Kelly the Dog Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 First off, I thought that was a crappy call. The DL held first. Secondly, that was the fastest I have seen Willis run so far, and he really does seem to be getting it back game by game. He motored for 60-70 yards. Granted, he did run out of gas, but that was faster than I thought he was capable of at this point. He's getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg de'Ville Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 ...what was the deal with Teague on that hold? Good call or not? Crap. Wiped out a good play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 His bum ankle really slowed him down but he still looked good. The penalty was bogus. I was throwing my remote when i saw the replay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 First off, I thought that was a crappy call. The DL held first. Secondly, that was the fastest I have seen Willis run so far, and he really does seem to be getting it back game by game. He motored for 60-70 yards. Granted, he did run out of gas, but that was faster than I thought he was capable of at this point. He's getting there. 147585[/snapback] First defensive lineman are allowed to hold as long as he does not hold to allow a stunting defensive lineman a free path to the inside. As for the penalty on the Willis and the screen pass their was absolutely no hold on the part of Teague. If their was it was nothing that would warrant a flag (minimal holding that takes place on every play). As for the speed McGahee showed I think the announcers had a great point, possibly the only great point all day by them. Willis runs flat footed, running flat footed gives the illusion that a player is not running as fast as he is. I would know, I ran flat footed my whole life and was consistently not perceived as a fast player. When it came down to a race I was the fasted kid on the team by a wide margin. I don't know why exactly running flat footed gives that illusion, I just know it does. My guess would be because flat footed runners generally have short torsos and long legs. They tend to completely extend with their legs in slower motion and make up for it by taking longer strides. Shorter/taller toe runners take a short stride but use a much faster leg motion. So yes, Willis is fast, it will just be hard to really see it with his running style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 I wonder what his 40 time would be now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 First off, I thought that was a crappy call. The DL held first. Secondly, that was the fastest I have seen Willis run so far, and he really does seem to be getting it back game by game. He motored for 60-70 yards. Granted, he did run out of gas, but that was faster than I thought he was capable of at this point. He's getting there. 147585[/snapback] He might be 90% healthy now man it will be scary for others when he is 100%!!! BTW any word on Travis I was out this week and only sa him listed as out with ankle and last prognosis was fracture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 I wonder what his 40 time would be now? 147608[/snapback] I would say around 4.5, he was a sub 4.4 before the injury. If he is about 96% which he says he is then he would probably lose around 1/10 of a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 I would say around 4.5, he was a sub 4.4 before the injury. If he is about 96% which he says he is then he would probably lose around 1/10 of a second. 147612[/snapback] He was 4.2 (!) before injury. I'd say 4.4's now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 He was 4.2 (!) before injury. I'd say 4.4's now. 147619[/snapback] 4.2 in a 40 which was not supervised by the NFL is the equivalent of forty in the high 4.3's that is supervised by the NFL. You always hear these college players claiming to run in the 4.1's and 4.2's, once the draft roles around only one or two players even end up having a 40 in the 4.2's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts