1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

40 times...

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by dolfan7171, Jul 7, 2015.

  1. dolfan7171

    dolfan7171 Well-Known Member

    18,065
    3,629
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Arizona
    I want to tell you about something I do with players in the NFL especially with the Dolphins.

    I look at 40 times in detail. Usually I see a set time they ran at the combine or pro day or both. I also see 3 types of 40 times. For example if someone has a 40 time of 4.41, I'd see one that says low 4.37 and high 4.51.

    My guess is that the 4.41 time is the actual time but on a good day or a hot streak the time is actually 4.37 with the bad day at 4.51.

    What do you think of this? Looking at 40 times is an interest if mine that catches my attention.
     
  2. the 23rd

    the 23rd a.k.a. Rio

    9,173
    2,398
    113
    Apr 20, 2009
    Tampa Area
    I prefer to watch them run in actual games, not against the stop-watch.
    true speed is a result of someone trying to run you down with bad intention.
    in the end, it is the only speed that counts... :yes:
     
    EverFin and Fin4Ever like this.
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    WADR, I don't think there's a more misused and overrated stat than 40 times.
     
    Fin4Ever and miamiron like this.
  4. dolfan7171

    dolfan7171 Well-Known Member

    18,065
    3,629
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Arizona
    I understand that. I used to be a track star in high school 15 years ago and my times were important. Since then, I would look at speed and marvel. No, I'm not using 40 times to say if a player will be good, just more curious in fast they are. That's all.
     
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I apologize if it came across as if I was trying to say you were misusing and overrating the stat. I was speaking in general terms.
     
    Sceeto and Pandarilla like this.
  6. VManis

    VManis Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,753
    9,844
    113
    Nov 10, 2010

    How do you know the 4.41 isn't a personal best and his typical time isn't more in the 4.45-4.50 range?
     
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    TBF, in his example, the 4.41 time is the middle one. I think he's saying he takes the "average".
     
  8. dolfan7171

    dolfan7171 Well-Known Member

    18,065
    3,629
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Arizona
    No worries... I think I needed to explain myself
     
  9. dolfan7171

    dolfan7171 Well-Known Member

    18,065
    3,629
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Arizona
    It could be. That time (4.41) was the official time. The other times was either a time they went faster or slower. It was both posted on a scouting website.
     
  10. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Anyone that doesn't think 40 times are important should watch a bunch of players running their 40 yard dashes without seeing what their 40 times were from the telecasts, and then just try and rank the players according to how fast you thought they were relative to one another.

    The results would be laughable.

    That's why they measure it. You're watching an FCS or DIII receiver and he's out there looking pretty impressive. Your "eye" will tell you he has average speed, maybe even a little above average. Then he runs the 40 and he really has 4.7 speed. Your "eye" didn't see that because of the situations in which you saw him running on film, the speed of the players around him.

    The most common mistake I see with this popular "I'm the smartest guy in the room and therefore I hate 40 times and Combine measurements" theme is people severely, and I do mean SEVERELY overestimating themselves and their ability to distinguish a 4.50 receiver (average speed) from a 4.35 receiver (above average speed) just by watching the players run. I see it happen all the friggin time, including by people I respect immensely.

    There's an hour-long YouTube video out there of Eric Galko and Matt Waldman going on and on about how Kevin White isn't a vertical threat, doesn't have good speed. He busts out a 4.27 hand-timed. OOPS.

    And I respect both of those guys more than just about anyone.

    How many people were even CLOSE to thinking Breshad Perriman would bust out a goddamn 4.19 to 4.26 hand-timed at his pro day? I'll answer that for you. None. OOPS.

    But all that matters is the film right? If you're a damn computer and you can actually calculate these things reliably, then yes. Otherwise, NO and STFU. I sound grouchy because I'm sick of the sentiment. I'm sick of the holier than thou attitude toward physical measurements as if they don't matter for a game that produces a thousand new genuinely decent-to-good, I've been a standout performer in this game all my life, pro-eligible athletes PER YEAR. Of course that **** matters, dipsticks. Otherwise the NFL wouldn't be wasting their time with it.

    DISCLAIMER: This rant not intended to be directed at any poster in this thread or on this board. The only posts in here I've read are dolfan7171 and VManis and neither said anything I object to. I'm just ranting because I know of the sentiments that are generally out there (especially on twitter) and I know what's coming,
     
  11. Fin4Ever

    Fin4Ever Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,297
    2,738
    113
    Aug 26, 2014
    Vero Beach, FL
    I definitely agree with you. Does anyone by chance ever test 40 times during actual games etc. to see how fast some of these guys are on the field..just curious is all CK, Thanks.
     
  12. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,655
    67,548
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    CK has done some.
     
  13. argos31

    argos31 Member

    52
    17
    8
    Jan 2, 2014
    Some guys train with sprint coaches for the combine and can reduce their 40 time by a bunch, but it doesn't really affect their on field performance. Others just know they're fast and don't care. I think the 3 cone drill for edge rushers is by far the most important drill, it is one of the only combine drills that has a very strong correlation to future performance.
     
    Pandarilla likes this.
  14. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    As for the challenges involved in the 40 yard dash, I do have some nitpicks.

    First off I dislike that they measure it off the runner's start as opposed to a starting gun. Why? The inconsistency of measurement and general lack of precision that results. You won't believe how much these times can waver based on the fact that every player "starts" so differently that they each have their own virtual fingerprint when it comes to the sequence of muscles firing off that constitute a start. Electronically timed? BULL ****. The END of the race is electronically sensored. But the beginning was not. And the t=0 mark is a LOT harder to get right and consistent from player to player than the t=final mark.

    So why not have the kids going off a starting gun? Supposedly because it muddies the water with a reaction time, and of course different kids have different reaction times. Well, tough titty. I'd rather have the precision especially as I know that the "snap" in a football game is an ultimately important time marker that most of these positions are attempting to react to with maximal efficiency 100 times a game. So adding that element into the measurement isn't exactly the worst thing you could do.

    Second thing that really gets to me is the track start. It just inserts this whole other element into the exercise, it's like combining two sports. To be good at getting off the blocks and into a track start you have to train for it. That's why these guys get track coaches to coach them up to improve their 40 time. But then what exactly are you capturing when one guy gets a fast track start because he's practiced at it, and another guy doesn't? I guess some would say you're measuring work ethic, because EVERY player should care enough to practice hard at his track start in prep for the Combine and pro days. That's fair. But then what about the skill or quality of the track coaching? There's the possibility that the variance in inherent skill level at track starts is not entirely correlative with the variance in inherent skill level at running in a football setting. My guess is they are extremely correlative but that is an unknown.

    From a precision standpoint the only times I trust that give me a true understanding of a player's speed on the hoof are probably electronically timed "flying 30" numbers which would be the differential between the 10 yard and 40 yard splits (e.g. 4.41 minus 1.52 = 2.89). Otherwise you'd be surprised how much consistency you can achieve when it comes to player comparability via hand times as opposed to electronic times. People think the electronic stuff is so much more precise but it's not.

    They also tend to think the 10 yard split is all-important but I try and piss in their cereal at every opportunity by pointing out that the 10 yard split is THE most exposed measure when it comes to t=0 measurement error. A variance of 0.08 seconds in a 40 yard dash is not nearly as significant as a variance of 0.08 seconds in a 10 yard split, yet the bulk of your measurement error in a 40 yard dash timing will hover around t=0 not t=final. Even hand timers get the t=final right to within a hundredth of a second or two because your eye is able to establish a rate of speed and help you 'predict' the finish (anyone that's ever done anything athletically from hitting a baseball to throwing/catching a football to shooting skeet does this).

    When it comes to a player's short-area quickness I do tend to trust my on-field judgment a bit more because I think a lot of that evaluation will involve things like body language and some more objective markers of measurement. Some of the Combine measures like broad jump, vertical, shuttle and cone can hint at this ability...but you always have to take each of those measures individually with a grain of salt, viewing them more on a collective basis.

    When it comes to speed on the hoof as I call it, galloping speed, I think you need to rely on some better forms of measurement.
     
    Fin4Ever, Pandarilla and djphinfan like this.
  15. dolfan7171

    dolfan7171 Well-Known Member

    18,065
    3,629
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Arizona
    I'm not offended at all. I love that you speak your mind. You made some good points by the way. I have to say this: while I love to look at 40 times, I would love to watch the tape of that same person. I want to see if it matches. As a GM or Coach, I'd ask questions to the guy to understand what he is seeing if that is possible. Good post my man!!
     
  16. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    In my experience, they generally match. MOST of the time someone pipes up and claims that a guy's 40 speed didn't accurately describe his "football speed" (code for the 40 time he would have guessed the player would run based on the tape he saw) it's because of HUMAN error on the part of the evaluator. You go back and look for specific instances of a guy getting up to a gallop, use some objective markers to compare him to some other guys whose 40 times are known quantities...well you'd be surprised how generally accurate it all can be.
     
    Fin4Ever likes this.
  17. dolfan7171

    dolfan7171 Well-Known Member

    18,065
    3,629
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Arizona
    I like this. I like what you said regarding using a gun to measure speed times. I'd take it a step forward. Have the player in a "live" scenario and time the speed at that point. It may be more accurate.
     
  18. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    If you want to eliminate the reaction time thing then I'd just assume give them some warning beeps before their start so that they can insert some prediction into their start timing. But then you have to be worried about players jumping the gun, have to be extremely sensitive to false starts. I've heard in track they have sensors on the starting blocks and if you press down on them with your feet within a certain amount of time of the starting beep, it signals a false start. You'd probably need something like that.

    Or you can just go off the electronic flying 30 when it comes to measuring gallop speed, and use other measures to take note of players' short area quickness/acceleration. Those inertial sensors that Under Armor has been putting on players' chests during the Combine for a number of years would probably be ideal for that actually.
     
  19. Pandarilla

    Pandarilla Purist Emeritus

    14,282
    5,005
    113
    Sep 10, 2009
    Boone, NC
    Excellent posts CK...

    Why not replace the gun with a dude yelling a snap count? Have the runners start from their football stance.

    It'll evolve, but I completely understand what you mean.

    The fascination of speed is universally intriguing, I think. In Hinduism, it is said that Krishna was the fastest. Jesus could probably haul ***, as well...
     
    DolphinGreg and ckparrothead like this.
  20. WELDERPAT

    WELDERPAT New Member

    628
    177
    0
    Dec 13, 2014
    Starting them with the snap of a ball wouldn't be bad.
    It could probably be made to start the clock too.
     
  21. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I remember running the 40 in high school and thinking how silly it was...we'd all want to "race" someone faster than us so we'd be running as hard as possible. I was a bigger, muscular guy and I was proud of my 4.7 averages, but I also turned in a 4.49 after about 50 tries over several days against our fastest player...and my time for the scouts to see was a 4.49.

    Now, I don't know how they test it in Division I college...if they just give them 3-5 tries or whatever. That's why I've never put an ounce in faith in 40 times.
     
  22. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    piggybacking onto this,
    Suggesting 40 times aren't important in such an elite, competitive, sports league as the NFL would be like the Supreme Court believing it's sufficient to just eyeball a stenographer's typing speed when assessing his employment future rather than actually calculating his words per minute. If you think a WR is a 4.5 guy and are ok with him being a 4.5 guy, you need to make sure he's a 4.5 guy and not 4.6. Similarly, if you think he's a 4.5 guy but he surprises you with a 4.4, his stock just became elevated. Basically, if the human eye were able to accurately calculate each player's game speed to within a twentieth of a second, there wouldn't be a need to run the forty.

    Phillip Dorsett wasn't selected with the 29th pick for his smallish 5'10 185 size. It's clear by watching his tape that he's fast, but teams still needed his combine and pro day times to verify just how fast he is and to provide the additional peace of mind needed to draft a guy of his stature with such a high pick. Had he elected to not run the 40 at either event, he's no longer in the first round. Similarly, had he run a 4.4 +/- .02, he's out of the first round.

    Remember when some draftniks initially had concerns about Julio Jones' speed and his potential to separate from NFL coverage? Then he runs a 4.39 at the combine and secures a 6th overall pick. .... or how about the concerns over Luke Kuechly's speed who responded with a 4.58, thus securing a top 10 pick. In these two instances, both players play to their forty time speeds in the NFL rather than the 4.5 and 4.7 speeds that some draftniks believed Julio and Kuechly played at.

    Remember Dwayne Jarrett? He was out of this world in college and was routinely discussed in the 1st round. Then he turtles his way to a 4.62 causing his draft stock to drop to round 2 where even that was too high for such a slow time. You get those long-striders and you desperately need a 40 time to better determine their true speed.

    Another good one: Mardy Gilyard. Here's a quote from The Times Picayune about him heading into the Sugar Bowl vs UF, "The past two seasons have solidified Gilyard as a late first-round to early second-round pick in April's NFL draft, according to some analysts." That lofty talk immediately took a nose dive when he ran a 4.64. Prior to the combine his forty time wasn't as scrutinized as it should've been, and as his forty suggested, he had difficulty separating at the NFL level. Imagine if there was no NFL combine and some poor team wasted a late 1st on Gilyard instead of the 4th rounder that his forty time dropped him to?
     
    ckparrothead likes this.
  23. dolfan7171

    dolfan7171 Well-Known Member

    18,065
    3,629
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Arizona
    Those are good ideas. Being in track, I know that is true regarding sensors. They should definitely consider that.
     
    ckparrothead likes this.
  24. dolfan7171

    dolfan7171 Well-Known Member

    18,065
    3,629
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Arizona
    Wow that's a good post. That made me pay attention at bit more. I'm probably going to look for key things like that when I watch the combine.
     
    ckparrothead and ToddPhin like this.
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    40 times are over rated.

    You need to shoot for guys in a range for a given position, but it is often the MAIN thing that has a guy go before someone else who may be more talented. While its true you can't teach speed, its not end all be all, that some would have you believe. Ted Ginn had elite speed. Gadsen, McDuffie, Chambers, Landry do not.
     
    Clark Kent and Sceeto like this.
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I don't take a position on this issue either way (wouldn't presume to know), but some weight should be given to the argument that 40 times are not that important (to balance out the debate a bit) because I don't think the argument is strong on either side.

    First of all, a great many coaches and scouts don't think they're that important. Here's one article pointing that out (you hear it every year as the Combine gets closer):
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/sports/football/27score.html

    "But a strange thing happens at the annual NFL scouting combine where those times for the 40 are recorded: The assembled coaches talk about how unimportant they are."

    Now, that NY Times article actually argues that 40 times matter by pointing out a correlation between 40 times and RB success. They don't link to the actual study, but another article showed the correlation for RB's and WR's (see the two graphs):
    http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/02/17/nf...esults-fastest-times-chris-johnson-dri-archer

    Yeah, there's a SLIGHT positive correlation for better 40 times and RB success, but that correlation is pretty close to zero. And for WR's it's basically zero.

    So, based on the lack of ability to predict future success in any serious way using 40 times, and the fact many NFL coaches and scouts don't think 40 times are important, I'd hold off on saying there's little to no grounds for thinking they're unimportant. Also, if 40 times are that important, you'd expect them to be measured over a player's career, or at least when they again become FA's, but who does that??

    Anyway, I am aware of one problem with those stats: those are stats of NFL players, meaning they have better 40 times on average than those that weren't selected, so it's the upper end of the distribution they're looking at there. Nevertheless, you should still see a decent correlation with success but you don't.
     
    Fin4Ever likes this.
  27. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,655
    67,548
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I don't know what it is, I know that I use it in the proper context..I surely don't elevate fast guys over guys that I think can play and have natural movement and skill, for example, no way was I putting Perriman and Strong over Parker before or after all their forty times...one was a high first rounder, one a late first rounder, and one a 2nd rounder...all three went as I thought..
     
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Simple fact of the matter is that we are talking tenths of a second.

    You cannot reasonably tell me that its impossible to think Player X who ran a 4.5 in underwear might be faster or equal in football gear than Player Y who ran a 4.3 in underwear. Its possible that Player Y is effected more by the weight/restrictions of the gear then Player X.....especially if we're talking tenths of a second.

    40 times would mean a helluva lot more if the were ran in full gear.

    Its also no surprise that coaches find them less important then scouts do.
     
    Sceeto likes this.
  29. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    I think that a 40 time can be beneficial as a supportive function or extra benefit. Like, if you watch a lot of tape on a player or scout a lot of player and you see that he is a good one. If you see he has great football instincts, plays hard, has good movement skills, has good awareness, has good attitude, etc, etc, etc, that he's just a player, then you see that he has a great 40 time, well then that can be a benefit to the overall package of a player. It is then beneficial, but without the former part, in and of itself, it doesn't mean as much.
     
    djphinfan, Fin4Ever and Fin D like this.
  30. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,655
    67,548
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I use the forty as a measure of space that can be covered, or taken away, I take the cone, the shuttle, etc, then I project the equation to space on a football field as it relates to scheme..It lets me know partly where the ceiling of the player is.
     
    Fin4Ever likes this.
  31. isaacjunk

    isaacjunk Member

    83
    24
    8
    May 17, 2013
    Why not start the clock when the foot sensor feels pressure?
     
    ckparrothead and Fin4Ever like this.
  32. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Really, you don't see a correlation? Find me all the 4.55+ receivers and corners excelling in the NFL compared to those in the 4.45 and under range. I guarantee you'll quickly see a correlation.

    Here's another fun one for you. If there's no correlation between higher forty times and success like you suggest, then why do most NFL careers decline as the player's speed declines? Ask Hakeem Nicks how his career is going now that he's playing on 7 cylinders instead of 8. Call Patrick Turner and ask what his career might've looked like had he been a 4.4 guy instead of a 4.59 receiver unable to separate from NFL coverage.

    What you're also missing here is scheme fit. There are plenty of good corners in zone schemes who don't need to be as fast as those playing man coverage. Without 40 times helping to determine long speed, we'd see more corners underachieving or busting due to teams mistakingly drafting them for a scheme that doesn't match their skill set. Did you see what happened when Brandon Flowers (4.54) went from KC's zone scheme in 2012 [ranked 75th on NFLN's Top 100] to Bob Sutton's press-man scheme in 2013? It wasn't pretty. Had Flowers never run a forty and been drafted by a team employing man coverage b/c of it, he might've busted out of the league.

    BTW, if all those coaches allegedly discuss "how unimportant forty times are" then why do they carry around stopwatches and stare as heavily into them as an MLB scout does his radar gun at a prospect's fastball?

    .... and why would NFL veterans need to be re-timed in the 40? They're ALREADY in the NFL. Unlike college kids, there's no projection involved. If a veteran is losing speed, it will be evident on game tape. You don't need to re-time him to see that he's not gaining as much separation as he once did. For college kids, however, their forty times are used to assist their projection to the NFL level since there's no direct NFL experience to go on.
     
    ckparrothead likes this.
  33. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Wait, is Harbaugh scrutinizing Manti Te'o's forty time here, as well as timing it himself and writing down the results, or does it only look like he's scrutinizing it, timing it, and writing it down? :shifty:

    [video=youtube;q_5Q34X0urw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_5Q34X0urw[/video]
     
    ckparrothead likes this.
  34. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yes that proves everything.

    Seriously, read what was said, see how it doesn't match up with the argument you think you're having.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Here's one article that didn't cut off at 4.5 and included WR's from 1999-2009. Scroll down a bit to see PFR 40 times vs. Approximate Value for WR's. You will see NO correlation whatsoever.
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1599193-why-are-people-fascinated-by-40-yard-dash-times

    Now, the real critique here is the use of Approximate Value (AV), and I went into depth on why that's not that great a stat when Tannephins was around. Basically, the weights are arbitrary and chosen to make things "look right". However, AV will at least get you in the ballpark of what a better stat will show. So, unless you can show me evidence to the contrary, it looks like there is no correlation worth mentioning between 40 times and WR performance, even when you look at 4.55+ vs. 4.45-.

    You're making an argument for why 40 times would not necessarily correlate with WR performance here. I appreciate the help and I don't disagree.

    What you're really pointing to is one of the reasons why I said I don't think either side has a strong argument: just because there is no correlation between 40 times and success doesn't mean there isn't a stronger one between a set of stats (where 40 times is one member of that set) and success. It's plausible, but I need to see firm evidence of that before believing it (it's certainly plausible though).

    Just because they don't value 40 times as much as other information (e.g. game tape) doesn't mean they have no interest in the info. I'm guessing the reason it can be important is if it does NOT jibe with their intuition. When it jibes, who cares, but if it doesn't, then maybe they should take a closer look at what's going on? Just a hunch of course.

    Same reason you have to get a physical. If the information is useful, get it. If not, no need. And there's always projection involved, even with FA's (I'm sure you're capable of coming up with tons of examples where the projected performance of a FA was wildly different from reality... we've had our fair share you know).
     
  36. VManis

    VManis Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,753
    9,844
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were projecting the other times based off the 4.41.
     
  37. Fin4Ever

    Fin4Ever Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,297
    2,738
    113
    Aug 26, 2014
    Vero Beach, FL
    Just wanted to tell you that I think your Avatar is awesome.
     
  38. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    I was going to reply to this, but when I read that last line I went speechless. Utterly fantastic.
     
  39. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Mardy Gilyard is a PERFECT example. On tape everyone thought he was fast because he was outrunning people and catching deep balls. But who was he outrunning? How fast is that player he outran? What gear were they in? What gear was he in? What was the spacing? How were the angles? How did he get open for the deep ball? Everyone wants to think they know these things, or that SOMEONE must have done the work to know these things and if it all didn't check out then they would've heard that by now...but it's not really true. Hence everyone thinks Mardy Gilyard is a deep speed vertical threat guy, but in reality he runs a 4.6.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  40. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    What if the player trips it by accident even though he hasn't really started? Shifts his weight and suddenly he's slower by two-tenths.
     

Share This Page