Looking deeper into 40 times one glaring effect is the players weight in pounds. An 80 speed wr@198 pounds is faster than a 91 speed RB@217. Heck that same wr is considerably faster than an 88 FB@243.

Speed on the card should reflect actual 40 times with a variance from acceleration. Yes, weight (mass) of a player should govern alot but that effect is too strong as well. I will test really slow small guys and really fast big guys to get limits of the code, but my assumptions through observations and data where similar years ago.

There is no truly athletic freaks(big and fast). The outliers in th real world cannot fit in to our scale. Weight of a player expands the scale at the top end. If my fastest 191 pound player runs a 4.3 than fastest my 237 pound LBer can only be is 4.7....its fast but not as fast as 237 pounders in the nfl. Its quite average...move him to SS. That 30 pound loss can increase his 40 time by at least .3 seconds....aligning him with tops speed @237 in the nfl

If big guys were not penalized so much for weight the game would produce better 40 times. But would big guys make for amazing power backs? The more i think about it this is the worst part of the game. Anyone bigger is being out player by anyone smaller.

That 237 pounder needs to have 95 speed or a 4.4 fourty

Using Body Mass Index and not only mass would smash the speed scale similar to upping the speed of zero, but it will make less speed differnces when the factor of weight is involved. I honestly think this is why smaller is better.

I am assuming we can lower the effect of weight on speed. this probably is the simplest way to close the speed gaps.....in conjunction with raising the value of zero speed. Using BMI would be icing on the cake.

What may be tinkered with is how easy guys change directions with or with out the ball. That part may be too weak. Smaller guys here should be able to change direction with ease and just the opposite for the big guys.

I am almost with Seth some ideas....as IDK if i would smash the speed scale much more....unless it closes the gap of weight on speed as well.

CB Pinkerton has elite speed. He should have a top 40 time, and I dont know if i noticed this in the past but his teammate #32 and a DB as well with 79 speed but 93 acceleration is two points higher than Pinkertons and the results seemed way different

#32 kept pace till the 15 yard split! despite a difference of 17 points of speed. To make it more unusual DB #46 is the fastest of the three despite considerably lower acceleration?

In short I am not sure what to make of speed and its relation to 40 times. Maybe #46 has like 96.5 speed and Pinkertons is 95.9 .....making him slower but looking faster by rounding the displayed numbers on the card? Its says they are the same weight and same speed. Maybe just trended in weight last game ? Playing sightly ligher?

#46 won by little but i expected him to start off alot slower and maybe cover ground...he was in the lead all throughout race...that doesn't really add up.

As far as I can tell, the game treats this in the exact opposite way. A low weight player will accelerate to their top speed almost immediately while a heavy player will take much longer to accelerate. The rate of acceleration is only somewhat aided by the player's Acceleration score. So a 191# WR with 90 SP and 10 AC is going to hit his top speed faster still than a 217# RB with 90 SP and 50 AC and MUCH faster than your 237# WLB with 85 SP and 90 AC

Seth mentioned this in another post. It is kind of like Detroits Kickoff team 40 time results in nut shell. Neither speed or accelercation drastically changed results within 15 yards. Player size matters most here and Most game senerios are in this range

JDB, I believe you've said before that it would be easy to put the 40 time on a player card. I believe this would be enlightening.

If i put our slowest guys at 8.4 second 40 yard dash the numbers are decent except for the ranges of 220 to 280 pounds. They seem slow. After 10 yards my 91 speed RB is slower than my 80 speed wr. Maybe it is the one point of accelleration difference, but my bets are on the 19 pound weight difference. Kicking in the longer they ran. The funny thing the lower accelleration guys continued to get faster despite weight. Smaller guys just didnt get slower unless they had lower speed than acceleration.

The whole thng has created varied speed ranges per spilt per player per rating. Pretty neat. MY 82 speed DE is guaranteed a 20% speed penalty due to the 80 pounds heavier he is. That accounts for a loss of. 7 seconds in the fourty guaranteed.

At the 5yard split got 72% score. His 10 yard split was lowered to 68% his 20 was 78% and for 40 yards he obtained 81% of the scale here for a 5 second 40. With 68 acceraltion he went faster and slower all throughout his run..

Comparitively he is catching up. SAme for my 88 spped 32 acceleration wr, but his final 40 was at 94% or a 4.45 second fourty. The DE should be in the 4.6 range somewhere.

The thing is i am creating this scale. It is comparable but what speed are our players actually moving at compared to the clock? My 89 speed wr broke away for a good measurent but that is the next test. So hard to tell using our clock though. And he has 60 ball carry.

The worst 40 times in NFL combine history are in the 5.6 to 5.8 range. The scale should be 4.2 to 5.8.

Regardless, the problem is not the difference between 0 and 100.

I agree. The problem is the range. My freshman year in high school I think I ran a 4.7 or 4.8. I'd be like 80 on SP in MFN.

Using setherick as an example, we should expect every single CB and WR to be faster than 80, and every single OL/DT to be slower than 80.

that same scale using 8.4 as a low has a G @ 308 pounds with 35 spd 18 acc and a bit injured run a 5.67 40 time. 65% of the scale. I imagine a zero zero would still get a 50% score. We only use half of the speed scale already.

I think our top end is slow, but that would be compared to clock speed.

An 80 spd 80 acc wr ran a 4.5. Same as a 88 spd SS and a 91 spd RB. They had different splits but in the end they tied or were very close. The fastest a 300 pounder can be here is 80. Even with 80 acceleration is he wont break a 5 second 40 using this scale. He will come close but his weight slows him too much.

Maybe our top end is too slow? Maybe weight matters too much? Maybe its acceleration tide to weight, messing with just the 5 yard split.

But weight and acceraltion seem to matter more than years ago. No matter the scale i use.