Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It is a data conversion not an extrapolation. We can take a player's 40 time at the combine and convert it to MPH, though it will be low because of the starting gun. If we timed say the last 20 yards of their 40 then that would be a fair estimate of their top speed (without pads and within the combine) and would be similar to the Next Gen calculation.
OK this is getting kind of weird. Clearly the Bears didn't pay him the 6th richest TE contract to use him the same way the Eagles did, IE as a backup for one of the best TEs in the league.
Converting a split second to MPH is an extrapolation, right? What value does it actually have if a player can't maintain it beyond a stride or two? Nick Chubb is nowhere near the fastest football player in the world. He's never been the fastest running back on his own team.
Absolutely...new Coach with a vastly different offensive philosophy than the previous regime who not only targeted Burton but made absolutely sure they were not outbid for him...zero doubt in my mind he is going to get the opportunity to be very productive...
I’m not sure what you’re arguing here... Chubb had a 38.5 vert and 128 broad jump meaning he’s highly explosive. Does not surprise me at all that of the hundreds of runs he had he happened to record the fastest MPH peak.
I agree its weird that the Bears paid him that much money. He was 3rd string last season and for his career so far.
It is...I see this as being the same scenario as Delanie walker going to the Titans...will be interesting to see how it pans out...
It would only be an extrapolation if someone was making the claim that a certain speed could be maintained for an entire hour. Much like if you drive down the freeway at say 65 mph but only go for one exit, you can still justifiably say your speed was 65 mph, even though you didn't drive for anything close to an hours worth of time.
No it isn't. By definition a measurement is different than an extrapolation. You have to make a measurement prior to deciding whether to extrapolate or not. It's two different processes. But again it's semantic. Your point on Chubb may very well be spot on.
If you're using it as a measure of functional football speed - it's extrapolation.
And that may very well be the case. It is *possible*, though, that "game speed" exists and can be measured reliably.
And the combine measurements are doing what exactly? What are we *using* those measurements for? It literally doesn't matter if the measurememt is reported in MPH, seconds per 40 yards, or feet per second. In the end it represents one measurement.
I'm not interested in semantics. If you think Chubb is one of the fastest football players in the world, let's talk about that.
He is fast. Your assessment is plain wrong, even moreso when taking into account his size.
He's 70th percentile for RBs. He's fast enough (and I literally never said otherwise). 40 yards is a relavent distance to measure. The fastest split second of a 50 yard run is not. That's my last bit - and my apologies for derailing the thread.
On this point I agree. The only reason MPH is reported is because people can relate to it. If it was converted to a 40 time it would make a little more sense to people from a football standpoint. But it would of course be faster than the combine scores, so it still would need to be understood to be it's own dataset.
You have been unequivocally wrong in your assessment of what is fast for an NFL RB. It is not my problem you didn’t check to see where the spectrum of speed falls for an NFL RB. You believed the 4.50 range was slow for an NFL RB making the statement that 4.57 is slow even though it’s above 50th percentile. Therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about and can stop arguing. The only thing you’ve derailed is anyone’s belief that you’re properly assessing players Mr. Strawman.
I understand the math behind it. But just because the math works, doesn't mean it's practical. If you capture my fastest split second over a 50 yard sprint, translate it to MPH, then apply that back to the 40 - I crack 5 seconds. And I promise you, I don't crack a 5 second 40.
Player A runs 40 yards in 4.57 seconds.
It depends, player B seems faster starting from 0 and going 40 yards in a straight line with track gear. Player A has the ability to hit a speed on the football field that is faster (assuming both players actually encountered a similar situation where they were able to run straight at full speed). So it's not really as simple as one guy being faster than another.
Come on, man. You know what I meant. Nick Chubb hit a faster MPH than Tyreek Hill. If you think "it depends" who the faster guy is, say so and lets have that conversation.
That's not entirely accurate. A 40 time is a measure of how fast moved over a distance they actually travelled. MPH is not. Reporting MPH is not simply translating a players 40 time. It's capturing a player's quickest step in a 40 and extrapolating it. There's a reason races measure a set distance, and not the fastest step in a set distance.
lol, I knew what you were saying and basically read it as you meant it- totally didn't even notice the error. I whiffed on a real softball.
I am joking but I think you can understand the absurdity of what you said. I am very sure Tyreek Hill is faster. The issue with the mph isn't that it's a poor measurement of speed but that it isn't a fair comparison because not all players get the same chance to reach full speed in an actual game. Also, where dd you get the speed for Chubb? I didn't know college football recorded that kind of next gen data.
Calling it a softball is generous.
Sure - I certainly chose my words poorly there.
Thanks for the summation of a page of useless reading.
Even though it is all based on a really small sample size that represents an impossible to maintain pace, I have to put Fuller ahead of them just because of the glimpse of a potential ceiling we saw last year with Watson. Then I have Kupp who is a safe bet for targets but I don't think he has much of a ceiling. I think Agholor and Shepard are really the 3rd options in their respective passing games so they are well below the other 2.
That's why they have to be different datasets. They tell different stories. Though both *could* be reported in MPH *or* seconds per 40 and nothing would have changed for either dataset.
I wouldn’t want to pay that right now. Just because mocks have them doing what seems to be the biggest needs who knows when the draft comes around. Still have to worry about Dixon, he’s hung around despite the injuries and suspension and gets mentioned in the offseason as a guy they like (sorry it was a while ago, no link.) I see Collins a lot like the GB backfield, if you can get for a late 2nd it’s a decent dart throw. I don’t think Collins is anywhere near a 1st right now, and I’m not sure I want to pay that even if they don’t add a back in the draft.
Apologies for the late reply. I kind of just picked one of yours at random to reply to, but the common theme that I'm seeing is that you are confusing acceleration with top speed. Chubb might not have the best acceleration in the game, but it's possible that he's got one of the higher top speeds (sometimes referred to as "build up speed"). And from the article you linked, it cites Chubb at 22.3 mph... so your statement that he's somehow shown faster than Tyreek is incorrect. I saw Tyreek listed as having hit 23.24 (and another at 22.77) in 2016.
I like Shepard (25.1) the most. Kupp (24.8) is enticing due to the strong rookie year, but I think he's purely a slot/possession guy. Shepard has the speed to play outside and he flashed a little WR1 ability while OBJ was hurt (on a trash offense nonetheless). Agholor (24.8) and Fuller (24.0) I think will end up being roster cloggers or flex plays. Their hands are too unreliable, IMO, to be high volume guys and will eventually be phased out. The fact Philly traded Torrey but then immediately followed that by signing Wallace (31.7) tells me how confident they are in Agholor.
I think he got a standard 1-year RFA deal, right? Not a huge vote of confidence. Baltimore had OL problems last year and they just lost their starting center (Jensen) to Tampa, so I don't see it as a great situation. Being the last remaining Dixon believer
I would want both Collins and Dixon if I was giving up a late 1st. I don't think either one is worth a late first on their own and I'd be very hesitant to pay that much pre-draft. Baltimore has a lot of needs, but if they happen to take one of the top ~8 RBs in the draft, it'll tank your investment immediately. So I'd say a definite no to a late 1st pre-draft for Collins and a maybe to Collins+Dixon after the draft if no RBs taken. But even then, I'd be looking hard at rookie ADPs and situations. So many nice rookie RBs out there. One of them will be available in the late first. 
Still, Harbaugh said Dixon could weigh heavily in next year’s competition.
I'd pay a late 2nd I think. But there are so many players that can fall into that category it's insane. I think he took that deal in Jacksonville to do 2 things.Warhogs said:
Depends on need, but if I needed a WR this year and had a mid-2nd, I'd probably pull the trigger. All the WRs I like seem to be going in the first 15-16 picks... and they'll probably take a year to develop. Moncrief could net you some WR3* production immediately and he's only 24 (will be 25 when the season starts). He's a little over a year older than Ridley, he's younger than Doctson and Cole, and about the same age as Westbrook. So even if you don't like JAX as a landing spot, he's not a bad guy to buy low on if you're looking to get younger for 2019. Maybe eek another year out of Fitzgerald or DT and hope that Moncrief finds a better home next year.Warhogs said:
