Can Trindon Holliday make it in the NFL?

[jazzcyclist]

This article says that he's been working extra hard to improve his blocking skills this summer. I get the impression that he's decided that football is where he'll focus his attention next year. Having trained side-by-side with Richard Thompson for the last four years, he should have a good feel for what it would take to succeed in pro track and whether or not he has it.

http://www.sportingnews.com/college-foo ... ays-off-09

[Pego]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. TH is a superb sprinter, marginal football player.

[Marlow]

Can, yes, will, probably not. There's a niche for hyper-quick slot players. He'd have to have superb hands and the ability to take huge shots. Agility (cutting) wouldn't even be as important as those two things.

[502CD]

If they expand the rosters like they're discussing then you'd start seeing more specialty guys making teams.

[TrackDaddy]

Darren Sproles is making a living.

[jazzcyclist]

The answer is "yes".

The Houston Texans have reached a contract agreement with sixth-rould draft pick Trindon Holliday, a return specialist, receiver and runningback from LSU.

NFL sources told FOX 26 Sports Holliday agrees to a four-year contract worth $1.88 million.

Congratulations Trindon!

[Dutra]

For those unaware....the vast majority of that money is not likely guaranteed. In all likelihood he'll get either a signing bonus or roster bonus of $100k or so.

[jazzcyclist]

For those unaware....the vast majority of that money is not likely guaranteed. In all likelihood he'll get either a signing bonus or roster bonus of $100k or so.

If he sticks around for four years, he shouldn't make much less than that amount since the minimum wage for 2010 is $325,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_F ... e#Salaries

[Avante]

Nolan "Super Gnat" Smith
"Mini" Mac Herron
Walter "The Flea" Roberts
Lionel "Little Train" James
Howard Stevens

....were all pint sized players without Holliday's great speed who did make NFL rosters. Will Holliday be a star....no! Can he play special teams and be a third down option and an occasionally change of pace back....sure! Will he have a long and productive career...probably not. I think he'll play a few years then when a step is lost...see ya~~~

[Dutra]

For those unaware....the vast majority of that money is not likely guaranteed. In all likelihood he'll get either a signing bonus or roster bonus of $100k or so.

If he sticks around for four years, he shouldn't make much less than that amount since the minimum wage for 2010 is $325,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_F ... e#Salaries

Which wasn't my point.

[nunusguy]

Texans fan here. Gary Kubiak, Texans coach, has indicated that he's gonna try to use Holliday as both punt and kickoff return guy. I'm thinking he mainly returned kickoffs at LSU, but not sure ?
Problem is sticking on the roster if one can only do Special teams, so they're hoping he might
work in as a slot receiver to, perhaps a running back in special situations to increase his versitility and thereby his value and ability to make the final 53 ?
I watched a couple of his 100 meters on Youtube, and he finished strong in both of those events, which surprised me ? I thought he was all about the start (often the case with diminutive sprinters like him), and perhaps was caught on a regular basis in the last 20 or 30 meters of his 100s if he didn't get out of the blocs in spectacular fashion, but not the case in the races I saw ?

[jazzcyclist]

This doesn't sound good.

(on his overall impressions of WR Trindon Holliday)

He is what we thought he was as far as his talent and all that. But in this league he's going to have to play wide receiver so he's got a long, long way to go. He's way behind. He's got a long way to go to prove to this team that he knows what the hell he's doing. It's probably not a good day to ask me that question.

(on what he means about WR Trindon Holliday having a long way to go)

Well, I don't know how much offense he played there (LSU) from the standpoint of what was expected of him. There are not many specialists in this business. You better know what you're doing to cross a board. So he's getting plenty of reps as wide receiver. We're down to seven guys right now as we work. He's going to have to prove to these guys that he's keeping up. That's what's going on.

http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story ... ry_id=6188

[jazzcyclist]

For those who missed it, here's Holliday, the fastest man in the history of football, scroing his first regular season NFL touchdown while setting a Broncos franchise record for longest kick return. Notice how all the Bengals players gave up on chasing him 50 yards away from the endzone.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap20000 ... -the-house

[Pego]

For those who missed it, here's Holliday, the fastest man in the history of football, scroing his first regular season NFL touchdown while setting a Broncos franchise record for longest kick return. Notice how all the Bengals players gave up on chasing him 50 yards away from the endzone.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap20000 ... -the-house

Does anybody have sprinting credentials for Mike Wallace? He seems pretty fast. His TD against the Giants was poetry in motion.

[gh]

For those who missed it, here's Holliday, the fastest man in the history of football,...

You mean "fastest man not named Bob Hayes" of course.

[jazzcyclist]

For those who missed it, here's Holliday, the fastest man in the history of football,...

You mean "fastest man not named Bob Hayes" of course.

10.00>10.06


I know, i know. Mondo, coaching, training, nutrution, creatine, etc. . . . .

[26mi235]

10.00>10.06

That is right 10.00 is greater, i.e., slower, than 10.06. Those two are not even in the same league, much less is Holliday's mark superior.

[jazzcyclist]

10.00>10.06

That is right 10.00 is greater, i.e., slower, than 10.06. Those two are not even in the same league, much less is Holliday's mark superior.

I figured a wisenheimer mathematician might say this so let me be precise in my language.

A 10.00 FAT performance is superior to a 10.06 FAT performance.

[Pego]

10.00>10.06

That is right 10.00 is greater, i.e., slower, than 10.06. Those two are not even in the same league, much less is Holliday's mark superior.

I figured a wisenheimer mathematician might say this so let me be precise in my language.

A 10.00 FAT performance is superior to a 10.06 FAT performance.

Racing side-by-side under the same conditions, you would not bet on Holliday beating Hayes, now would you ?

[jazzcyclist]

Racing side-by-side under the same conditions, you would not bet on Holliday beating Hayes, now would you ?

If by same conditons, you mean training, nutrition and track surface, of course not. Did you not read my fine print?

[Pego]

Racing side-by-side under the same conditions, you would not bet on Holliday beating Hayes, now would you ?

If by same conditons, you mean training, nutrition and track surface, of course not. Did you not read my fine print?

I think track surface alone would suffice.

[gh]

....

A 10.00 FAT performance is superior to a 10.06 FAT performance.

it may be faster, but not superior!

[26mi235]

Racing side-by-side under the same conditions, you would not bet on Holliday beating Hayes, now would you ?

If by same conditons, you mean training, nutrition and track surface, of course not. Did you not read my fine print?

I think track surface alone would suffice.

Holliday might be as fast as those world top-5 sprinters he ran against in the anchor leg, maybe even give him 0.1 on them. That leaves about, what, another half second differential. People who know more than me seem to indicate that Bolt is the first one that they think is clearly better than Hayes was (and Hayes stopped early) and Holliday is not remotely in Bolt's class or the one just behind him.

[jazzcyclist]

Holliday might be as fast as those world top-5 sprinters he ran against in the anchor leg, maybe even give him 0.1 on them. That leaves about, what, another half second differential.

0.5s? Come on man! That would mean that Hayes would be running 9.50 if he were around today. Do you really believe that? Also, the history of college sprinters suggests that Holliday would have eventually knocked another 0.10s to 0.20s off his college PR had he had chosen pro track over pro football.

[gh]

at his height, I'm guessing not.

[jazzcyclist]

I don't see how his height is relevant to the fact that very, very few sprinters in the history of the sport failed to improve on the college PR's once they became pros. Add to this the fact that Holliday was splitting his time with football and it doesn't seem plausible that he peaked out while at LSU.

[gh]

If a guy who was 6-foot-6 jumped 7-2 in college and his 5-foot-10 teammate did also, which one do you think would have the better PR 4 years down the road? And no, that's not apples & oranges.

[jazzcyclist]

1) I think it is somewhat an apples and orange argument, since center of gravity is a big factor in high jumping, but not in sprinting.

2) Even with the example of high jumping, you don't seem to be implying that the shorter guy's PR won't improve after college, so why do you think a short sprinter's PR won't improve after college. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing whether or not taller athletes have more post-collegiate upside. A while back I remember glancing over some stats which showed that quite a number of 400 runners never improved of their college PR's but that wasn't the case for the 100, in which practically everyone improved on their college PR's. For example, Mike Rodgers, a pretty short guy, went from 10.10 to 9.85, and Michael Frater went from 10.06 to 9.88. Why do you think Holliday would be immune to this phenomenon?

[bambam]

10.00>10.06

That is right 10.00 is greater, i.e., slower, than 10.06. Those two are not even in the same league, much less is Holliday's mark superior.

I figured a wisenheimer mathematician might say this so let me be precise in my language.

A 10.00 FAT performance is superior to a 10.06 FAT performance.

Not one on modern tracks when compared to Hayes running on red clay cinders, that were muddy from the rain, and all chewed up in lane 1 from the 20K walk that had taken place earlier that day. They're not remotely comparable.

[preston]

So let me get this straight...Hayes was a 9.5x/9.6x guy? Then what would the rest of the '64 finalists be? I mean they all ran on the same track in the same conditions (though we're to believe that lane 1 was sooooo chewed up... )

1 Bob Hayes United States 10.0 seconds ≈ 9.5x/9.6x
2 Enrique Figuerola Cuba 10.2 seconds ≈ 9.7x/9.8x
3 Harry Jerome Canada 10.2 seconds ≈ 9.7x/9.8x
4 Wiesław Maniak Poland 10.4 seconds ≈ 9.9x/10.0x
5 Heinz Schumann Germany 10.4 seconds ≈ 9.9x/10.0x
6 Gaoussou Kone Côte d'Ivoire 10.4 seconds ≈ 9.9x/10.0x
7 Mel Pender United States 10.4 seconds ≈ 9.9x/10.0x
8 Tom Robinson Bahamas 10.5 seconds ≈ 10.0x/10.1x

Maniak and Schumann were the first sub-10 Europeans?
Harry Jerome faster than Bailey and Surin?
Figuerola potentially faster than Asafa Powell?
Kone the first African sub-10?

I will concede that Hayes was great but we have to stop trying to compare out of era.

[jazzcyclist]

10.00>10.06

That is right 10.00 is greater, i.e., slower, than 10.06. Those two are not even in the same league, much less is Holliday's mark superior.

I figured a wisenheimer mathematician might say this so let me be precise in my language.

A 10.00 FAT performance is superior to a 10.06 FAT performance.

Not one on modern tracks when compared to Hayes running on red clay cinders, that were muddy from the rain, and all chewed up in lane 1 from the 20K walk that had taken place earlier that day. They're not remotely comparable.

I guess I didn't use enough emoticons and small type to get my point across.

[bambam]

I guess I didn't use enough emoticons and small type to get my point across.

Yeah, I didn't see your fine print until you referred to it in a later post.

[gh]

1) I think it is somewhat an apples and orange argument, since center of gravity is a big factor in high jumping, but not in sprinting.

2) Even with the example of high jumping, you don't seem to be implying that the shorter guy's PR won't improve after college, so why do you think a short sprinter's PR won't improve after college. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing whether or not taller athletes have more post-collegiate upside. A while back I remember glancing over some stats which showed that quite a number of 400 runners never improved of their college PR's but that wasn't the case for the 100, in which practically everyone improved on their college PR's. For example, Mike Rodgers, a pretty short guy, went from 10.10 to 9.85, and Michael Frater went from 10.06 to 9.88. Why do you think Holliday would be immune to this phenomenon?

Rodgers is almost 4 inches (10cm) taller than Holliday. They're not remotely in the same physical boat. And Frater is in between them. But even if you find somebody Holliday's size who is that fast, doesn't change my position. There's always an outlier, but there aren't many, and logic says there's no reason to expect Holliday to be one.

My take would be that there's two ways to run 10-flat (to pull a round number out of the air, that also happens to be Holliday's PR): short guys with incredible turnover who lead at halfway, and tall long-legged guys who are slow out of the blocks but in the second half can maintain speed with their huge stride.

Some tall guys (see Bolt, Usain) can master quick starts and get faster than 10-flat. Short guys can't find a way to make their legs longer at the end of the race.

That's a very simplified picture of what I'm trying to convey.

[preston]

jazz, I'm gonna have to go with gh. I see your point, but your stretching it. Frater has run 9.88 once and took quite a few years to get there. He's mostly a 10.x sprinter with some sub-10 exceptions. If I had to pick that "short sprinter" to use as a case it would be Andre Cason and he was basically like Frater - but better. And aside from his windy 9.8x he was a 10.0x guy with the occasional sub-10 (Frater might have more subs than Cason...).

[jazzcyclist]

jazz, I'm gonna have to go with gh. I see your point, but your stretching it. Frater has run 9.88 once and took quite a few years to get there. He's mostly a 10.x sprinter with some sub-10 exceptions. If I had to pick that "short sprinter" to use as a case it would be Andre Cason and he was basically like Frater - but better. And aside from his windy 9.8x he was a 10.0x guy with the occasional sub-10 (Frater might have more subs than Cason...).

Bolt has only run 9.59 once so what's your point? PR's are by definition outliers. Trindon's 10.00 was not an outlier. He has multiple 10.00's and 10.01's on his resume as well as a 10.02. In the 2009 NCAA final, he had a horrific reaction time and got left in the blocks, but due to his much improved top-end, which was lacking in previous years, he was able to walk down the field, and in the last 15 metes it looked like the rest of the field was going backwards. His unrounded time was 9.991s and had he had a normal reaction time, he likely would have run an official 9.98.

I fully understand what gh is saying about shorter sprinters being physiologically suited for better starts and taller sprinters being physiologically suited for better finishes, and that shorter sprinters rely on faster turnover while taller sprinter rely on longer stride length. Hell, everyone on this board knows those things. But what I categorically reject is gh's theory that had Holliday chosen pro track over pro football, he would have been physiologically incapable of improving on his college PR over the next three to four years as a full-time track guy because he was one or two inches shorter than guys who did improve on their college times. Just the fact that he ran multiple 10.00's in his second to last meet, one with only 0.3 m/s tailwind tells me that he had to have a little upside left. What is it about 5'5" that's So different than 5'6" or 5'7"? By the way, I seriously doubt that 5'9" is Rodger's real height.