I, for one, would support that match actually happening.
Printable View
I, for one, would support that match actually happening.
How so? It isn't any secret that Bolt isn't that fast out of the blocks and over the first 40m, but when he strides out is when he dominates the field. Hell, was listening to one of the US 100m guys talking about his strategy in racing Bolt and it was exactly that......get a faster start and build up a lead and *hope* to hold on for the final half of the race.....to not tighten up worrying about Bolt reaching his top speed but to stay loose and just go the best he can.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th..._of_Usain_Bolt
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0113402AAXfPNV
It isn't unreasonable at all to expect to compete with Bolt at 40y which is what Denard was talking about.
Johnson said the same thing:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ol...icle-1.1133119
NBC said Bolt's 40y time was a touch slower than Johnson's?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ing-on-a-race/
Saw ESPN saying Honey Bader was considering staying at :LSU: for a year and then playing his senior season for the tigers over going down to FCS.
When you're high, you're just flying...sometimes you just lose track of how fast you are going.Quote:
Originally Posted by skipwondah33
Because he can leave the blocks slow on 100 and 200 meter races. If it's a 40 yard race, he'll change how he leaves the blocks so he can get off to a fast start and get up to full speed much faster. He can start "slow" in the 100 and 200 meters because he has plenty of time to build up his full speed and pull away from all the slow fuckers in the race. That doesn't mean he's gonna do the same "slow out of the blocks" crap in a short 40 yard race.Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinWolv
And you presume that he can just change his acceleration capability.
accelerating for only 40 yards is much different than accelerating for 100 meters. taking bolts time for 40 of the 100 meters wont be the same as if he ran an actual 40 yard dash. (obviously since a meter is longer than a yard, but even if it was a 100 yard dash, his times wouldnt be the same).Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinWolv
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-...35--ncaaf.html
fucking damnit......now this will actually give people a reason to go for it on 4th down every time...."well, san diego state goes for it every time" :fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp:
He's actually only saying that he's going to go for it on 4th down in their opponent's territory. Truthfully, it sounds like it's a sensationalized article by Yahoo because reading what he's saying, it's been common for other teams to do just that once they get past the 50. Hell, if it's short yardage, Navy goes for it every time, sometimes even before the 50.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Yeah, I read how statistically, you should go for it on 4th down and how you should always go for 2 before. Didn't know about the onside kicks though. On the game, once I get to my own 45 in the game, I begin to consider it based on the situation.
Haha at the mizzou article.. Those were some fine ladies.. Damn women that's why we never win conference championships..
There's a school down the interstate, Kenton, that does the full monty. Always goes for it on fourth down, onside kick every kickoff, goes for 2 points every touchdown.
I know it's only high school football, but it has worked really well for them. State champions in 2001 and 2002. State runner up in 2003 and 2011, in the playoffs and winning 7 games minimum (Ohio schools play 10 game seasons) almost every season.
Last year, 14-1 for the entire season, their only loss being the state championship game, losing 48-42 after giving up a touchdown with 31 seconds left to play. Looking back, went 11-2 in 2010 (lost in the regional finals), 10-2 in 2009 (lost in the regional semifinals), 7-3 in 2008 (failed to make playoffs), 7-3 in 2007 (failed to make playoffs), 5-5 in 2006 (failed to make playoffs), 7-4 in 2005 (lost in regional quarterfinals), 5-5 in 2004 (failed to make playoffs), 11-4 in 2003 (lost 12-0 in state title game), 13-2 in 2002 (won 45-13 in state title game), 15-0 in 2001 (won 40-13 in state title game).
So at least on the high school level, if you have the athletes to pull it off (and they have always had strong armed quarterbacks, fast as fuck receivers, and bulldozer running backs), you can do the whole "never punt, always onside kick, always go for 2" strategy. Last year, the fewest amount of points they scored all season, was a 24-17 win in week 1 over Coldwater, the Division V state runner up. The rest of the year, they won 40-7, 66-13, 34-7, 36-20 (against 8-3 team), 30-28 (against 10-4 team), 64-42, 70-33, 54-15, 52-32 (against 10-2 team), 74-22 (regional quarterfinal), 32-22 (regional semifinal), 30-28 (regional final), 36-6 (state semifinal), and wrapping it up with the 48-42 state final loss.
So I look forward to see what they can do with the "watered down" version of that theory on the college level of the game. The full go, balls to the wall, all out version has already been by far proven to work on the high school level.
ya, i know it was only for once they get past the 50, but no doubt some dumbass will try to make the argument that its a valid strategy to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
Statistically speaking, it makes perfect sense to do all of the above. Onside kicks work ~35% of the time, but the percentage is near 50% for teams that try it more often. If even 35% of the time you are successful on the onside kick, that's ~2 out of 5 possession that would be the opponents your's instead. That's pretty damn good if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
The reason why it's so successful in high school though is the onside kick is rarely used by the majority of teams, therefore, it's rarely practiced. Compare that to a team like your mentioned above that practices the hell out of recovering and perfecting the kick and you have a MUCH higher success rate of it working.
Some cool stuff there and some really bad stuff there. Nike scores some cool-looking stuff and some straight ugly gaudy stuff.
Minnesota's new uni =
Ski-U-Mah (slogan)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ski-U-Mah (pronounced sky-you-ma) is a slogan used at the University of Minnesota since 1894.
Two rugby players, John W. Adams and Win Sargent, invented it by combining "Ski", a Sioux battle cry, with "U Mah", for the University of Minnesota.
In the mid-20th century, Ski-U-Mah (magazine) was a U of M humor magazine.
The wording is used as the name of a meeting room at the McNamara Alumni Center and of a campus parking lot near the TCF Bank Stadium, and as the title of a yearbook-style publication published by the Minnesota Daily. It is also part of the lyrics of the "Minnesota Rouser", "Go Gopher Victory", "Minnesota Fight" and "Minnesota March".
Starting with the 2012/13 football season, Ski-U-Mah will be placed on the rear bumper of the team's helmets, as well as sewn onto the interior of the jersey near the neck area.[1]
School in Texas that does the same, with pretty considerable results.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
Good info on MINN. I like it. Coach seems like an underdog that you want to do well versus some of the other big-name douche coaches out there.
As a track runner, it is possible for Bolt to be beaten within the 40 yard dash. There's a reason he started out as a 200 runner and slowly moved his way down to the 100 and still has a bad start in the 100. He's 6'4", which is why he runs those fast times and also why he has a bad start. Being that tall it takes longer for your legs to turnover coming out the blocks. Why do you think you see so many short football players (Trindon Holliday and Jeff Demps) dominate in the 60m indoor and struggle outdoor in the 100m. They are short as hell and get great starts, but the longer the race the advantage/disadvantage balances out.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
When my friend transferred to UH, I trained him on his speed before the season started last year. I'm 6'2" and he's 5'9". Even though I am faster than him in the 100 and 200, when we ran shorts sprints (40-50m) he would always beat me to the 30m mark. Once we got there I would even out with him and pass him, because that's when my speed kicked in and his initial burst ran out. What Denard says actually makes sense. He said he would be in trouble once he got to about 50-60m when Bolt's speed kicked in, but that first 40yards he has a shot.