Should You Be Using The Unofficial Forty Times For Running Backs This Year? (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

ZWK and Fusue Vue of Twitter have intimated that the unofficial times, when you look at them both frame-by-frame and with perspective (keeping in mind the other athletic tests), are actually more accurate than the official ones. The official ones are too fast, they're kind of saying. 

They've basically said that Hall runs around a 4.44, that Strong runs a 4.0, Pacheco a 4.47, and other times. It seems that there's debate. Anyway, just wanted to give all those who don't delve into ZWK's thread a heads-up on his and others' work about this. 

 

[BoltBacker]

ZWK and Fusue Vue of Twitter have intimated that the unofficial times, when you look at them both frame-by-frame and with perspective (keeping in mind the other athletic tests), are actually more accurate than the official ones. The official ones are too fast, they're kind of saying. 

They've basically said that Hall runs around a 4.44, that Strong runs a 4.0, Pacheco a 4.47, and other times. It seems that there's debate. Anyway, just wanted to give all those who don't delve into ZWK's thread a heads-up on his and others' work about this. 

If they really are using GPS data IN GAMES then I would assume all that scouts should really care about is if RB#3 is SUPPOSED to be 15% faster then RB#12 on my board and for some reason RB#12 timed faster than RB#3.... right? Then they would probably look into why there would be a discrepancy and pay closer attention to the pro-day times, no? It's the relative difference between draftees that makes the difference so if they are all too fast or all too slow.... shrug.

Seems like something that should be done electronically in 2022 to me. But I'm also the guy that thinks there should be a chip in each nose of the football to electronically tell you whether is crossed the endzone or not.