[Mick]

I fail to see how a factually accurate statement is evidence of bias.  McCaffrey is a smaller back than the prototypical NFL running back, and his size/weight was a subject of question marks on this very board.

#1 RB was 6'1", 225 lbs.
#2 RB was 5'11", 199 lbs. (per NFL.com stats)
#3 RB was 5'9", 233 lbs.
#4 RB was 6'1", 225 lbs.
#5 RB was 6'0", 225 lbs.
#6 RB was 5'9", 209 lbs.
#7 RB was 6'1", 231 lbs.

CMAC seems a trifle smallish to be an every down back.

[Mick]

I fail to see how a factually accurate statement is evidence of bias.  McCaffrey is a smaller back than the prototypical NFL running back, and his size/weight was a subject of question marks on this very board.

#1 RB was 6'1", 225 lbs.
#2 RB was 5'11", 199 lbs. (per NFL.com stats)
#3 RB was 5'9", 233 lbs.
#4 RB was 6'1", 225 lbs.
#5 RB was 6'0", 225 lbs.
#6 RB was 5'9", 209 lbs.
#7 RB was 6'1", 231 lbs.

CMAC seems a trifle smallish to be an every down back.

[Hulk01]

I'm going with Boston Card here.  In the last couple weeks I've rewatched several of Mac's games last season.  And I had missed several of them, so I was seeing them afresh--and he looked less scary than he had the year before.  I kept thinking, "Okay, he's going to break this one," but then he wouldn't. 

He may have been a blink slower after the injury.  His recent 4.48 hints that he may have gotten that blink back.

[Hulk01]

I'm going with Boston Card here.  In the last couple weeks I've rewatched several of Mac's games last season.  And I had missed several of them, so I was seeing them afresh--and he looked less scary than he had the year before.  I kept thinking, "Okay, he's going to break this one," but then he wouldn't. 

He may have been a blink slower after the injury.  His recent 4.48 hints that he may have gotten that blink back.

[CTcard]

I'm going with Boston Card here.  In the last couple weeks I've rewatched several of Mac's games last season.  And I had missed several of them, so I was seeing them afresh--and he looked less scary than he had the year before.  I kept thinking, "Okay, he's going to break this one," but then he wouldn't. 

He may have been a blink slower after the injury.  His recent 4.48 hints that he may have gotten that blink back.

When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.


This past year is interesting on McCaffrey's production, and perhaps a testament to the power of expectations to colour our perception of what we see.

He had a better yds/carry in 2016 than in 2015 by 6.34 to 5.99.

The number of big plays is a small enough number that it can be rather random, but it is directly related to what people are comemnting on.
Overall, it looks as if his percentage of big plays held remarkably steady, despite fewer carries overall and thus fewer big plays.
10+ yd runs: 2016 = 39 (15.4%), 2015 = 56 (16.6%)
20+ yd runs: 2016 = 14 (5.5%),  2015 = 19 (5.6%)

Both years there were some games where McCaffrey seemed considerably less effective. In 2016 that seemed to be primarily due to injury.
In 2016 McCaffrey was more steady on a game to game basis - with lower highs and higher lows. 

[CTcard]

I'm going with Boston Card here.  In the last couple weeks I've rewatched several of Mac's games last season.  And I had missed several of them, so I was seeing them afresh--and he looked less scary than he had the year before.  I kept thinking, "Okay, he's going to break this one," but then he wouldn't. 

He may have been a blink slower after the injury.  His recent 4.48 hints that he may have gotten that blink back.

When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.


This past year is interesting on McCaffrey's production, and perhaps a testament to the power of expectations to colour our perception of what we see.

He had a better yds/carry in 2016 than in 2015 by 6.34 to 5.99.

The number of big plays is a small enough number that it can be rather random, but it is directly related to what people are comemnting on.
Overall, it looks as if his percentage of big plays held remarkably steady, despite fewer carries overall and thus fewer big plays.
10+ yd runs: 2016 = 39 (15.4%), 2015 = 56 (16.6%)
20+ yd runs: 2016 = 14 (5.5%),  2015 = 19 (5.6%)

Both years there were some games where McCaffrey seemed considerably less effective. In 2016 that seemed to be primarily due to injury.
In 2016 McCaffrey was more steady on a game to game basis - with lower highs and higher lows. 

[DC 86]

When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.

McCaffrey conducted a workout at Landow Performance Denver two weeks ago in which he was timed at 4.46 and 4.48. Video below:

http://milehighsports.com/christian-mcca...g-combine/

[DC 86]

When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.

McCaffrey conducted a workout at Landow Performance Denver two weeks ago in which he was timed at 4.46 and 4.48. Video below:

http://milehighsports.com/christian-mcca...g-combine/

[OutsiderFan]

I know I said he'd be a lock first round pick if he ran a sub 4.4 40, but that doesn't mean he won't be if he doesn't.  I solid sub 4.5 - which the reporting suggests is imminently doable - very well could do it too.

[OutsiderFan]

I know I said he'd be a lock first round pick if he ran a sub 4.4 40, but that doesn't mean he won't be if he doesn't.  I solid sub 4.5 - which the reporting suggests is imminently doable - very well could do it too.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16407.msg188947#msg188947 date=1487734924]
When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.

McCaffrey conducted a workout at Landow Performance Denver two weeks ago in which he was timed at 4.46 and 4.48. Video below:

http://milehighsports.com/christian-mcca...g-combine/
[/quote]

Thanks for that.

The current note says, "Replaced @CMcCaffrey5 40 yard dash video so that his time can't be revealed." Which makes things slightly ambiguous.

However, the article also states, "McCaffrey ran two 40-yard dashes at the event, with NFL Insider Benjamin Allbright clocking him at 4.46 and 4.48."
If an individual timed him, then those would presumably be hand timed. However, it may be an awkward way of noting that said individual saw those times taken electronically.

They are in the ballpark of what I would expect.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16407.msg188947#msg188947 date=1487734924]
When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.

McCaffrey conducted a workout at Landow Performance Denver two weeks ago in which he was timed at 4.46 and 4.48. Video below:

http://milehighsports.com/christian-mcca...g-combine/
[/quote]

Thanks for that.

The current note says, "Replaced @CMcCaffrey5 40 yard dash video so that his time can't be revealed." Which makes things slightly ambiguous.

However, the article also states, "McCaffrey ran two 40-yard dashes at the event, with NFL Insider Benjamin Allbright clocking him at 4.46 and 4.48."
If an individual timed him, then those would presumably be hand timed. However, it may be an awkward way of noting that said individual saw those times taken electronically.

They are in the ballpark of what I would expect.

[CornFed]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16407.msg188947#msg188947 date=1487734924]
When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.

McCaffrey conducted a workout at Landow Performance Denver two weeks ago in which he was timed at 4.46 and 4.48. Video below:

http://milehighsports.com/christian-mcca...g-combine/
[/quote]

Since these things get timed electronically to thousandths of a second perhaps this question will not seem too stupid:  To what extent does thin air in Denver enhance the time in a short distance like this?

[CornFed]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16407.msg188947#msg188947 date=1487734924]
When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.

McCaffrey conducted a workout at Landow Performance Denver two weeks ago in which he was timed at 4.46 and 4.48. Video below:

http://milehighsports.com/christian-mcca...g-combine/
[/quote]

Since these things get timed electronically to thousandths of a second perhaps this question will not seem too stupid:  To what extent does thin air in Denver enhance the time in a short distance like this?

[CTcard]

Since these things get timed electronically to thousandths of a second perhaps this question will not seem too stupid:  To what extent does thin air in Denver enhance the time in a short distance like this?

Altitude does help sprinters.

Denver is at an altitutde of 1609 meters. According to this chart (which seems to roughly match what I have often heard), this altitude would help a runner who runs a 10s 100 meters by about 5/100ths.
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/sprints/altwind.htm

So, for a 40 - maybe 2/100ths?

[CTcard]

Since these things get timed electronically to thousandths of a second perhaps this question will not seem too stupid:  To what extent does thin air in Denver enhance the time in a short distance like this?

Altitude does help sprinters.

Denver is at an altitutde of 1609 meters. According to this chart (which seems to roughly match what I have often heard), this altitude would help a runner who runs a 10s 100 meters by about 5/100ths.
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/sprints/altwind.htm

So, for a 40 - maybe 2/100ths?

[Roberton3]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16407.msg188997#msg188997 date=1487825990]
Since these things get timed electronically to thousandths of a second perhaps this question will not seem too stupid:  To what extent does thin air in Denver enhance the time in a short distance like this?

Altitude does help sprinters.

Denver is at an altitutde of 1609 meters. According to this chart (which seems to roughly match what I have often heard), this altitude would help a runner who runs a 10s 100 meters by about 5/100ths.
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/sprints/altwind.htm

So, for a 40 - maybe 2/100ths?
[/quote]

It'd make less difference than that.  Air resistance matters most for top-end speed and less for acceleration (drag is roughly quadratic with velocity), and the 40 is much more about acceleration and less about top-end speed than the 100.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16407.msg188997#msg188997 date=1487825990]
Since these things get timed electronically to thousandths of a second perhaps this question will not seem too stupid:  To what extent does thin air in Denver enhance the time in a short distance like this?

Altitude does help sprinters.

Denver is at an altitutde of 1609 meters. According to this chart (which seems to roughly match what I have often heard), this altitude would help a runner who runs a 10s 100 meters by about 5/100ths.
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/sprints/altwind.htm

So, for a 40 - maybe 2/100ths?
[/quote]

It'd make less difference than that.  Air resistance matters most for top-end speed and less for acceleration (drag is roughly quadratic with velocity), and the 40 is much more about acceleration and less about top-end speed than the 100.

[DC 86]

Air resistance matters most for top-end speed and less for acceleration (drag is roughly quadratic with velocity), and the 40 is much more about acceleration and less about top-end speed than the 100.

Correct, the 40 is about an explosive start (which is why runners try to cheat by rolling) and quick acceleration. The biggest external factor is probably the running surface itself; the RCA Dome is notoriously slow which is why many players run materially faster in their pre-combine workouts and on their post-combine pro days. Moreover, McCaffrey's workout was hand timed by a blogger who was on hand, so while the times confirm a general range we can't really extrapolate much precise predictive information beyond the fact that he is running in the expected range.

[DC 86]

Air resistance matters most for top-end speed and less for acceleration (drag is roughly quadratic with velocity), and the 40 is much more about acceleration and less about top-end speed than the 100.

Correct, the 40 is about an explosive start (which is why runners try to cheat by rolling) and quick acceleration. The biggest external factor is probably the running surface itself; the RCA Dome is notoriously slow which is why many players run materially faster in their pre-combine workouts and on their post-combine pro days. Moreover, McCaffrey's workout was hand timed by a blogger who was on hand, so while the times confirm a general range we can't really extrapolate much precise predictive information beyond the fact that he is running in the expected range.