This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ummm yeah, the other guys you mentioned are fast, elusive and can outrun everyone else on the field. Richardson is small, not shifty, not fast, not powerful, etc. Good luck if you are putting your eggs in that basket because you are going to need it.
grown men shouldn't talk like this
Seems to me that is a lot. At the extremes, it's the difference between getting caught and taking it to the house. In between, it can mean a 20 yard play instead of a 4 yard play. A couple times a game, it adds up.
I don't think speed is something that matters for distance either.
I'm a Richardson supporter, but to me it seems like something that can't be pooh-poohed. It's that old quote from Any Given Sunday about life, football and inches. Three feet over 5 seconds is 7 inches over 1 second or almost the size of a D-Lineman's hand. If that seven inches helps a player break 1 hand tackle a game, seems like it makes a difference.
I agree and disagree with you at the same time. Like I said earlier - straight line speed is overrated, so I agree with you there. Sure, it's nice to have, but to use your example of CJ - I've seen almost every run he's made since I picked him up his rookie year. I'd say he has "elite" straight line speed but only "average" vision. If everything is perfect his elite speed gets him a 2,000 yard season. If stuff isn't so great his average vision comes into play and he has a lot of bad runs that are helped by a long run every once in a while - but he doesn't get those as much when vision is his main tool.
Warrick Dunn is a nice comparison except for the fact that Dunn also had elite speed (ran a 4.3 the last I checked on him when discussing Richardson in the past). If that vert and broad jump is correct, those are definitely insane numbers, but it's still disconcerting that a guy with those kind of measureables could only manage a 4.47 at his size. It's not to say he has zero chance of being the main ball carrier and logging 200+ carries, but his chances based on history of guys his size and speed are incredibly slim. I certainly won't argue that he doesn't look the part at times.
In the case of sub 200 lb RBs being projected by some to be a starter and carry a heavy workload, yes, we are.
4.47 = fast enough. I have no idea why his ability to handle a heavy workload matters with respect to hsi 40 time.
It's fast enough for most RBs that are normal size, no doubt. But when you're lacking in size, you have to make up for it elsewhere (i.e. elite speed). It's one thing for a 215 lb RB to have 4.47 speed. It's a different thing when a much smaller 195 lb RB has the same speed.
Not fishing at all. Some would say a 5'8" 203 lb RB is too small. Some would say a RB with a 4.60 40 is too slow.
Not sure what that has to do with what I posted above. Of course it's not always about measurables. There are always exceptions.
You make a great argument. Much stronger than anything I can put forth for sure. Sometimes I feel like coaches are their own worst enemy and keep talented players from being productive. I know that doesn't change the results, but I do think coaches have a shorter life span these days and will become more willing to put playmakers in the game plan than years gone by. Of course that is my speculation only.
Uhh, that last part is the whole point. It isn't ideal and just doesn't happen for sub 200 lb RBs to run 15-20 times/game UNLESS (wait for it)......you have elite speed. Warrick Dunn. CJ Spiller. Jamaal Charles. Chris Johnson. These guys have done it and it's their ridiculous speed that has allowed them to get away with it.
Not sure where they're getting it, as most sites (including NFL.com) list him in the mid 190s, but Google claims he weighs 205.
That's interesting. I can't find that anywhere else or any reports about him gaining weight (we usually see those).
That's nice.
The "evidence" is that it doesn't make any sense. It's face value a pointless, empty statement. You're making up one of those Madden ratings ink blots that they had in the 2012 version where the point went out very far if he was good at a particular attribute, but was short if he wasn't. You could get an idea as to whether a player was good or not by eyeing how big of an overall area the figure took up. It was a sucky rating system in that game, and it's even worse trying to apply that kind of thinking (which, you are) to the real NFL.
Wait, are you saying you disagree with the premise that if you are lacking in size you have to make up for it elsewhere? I, like gianmarco, would like you to explain that (if you can).
I remember seeing Abdul-Jabbar. He was slower than slow. He looked like he was running in water when he moved. Not even water - syrup.
I disagree with the premise that if you are below X weight, you must be above Y speed or you will not be a successful player in the NFL. Aside from putting arbitrary values in place of those variables, it's focusing on some of the more over-rated attributes that make up a running back.
Fair enough.
That's a thought that would blow this height weight theory out of the water. Can they take a guy from 4.47 to 4.3? I have no idea.Gawain said:
I always heard that proper form could take you down a tenth of a second (properly getting off the line and what not.) No idea how much, if any, work Richardson did in focusing on sprints. He may have been lettered in the 60 meter sprint all four years in high school for all I know. But, small school guy, with a pretty minor agency...it does make me wonder.
