Blue boy johnson

May 28th, 2010 at 8:47 AM ^

I think 11.27 is pretty impressive considering his size and the fact he injured his knee at the end of his football season, but I don't see him as a threat to Usain Bolt, not yet anyway.

I hope to never witness Furman's 100 meter prowess on the football field unless he switches to offense

Firstbase

May 28th, 2010 at 9:11 AM ^

... but even as a slightly above average athlete in HS, I was clocked at 10.4 for my anchor leg of the 440 relay back in the day, so I'm not too impressed. (Of course, that was from a running start...)

That said, if he can hit someone at that velocity, it will be fairly devastating for the ball carrier (or receiver). 

MGoObes

May 28th, 2010 at 9:11 AM ^

shouldn't be enough to make one question josh furman's speed. the sub 4.4 times he's run at combines and camps have all been consistent. he might've had an off day, he might just not be good at running the 100, who knows?

Carcajous

May 28th, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^

To those being critical of the 100m time, we have no idea what the weather conditions were.  If he ran that into a howling headwind in driving rain, would that change you opinion?  Do you know what his best time is this year?

Elno Lewis

May 28th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^

blueblueblue because he is obviously insecure and needs support.

 

potato salad you devil egg eating homo

blueblueblue

May 28th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^

i nonbandged Elno Lewis for his nonsensical reply.

I really dont understand where you get insecure and homo (not that there's anything wrong with that) from my reply above. At least try to make sense. 

michgoblue

May 28th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^

Yes, speed does not always equal on field success, but it certainly does not hurt.  The overwhelming majority of the players that we have coming in this year are fast for their respective positions.  While these guys are young, and will experience some frustrating moments as they learn to be fundamentally sound D1 college football players, a year or two down the road, all of this team speed is going to give the teams we play fits of frustration. 

WolvinLA2

May 28th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^

I was a sprinter in high school (in Michigan) and I ran in a number of other meets around the midwest. So here's my take, take it FWIW:

I know that Furman is a fast guy, he's proved it many times and places before, so seeing this is basically non-news.  But for the guys saying "11.27 is not that fast" are very right, and the ones saying "yeah but it's fast for his size" are very wrong, IMO. 

Furman is not that big. He's about 200lbs, which is not bigger than a lot of the elite sprinters he's going up against.  Let me use one example:  Joe Staley is currently an OT for the 49ers.  He ran  track for the neighboring HS of mine, so we ran against each other a lot.  He was actually recruited (by no one big, he ended up at CMU) to play TE, and was 6'6" and about 230lbs as a senior.  He ran a 10.6 100m and a 21.9 200m. 

There are probably 80+ kids in Michigan alone who can run a 11.27 100m.  That said, I'm not giving it any weight, because a number of things can affect your times on the track, and this could  just be one bad time for him.  Throw in the fact that he'll never have to run 100 meters, and this bothers me 0%.

Magnus

May 28th, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^

No offense, but I do not believe that Joe Staley ran a legit 10.6.  I'm not saying that he's slow or that you're a liar.  All I'm saying is that if he were timed with more precise timing mechanisms, I bet his time would be slower than a 10.6.

Also, assuming Furman is 6'3", 200 lbs., that still makes him significantly larger than many a high school sprinter.  When I was in high school, our top sprinters were about 6' and 165 lbs.  At the current school where I work, our best sprinter is about 5'9" and 150 lbs.  Those track stars at Cass Tech?  They're all 5'9" and 160 or thereabouts.

6'3" and 200 lbs. isn't huge, but I'd venture to say that he's 30-40 lbs. heavier (and a few inches taller) than the vast, vast majority of high school sprinters.

WolvinLA2

May 28th, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^

Furman is on the bigger side for sprinters, but he's not that big.  A lot of sprinters are RB prospects, many of whom are in the 185-195+ range as seniors in high school.  But Furman is fast, but he's not an elite sprinter, so if he had run a 10.7 or 10.8, then he would be fast for his size. 

So he's fast for a LB, and probably average for a safety.  Nothing that we should get worked up over.

Magnus

May 28th, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^

A lot of sprinters are RB prospects, many of whom are in the 185-195+ range as seniors in high school.

I think this would be more accurate if you reversed the two - a lot of RB prospects are sprinters.  I would venture a guess that, in the grand scheme of things, very few sprinters are running back prospects.  They're mostly safeties or cornerbacks or wide receivers or basketball players or simply kids who just run track.