Success of "fastest" WRs since '00

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-13-2018, 06:27 PM)XsandOs Wrote:  I understand what you are saying, but fast is fast. The only difference between now and then is, that the stop is electronic. Start is still by hand.

So Moss and Galloway, who ran and were timed at the combine, would at worse run 4.3s timed with electronic stop - based on your 1/10 differential.

Moss, Darrel Green, Bo, Dion, Coles, Gault, etc., were fast. Not just because of their hand timed 40 suggested, but you saw it on the field.  

The second point is the cutoff of 4.3. So what is fast? At 4.3, one leaves out Julio Jones, Brandin Cooks and DeSean Jackson. They were timed with electronic stop.
 

The start is by hand, but then later adjusted with the assistance of mechanical. The start is kind of a mishmash of both hand and mechanical.

It's why you'll see "unofficial times" on the 40 when you watch the combine. The unofficial time is the unadjusted/uncorrected hand start time, and the mechanical end time. Only when they go back to the video and adjust the actual start time based off first movement, is it then made official. It's why unofficial times are almost always faster than official times, even when 1/2 of the unofficial time is still mechanical.

Sacks didn't become an officially tracked stat until 1982. Tackles didn't become an officially tracked stat until 2001.

2000 is a pretty acceptable cutoff time when talking about the 40. 1999 would be better, but I understand the wanting to make it even.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't care about the second point. Take that up with Fred. My only point was that there was nothing wrong with cutting it off at that point in history, because that's when it became apples-to-apples comparisons.

If you want to talk about "saw on the field" that's an entirely different thing and then you're going into a completely unprovable topic of who "looked" faster based off eye tests.