M.Williams results

[spanky1]

4.56 wind assisted......4.62 against the wind......... 39..5' vertical jump

Apparently he looked GOOD

 

[spanky1]

4.56 wind assisted......4.62 against the wind......... 39..5' vertical jump

Apparently he looked GOOD

Should have been 37" vertical jump sorry

Also, 10-1 long jump; 4.34 short and 6.84 three cone

 

[Krangodnzr]

Good times for Mikey! I was afraid that he would run much slower, but for a receiver his size, a 4.6 isn't bad.

 

[vikesfan]

Fitz is the same size and ran a 4.5

 

[Pariah]

Fitz is the same size and ran a 4.5

Mike Williams goes about 6'5 and 230; isn't Larry Fitzgerald about 6'2 and 220?

 

[cardsunsfan]

he's about three inches shorter though! People are fast on this site!

 

[CaptTurbo]

Id much rather have Williams at 7 than Fitz at 3.

 

[SECTION 11]

Id much rather have Williams at 7 than Fitz at 3.

If we have to have a receiver (eyeroll for the insanity of it all) then we're much better off trading down. Taking a reciever, any reciever this year, at #3 is a ridiculous idea.

 

[vikesfan]

Yeah you got me there a guy's height really effects his speed. LOL

 

[BACH]

Hmm, Mike was 0.13 faster than Fitz in the 3 cone drill. Interesting.... Fitz is faster, but Williams is quicker?

I think this was expected work-out number. Mike Williams will be the 3rd receiver drafted.

 

[Pariah]

Id much rather have Williams at 7 than Fitz at 3.

I only agree with this if we get Cleveland's second rounder as well. Otherwise, I don't care.

 

[cardsunsfan]

Yeah you got me there a guy's height really effects his speed. LOL

I think it does... I think once you hit a certain height it is harder to run as fast. You don't see many really fast 6'5'' guys very often do you? At least not as fast as the 6'2'' guys....

 

[Pariah]

Yeah you got me there a guy's height really effects his speed. LOL

It does--both positively and negatively depending on the size. Just like weight.

If you're too light, you don't have the muscle to propell yourself. If you're too heavy, you can't propell the weight fast enough.

If you're too short, you don't have the stride to move fast, if you're too tall, you can't swing your legs out fast enough.

Those are generalizations, obviously, but that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

 

[so far away]

It does--both positively and negatively depending on the size. Just like weight.

If you're too light, you don't have the muscle to propell yourself. If you're too heavy, you can't propell the weight fast enough.

If you're too short, you don't have the stride to move fast, if you're too tall, you can't swing your legs out fast enough.

Those are generalizations, obviously, but that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

So is it better to be too heavy or too tall? Does being too light make up for being too tall or would it be better too heavy and too short?
Here's an idea, get a WR later in the draft.

 

[so far away]

If we have to have a receiver (eyeroll for the insanity of it all) then we're much better off trading down. Taking a reciever, any reciever this year, at #3 is a ridiculous idea.

I'm so glad I'm not the Lone Ranger on this.

 

[Pariah]

So is it better to be too heavy or too tall? Does being too light make up for being too tall or would it be better too heavy and too short?

It's not better to be "too heavy" or "too tall" or "too short" if you're going for speed. I'll see your and raise you a and a .

Here's an idea, get a WR later in the draft.

BTW, I have an idea, too: draft Ben Roethlisberger.