Check out this article:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/3/1/4038740/2013-nfl-combine-high-school-40-yard-dash-times?utm_source=sbnation&utm_medium=nextclicks&utm_campaign=articlebottom

Doesn't seem too shocking. NFL timing is more accurate than hand timing, and I'd imagine a lot of the low times out of HS are due to human error or whatever you want to call it. Poor times are probably thrown out at a higher clip than good times too just because it's hard to be unbiased and everyone wants to build hype around HS players. The HS times are unsourced, so who knows where they all came from.

Now it's also possible players are putting on a lot of muscle in college, which slows them down in the combine, but really helps them take the hits on the field.

ColoradoBear1;842092371 said:

---

Doesn't seem too shocking. NFL timing is more accurate than hand timing, and I'd imagine a lot of the low times out of HS are due to human error or whatever you want to call it. Poor times are probably thrown out at a higher clip than good times too just because it's hard to be unbiased and everyone wants to build hype around HS players. The HS times are unsourced, so who knows where they all came from.

Now it's also possible players are putting on a lot of muscle in college, which slows them down in the combine, but really helps them take the hits on the field.

---

I think both of your points are correct. I mean, I would throw out all offensive lineman from any analysis because they inevitably are going to be much heavier as 22-23 year olds than 17-18. Moreover, you might get a 225 hs TE converted into a 300lb center between HS and college, so how is that fair.

But as I've said (many times now) before, even the NFL timing is suspect. It's only 1/2 electronic, as the clock is still started by a human reaction to the athlete's movement. Instead they really should just make the timing either start when the players hand moves off of a pad/sensor. That would be the fairest. They could also go to an actual timing system, with the runners reacting to a sound (gun/beep) which starts the clock, but times would go WAY slower with that, so no one would go for it. At some point we are going to see the timing be 100% electronic, and then we won't be debating this anymore.

It's mind boggling that college teams and the NFL can't or won't use an electronic timing system as they do with track and field.

Vandalus;842092497 said:

---

I think both of your points are correct. I mean, I would throw out all offensive lineman from any analysis because they inevitably are going to be much heavier as 22-23 year olds than 17-18. Moreover, you might get a 225 hs TE converted into a 300lb center between HS and college, so how is that fair.

But as I've said (many times now) before, even the NFL timing is suspect. It's only 1/2 electronic, as the clock is still started by a human reaction to the athlete's movement. Instead they really should just make the timing either start when the players hand moves off of a pad/sensor. That would be the fairest. They could also go to an actual timing system, with the runners reacting to a sound (gun/beep) which starts the clock, but times would go WAY slower with that, so no one would go for it. At some point we are going to see the timing be 100% electronic, and then we won't be debating this anymore.

---

And then, the other thing about the times from high school is... WHAT times from high school?!?

Are they from a summer camp? Which one? Were they done as part of the high school program? Under what standards? Where is the documentation?

Everybody concerned benefits from the hype created by a faster time: The player, the HS coach, the colleges recruiting the player, etc. I'm guessing a lot of times what happens is they say a player is "a 4.5 guy", which means that ONCE, under optimal conditions (maybe even his dad hand timing him), he ran a 4.59.

Back in the day, we got timed in the 40 in high school PE. One kid ran a 4.7, but most of the other kids, myself included, ran between 5.0 and 6.0, with some kids even into the sixes (and that wasn't even counting the dumpy kids, who mostly brought notes from their moms that day, so they didn't have to dress out).

Big C_Cal;842092641 said:

---

And then, the other thing about the times from high school is... WHAT times from high school?!?

Are they from a summer camp? Which one? Were they done as part of the high school program? Under what standards? Where is the documentation?

Everybody concerned benefits from the hype created by a faster time: The player, the HS coach, the colleges recruiting the player, etc. I'm guessing a lot of times what happens is they say a player is "a 4.5 guy", which means that ONCE, under optimal conditions (maybe even his dad hand timing him), he ran a 4.59.

Back in the day, we got timed in the 40 in high school PE. One kid ran a 4.7, but most of the other kids, myself included, ran between 5.0 and 6.0, with some kids even into the sixes (and that wasn't even counting the dumpy kids, who mostly brought notes from their moms that day, so they didn't have to dress out).

---

Exactly. My HS head coach did all the timing. He was old and had a notoriously slow watch. But at least we rounded up... (Thats a joke btw, it sucked). He got me "officially" at 4.51, but others including my position coach had me at 4.4 something. Because of the round up rule I was listed as a 4.6 guy. I ran pretty consistently a 10.8 100m (11.03 pr automatic timed) in hs, so i was still fastest on my team. However, I did run a legit 4.4 (ie 4.3 something) in college but it was on a track in spikes, so I don't know how legit that really is. My 100 pr is/was 10.71, so when kids say that they are 4.3 or 4.4 but can't break 11 seconds in the 100m, I have doubts.

PABear;842092361 said:

---

Check out this article:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/3/1/4038740/2013-nfl-combine-high-school-40-yard-dash-times?utm_source=sbnation&utm_medium=nextclicks&utm_campaign=articlebottom

---

Interesting data but the article itself sucks.

the times are probably exaggerated a little but keep in mind most players bulk up quite a bit from HS to the draft.

it would have been smart to include the weight gains per player next to the 40 times but that would have gone away from what they were trying to prove.

Big C_Cal;842092641 said:

---

Back in the day, we got timed in the 40 in high school PE. One kid ran a 4.7, but most of the other kids, myself included, ran between 5.0 and 6.0, with some kids even into the sixes (and that wasn't even counting the dumpy kids, who mostly brought notes from their moms that day, so they didn't have to dress out).

---

I don't remember getting timed in the 40. Must have been sick that day. :p

I spent 6 months running athletic combines for Nike/sparq. Any hand time is untrustworthy, even in college. My rule of thumb was to add 2 tenths to every hand time that someone told me. Kid says his coach timed him at 4.5? Nope, laser timing says 4.7. I know no one wants to heat that, because the old high school 4.72 was probably more like 4.92 (personal example), but it is the truth. Puts into perspective just how fast a 4.3 is at the combine...
And yes, the timer starting the laser is also a huge deal. At some point me and my buddy noticed that every time one of our colleagues tested the 40, the times were way faster. Then we watched him, and his reaction was slow. Huge difference.
I used to trust the NFL combine, but no more. A few years ago the big DT from Oregon State set the bench rep record. But if you watch that film, many of the reps shouldn't have been counted. They need people there who will be hardasses, or else nothing matters. I'm disappointed to know that they use a human to start the 40 clock - he could be responsible for the differences in times.

I do not think weight gain has anything to do with it, these guys train as track athletes in the months prior to the combine. Maybe for a few guys who change positions to bulk up and play on the line, but not the speed athletes. College strength and conditioning coaches do not want to sacrifice speed for anything, and extra bulk effects change or direction more than straight line speed (which is my prime concern for players gaining too much weight in college).

kad02002;842092729 said:

---

I spent 6 months running athletic combines for Nike/sparq. Any hand time is untrustworthy, even in college. My rule of thumb was to add 2 tenths to every hand time that someone told me. Kid says his coach timed him at 4.5? Nope, laser timing says 4.7. I know no one wants to heat that, because the old high school 4.72 was probably more like 4.92 (personal example), but it is the truth. Puts into perspective just how fast a 4.3 is at the combine...
And yes, the timer starting the laser is also a huge deal. At some point me and my buddy noticed that every time one of our colleagues tested the 40, the times were way faster. Then we watched him, and his reaction was slow. Huge difference.
I used to trust the NFL combine, but no more. A few years ago the big DT from Oregon State set the bench rep record. But if you watch that film, many of the reps shouldn't have been counted. They need people there who will be hardasses, or else nothing matters. I'm disappointed to know that they use a human to start the 40 clock - he could be responsible for the differences in times.

---

does the laser timing start when the player breaks a plane -- in other words, does reaction time not matter? it seems like for some positions it's more important than others; for interior linemen it's everything, while for other positions speed is what they want to measure.

BearyWhite;842092863 said:

---

does the laser timing start when the player breaks a plane -- in other words, does reaction time not matter? it seems like for some positions it's more important than others; for interior linemen it's everything, while for other positions speed is what they want to measure.

---

For the laser timing we used, someone sat at the start line with a finger on a button. When the runner starts, the timer pushes the button. The clock stops when the runner breaks the plan of the laser at the end of 40 yards.

So reaction time of the starter is huge. Like I was saying, I worked with two other guys, and at some point two of us started noticing that there were always faster times when the third was at the trigger - his reaction was slow. I was fast enough on the trigger that I'd consider myself accurate, but players got the slowest times with the third guy.

The point is, the human element is better than hand timing, but not removed. I'm very surprised that the NFL has a human starter. A reaction time of a tenth of a second is miniscule, and very easy for the human to differ on for each rep - but the difference between a 4.45 and a 4.55 could be millions of dollars. In my opinion they should go for complete accuracy, which would be 100% unmanned.

Another thing: track cleats on a track makes a huge difference. I can't quantify it as well as my add .2 seconds to a hand timer rule, but its a big difference. Remember those old clips of USC's pro day, Reggie Bush (etc) running on the track? Yeah, those times are gonna look way faster. There is a reason why some guys prefer their own pro day.

kad02002;842092901 said:

---

For the laser timing we used, someone sat at the start line with a finger on a button. When the runner starts, the timer pushes the button. The clock stops when the runner breaks the plan of the laser at the end of 40 yards.

So reaction time of the starter is huge. Like I was saying, I worked with two other guys, and at some point two of us started noticing that there were always faster times when the third was at the trigger - his reaction was slow. I was fast enough on the trigger that I'd consider myself accurate, but players got the slowest times with the third guy.

The point is, the human element is better than hand timing, but not removed. I'm very surprised that the NFL has a human starter. A reaction time of a tenth of a second is miniscule, and very easy for the human to differ on for each rep - but the difference between a 4.45 and a 4.55 could be millions of dollars. In my opinion they should go for complete accuracy, which would be 100% unmanned.

Another thing: track cleats on a track makes a huge difference. I can't quantify it as well as my add .2 seconds to a hand timer rule, but its a big difference. Remember those old clips of USC's pro day, Reggie Bush (etc) running on the track? Yeah, those times are gonna look way faster. There is a reason why some guys prefer their own pro day.

---

Like I said, it should just go fully automatic with a pressure sensor that starts the clock when the hand moves, which is what you look for anyway as the starter. It's actually a joke that it's not. Every year you have guys that have an "official" time that's slower than the next guy, but when you overlay the film of the two of them, the guy with the slower time wins. It's ridiculous, and like you said, it has major ramifications for the players.

And yeah, a track is always going to be faster than synthetic, which is faster than grass. A track is designed to be fast, and not all tracks are the same. The London Olympics track is widely believed to be the fastest track in the world, because it was designed to be that way. That's why I qualified my (hand timed) 4.4

But like you said, the human element is there and no matter how fast you think you are, you are still reacting to some other stimuli and it's not as accurate as just having it be fully automatic. Hell, I would kind of like to have them run their 40's reacting to a gun/beep. It would be more realistic to real football skills at least. Football players are reacting every play to something else. Offensive players to the call, defense on the snap of the ball. DB on your WR's movements, etc. So why not incorporate that into the time? If you are naturally a slow reactor, you are going to have a slower 40 time, and most likely be slow at reacting to your environment in general. That's got to be information that a coach or GM would want to know about when assessing players, and the opposite would be just as true.

There's an article on ESPN now about a draft prospect who just ran a 4.19.

He says:

Quote:

---

"I was trying to shoot for a 4.19. I knew it was good when I finished," Sinkfield told The (St. Paul) Pioneer Press. "The fastest I've done [before Monday] was 4.2. I was running 4.3s in high school."

---

It's funny that he was shooting to improve his time by one one hundredth of a second, a difference that's almost undetectable. I guess he ate a few Skittles or something.

jyamada;842092723 said:

---

I don't remember getting timed in the 40. Must have been sick that day. :p

---

timing in the 40 ... coach said 'wait' ... pulled out a calendar to replace the stopwatch ... funny, funny .... so, I wasn't fast, but not that slow ... but maybe I am now.

Vandalus;842093028 said:

---

Like I said, it should just go fully automatic with a pressure sensor that starts the clock when the hand moves, which is what you look for anyway as the starter. It's actually a joke that it's not. Every year you have guys that have an "official" time that's slower than the next guy, but when you overlay the film of the two of them, the guy with the slower time wins. It's ridiculous, and like you said, it has major ramifications for the players.

And yeah, a track is always going to be faster than synthetic, which is faster than grass. A track is designed to be fast, and not all tracks are the same. The London Olympics track is widely believed to be the fastest track in the world, because it was designed to be that way. That's why I qualified my (hand timed) 4.4

But like you said, the human element is there and no matter how fast you think you are, you are still reacting to some other stimuli and it's not as accurate as just having it be fully automatic. Hell, I would kind of like to have them run their 40's reacting to a gun/beep. It would be more realistic to real football skills at least. Football players are reacting every play to something else. Offensive players to the call, defense on the snap of the ball. DB on your WR's movements, etc. So why not incorporate that into the time? If you are naturally a slow reactor, you are going to have a slower 40 time, and most likely be slow at reacting to your environment in general. That's got to be information that a coach or GM would want to know about when assessing players, and the opposite would be just as true.

---

A possible glitch in your "reaction scenario" is that the players would try and anticipate the gun/beep and then there would need to be false starts and then there might need to be DQs for too many false starts and that would REALLY mess things up. Maybe "pure electronic" is the best way to go.

Big C_Cal;842093219 said:

---

A possible glitch in your "reaction scenario" is that the players would try and anticipate the gun/beep and then there would need to be false starts and then there might need to be DQs for too many false starts and that would REALLY mess things up. Maybe "pure electronic" is the best way to go.

---

Agreed. It would be easiest to implement from the standpoint of the athlete: it's still a time based on your decision to start running, but 100% accurate, whereas the reaction to a gun/beep would significantly slow times down. Since there are no blocks you don't get the advantage of measuring reaction times and DQ'ing based on anticipation like you can in track.

BearyWhite;842093043 said:

---

There's an article on ESPN now about a draft prospect who just ran a 4.19.

He says:

It's funny that he was shooting to improve his time by one one hundredth of a second, a difference that's almost undetectable. I guess he ate a few Skittles or something.

---

I saw no lasers on the field. My guess is the guy runs in the mid to low 4.4s, which is still blazing, but it is no 4.19. I remember reading an article a long time ago which said that the fastest 40 yards of Ben Johnson's steroid aided 100 meter world record was in the 4.1s (I have no citation, I could be remembering wrong)...there is no way these dudes are getting that when they have to accelerate at the start.

kad02002;842093251 said:

---

I saw no lasers on the field. My guess is the guy runs in the mid to low 4.4s, which is still blazing, but it is no 4.19. I remember reading an article a long time ago which said that the fastest 40 yards of Ben Johnson's steroid aided 100 meter world record was in the 4.1s (I have no citation, I could be remembering wrong)...there is no way these dudes are getting that when they have to accelerate at the start.

---

About Usain Bolt in his first 40 yards:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_40_yard_dash_time_of_Usain_Bolt