07-04-2004, 02:13 AM
|
#83
|
|
Th* C*mm*shn*k*v
OVR: 15
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 2,836
|
Re: Impressions
Quote:
JayBee74 said:
Quote:
MattG said:
I think speed is a main factor of college football, probably one of the main factors that seperates the Top 25 from everyone else.
Lots of guys can catch a ball, or make a tackle. But the quick/fast one's are the studs of the college ranks.
I think so too. Remember the old Gamebreaker video game which highlighted the top college players (85 or above rated), and labeled them "gamebreakers". A lot of that distancing had to do with speed.
It's a two-way street. Buy Phil Steele's preview mag. You can see guys at schools like Ohio, UTEP, Miami of Ohio, La. Tech, San Diego State, etc that run 4.2 and 4.3. Why did that guy not make it to a better school? Because speed isn't everything. If they have hands of stone, a brain of air, or an arm like spaghetti, they aren't 'gamebreakers', even if they are fast. Speed is not the be all, end all of football. Speed along with all the requisite fundamental skills is, of course, ideal, but that doesn't always happen. Mike Williams is not a track star, but EA gives 97 speed. Shaud Williams ran a 4.85 40 at the combine, but his speed rating on 2004 was like an 88. The fact is, on this game engine, a skill player simply can't be good unless he has speed and that is not realistic. WRs with less than 90 speed are considered bad, yet most WRs are praised more for being smart, running good routes, having good blocking habits, and having the concentration to see the ball in and make the catch than they are for simply being fast. Many WRs in real life are not fast, but they are very quick. Quickness is much more important in football; I think a lot of people here have speed and quickness mixed up. The fact is, many, many non-BCS schools have a ton of speed on their team, but they do not have the same fundamental skills of football that make them great players. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! |
|
|
