40 Time Rebuttal

Submitted by Ziff72 on
I was reading all the "FAKE" 40 times listed by the faithful readers on the 40 time post. It got me thinkin back to an article in SI about how much bullshit the 40 times are. Some of you who played college ball can attest to the jump in athleticism from the average schmo. So everyone who ia an average Joe and thinks they are a smidge slow and put in 4.7 to be modest is kidding themselves. Sub 5.0 is not bad at all for an average guy if properly timed. Whereas the NFL builds a dossier on a prospect that is as thick and orderly as a government report, the information that comes to colleges about prospective players is more like stuff you read on the Internet. It might be true, but it probably isn't. "It's all bull——," says Bill Meyers, an offensive line coach for the Seahawks and a former college coach. "I never heard a high school coach who didn't lie to me about a 40." The NCAA doesn't allow its members to test high school prospects, so there are only two ways to get an accurate time: if the player runs track or if, prior to his senior year, he attends a college coach's camp. Otherwise, there is no such thing as a slow college prospect. According to The Forrest Davis Recruiting Annual—which bills itself as "the most accurate and complete football recruiting guide anywhere!"—there are 24 high school senior football players across 10 Southern states who have run the 40 in under 4.4. In the last 10 NFL scouting combines only 18 players have run a sub-4.4 40. Bill Buchalter, a reporter for The Orlando Sentinel, has been covering Florida high schools since, oh, shortly after Ponce de Leon arrived in the 16th century. "Just remember one tiling," he says. "In 1988 in Seoul, South Korea, Ben Johnson ran 100 meters in 9.79 [a time that was disallowed after he tested positive for steroids]. Over the first 40 meters he ran 4.69. Someone told me that 40 meters is about 44 yards, so Johnson ran a 4.26 for 40 yards." In other words those 24 high school players were purported to be nearly as fast as the chemically enhanced fastest man in the world. High school coaches aren't the only ones fudging the numbers. Florida State announced in March that wide receiver Laveranues Coles had run a 4.16. "If so," Buchalter asks, "why was he the fourth-best sprinter on the 4x100 relay team?"

drewsharp64

March 6th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^

good stuff. i never understood why a 40 time with no pads and no ball and running in a straight line is the the #1 indicator that scouts nut themselves over.

MGoObes

March 6th, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^

i'd love to know though. one thing i do know: 2007 espn power forward rankings. yours truly is number 229. (was 228, somehow i dropped. assholes)

WolvinLA

March 6th, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^

Being ranked in anything is a big deal, so congrats. I'd like to know, if they had national rankings for everything I do, if I would be in the top, say, 500 in any one thing.

WolvinLA

March 6th, 2009 at 7:50 PM ^

Yeah, dick. If they ranked literally everybody in the country at power forward, like they went 1 through 300 million or whatever, where do you think you would rank? I think I can rule out almost every girl as well as little kids and old people and most Asians. I think I'm securely in the top 100 million with a ceiling of about 20 million or so.

Chrisgocomment

March 6th, 2009 at 8:52 PM ^

I'd defiantly be ahead of most girls, Asians and children. I can ball. Er, sort of. My High School has an alumni tourney every March and my class normally fields 4 to 10 people. That's it. In an effort to get more players the guy who sets it up emailed damn near everyone. A fella by the name of John Wong responded in hilarious fashion. He said Asian + Man Boobs + Overweight = useless. I love that he included "Asian" in that formula. Nice work John.

Route66

March 6th, 2009 at 9:47 PM ^

....football really opens your eyes as to what DII and DI athletes can do. I ran a 4.8 at 215lbs coming in and then my senior year after gaining 90lbs and moving to the o-line I went to a roughly 5.05. I was the second fastest o-lineman. 305lbs moving at that clip gives some perspective as to how athletic those higher levels are. We had one guy in college get timed at about a 4.4. That is the fastest I have seen in person. That is moving. So if you said you did around 4.6 or 4.7 you better have been a sprinter or college athlete. I am proud of my 5.05 at over 3 bills, that is all I can say. And yes, I have been able to hustle some guys who thought that I was a big fat ass. I have won numerous bets in the parking lots during a tailgate with friends who were half my size thinking I was slow. It might be all I have to hang on to entering my 30's, so let me strut a little. Thanks in advance. *** We were timed by a touch and release pad to start and motion sensor thing to end.....that is all I know.

myrtlebeachmai…

March 7th, 2009 at 9:51 AM ^

I bring news from the ghost of basketball future... 6'3" 190 lbs senior was my playing weight too... I like to think if Rivals/Scout/ESPN existed back then, I'd have been ranked around #231. Don't worry about the skinny frame; by 25 you'll have packed on 25 more pounds of momentum inducing "solidity". By 35 you'll have 2 school aged children and all the 5'10" to 6'0" guys you play with in church league every Sun/Tues night will call you "big guy" - even though you made a serious effort to get down to 225 from 230 before the season started. The baby hook will be your best friend, and people will think you're exceptional "nimble" for a "big guy". Don't fight fate my friend, the die is cast.... Good luck.

TIMMMAAY

March 10th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^

Just that you seemed to keep your ties to the program pretty quiet. Now you volunteer your identity? It just seemed strange, that's all. Not that I care, I was just curious.

KBM

March 7th, 2009 at 1:51 AM ^

This Ben Johnson thing gets thrown around a lot, so I feel obligated to point out that the timing on that run started at the gun, whereas 40's (even at the NFL combine) are timed from the moment the player moves. I'm not sure what average reaction time is (to the gun), but it is this that makes it conceivable that a (seriously fast) football player might clock a better time than Mr. Johnson. Which, by the way, Chris Johnson did. Nevertheless, your initial point, which is that high school 40 times cannot be trusted, is right on the mark.

jmblue

March 8th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^

Reaction time is around 0.2 seconds, so by the dumb way football people time the 40, Ben Johnson would have run in the neighborhood of 4.05. Which just goes to show that contrary to what Brent Musberger claims, the average all-conference WR does not have "world-class speed."

jmblue

March 8th, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^

Because football people always set their electronic timers to go off at the first movement, instead of at the gun. This is dumb because response time is important - play doesn't start when everyone gets off the line, it starts when the ball is snapped. A WR who doesn't get off the line well might well screw up the timing of the play. In track and field, times are measured from the gun, and include the response-time delay. The 4.26 that Ben Johnson recorded was his time from when the gun was fired. If it had been recorded football-style, from his first movement, his time probably would in the neighborhood of 4.05, because human response is typically about 0.2 seconds (at least, it is for people who have trained in sprinting). Ergo, a superfast football player with an electronically-recorded time of 4.30 (which again, does not include reaction time) is still quite a bit slower than an Olympic sprinter.

WolvinLA

March 10th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^

Although reaction time is important, the intent of the 40 is to measure speed, not speed combined with reaction time. The idea is to isolate skills. Reaction time is more or less important depending on the position as well. Look at a punt returner, he starts running when he catches the ball, he doesn't need any reaction skills.

Ziff72

March 7th, 2009 at 6:54 AM ^

You are correct on that point, but I think it also illustrates my point that the hand held times give the player an advantage. The article is much longer and points out the inconcsistency of timing. The real problem is there is no agreed upon baseline to measure against. Is it on the players movement is it on the whistle etc...compared to what Ben Johnson was doing "on the whistle" none of these guys save a select few track guys (Holliday, Demps) are breaking 4.5. The article says the diff between a plyers reaction time and his movement is around .2 seconds.