forums

Lingard running anchor leg for Canes 4x100 relay

Advertisement
brock said:
Reporting times faster than what they actually run. Remember dorsett running a 4.2 on Greentree? He ran a 4.33 at the combine. Duke Johnson low 4.4? He ran a 4.54 at the combine
Click to expand...

The combine is laser timed bruh..ours are hand times. Those times from our players imho translate to what they should run at the combine.
 
Haven’t seen him in person but on tape he looks fast but not crazy fast. He didn’t run away from everyone like a 4.3 guy ..imo. Think the laser times were 4.55-4.6? Maybe he’s faster now? Also since he’s running track is he going to stay thin, or thicken up w muscle/bulk?
 
Last edited:
gatorsSUCK! said:
Haven’t seen him in person but on tape he looks fast but not crazy fast. He didn’t run away from everyone like a 4.3 guy ..imo. Think the laser times were 4.55-4.6? Maybe he’s faster now? Also since he’s running track is he going to stay thin, or thicken up w muscle/bulk?
Click to expand...

Really depends on how much practice time they’re putting in at the track, are they doing a lot of running.
 
Last edited:
gatorsSUCK! said:
Haven’t seen him in person but on tape he looks fast but not crazy fast. He didn’t run away from everyone like a 4.3 guy ..imo. Think the laser times were 4.55-4.6? Maybe he’s faster now? Also since he’s running track is he going to stay thin, or thicken up w muscle/bulk?
Click to expand...
Don’t think his 40 at the Nike combine was an accurate representation of his speed. You don’t run a 4.6(believe he messed up during the run) but then can go and run a 10.7 in the 100m
 
to be quite honest, it didn't look like Dorsett was running that hard. That's a fast man.
 
Advertisement
brock said:
Reporting times faster than what they actually run. Remember dorsett running a 4.2 on Greentree? He ran a 4.33 at the combine. Duke Johnson low 4.4? He ran a 4.54 at the combine
Click to expand...

Gus Felder came down to Miami to time Phil Dorsett’s 40s six years ago?
 
brock said:
Don’t think his 40 at the Nike combine was an accurate representation of his speed. You don’t run a 4.6(believe he messed up during the run) but then can go and run a 10.7 in the 100m
Click to expand...

I agree he probably got off to a bad start, but a lot of 100m guys have elite top end speed, but not as great get off. Look at Bolt his 40 yard dash is no where near as impressive as his 100m and if you just watched him run a 40 you would never think he was the best 100m runner of all time.
 
No question he's fast, but these 40 time topics are always hysterical.

I would bet he's running the anchor due to having a faster top end speed than get off from the line. It'll be interesting to see what they run and it's a big spot for an early entry to have.

It also says how far down our men's track program is in the grand scheme of things. Wish we could've gotten Schwartz for this reason alone and Shivers would have been nice as well. Then again, I would say that's why we weren't a player for Schwartz and obviously size with Shivers. Might as well toss in Campbell as well as his state time of 10.37 is nothing to sneeze at either. All three of those guys have much better times than Lingaard has posted.
 
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
I know I would. But then you’d have to know what you’re looking at, or which lane you should stay in...

Bolt has the fastest split from 10-20m (0.99);
and the fastest split from 20-30m (0.90);
and tied for the fastest split (with Johnson and Powell) from 30-40m (0.86).

No one has run faster to 30m (about 7 yards short of 40 yards) than Bolt. And since I can’t se anyone running him down at his best…that would make him pretty good over 40 yards. But I’m just guessing...

Lingard will run +/- .02 to what Barkley ran at the combine. No one will remember a random 40 in Orlando.
Click to expand...

You are leaving off the most important split that proves my point the 0-10m split. Obviously if you are into track you could tell. I was referring to Brocks logic. If you used the logic that if you run an elite 100m dash that means you run an elite 40. That is not the case. Obviously your 40 will still be good, but not necessarily elite. For example when bolt ran the 9.58 if you remove reaction time he would have run 4.19-4.2. That is not that much faster then the combine record of 4.22. Since bolt would obliterate him in the 100m a casual fan would assume that since he only runs .02 .03 faster then the football player he wouldn't have the record for the 100m dash. Justin Gatlin ran a 4.42 in his pro day and obviously he would be able to beat any nfl player in a 100m.
 
SayWhat said:
No question he's fast, but these 40 time topics are always hysterical.

I would bet he's running the anchor due to having a faster top end speed than get off from the line. It'll be interesting to see what they run and it's a big spot for an early entry to have.

It also says how far down our men's track program is in the grand scheme of things. Wish we could've gotten Schwartz for this reason alone and Shivers would have been nice as well. Then again, I would say that's why we weren't a player for Schwartz and obviously size with Shivers. Might as well toss in Campbell as well as his state time of 10.37 is nothing to sneeze at either. All three of those guys have much better times than Lingaard has posted.
Click to expand...
And lingard is much bigger than those guys don’t be silly. In addition to that lingard ran a 10.70 without much experience running the 100m(he usually run the 110s in hurdles). If he trained for it he could possibly have run in the 10.45-10.55 range.
 
Advertisement
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
Well, no.

As usual, when you’re wrong you start building straw men. Eliding arguments rather than give up or just say “my bad, I made a mistake” - which would be cool. It would showed you can man up.

1. If someone is the best 30m, 40m, 60m, 80m runner of all time than it would be safe to conclude that he was the best 100m runner. That would be enough of a definitive argument - for anyone else.

2. Bolt’s 0-10m, including reaction time, was 1.89 and the best ever is Mo/Ben Johnson at 1.83. Again, he still beats them to 30m (that means he runs them down)...so the initial 10m is not only a smokescreen but an illustration that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. The first 10m would be included in the first 30m I referred to in my post, otherwise, among other things, Usain Bolt is a teleporter...

But, where you really go off the rails...and I’ll even give you a chance for a mea culpa...is trying to compare times when track and field uses a completely different system of measurement than does the combine.

T&F - fully automatic FAT (clock starts on the gun and stopped by electronic “eye”). Any reaction time (RT) under .100 results in automatic disqualification. RT measured by electronic blocks.
Combine - hybrid automatic (clock MANUALLY started AFTER runner has started running). - electronic

So to make the reverse argument, flipping the best ever combine 4.22 to a track race...it would be like 4.35+. Which is considerably more than the 4.19 you “estimate”.

So, here’s where I leave an opening for you to say, “my bad”

Back to football/Lingard...speed in the backfield will not be a problem, it’s the OL’s ability to give them a crease that will be the difference.
Click to expand...

Are you really that dumb? You are the one building up a strawman. What I said is pure facts. You are trying to make up another argument to make yourself seem smart. You can't factor in reaction time because the 40 yard doesn't test for that. You intentionally left out his 0-10m split because it didn't fit your agenda. My point which is still 100% fact is just because you run an elite 100m does not mean you will run an elite 40yard. That is actually where you go off the rails. I took Bolts splits and I REMOVED THE REACTION TIME as I stated above. The 4.19 bolt would have ran is WITHOUT reaction time and the clock starts when he begins to move. It isn't an assumption that is how fast he moved during his 9.58 run. He also ran off of blocks, in track spikes, on a track not in cleats on a turf field. So I think it is your turn to say your bad. I am begining to question if you ever really ran track in college at all. This is the 2nd time you started coming up with bull**** just to try and prove your point. Maybe you are just one of those pretty quick guys who just does whatever the coaches say and never actually learned a **** thing about the sport. That is the only way I could possibly believe you ran track in college unless it was D2. Do you think it is impossible for an elite 100m dash runner to not have an elite 40 yard dash? Do you think an average person would think that guy runs a .02 faster 40 then a guy who isn't even a professional track athlete he must be the fastest 100m dash runner in the world?
 
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
LOL. I tried to educate just like last time but you are complete fool.

This is really basic stuff. If you don’t understand this, it will be impossible for anyone who knows anythingabout track to help you. You’re WILLFULLY IGNORANT. There’s no argument for that kind of stupidity.

Any of the people who follow track like @1953 @CarolCityHigh @randolph herndon or a few others who follow track will tell you how wrong you are.

FYI: I stopped reading at the first sentence. You’re an imbecile! LMAO.:rk5i6fxwjlgev5j6.jpg:

Walter Dix, one of the worst starters of the elite 100m guys running a hand 40

Click to expand...


LMAO the last debate we had was about how innacurate the hand 40s are and now your brining it up as proof. You are WRONG!!
What is basic? That some guys don't have as good a start but finish strong? Yup that is exactly what I have been saying why you can't use someones 100 time to prove their 40 time.
 
brock said:
And lingard is much bigger than those guys don’t be silly. In addition to that lingard ran a 10.70 without much experience running the 100m(he usually run the 110s in hurdles). If he trained for it he could possibly have run in the 10.45-10.55 range.
Click to expand...

I knew you would show up to defend LL when he doesn't need defending.

What he could possibly do, doesn't matter. All of them could run faster if they all concentrated on track alone. As it stands, those others have better times and even with your guesstimate on what he could run, he would still have the slowest time.

Again, he doesn't need defending. He's a big guy who can motor and his times prove that. The other there are certainly smaller, but all three would get a track scholarship if they never played football. LL, he wouldn't on the 100 alone, hurdles yes.
 
SayWhat said:
I knew you would show up to defend LL when he doesn't need defending.

What he could possibly do, doesn't matter. All of them could run faster if they all concentrated on track alone. As it stands, those others have better times and even with your guesstimate on what he could run, he would still have the slowest time.

Again, he doesn't need defending. He's a big guy who can motor and his times prove that. The other there are certainly smaller, but all three would get a track scholarship if they never played football. LL, he wouldn't on the 100 alone, hurdles yes.
Click to expand...
That’s the thing, 100m isn’t lingard main event as he barely has any experience with it. 110 Hurdles has always been what he concentrated on
 
Back
Top