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.
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.
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~~~
Last edited by Avante on Sun May 16, 2010 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 ?
(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.
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.
jazzcyclist wrote: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.
Pego wrote: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.
26mi235 wrote: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.
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.
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?
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.
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.