RB Aphonso Thomas [SMU - Signed LOI]

[Savage Husker]

40 is overrated. I've seen teammates race with and without pads, the results were different. I think a 10 yard burst and vision/feel is a more important evaluation.

40s are only 'overrated' if your players/recruits have bad 40 times. And the converse is true.

How often as a football player do you run 40 yards unimpeded?
Edit- Unless you're Melvin Gordon playing against Nebraska's defense.

Ouch

Well, there's this thing called breakaway speed, you know, so they don't chase you down once you get into the clear. Ask Melvin Gordon. It's also better to have speed to hit creases so you can get into the clear. It's also good to have speed for a burst to the hole. So, in short, in good to have speed. It's also generally considered not as good to be slow. 4.7 is slow for an RB, maybe they need a better stopwatch.
Heck that LB out of GA we just got has a 4.48. It's generally not as good--about 100% of the time--if your RBs are slower than their LBs(or DBs). One assumes your RBs will be faster than their DL, or one would hope.

"Speed kills", maybe y'all have heard that expression.

No one is debating that speed isn't important, just that a 40 time isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. Our last two running backs drafted ran a 4.7 and a 4.61, I think they did quite well for NU. Jeremy Hill in Cincy ran a mid 4.6, he did more than alright for himself last year too.

Burst speed is important too, I agree, as has been stated above. But Burst speed and 40 speed are two different types of speed. I don't think we'll be consistently seeing homerun hitting runs of 40/50/60+ yards every touch, which is why I said I'll take burst speed and vision over a 4.4something 40. Breakaway speed is icing on the cake if a kid can pop 4-6 yard/run every touch and not be arm tackled, like some write-ups have noted.

 

[cornographic]

40 is overrated. I've seen teammates race with and without pads, the results were different. I think a 10 yard burst and vision/feel is a more important evaluation.

40s are only 'overrated' if your players/recruits have bad 40 times. And the converse is true.

How often as a football player do you run 40 yards unimpeded?
Edit- Unless you're Melvin Gordon playing against Nebraska's defense.

Ouch

Well, there's this thing called breakaway speed, you know, so they don't chase you down once you get into the clear. Ask Melvin Gordon. It's also better to have speed to hit creases so you can get into the clear. It's also good to have speed for a burst to the hole. So, in short, in good to have speed. It's also generally considered not as good to be slow. 4.7 is slow for an RB, maybe they need a better stopwatch.
Heck that LB out of GA we just got has a 4.48. It's generally not as good--about 100% of the time--if your RBs are slower than their LBs(or DBs). One assumes your RBs will be faster than their DL, or one would hope.

"Speed kills", maybe y'all have heard that expression.

No one is debating that speed isn't important, just that a 40 time isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. Our last two running backs drafted ran a 4.7 and a 4.61, I think they did quite well for NU. Jeremy Hill in Cincy ran a mid 4.6, he did more than alright for himself last year too.

Burst speed is important too, I agree, as has been stated above. But Burst speed and 40 speed are two different types of speed. I don't think we'll be consistently seeing homerun hitting runs of 40/50/60+ yards every touch, which is why I said I'll take burst speed and vision over a 4.4something 40. Breakaway speed is icing on the cake if a kid can pop 4-6 yard/run every touch and not be arm tackled, like some write-ups have noted.

Guys with good 40s usually have a good burst, don't they? I think there is some serious inconsistency with how 40s are timed across the board, but one would think there could be a pretty accurate average, of say, 10 40 times, that could be a reliable indicator. Adam Taylor supposedly is 4.5 and T Newby a solid 4.4, some say faster to the point of 'track speed'(4.3-ish). I also think Ameer is more like a 4.4-ish guy and Rex was listed 4.48 coming out of h.s.(which is probably generous). So, when I see 4.7, it just tends to make me nervous w an RB. If he is actually 4.7, well, that's slow. So far, both backs Riley has recruited are listed @ ~4.7 40s. That makes me nervous.

But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok. NU needs to improve significantly in recruiting such that we get a solid surplus of 4* players and hopefully a 5* every now and then. That's the only way we're going to become a solid top 10 contender year in and year out--assuming Riley proves to be a good coach, that is.

We're in 9 win purgatory for a reason: we're not getting the Jimmies and Joes to get us to the next level.

That's not to say any of our players and recruits are 'bad', not at all. They're very good, just not championship caliber.

 

[teachercd]

While I think this guy ends up with north of 20 offers and 4 stars...I also think it is fair to say that if NU wants to be where the fans want it to be they need top 10-15 classes

 

[Mavric]

The other back Thomas was splitting carries with was Matt Savis. Savis got about 62% of the carries though Thomas had the better average.

Savis was the District Player of the year and the #3 man on Van's Rushing and TD lists. He has signed with Southeastern Oklahoma State. I can't find profiles on him on any of the recruiting sites.

 

[Savage Husker]

40 is overrated. I've seen teammates race with and without pads, the results were different. I think a 10 yard burst and vision/feel is a more important evaluation.

40s are only 'overrated' if your players/recruits have bad 40 times. And the converse is true.

How often as a football player do you run 40 yards unimpeded?
Edit- Unless you're Melvin Gordon playing against Nebraska's defense.

Ouch

Well, there's this thing called breakaway speed, you know, so they don't chase you down once you get into the clear. Ask Melvin Gordon. It's also better to have speed to hit creases so you can get into the clear. It's also good to have speed for a burst to the hole. So, in short, in good to have speed. It's also generally considered not as good to be slow. 4.7 is slow for an RB, maybe they need a better stopwatch.
Heck that LB out of GA we just got has a 4.48. It's generally not as good--about 100% of the time--if your RBs are slower than their LBs(or DBs). One assumes your RBs will be faster than their DL, or one would hope.

"Speed kills", maybe y'all have heard that expression.

No one is debating that speed isn't important, just that a 40 time isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. Our last two running backs drafted ran a 4.7 and a 4.61, I think they did quite well for NU. Jeremy Hill in Cincy ran a mid 4.6, he did more than alright for himself last year too.

Burst speed is important too, I agree, as has been stated above. But Burst speed and 40 speed are two different types of speed. I don't think we'll be consistently seeing homerun hitting runs of 40/50/60+ yards every touch, which is why I said I'll take burst speed and vision over a 4.4something 40. Breakaway speed is icing on the cake if a kid can pop 4-6 yard/run every touch and not be arm tackled, like some write-ups have noted.

Guys with good 40s usually have a good burst, don't they? I think there is some serious inconsistency with how 40s are timed across the board, but one would think there could be a pretty accurate average, of say, 10 40 times, that could be a reliable indicator. Adam Taylor supposedly is 4.5 and T Newby a solid 4.4, some say faster to the point of 'track speed'(4.3-ish). I also think Ameer is more like a 4.4-ish guy and Rex was listed 4.48 coming out of h.s.(which is probably generous). So, when I see 4.7, it just tends to make me nervous w an RB. If he is actually 4.7, well, that's slow. So far, both backs Riley has recruited are listed @ ~4.7 40s. That makes me nervous.
But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok. NU needs to improve significantly in recruiting such that we get a solid surplus of 4* players and hopefully a 5* every now and then. That's the only way we're going to become a solid top 10 contender year in and year out--assuming Riley proves to be a good coach, that is.

We're in 9 win purgatory for a reason: we're not getting the Jimmies and Joes to get us to the next level.

That's not to say any of our players and recruits are 'bad', not at all. They're very good, just not championship caliber.

This kid has an electronic time of 4.71 taken at a camp, heck Arian Foster runs a high 4.68 himself, and he's not lacking any burst. Again, I'll point to Dan Alexander out running a track star to a 80yard TD and the track star couldnt even close on him. Some people carry pads and run better than others. Im just not going to write a RB off because he doesn't have the elite 40 time and his * ranking isn't newsworthy when RBs before him continue to prove doubters wrong. I give the new staff the benefit of the doubt on their evaluation until they prove to be wrong.

I agree, and I've said in other threads it's about jimmys and joes and how championship teams correalate to recruiting classes/rankings. I took rivals classes from '02 forward and every team just in the title game alone averaged a class rank better than 15th, except for Oregon (which took me by surprise). When we offered Corey Whitaker late in the signing year, a lot of steam in the Andrus Peat train ran out, those are the type of misses that concern me most because I'll take this to the bank, RBs are a dime a dozen and their success has more to do with OL. I don't want them missing on guys in the trenches or a QB, those are the most important people on the field. And you're right, until we have consistent highly ranked recruiting classes, the history shows we won't be title contender worthy.

 

[zoogs]

But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok.

Yeah, I think that's fair.

The thing is, we don't know where this ends up, so let's take it easy on expressing displeasure and instead welcome him on board.

By the time his senior season is over, he *could* have made a big leap. Heck, he could be blowing up with offers (as AA did, very late) and we might at that point be thinking how lucky we'd be to keep him. Or, it might not happen. Similar to a top prospect. Last year, Kevin Dillman was this HIGHLY touted 4-star. Whatever the case, he fell a lot and it didn't seem to be just grades. What looked like a marquee QB snag ended up being an athlete that not many schools were that interested in. It's awfully early to conjecture at this point. We just know that of the available RB prospects, this is the guy the coaches both really wanted, and had an "in" with.

We know from watching the '17 recruiting that our coaches will not hesitate to swing for the fences and compete for the best.

If they're making do in this class, I'm sure practical reasons are at play. For example, the kids Nebraska were in on this time last year, the staff had years to foster a relationship with them. This staff has had six months, two of which were spent scrambling to put the last class together.

 

[HuskerNBigD]

40 is overrated. I've seen teammates race with and without pads, the results were different. I think a 10 yard burst and vision/feel is a more important evaluation.

40s are only 'overrated' if your players/recruits have bad 40 times. And the converse is true.

How often as a football player do you run 40 yards unimpeded?
Edit- Unless you're Melvin Gordon playing against Nebraska's defense.

Ouch

Well, there's this thing called breakaway speed, you know, so they don't chase you down once you get into the clear. Ask Melvin Gordon. It's also better to have speed to hit creases so you can get into the clear. It's also good to have speed for a burst to the hole. So, in short, in good to have speed. It's also generally considered not as good to be slow. 4.7 is slow for an RB, maybe they need a better stopwatch.
Heck that LB out of GA we just got has a 4.48. It's generally not as good--about 100% of the time--if your RBs are slower than their LBs(or DBs). One assumes your RBs will be faster than their DL, or one would hope.

"Speed kills", maybe y'all have heard that expression.

No one is debating that speed isn't important, just that a 40 time isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. Our last two running backs drafted ran a 4.7 and a 4.61, I think they did quite well for NU. Jeremy Hill in Cincy ran a mid 4.6, he did more than alright for himself last year too.

Burst speed is important too, I agree, as has been stated above. But Burst speed and 40 speed are two different types of speed. I don't think we'll be consistently seeing homerun hitting runs of 40/50/60+ yards every touch, which is why I said I'll take burst speed and vision over a 4.4something 40. Breakaway speed is icing on the cake if a kid can pop 4-6 yard/run every touch and not be arm tackled, like some write-ups have noted.

Guys with good 40s usually have a good burst, don't they? I think there is some serious inconsistency with how 40s are timed across the board, but one would think there could be a pretty accurate average, of say, 10 40 times, that could be a reliable indicator. Adam Taylor supposedly is 4.5 and T Newby a solid 4.4, some say faster to the point of 'track speed'(4.3-ish). I also think Ameer is more like a 4.4-ish guy and Rex was listed 4.48 coming out of h.s.(which is probably generous). So, when I see 4.7, it just tends to make me nervous w an RB. If he is actually 4.7, well, that's slow. So far, both backs Riley has recruited are listed @ ~4.7 40s. That makes me nervous.

But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok. NU needs to improve significantly in recruiting such that we get a solid surplus of 4* players and hopefully a 5* every now and then. That's the only way we're going to become a solid top 10 contender year in and year out--assuming Riley proves to be a good coach, that is.

We're in 9 win purgatory for a reason: we're not getting the Jimmies and Joes to get us to the next level.

That's not to say any of our players and recruits are 'bad', not at all. They're very good, just not championship caliber.

Like being from the state of Nebraska? I wonder what people's thoughts would be if this kid was from Grand Island vs. Van, Texas. If that were the case, I bet a hell of a lot more individuals writing this kid off, would be pulling for him, talking up how good he is - just hasn't got the exposure. If we're getting upset about a RB from Texas who is not a 4* or 5* athlete, I really don't have any sympathy for in-state kids that don't compare. We can't have it both ways, a kid should make the grade regardless of where he resides. However, I'm optimistic that this will turn out to be a solid pick-up.

 

[RedDenver]

Are we really rehashing the 40 time debate? How many times does the 40 time need to be debunked as a measure of football prowess before it finally dies?

 

[Ed Helms]

Are we really rehashing the 40 time debate? How many times does the 40 time need to be debunked as a measure of football prowess before it finally dies?

Especially high school 40 times which 99% of the time are overinflated and/or guesstimates.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

40 is overrated. I've seen teammates race with and without pads, the results were different. I think a 10 yard burst and vision/feel is a more important evaluation.

40s are only 'overrated' if your players/recruits have bad 40 times. And the converse is true.

How often as a football player do you run 40 yards unimpeded?
Edit- Unless you're Melvin Gordon playing against Nebraska's defense.

Ouch

Well, there's this thing called breakaway speed, you know, so they don't chase you down once you get into the clear. Ask Melvin Gordon. It's also better to have speed to hit creases so you can get into the clear. It's also good to have speed for a burst to the hole. So, in short, in good to have speed. It's also generally considered not as good to be slow. 4.7 is slow for an RB, maybe they need a better stopwatch.
Heck that LB out of GA we just got has a 4.48. It's generally not as good--about 100% of the time--if your RBs are slower than their LBs(or DBs). One assumes your RBs will be faster than their DL, or one would hope.

"Speed kills", maybe y'all have heard that expression.

No one is debating that speed isn't important, just that a 40 time isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. Our last two running backs drafted ran a 4.7 and a 4.61, I think they did quite well for NU. Jeremy Hill in Cincy ran a mid 4.6, he did more than alright for himself last year too.
Burst speed is important too, I agree, as has been stated above. But Burst speed and 40 speed are two different types of speed. I don't think we'll be consistently seeing homerun hitting runs of 40/50/60+ yards every touch, which is why I said I'll take burst speed and vision over a 4.4something 40. Breakaway speed is icing on the cake if a kid can pop 4-6 yard/run every touch and not be arm tackled, like some write-ups have noted.

Guys with good 40s usually have a good burst, don't they? I think there is some serious inconsistency with how 40s are timed across the board, but one would think there could be a pretty accurate average, of say, 10 40 times, that could be a reliable indicator. Adam Taylor supposedly is 4.5 and T Newby a solid 4.4, some say faster to the point of 'track speed'(4.3-ish). I also think Ameer is more like a 4.4-ish guy and Rex was listed 4.48 coming out of h.s.(which is probably generous). So, when I see 4.7, it just tends to make me nervous w an RB. If he is actually 4.7, well, that's slow. So far, both backs Riley has recruited are listed @ ~4.7 40s. That makes me nervous.
But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok. NU needs to improve significantly in recruiting such that we get a solid surplus of 4* players and hopefully a 5* every now and then. That's the only way we're going to become a solid top 10 contender year in and year out--assuming Riley proves to be a good coach, that is.

We're in 9 win purgatory for a reason: we're not getting the Jimmies and Joes to get us to the next level.

That's not to say any of our players and recruits are 'bad', not at all. They're very good, just not championship caliber.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

 

[cornographic]

40 is overrated. I've seen teammates race with and without pads, the results were different. I think a 10 yard burst and vision/feel is a more important evaluation.

40s are only 'overrated' if your players/recruits have bad 40 times. And the converse is true.

How often as a football player do you run 40 yards unimpeded?
Edit- Unless you're Melvin Gordon playing against Nebraska's defense.

Ouch

Well, there's this thing called breakaway speed, you know, so they don't chase you down once you get into the clear. Ask Melvin Gordon. It's also better to have speed to hit creases so you can get into the clear. It's also good to have speed for a burst to the hole. So, in short, in good to have speed. It's also generally considered not as good to be slow. 4.7 is slow for an RB, maybe they need a better stopwatch.
Heck that LB out of GA we just got has a 4.48. It's generally not as good--about 100% of the time--if your RBs are slower than their LBs(or DBs). One assumes your RBs will be faster than their DL, or one would hope.

"Speed kills", maybe y'all have heard that expression.

No one is debating that speed isn't important, just that a 40 time isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. Our last two running backs drafted ran a 4.7 and a 4.61, I think they did quite well for NU. Jeremy Hill in Cincy ran a mid 4.6, he did more than alright for himself last year too.

Burst speed is important too, I agree, as has been stated above. But Burst speed and 40 speed are two different types of speed. I don't think we'll be consistently seeing homerun hitting runs of 40/50/60+ yards every touch, which is why I said I'll take burst speed and vision over a 4.4something 40. Breakaway speed is icing on the cake if a kid can pop 4-6 yard/run every touch and not be arm tackled, like some write-ups have noted.

Guys with good 40s usually have a good burst, don't they? I think there is some serious inconsistency with how 40s are timed across the board, but one would think there could be a pretty accurate average, of say, 10 40 times, that could be a reliable indicator. Adam Taylor supposedly is 4.5 and T Newby a solid 4.4, some say faster to the point of 'track speed'(4.3-ish). I also think Ameer is more like a 4.4-ish guy and Rex was listed 4.48 coming out of h.s.(which is probably generous). So, when I see 4.7, it just tends to make me nervous w an RB. If he is actually 4.7, well, that's slow. So far, both backs Riley has recruited are listed @ ~4.7 40s. That makes me nervous.
But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok. NU needs to improve significantly in recruiting such that we get a solid surplus of 4* players and hopefully a 5* every now and then. That's the only way we're going to become a solid top 10 contender year in and year out--assuming Riley proves to be a good coach, that is.

We're in 9 win purgatory for a reason: we're not getting the Jimmies and Joes to get us to the next level.

That's not to say any of our players and recruits are 'bad', not at all. They're very good, just not championship caliber.

This kid has an electronic time of 4.71 taken at a camp, heck Arian Foster runs a high 4.68 himself, and he's not lacking any burst. Again, I'll point to Dan Alexander out running a track star to a 80yard TD and the track star couldnt even close on him. Some people carry pads and run better than others. Im just not going to write a RB off because he doesn't have the elite 40 time and his * ranking isn't newsworthy when RBs before him continue to prove doubters wrong. I give the new staff the benefit of the doubt on their evaluation until they prove to be wrong.

I agree, and I've said in other threads it's about jimmys and joes and how championship teams correalate to recruiting classes/rankings. I took rivals classes from '02 forward and every team just in the title game alone averaged a class rank better than 15th, except for Oregon (which took me by surprise). When we offered Corey Whitaker late in the signing year, a lot of steam in the Andrus Peat train ran out, those are the type of misses that concern me most because I'll take this to the bank, RBs are a dime a dozen and their success has more to do with OL. I don't want them missing on guys in the trenches or a QB, those are the most important people on the field. And you're right, until we have consistent highly ranked recruiting classes, the history shows we won't be title contender worthy.

Dan Alexander outrunning a track star to the house would've been a rare event indeed--especially if he didn't fumble along the way. But I think you are referring to what they call, 'game speed', which, to me, means the fear factor of real life guys trying to take your head off(well, they used to try that before the new rules) makes a guy run faster, which is easy to comprehend.

I agree with the central importance of DL and OL quality on a team, but don't agree that RBs are a 'dime a dozen'--thinking Marshawn Lynch(4.4 40, 4*, ranked #2 RB in country), Leonard Fournette(5*, #1 RB, 4th player overall nationally, #1 state), Todd Gurly(4*, 5th RB), Ezekiel Elliott(12th RB, #1 state of MO), etc. The good news here is that Newby, Taylor, and Wilbon were all 4* backs and were pretty highly ranked, and I expect all of them to deliver--looking forward to it, actually.

I'm just scratching my head a bit about the 2 RBs Riley et al have recruited so far which, on paper, don't appear to be up to 'standard'.

But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok.

Yeah, I think that's fair.

The thing is, we don't know where this ends up, so let's take it easy on expressing displeasure and instead welcome him on board.

By the time his senior season is over, he *could* have made a big leap. Heck, he could be blowing up with offers (as AA did, very late) and we might at that point be thinking how lucky we'd be to keep him. Or, it might not happen. Similar to a top prospect. Last year, Kevin Dillman was this HIGHLY touted 4-star. Whatever the case, he fell a lot and it didn't seem to be just grades. What looked like a marquee QB snag ended up being an athlete that not many schools were that interested in. It's awfully early to conjecture at this point. We just know that of the available RB prospects, this is the guy the coaches both really wanted, and had an "in" with.

Yeah, makes you wonder what they see in A Thompson over, say, everybody else who've been evaluated, rated, ranked, and highly recruited. Who knows? Guess I'm just not a big 'fan' of 'off the radar' recruiting, especially this early in the cycle.

 

[BigRedBuster]

40 is overrated. I've seen teammates race with and without pads, the results were different. I think a 10 yard burst and vision/feel is a more important evaluation.

40s are only 'overrated' if your players/recruits have bad 40 times. And the converse is true.

How often as a football player do you run 40 yards unimpeded?
Edit- Unless you're Melvin Gordon playing against Nebraska's defense.

Ouch

Well, there's this thing called breakaway speed, you know, so they don't chase you down once you get into the clear. Ask Melvin Gordon. It's also better to have speed to hit creases so you can get into the clear. It's also good to have speed for a burst to the hole. So, in short, in good to have speed. It's also generally considered not as good to be slow. 4.7 is slow for an RB, maybe they need a better stopwatch.
Heck that LB out of GA we just got has a 4.48. It's generally not as good--about 100% of the time--if your RBs are slower than their LBs(or DBs). One assumes your RBs will be faster than their DL, or one would hope.

"Speed kills", maybe y'all have heard that expression.

No one is debating that speed isn't important, just that a 40 time isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. Our last two running backs drafted ran a 4.7 and a 4.61, I think they did quite well for NU. Jeremy Hill in Cincy ran a mid 4.6, he did more than alright for himself last year too.
Burst speed is important too, I agree, as has been stated above. But Burst speed and 40 speed are two different types of speed. I don't think we'll be consistently seeing homerun hitting runs of 40/50/60+ yards every touch, which is why I said I'll take burst speed and vision over a 4.4something 40. Breakaway speed is icing on the cake if a kid can pop 4-6 yard/run every touch and not be arm tackled, like some write-ups have noted.

Guys with good 40s usually have a good burst, don't they? I think there is some serious inconsistency with how 40s are timed across the board, but one would think there could be a pretty accurate average, of say, 10 40 times, that could be a reliable indicator. Adam Taylor supposedly is 4.5 and T Newby a solid 4.4, some say faster to the point of 'track speed'(4.3-ish). I also think Ameer is more like a 4.4-ish guy and Rex was listed 4.48 coming out of h.s.(which is probably generous). So, when I see 4.7, it just tends to make me nervous w an RB. If he is actually 4.7, well, that's slow. So far, both backs Riley has recruited are listed @ ~4.7 40s. That makes me nervous.
But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok. NU needs to improve significantly in recruiting such that we get a solid surplus of 4* players and hopefully a 5* every now and then. That's the only way we're going to become a solid top 10 contender year in and year out--assuming Riley proves to be a good coach, that is.

We're in 9 win purgatory for a reason: we're not getting the Jimmies and Joes to get us to the next level.

That's not to say any of our players and recruits are 'bad', not at all. They're very good, just not championship caliber.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

I agree.

However, I'm not going to judge a recruit based on some reported HS 40 times and star rankings when it's clear he hasn't been evaluated yet. Sure, he doesn't have any major offers. That can leave you scratching your head but, coaches have found hidden players before.

I do know one thing. The coaches in Lincoln know how to evaluate players one hell of a lot better than I do. I'll leave that up to them and cheer on whom ever is on the field. I really hope this kid comes in here and makes a huge name for himself (in a good way).

Welcome.

 

[cornographic]

40 is overrated. I've seen teammates race with and without pads, the results were different. I think a 10 yard burst and vision/feel is a more important evaluation.

40s are only 'overrated' if your players/recruits have bad 40 times. And the converse is true.

How often as a football player do you run 40 yards unimpeded?
Edit- Unless you're Melvin Gordon playing against Nebraska's defense.

Ouch

Well, there's this thing called breakaway speed, you know, so they don't chase you down once you get into the clear. Ask Melvin Gordon. It's also better to have speed to hit creases so you can get into the clear. It's also good to have speed for a burst to the hole. So, in short, in good to have speed. It's also generally considered not as good to be slow. 4.7 is slow for an RB, maybe they need a better stopwatch.
Heck that LB out of GA we just got has a 4.48. It's generally not as good--about 100% of the time--if your RBs are slower than their LBs(or DBs). One assumes your RBs will be faster than their DL, or one would hope.

"Speed kills", maybe y'all have heard that expression.

No one is debating that speed isn't important, just that a 40 time isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. Our last two running backs drafted ran a 4.7 and a 4.61, I think they did quite well for NU. Jeremy Hill in Cincy ran a mid 4.6, he did more than alright for himself last year too.

Burst speed is important too, I agree, as has been stated above. But Burst speed and 40 speed are two different types of speed. I don't think we'll be consistently seeing homerun hitting runs of 40/50/60+ yards every touch, which is why I said I'll take burst speed and vision over a 4.4something 40. Breakaway speed is icing on the cake if a kid can pop 4-6 yard/run every touch and not be arm tackled, like some write-ups have noted.

Guys with good 40s usually have a good burst, don't they? I think there is some serious inconsistency with how 40s are timed across the board, but one would think there could be a pretty accurate average, of say, 10 40 times, that could be a reliable indicator. Adam Taylor supposedly is 4.5 and T Newby a solid 4.4, some say faster to the point of 'track speed'(4.3-ish). I also think Ameer is more like a 4.4-ish guy and Rex was listed 4.48 coming out of h.s.(which is probably generous). So, when I see 4.7, it just tends to make me nervous w an RB. If he is actually 4.7, well, that's slow. So far, both backs Riley has recruited are listed @ ~4.7 40s. That makes me nervous.

But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok. NU needs to improve significantly in recruiting such that we get a solid surplus of 4* players and hopefully a 5* every now and then. That's the only way we're going to become a solid top 10 contender year in and year out--assuming Riley proves to be a good coach, that is.

We're in 9 win purgatory for a reason: we're not getting the Jimmies and Joes to get us to the next level.

That's not to say any of our players and recruits are 'bad', not at all. They're very good, just not championship caliber.

Like being from the state of Nebraska? I wonder what people's thoughts would be if this kid was from Grand Island vs. Van, Texas. If that were the case, I bet a hell of a lot more individuals writing this kid off, would be pulling for him, talking up how good he is - just hasn't got the exposure. If we're getting upset about a RB from Texas who is not a 4* or 5* athlete, I really don't have any sympathy for in-state kids that don't compare. We can't have it both ways, a kid should make the grade regardless of where he resides.

Of course, NE fans are head over heels whenever the state of NE produces any legit D-IA player, the dirth of which leaves me scratching my head some. Ahman Green is the only big time homegrown RB that I can think of from my 50+ years of fandom. That's kind of crazy when you think about it. I've been an armchair advocate of genetic engineering/hybridization for football players in NE, you know, like they do with bull semen and such, but my idea has yet to 'take'. Too corn-troversial, I s'pose.

 

[Red Five]

40 is overrated. I've seen teammates race with and without pads, the results were different. I think a 10 yard burst and vision/feel is a more important evaluation.

40s are only 'overrated' if your players/recruits have bad 40 times. And the converse is true.

How often as a football player do you run 40 yards unimpeded?
Edit- Unless you're Melvin Gordon playing against Nebraska's defense.

Ouch

Well, there's this thing called breakaway speed, you know, so they don't chase you down once you get into the clear. Ask Melvin Gordon. It's also better to have speed to hit creases so you can get into the clear. It's also good to have speed for a burst to the hole. So, in short, in good to have speed. It's also generally considered not as good to be slow. 4.7 is slow for an RB, maybe they need a better stopwatch.
Heck that LB out of GA we just got has a 4.48. It's generally not as good--about 100% of the time--if your RBs are slower than their LBs(or DBs). One assumes your RBs will be faster than their DL, or one would hope.

"Speed kills", maybe y'all have heard that expression.

No one is debating that speed isn't important, just that a 40 time isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. Our last two running backs drafted ran a 4.7 and a 4.61, I think they did quite well for NU. Jeremy Hill in Cincy ran a mid 4.6, he did more than alright for himself last year too.

Burst speed is important too, I agree, as has been stated above. But Burst speed and 40 speed are two different types of speed. I don't think we'll be consistently seeing homerun hitting runs of 40/50/60+ yards every touch, which is why I said I'll take burst speed and vision over a 4.4something 40. Breakaway speed is icing on the cake if a kid can pop 4-6 yard/run every touch and not be arm tackled, like some write-ups have noted.

Guys with good 40s usually have a good burst, don't they? I think there is some serious inconsistency with how 40s are timed across the board, but one would think there could be a pretty accurate average, of say, 10 40 times, that could be a reliable indicator. Adam Taylor supposedly is 4.5 and T Newby a solid 4.4, some say faster to the point of 'track speed'(4.3-ish). I also think Ameer is more like a 4.4-ish guy and Rex was listed 4.48 coming out of h.s.(which is probably generous). So, when I see 4.7, it just tends to make me nervous w an RB. If he is actually 4.7, well, that's slow. So far, both backs Riley has recruited are listed @ ~4.7 40s. That makes me nervous.

But see, there's another thing which I call, "Husker Recruiting Apologists". The guy is off the radar or a 2* or has a slow 40 time and the Husker Apologists come up with all kinds of equivocations as to why, "that's ok in our case". Well, no, I don't think it's ok. NU needs to improve significantly in recruiting such that we get a solid surplus of 4* players and hopefully a 5* every now and then. That's the only way we're going to become a solid top 10 contender year in and year out--assuming Riley proves to be a good coach, that is.

We're in 9 win purgatory for a reason: we're not getting the Jimmies and Joes to get us to the next level.

That's not to say any of our players and recruits are 'bad', not at all. They're very good, just not championship caliber.

Like being from the state of Nebraska? I wonder what people's thoughts would be if this kid was from Grand Island vs. Van, Texas. If that were the case, I bet a hell of a lot more individuals writing this kid off, would be pulling for him, talking up how good he is - just hasn't got the exposure. If we're getting upset about a RB from Texas who is not a 4* or 5* athlete, I really don't have any sympathy for in-state kids that don't compare. We can't have it both ways, a kid should make the grade regardless of where he resides.

Of course, NE fans are head over heels whenever the state of NE produces any legit D-IA player, the dirth of which leaves me scratching my head some. Ahman Green is the only big time homegrown RB that I can think of from my 50+ years of fandom. That's kind of crazy when you think about it. I've been an armchair advocate of genetic engineering/hybridization for football players in NE, you know, like they do with bull semen and such, but my idea has yet to 'take'. Too corn-troversial, I s'pose.

Omaha Central had a pipeline to Lincoln in the 80s/90s with big time RBs. Keith Jones, Leodis Flowers, Calvin Jones, and yes, Ahman Green. David Horne was also a 4* from Central, although he never lived up to the hype.

 

[DrunkOffPunch]

I won't care about 40 times until they start giving out the splits. Even then as a RB you won't start your first steps out of stance or into a hole from a track pose.