of running on a track to show your speed than, you know, just playing football.
Not that I loved Rich Rod less, but that I loved Michigan more.
February 26th, 2013 at 5:54 PM |
Gradual increases in speed
Gradual increases in speed
Gradual increases in speed over 25 or 30 years, sure, but people often just assume that players from the 90s and early 2000s were slower, and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's true or that it's important.
February 26th, 2013 at 8:03 PM |
"Better nutrition" and
"Better nutrition" and
"Better nutrition" and "better training" is Ostrichian code language for "Performance Enhancing Drugs."
For what it's worth, I *do* think that players have gotten faster over the past 20-30 years. And I've just stated the reason. It is true that people are training better (and that there may be more 40-specific training now than there was 20 years ago), but the actual product on the field looks a bit different than it did in 1990 and that is because players are capable of molding their bodies into ever-bigger-and-faster shapes because they are using chemicals which assist in that transformation.
Servant. Pastor. Husband. Michigan fan in Duluth.
February 26th, 2013 at 1:53 PM |
I recognize this look.
I recognize this look.
Walking towards every girl in every bar
"Everyone gets dumped Gabe. Let me give you some advice: a little coverup on your Adams Apple will make it appear smaller. Which will make you appear less like a transvestite."
February 26th, 2013 at 1:54 PM |
Watching my ND friend go
Watching my ND friend go
Watching my ND friend go crazy on Twitter yesterday about all the people saying Teo shouldn't be a first round pick was amusing.
February 27th, 2013 at 12:41 AM |
Reactions of ND fans
Reactions of ND fans
Full-on Decatur Clan. Whatever happens, GO BLUE!
February 26th, 2013 at 1:54 PM |
I had the same reaction when
I had the same reaction when
I had the same reaction when I learned that his dead girlfriend never existed...
February 26th, 2013 at 1:55 PM |
Many
Many
may think that I am overreacting, but I don't think Teo has an NFL future. I think that one can only convclude based on the recent events with him that he is not all there upstairs. He is now running a very sub par forty, he did not take part in the bench press, and he is having to answer questions about sexual orientation in team interviews. I just don't see how this goes well from here for him.
February 26th, 2013 at 2:09 PM |
One of Many
One of Many
I think you probably are overreacting, since T'eo amassed a pretty impressive body of work during game conditions over his career in South Bend. He may not be a three-down LB at first, but the man has game (and not just with the nonexistent ladies, where he's got mad game). No question his prospects have plummeted since the BCS game and all the distractions, but he played very well for NDU this year, and to say he has no NFL future seems a bit extreme.
Just my opinion, of course.
- "Of course I care about that stuff. To the point of irrationality. It will always be Michigan first, cancer second." Jim Mandich (RIP)
February 26th, 2013 at 2:12 PM |
I don't know,
I don't know,
when you have to go Katie Couric interview pre-draft, have to address the media at the combine regarding your fake girlfriend and needing to convince NFL teams that you are not gay when it seems pretty certain you are, I just don't know if I can find the happy ending in that scenario. It just looks like the writing is on the wall there.
February 26th, 2013 at 2:17 PM |
You said "Happy Ending"
You said "Happy Ending"
Ha ha ha ha, yeah! On a related note, looks like his brain isn't the only thing that runs slowly.... Ba da da tsh.
February 26th, 2013 at 2:41 PM |
You here all week?
You here all week?
You here all week?
M'Dog
February 26th, 2013 at 4:19 PM |
Yes, unless I OD on cold meds
Yes, unless I OD on cold meds
which is a distinct possibility at this point.
February 26th, 2013 at 2:18 PM |
I would really hope that he
I would really hope that he
I would really hope that he wouldn't have to convince any NFL team of anything pertaining to his sexual orientation. These teams ought to care about the body of work on the field, and any off-field issues that may make him "unavailable" during the season.
"Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes, well, he eats you."
February 26th, 2013 at 2:22 PM |
Like it or not
Like it or not
It's a big deal. There's still never been an openly gay NFL player who has come out while playing. It does matter, maybe it shouldn't, but it does. I thought Michael Strahan would have been the guy to break the barrier, but he didn't
February 26th, 2013 at 2:33 PM |
Prospective employers are
Prospective employers are
Prospective employers are actually prohibited by law from asking about sexual orientation as a condition of employment. Given that this is basically a pre-hire evaluation/assessment, this line of questioning should be way out of bounds. The girlfriend thing is fair game, assuming its not framed in a discriminatory manner and is relevant to his potential fitness to perform the job duties required of him. Ditto on the physical stuff.
For my privacy, my new username is "non-Oriental non-Andrew"
February 26th, 2013 at 2:38 PM |
Doesn't that depend on the state/territory?
Doesn't that depend on the state/territory?
I am not an employment law expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm pretty sure that no federal law prohibits exmployment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Some states/territories have laws that do, though.
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
February 26th, 2013 at 2:50 PM |
Federal EEOC law has been
Federal EEOC law has been
Federal EEOC law has been interpreted to also prohibit discrimination based up sexual orientation: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
This is the 21st century, folks. I understand that this sort of stuff remains par for the course in professional sports, but fans condoning or accepting it as practice speaks to where we are as a society.
(Trying to prevent crossing the "politics" line. If this has happened, I didn't mean to disturb the peace!)
"Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes, well, he eats you."
February 26th, 2013 at 2:56 PM |
I don't think anyone on the
I don't think anyone on the
I don't think anyone on the board is condoning it. As for "accepting it," that seems more like simple acknowledgement of reality. Until active players start coming out*, fans not accepting the homophobic culture of the NFL doesn't really mean a whole lot. The push to change the culture of the league has to come from within the league. And I think there has been movement in that direction the past few years (you're seeing more and more players openly say they'd be fine with a gay teammate and players who say they aren't OK with that are being shouted down and shamed into apologizing).
*And let's not kid ourselves. Doesn't matter who the first player to be openly gay is or how good at foodball he is, he will be loved by some fans and hated by others solely for being gay. That's the reality where we are.
February 26th, 2013 at 3:09 PM |
I was just about to write
I was just about to write
I was just about to write something about how fans' money could be the "push" to change the culture, but then I decided that that is a foolhardy statement. Football is too popular, and even if fans did take their money elsewhere, the NFL would only be able to present a facade of tolerance.
Oh well.
"Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes, well, he eats you."
February 26th, 2013 at 2:58 PM |
Two points:
Two points:
1. I was not condoning and do not condone discrimination based on sexual orientation.
2. The OPM interpretating a law as applying to sexual orientation is not the same as there being a statutory prohibition or a decision by a federal judge.
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
February 26th, 2013 at 5:11 PM |
Regarding #2 - I am a manager
Regarding #2 - I am a manager
Regarding #2 - I am a manager for a Fortune 500 company and just had to take our legal course on this issue. It is against the law on a federal level and even though the EEOC is based on interpretation, there is already legal precendent based on indivudal court cases. I.e. my company says legally you can't descriminate based on sexual orientation.
"Anyone who isn't confused, really doesn't understand the situation." - Edward R. Murrow
February 26th, 2013 at 5:29 PM |
I think they're being cautious
I think they're being cautious
I think those must be state court cases. Also, I think your employer is probably being cautious. And, FWIW, I'm glad that they are...I don't have the time to really research the law, but I don't think you'd have gay rights organizations advocating for a federal non-discrimination law (see below) if it was a waste of their time....I think that someone who really wanted to make a point of exercising his right (however much was may dislike that) to fire someone b/c he or she is gay could do so if the relevant state's law doesn't prohibit it.
Note: This is not legal advice. I am a lemur in a lab typing on a keyboard as part of an experiment.
http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/federal-legislation/employment-non-discrimination-act
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
February 26th, 2013 at 3:56 PM |
NSFMF
NSFMF
The link you posed notes that the Office of Personnel Management has intepreted the law as you suggest. The OPM is basically the HR office for federal employees. Thus, its interpretations don't apply to the NFL or its teams. The link also comments that many states and localities have adopted laws, ordinances, rules, etc. on the topic. These do vary from place to place.
As a legal matter, the ability of an NFL team to ask that question and to base a draft selection does vary from team to team based on the jurisdiction they are in. (This could actually be a pretty interesting jurisdiction questoin for a law school exam. Team x from place y, makes an employment decision in place z that is announced in New York City . . .)
(Please note that I am only commenting on the state of the law - not what the law should be or what employers should do.)
"Nobody cares what you think!"
February 26th, 2013 at 2:52 PM |
Way out of bounds? Sort of
Way out of bounds? Sort of
Way out of bounds? Sort of like asking a prospective WR about whether or not his mother was a prostitute? No NFL organization would ever cross that line.
You do bring up an interesting point, though. Are NFL teams subject to the same employment laws as other employer organizations? I would assume yes, but I'd have to imagine that teams get away with things that other employers wouldn't in selecting players for their team.
EDIT: Wasn't Clarrett's lawsuit against the NFL a discrimination suit? That the NFL was unlawfully discriminating based on age or something. (Interesting side note: the judge that overturned the initial pro-Clarrett ruling was current Supreme Court Justics Sonia Sotomayor.)
February 26th, 2013 at 3:03 PM |
Context, sir (maybe).
Context, sir (maybe).
Say what you want about Doyel, but I buy what he's selling about the context of the Ireland/Bryant yo mama a ho conversation.
February 26th, 2013 at 3:17 PM |
That article seems to
That article seems to
That article seems to basically say "hey, maybe Ireland asked a really shitty question, but maybe that question was a follow-up to a previous question. We'll never know because neither Ireland nor Bryant will say anything. I'm not saying, just saying..."
It does, again, make me wonder about the NFL v. any other employer. What employer would ask you what your parents did for a living during a job interview? Let alone have follow-ups (allegedly) to the answer "My dad was a pimp."
February 26th, 2013 at 4:03 PM |
I've wondered the same thing.
I've wondered the same thing.
I've wondered the same thing.
Is the difference that this is not a typical employer/employee relationship?
This interview does not even mean that there will be an opportunity for the NFL team to select the player in the draft.
Even if the team does select the player in the draft, they still have to enter into contract negotiations.
I still don't see how an NFL team can get away with asking about a player's sexual orientation. Doesn't seem like it should be legal.
February 26th, 2013 at 3:30 PM |
Law doesn't matter
Law doesn't matter
As a practical matter, what the law is on this issue doesn't matter. What is Te'o's recourse, if he feels that NFL teams have been asking inappropriate questions? To sue the NFL, before he even plays a game? I'm sure that would go over well, especially since he's already considered somewhat of a potential distraction.
February 26th, 2013 at 5:02 PM |
Exactly, there are too many degrees of freedom
Exactly, there are too many degrees of freedom
involved, and thus an NFL team can come to any decision they want but point to something else. It's an extremely competitive business, and the judgments about draftees are as much art as science (e.g. Tom Brady).
If Teo had run a 4.4 and had shut down Bama, no one would be asking these questions. Now how do we interpret if someone who has not performed well for the past few months is being passed over for his sexuality? His performance and bizarro tale have given GMs and coaches with their jobs on the line reason to be concerned.
I suspect someone will take Te'o as a value pick. I'm going w/ round 3 for the pool.
Is anyone doing a draft pool here? Something that rewards the minimum summed penalty function?
February 26th, 2013 at 3:37 PM |
Sexual orientation is not
Sexual orientation is not
Sexual orientation is not explicitly mentioned as a protected class in federal anti-discrimination laws. Some states have enacted legislation that explicitly outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but at the federal level, only the "traditional" classes are protected (i.e., race, gender, religion, age, national origin, disability, etc). The EEOC has tried to find ways around that (for example, by classifying discrimination against people who are transgender as a form of gender-based discrimination and therefore illegal), but it remains one of the major gaps in federal anti-discrimination law. It's one of the issues that LGBT rights groups are trying to address.
February 26th, 2013 at 2:46 PM |
Strahan? Dude's been married
Strahan? Dude's been married
Strahan? Dude's been married twice and is now hitting Eddie Murphy's ex-wife. In divorce testimony, his ex accused him of repeatedly cheating.
You serious, Clark?
Someone who has a little bit of firsthand experience watching an elite inside linebacker.