Keon Coleman Slow Jokes

[Einstein]

5 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

My mistake.  Yeah, I can agree with you there.  Anywhere before that point favors the static runner.  

 

I think you’re starting to see why the others are wrong, but to answer your last sentence - it still doesnt. 

 

 A “static” runner isn’t accelerating at all, so calling them static while talking about acceleration makes no sense. The correct term would be a runner starting from rest. If a stumbler already has v0 greater than 0, they’re already moving, so their total speed combines v0 and their acceleration. The idea that the static runner will accelerate faster is irrelevant because the stumbler already has an advantage in initial velocity. You’re focusing too much on acceleration without understanding how initial velocity and acceleration work together in building speed. Which is pretty much what most people do and it’s frustrating to someone who knows what they’re actually doing.

 

Put another way: It would be like one runner starting from the block and another runner (his competitor), already running as he crosses the starting line but he has stumbled a second before that. Because he has an initial velocity, the non-stumbler would need much greater acceleration to beat him. Advantage stumbler. 

Edited yesterday at 02:12 AM by Einstein

[GaryPinC]

2 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

I think you’re starting to see why the others are wrong, but to answer your last sentence - it still doesnt. 

 

 A “static” runner isn’t accelerating at all, so calling them static while talking about acceleration makes no sense. The correct term would be a runner starting from rest. If a stumbler already has v0 greater than 0, they’re already moving, so their total speed combines v0 and their acceleration. The idea that the static runner will accelerate faster is irrelevant because the stumbler already has an advantage in initial velocity. You’re focusing too much on acceleration without understanding how initial velocity and acceleration work together in building speed. Which is pretty much what most people do and it’s frustrating to someone who knows what they’re actually doing.

Nope.  You seem to ignore the fact that the stumbler undergoes negative acceleration while re-establishing themselves, which is a multistep/short distance process.

Once the static runner moves acceleration is all positive and compounding while the stumbler has to transition from negative acceleration to positive while trying to find proper balance and rhythm.

 

So if a runner form starts from zero while the other runner is just starting to stumble, I doubt it's even close that the zero start will rapidly pass the stumbler.

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

Nope.  You seem to ignore the fact that the stumbler undergoes negative acceleration while re-establishing themselves, which is a multistep/short distance process.

Once the static runner moves acceleration is all positive and compounding while the stumbler has to transition from negative acceleration to positive while trying to find proper balance and rhythm.

 

So if a runner form starts from zero while the other runner is just starting to stumble, I doubt it's even close that the zero start will rapidly pass the stumbler.

 

 

Negative acceleration doesn’t cancel out initial velocity. Negative acceleration is simply a change in velocity in the negative direction. The stumbler still has a velocity greater than zero, which means they’re ahead, even if they lose a bit of speed. Meanwhile, the “static” (your word) runner is starting from zero and has to build speed from scratch. Acceleration doesn’t just compound endlessly … there’s a limit, and once terminal velocity is reached, the stumbler’s head start gives them a clear advantage.

 

Put short and sweet; Your wrong but you don’t have enough conceptual background  to realize it.

Edited yesterday at 04:58 AM by Einstein

[GaryPinC]

44 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Its times for you to take Physics 101 again because you’re not making much sense. I teach the course if you’d like to take PM me.

 

Negative acceleration doesn’t cancel out initial velocity. Negative acceleration is simply a change in velocity in the negative direction. The stumbler still has a velocity greater than zero, which means they’re ahead, even if they lose a bit of speed. Meanwhile, the “static” (your word) runner is starting from zero and has to build speed from scratch. Acceleration doesn’t just compound endlessly … there’s a limit, and once terminal velocity is reached, the stumbler’s head start gives them a clear advantage.

 

Put short and sweet; Your wrong but you don’t have enough conceptual background  to realize it.

I took plenty of physics including quantum.  As you are saying negative acceleration will reduce v0 while the 0 start runner is compounding acceleration and building positive speed. The x factor we are disagreeing on is whether the balance and rhythm will compromise the stumbler from maintaining and recovering enough speed and acceleration to stay in front of the zero started runner.  It's generally more difficult and time consuming to correct balance, form and negative acceleration than to start from zero with good balance and stride.   

 

So if the static runner starts his run as the stumbler starts his stumble, and both runners are capable of the same maximum acceleration, the stumbler will have a very short lead and be quickly passed by the zero start guy while the stumbler tries to re-establish balance, form and positive acceleration.

The stumble and loss of balance will compromise a lot of that initial velocity or the runner will fall over.  This can certainly be argued depending on the situation but getting back to Coleman's case, he almost fell over and lost a lot of velocity to get himself re-established.

 

I get that you are saying the stumbler's initial velocity would still keep him in front, but I disagree in this case with Keon.

 

I certainly understand that in some situations your reasoning will be correct, I know in certain situations (and IMO most situations) my reasoning will be correct.  I respect your thinking and opinion but if you are unable to admit my reasoning will be correct in certain situations than the ignorance is yours.  I don't feel I can add any more to this discussion so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited yesterday at 03:05 AM by GaryPinC

[Nephilim17]

Keon's so slow when McD wanted to give him a game ball, he was still in the tunnel.

[BobbyC81]

9 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

I think you’re starting to see why the others are wrong, but to answer your last sentence - it still doesnt. 

 

 A “static” runner isn’t accelerating at all, so calling them static while talking about acceleration makes no sense. The correct term would be a runner starting from rest. If a stumbler already has v0 greater than 0, they’re already moving, so their total speed combines v0 and their acceleration. The idea that the static runner will accelerate faster is irrelevant because the stumbler already has an advantage in initial velocity. You’re focusing too much on acceleration without understanding how initial velocity and acceleration work together in building speed. Which is pretty much what most people do and it’s frustrating to someone who knows what they’re actually doing.

 

Put another way: It would be like one runner starting from the block and another runner (his competitor), already running as he crosses the starting line but he has stumbled a second before that. Because he has an initial velocity, the non-stumbler would need much greater acceleration to beat him. Advantage stumbler. 

Rumbling, bumbling, stumbling!

[BobbyC81]

OMG you guys on the Coleman Combine 40 time.   It’s meaningless.

 

if I recall, Jerry Rice was timed at 4.7.    In his NFL career, when he caught a pass with nobody in front of him, I don’t ever remember seeing him being caught from behind.  Game speed is all that matters.  Coleman showed it a couple weeks ago running down the sideline.

[SoonerBillsFan]

If Coleman hadn't stumbled I think he makes the endzone.  Even not doing so, he got 57 yards, 53 or so on his own.   His speed is just fine.

[NewEra]

12 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

After he fully regained his motion post stumbling, he went 27 yards in 3.37 seconds. That is the equivalent of a 4.99 second 40 yard dash. 

To put that into perspective, Spencer Brown ran a 4.94 second 40 yard dash.

 

He likely would have been caught around the 10 yard line.

 

 

 

@Doc - this is AFTER he fully gained composure post stumbling

Was he running a straight line?

[transient]

Did this thread really spend 3 pages arguing about whether an athlete that expended a bunch of energy getting downfield and breaking a tackle before stumbling was then less efficient at “running a 40” than he would have been had he not spent a bunch of energy and was fresh out of the blocks?!?! 🤔🤦‍♂️ Math may demonstrate his slower speed on the field in that exact moment, but it apparently doesn’t involve an offset that factors in common sense. 

[NewEra]

 

[dickleyjones]

Omg the people arguing about physics in here whilst proving nothing.

 

No one is reaching terminal velocity @Einstein 

 

Acceleration is not equal to both runners, and it is not a constant. So v = at doesn't really help us.

 

There are scenarios where someone stumbling vs someone starting from 0 will win a footrace, and scenarios where they will lose.

 

If you knew the actual rate of change in acceleration in each runner for the entire race then you should be able to calculate who would win. But we don't know that.

[Prospector]

I think the biggest question is, would Damar have caught up to him?

[Not at the table Karlos]

1 hour ago, BobbyC81 said:

OMG you guys on the Coleman Combine 40 time.   It’s meaningless.

 

if I recall, Jerry Rice was timed at 4.7.    In his NFL career, when he caught a pass with nobody in front of him, I don’t ever remember seeing him being caught from behind.  Game speed is all that matters.  Coleman showed it a couple weeks ago running down the sideline.

And showed it twice yesterday. He’s slow. 

44 minutes ago, NewEra said:

 

How fast was Hollins that he was pulling away from Coleman and the DBs that caught him from behind? 

[Mr. WEO]

man, this kid's slow

[Royale with Cheese]

50 minutes ago, NewEra said:

 

 

13 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Dude is slow as molasses.

 

He makes up for it with a great catch radius, but he isn’t scoring even without stumbling.

 

He had a 10 yard head start and the entire Titans backfield caught up to him 😂

 

[atlbillsfan1975]

13 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

After he fully regained his motion post stumbling, he went 27 yards in 3.37 seconds. That is the equivalent of a 4.99 second 40 yard dash. 

To put that into perspective, Spencer Brown ran a 4.94 second 40 yard dash.

 

He likely would have been caught around the 10 yard line.

 

 

 

@Doc - this is AFTER he fully gained composure post stumbling

This is an example of when entertainment and a hobby turn into something else.

[damj]

Keon is so fast he almost beat Mrs. Rosenblatz in the 100-yard dash

 

 

[Not at the table Karlos]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

 

The MPH thing is kinda dumb. If a player has that much running room they’re gonna hit a higher top speed. Not many players each week get that much running room. So him being 9th for the week isn’t very impressive either. It also only factors in ball carriers. Hollins was pulling away from Coleman and all their DBs caught up with him. 

[without a drought]

Just now, damj said:

Keon is so fast he almost beat Mrs. Rosenblatz in the 100-yard dash

 

 

He would have won if not for the pads and having to carry a football.