"SEC speed"

[kmoose]

\
Also, that Oregon State was awesome because they had two pro bowl wide receivers and a pro bowl quarterback.... and that Irish team had no business being 10-2 with its anemic offense. The best player on that offense, Chad Johnson, is actually quite slow but just a great player.

When did Jonathan Smith make the Pro Bowl?

 

[military_irish]

When did Jonathan Smith make the Pro Bowl?

I think he had the two bowl games against Oregon St. combined by accident, because in the 2004 Insight Bowl Oregon St had Derek Anderson

 

[SLCIRISH]

SEC speed is over rated, the reason they dominate is because of BCS money.

I would put any SEC schools speed up against the University of Utahs speed. This year alone they have 15-20 guys who run 4.4 or faster, and they have 5 or 6 DL who run 4.8 or faster. Speed doesnt mean **** without tackling, catching and hitting.

 

[kmoose]

SEC speed is over rated, the reason they dominate is because of BCS money.

I have heard this alot, lately........ mostly from those who oppose the BCS. I just don't understand what BCS money has to do with any one team and/or conference being dominant. Teams like Florida and USC may have gotten more BCS money than other schools, but neither of those teams have facilities that are that much better than Oregon's, or Michigan's, or ND's. I just don't get why people think that BCS money makes any significant difference, when you are comparing "haves" to "haves"?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Generally correct, but with the exception that the eye-test of the facilities is apparently an overwhelming positive factor in recruiting. And they cost money.

 

[kmoose]

Generally correct, but with the exception that the eye-test of the facilities is apparently an overwhelming positive factor in recruiting. And they cost money.

I tend to disagree with the characterization of "overwhelming". Oregon has probably spent more money than any other school, and all of it recently, thanks to Phil Knight. Going by the logic that the best, and coolest, facilities bring in the best recruits; Oregon should be bringing in every big time recruit, and they're not.

 

[SLCIRISH]

I have heard this alot, lately........ mostly from those who oppose the BCS. I just don't understand what BCS money has to do with any one team and/or conference being dominant. Teams like Florida and USC may have gotten more BCS money than other schools, but neither of those teams have facilities that are that much better than Oregon's, or Michigan's, or ND's. I just don't get why people think that BCS money makes any significant difference, when you are comparing "haves" to "haves"?

BCS money helps them pay for their players. Newton-Auburn-Last Year.
Look at the recruiting budgets of all SEC schools. Look at the reach of their recruiting arm. Look at the publicity they get for always having 1 or 2 teams in the BCS. The BCS and SEC are in business together, lets bet right now that there will be two BCS teams from the SEC and most likely even with losses, one team will play for the NC. It is stupid that a NC can only go through the SEC.

 

[koonja]

BCS money helps them pay for their players. Newton-Auburn-Last Year.
Look at the recruiting budgets of all SEC schools. Look at the reach of their recruiting arm. Look at the publicity they get for always having 1 or 2 teams in the BCS. The BCS and SEC are in business together, lets bet right now that there will be two BCS teams from the SEC and most likely even with losses, one team will play for the NC. It is stupid that a NC can only go through the SEC.

Does anyone find it a bit ironic that ND fans are complaining about the BCS system? Even I can put my bias hat on backwards for a second and realize that ND benefits BIG TIME from the BCS system. And we had our chance to be a one-loss BCS title team in 2005. If we beat USC that year (#9 vs. #1), we would have made it in.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This 'topic' isn't really necessary... Wollybug is probably the only person in the world that would say that the top SEC schools haven't had more speed at the skill positions than ND in the past...


Check the 'top performers' from the 40-yard dash since 2006. SEC = 25, ND = Zero

It is interesting looking at other events on the same list you provided. For example, the shuttle events and the three-cone event; other than Peterson, Jones and Tolliver, the SEC hardly cracks the list.

It is interesting that Dayne Sanzenbacher from your hated Ohio State, feeds them all lunch on the events designed to show mobility, and a wide receivers ability to get separation. Hmm!

Well I don’t remember any rulebook saying that the fastest always wins in football. In fact, it doesn’t say the fastest is always the best. If it did Bob Hayes would have receiving records that today’s athletes would still be trying to eclipse, and Bear Bryant would have more National Championships than any other coach, instead on having to rely on special awards like Bobby Bowden.

Bear did say correctly, “I recruits speed, and luck follows!”

No, I think we are going to have to watch Sanzenbacher have a better pro career than Jones, and be satisfied with realizing the recent dominance of the SEC has more to do with offering thirty (plus) scholarships a year, and juggling the injured or developmentally impaired around the JC farm system.

 

[koonja]

Speed matters and so does the SEC, let's face it. I hate when people are like "speed doesn't help if you can't catch or throw" or some non-sense like that. People act like if you're fast you have a hard time throwing, catching, blocking, understanding, etc... If we take 100 players picked at random, I'll take the 50 with the most speed and you take the slower ones and we'll see how that turns out. Again, speed isn't everything, but let's not act like just cause someone's fast they won't be able to catch a ball without helplessly ****ting themselves.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Manti, Lynch, Ishaq, Tuitt, Spond and Shembo will, in my eyes, show an entire new level of "speed" than we have seen recently. No they don't run 4.4 40's but they play the ball very well. Even Golson was quoted as saying when you have to read hand off or keep it on a QB option against Lynch, he is on you before your mind can process the proper move. Yes he is a true freshman and hasn't built his mind to slow the speed of the game but he is much quicker than Lynch. You would think he could just keep it and burn Lynch while hoping for the best when he turns the corner. Lynch's angle to the ball and spread wins that battle, for now. I can definitely agree football speed is more important than 40 speed. A guy like Darby or Atkinson who have the speed with the field intelligence can develop into a sick player. Well, the SEC is full of over-signed classes of these same types and can hand pick from those who develop and win. That is why the SEC is unmatched for now. Talent, football speed and poor judgment of the boys they recruit will keep them up top for a bit.

Are you sure?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Speed matters and so does the SEC, let's face it. I hate when people are like "speed doesn't help if you can't catch or throw" or some non-sense like that. People act like if you're fast you have a hard time throwing, catching, blocking, understanding, etc... If we take 100 players picked at random, I'll take the 50 with the most speed and you take the slower ones and we'll see how that turns out. Again, speed isn't everything, but let's not act like just cause someone's fast they won't be able to catch a ball without helplessly ****ting themselves.

It doesn't help at all if you are running the wrong way.

Speed is only one aspect of proper conditioning required to play football. With out strength and mobility it is nothing. As the SEC without their 10 to 20 man per roster advantage.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Oh yeah, and their super-human ability to avoid felony charges.

 

[koonja]

doesn't help at all if you are running the wrong way.

Again, do you think low intellegence is correlated with speed or something?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

No, just thinking that speed in and of itself is a solution to winning football games.

 

[koonja]

No, just thinking that speed in and of itself is a solution to winning football games.

Nobody said speed alone wins football games, but it sure as hell helps.

It's kind of like money.... money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure as hell helps.

 

[irishtrain]

Sec teams are no faster than any other group or conference unless you want to throw in the Ivy League. Where they ARE faster is in the big man/heavys. They run well and move well there. Oregon in my mind was actually quicker than Auburn-but not as powerfull. This speed thing is important but the blend of speed and power is the real key. I like what Kelly and Longo are doing. My best example of this concept is the Sugar Bowl in 1973 Alabama was super quick across the board but they never played against a big and fast combo like that Notre Dame team. Speed alone is not enough and when these pundits say Sec speed I think they refer to the bigs/hitters.

 

[SLCIRISH]

Does anyone find it a bit ironic that ND fans are complaining about the BCS system? Even I can put my bias hat on backwards for a second and realize that ND benefits BIG TIME from the BCS system. And we had our chance to be a one-loss BCS title team in 2005. If we beat USC that year (#9 vs. #1), we would have made it in.

ND is one university, not a conf, and with or without the BCS, ND would survive.

But back to speed, I like the balance ND has, this season, we are big and fast.

 

[koonja]

In the recent past, we have not been fast enough to compete at the top level. At times, we've allowed teams to look like squirells running around in an assisted living home. See 2006 sugar bowl, USC from 2000-2009, etc. We're finally turning the corner though, and getting athletes that can compete at the top level.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

SEC Speed has been evident the last few times Ohio State from the "Blob Ten" (as SEC homers call it) played the SEC in a bowl game. Sadly, the SEC looked stronger than the Bux also, so those match-ups can't even be called "power vs speed."

 

[jason_h537]

Exactly. It's because they have more athletic players (athletic != "speed") at the point of attack and they can man handle teams up front that are either:

1. Quick and small
2. Plodding and big

I'm glad we're on the same page. And I think kuehjna isn't really that far off either now that we've broken down what he saying into a more granular position.

Athletic and speed are two different things. In fact they have different definitions. If its all about speed, why not put Darby at DE?

 

[jason_h537]

Sec teams are no faster than any other group or conference unless you want to throw in the Ivy League. Where they ARE faster is in the big man/heavys. They run well and move well there. Oregon in my mind was actually quicker than Auburn-but not as powerfull. This speed thing is important but the blend of speed and power is the real key. I like what Kelly and Longo are doing. My best example of this concept is the Sugar Bowl in 1973 Alabama was super quick across the board but they never played against a big and fast combo like that Notre Dame team. Speed alone is not enough and when these pundits say Sec speed I think they refer to the bigs/hitters.

The problem for Oregon is that because of their pace, the O-Line tends to be smaller more athletic players, instead of big bulldozer types. Also the commercial breaks gave Auburn breathers.

Watch the game again, before the safety, Auburn was gassed. One of their o-lineman threw up and it was the 1st half.

It wasn't speed. It was their DLine

 

[BGIF]

... My best example of this concept is the Sugar Bowl in 1973 Alabama was super quick across the board but they never played against a big and fast combo like that Notre Dame team. ...

There is one play in that game might have been the Penick TD where ND TE Dave Casper pancaked Bama's DE, a guy named Mike Dubose, then pancaked a second Bama defender at the next level.

 

[irishtrain]

There is one play in that game might have been the Penick TD where ND TE Dave Casper pancaked Bama's DE, a guy named Mike Dubose, then pancaked a second Bama defender at the next level.

BGIF-I have a friend who played in that game for Ala. He said they were shocked to find out how well Notre Dame could run, and that it took them awhile to adjust because they thought Notre Dame would be slow. What really made me feel great was his comment on how clean the game was played-on both sides of the ball. Classic.

 

[Veer option]

The problem for Oregon is that because of their pace, the O-Line tends to be smaller more athletic players, instead of big bulldozer types. Also the commercial breaks gave Auburn breathers.

Watch the game again, before the safety, Auburn was gassed. One of their o-lineman threw up and it was the 1st half.

It wasn't speed. It was their DLine

Auburn's penetration into the backfield and size of their Dline won the game for them. Oregon's QB Darron Thomas not having a stellar night didn't help either.

 

[SLCIRISH]

Oregon is fast, but they are soft.

 

[koonja]

More or less this is true. However the 40 times are good to show raw athleticism but there is so much more than that in what makes a good football player.

It is vastly overrated as they are in shorts in a t-shirt running a straight line for 40 yards, that situation is never going to happen in a game so why put to much stock into it.

Running, catching and passing are so much different with pads on.

I'd have to disagree, respectfully. If all things are equal, speed wins out. Randy Moss has a great 40 time, ever see him take off in a straight line for a 50 yard TD? I, being a Packer fan sure have... This is one example, but there are many. 40 time does matter if it translate to football speed, which it often does. If it didn't we wouldn't be so excited about Darby! I think Ferguson's speed is just fine, as evident by the espn analyst's comment.

 

[Zibby32]

This is one example, but there are many. 40 time does matter if it translate to football speed, which it often does.

i hate getting into this...HATE

Pats fan here, and using Randy as an example only betters my argument. All he can do is run, and he is no longer employed by an NFL team because he refuses to do anything else but run in a straight line.

your comment on football speed is closer to reality. Straight line rarely factors into "football speed"

Intangibles like effort, intelligence, knowledge, ect dictate how fast a player operates on the field. If you dont know where to run, does it matter how fast? If your running a bad angle for a tackle does it help to be faster? ANSWERS? NO NO and NO

The best football players I played with never EVER lit up a 40 yard dash. I never saw either one run for 40 continuous yards (so strange i know). They were "fast" because they had good instincts, knew where to go, and how to get there....

 

[koonja]

i hate getting into this...HATE

Pats fan here, and using Randy as an example only betters my argument. All he can do is run, and he is no longer employed by an NFL team because he refuses to do anything else but run in a straight line.

your comment on football speed is closer to reality. Straight line rarely factors into "football speed"

Intangibles like effort, intelligence, knowledge, ect dictate how fast a player operates on the field. If you dont know where to run, does it matter how fast? If your running a bad angle for a tackle does it help to be faster? ANSWERS? NO NO and NO

The best football players I played with never EVER lit up a 40 yard dash. I never saw either one run for 40 continuous yards (so strange i know). They were "fast" because they had good instincts, knew where to go, and how to get there....

So what you're saying is players with fast 40's innately have a more difficult time giving effort, knowing where to be, running the right angle? That's just irrational so I can't imagine that's your point. All things equal, speed wins. I'm sorry.

And Randy Moss COULDN'T do things like angles, routes, etc according to you and he was still one of the greatest receivers of all time. Why? fast 40 that translated to football field.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Do 40 times matter? Yes, it's a good measure of straight-line speed under ideal circumstances, and it allows talent scouts to compare one aspect of raw athletic ability between recruits.

Is it anywhere near as a important as most fans think it is? No. As Zibby pointed out, there's a lot of other stuff that goes into "football speed".

Though most of that other stuff can be coached, whereas raw athletic ability can't.