| Author |
Message |
|
DP39
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 12:32 pm |
|
 |
| Franchise Player |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:02 pm
Posts: 966
|
|
I believe Wallace may have the top overall 10 yd split of any WR drafted in recent years.
1.43 10 yd.
Maybe even more impressive is his .......
2.45 20 yd.
A little FYI....
Emmanual Sanders 10/20/40 times...
1.49/2.46/4.40
I'm not sure if he runs that now with the injuries, but I hope he can get back to it.
I also believe RB Chris Johnson tops everyone with 1.40/2.41/4.24 and is close to the same size as Wallace at about 1" shorter.
Think about this...CB Patrick Peterson ran almost the same times as Wallace at the same height but 20 lbs. heavier!
The PS, more than most teams, seem to put more stock in the 10 and 20 yd splits for their WR/RB/DB/LB draft picks.
_________________
The Immaculate Reception --- Michael Ord and Sharon Levosky
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
rhino43grr
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:22 pm |
|
|
| Hall of Famer |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:26 pm
Posts: 9755
|
DP39 wrote: I believe Wallace may have the top overall 10 yd split of any WR drafted in recent years.
1.43 10 yd.
Maybe even more impressive is his .......
2.45 20 yd.
A little FYI....
Emmanual Sanders 10/20/40 times...
1.49/2.46/4.40
I'm not sure if he runs that now with the injuries, but I hope he can get back to it.
I also believe RB Chris Johnson tops everyone with 1.40/2.41/4.24 and is close to the same size as Wallace at about 1" shorter.
Think about this...CB Patrick Peterson ran almost the same times as Wallace at the same height but 20 lbs. heavier!
The PS, more than most teams, seem to put more stock in the 10 and 20 yd splits for their WR/RB/DB/LB draft picks. not often guys run 40 yards unimpeded in a straight line over the course of a football game. _________________ This post consists solely of the opinions of the author, and should in no way, shape or form be interpreted as an assertion of fact. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DP39
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:28 pm |
|
|
| Franchise Player |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:02 pm
Posts: 966
|
|
Exactly. That was my purpose for posting the numbers. People get so hung up on sexy forty times, they forget to look at the real numbers that translate to the field.
_________________
The Immaculate Reception --- Michael Ord and Sharon Levosky
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kodiak
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:32 pm |
|
|
| Hall of Famer |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:46 pm
Posts: 7555
|
Steel Keeper wrote: Rainey has the long speed. How'd Mike Wallace beat a 10.3 guy by 0.2 seconds while matching him over the first 10 yards. Is Wallace a 10.1 guy? How many NFL speed demons could have broken 10 seconds had they focused on track instead? I was kind of shocked that a guy with Rainey's speed and running track can't better 10.3. I really have no concept for how many tenths technique accounts for, but it puts the top 100M guys in perspective. And I obviously know nothing of the technicals, but when I look at Wallace I see a guy that with coaching and work could probably go under 10.0. He has acceleration and a top-gear that is exceptional even by NFL standards. Plus I remember Ike making fun of his technique. Again, just my completely know-nothing opinion, but I think Wallace is what sub-10.0 raw potential looks like. If he continues to work on his technique, he could gain that step or two he'll lose the next 4-5+ yrs and continue to be a flier well into his 30's.
_________________
Sorry my life is so much more bitchin' than yours. I planned it that way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steeler Jones
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:04 pm |
|
|
| Hall of Famer |
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:38 am
Posts: 5025
|
Quote: I was kind of shocked that a guy with Rainey's speed and running track can't better 10.3. Over 100 meters you need to be longer... You aren't going to find a lot of guys faster than Rainey in the 100m who don't have 6" on him.
_________________
If a guy posts on a bulletin board service, and nobody reads it, did he have anything to say?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steeler Jones
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:06 pm |
|
|
| Hall of Famer |
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:38 am
Posts: 5025
|
|
BTW- I ran in the mid-11's (PR of 11.4) in HS and so far as I can tell have always been the fastest guy on any team I ever played on in any sport (LOC issues, that's true)... 10.3 is pretty fast.
_________________
If a guy posts on a bulletin board service, and nobody reads it, did he have anything to say?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kodiak
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:12 pm |
|
|
| Hall of Famer |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:46 pm
Posts: 7555
|
Steeler Jones wrote: Over 100 meters you need to be longer... You aren't going to find a lot of guys faster than Rainey in the 100m who don't have 6" on him. I was thinking a number of top sprinters are only 5'10/5'11. Rainey is listed at 5'8", and maybe he's only 5'6" don't know. So makes sense.
_________________
Sorry my life is so much more bitchin' than yours. I planned it that way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steeler Jones
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:16 pm |
|
|
| Hall of Famer |
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:38 am
Posts: 5025
|
|
I was thinking... Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis... Long guys.
_________________
If a guy posts on a bulletin board service, and nobody reads it, did he have anything to say?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
steelclan
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:21 pm |
|
|
| Hall of Famer |
 |
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:43 am
Posts: 5146
|
Steeler Jones wrote: I was thinking... Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis... Long guys. Heard John Holmes is a long guy as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rhino43grr
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:24 pm |
|
|
| Hall of Famer |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:26 pm
Posts: 9755
|
Steeler Jones wrote: BTW- I ran in the mid-11's (PR of 11.4) in HS and so far as I can tell have always been the fastest guy on any team I ever played on in any sport (LOC issues, that's true)... same here. until college, then there were a couple guys on the team that ran in the 10.7 range and i erroneously believed my head coach when he told me i should gain 15-20 pounds and be our goalline back. _________________ This post consists solely of the opinions of the author, and should in no way, shape or form be interpreted as an assertion of fact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
