Einstein

Reading comprehension.

How is turning upfield not a football move? Coleman definitley did that.

Bingo. This is where I am. Posters acting as if the ball fell from his arm to his ankle on between his first and second step. All it didn’t was move slightly lower on the same forearm as where it was the whole time. The ball didn’t truly come out until AFTER 2 steps and a move.

Ball is still in the air when clip starts. May be tough to see though. That play was a big controversy when it happened.

Oooh lol

What is the question? Baker, with all of his faults, costs $150M less and is better than Watson.

Tampa screwed up so bad letting Mayfield go.

Belichick says (paraphrasing); “If Baltimore stays in this two high Tampa is going to eat up the flats” very next play: first down with a pass to the quick flat

Didn’t know about it. Thanks for telling me.

Belichick announcing the game on ESPN2 is actually great. Incredible amount of knowledge and he is calling things before they happen which is pretty fun.

I’m so weak 😭. Alright i’m done now!!!

Are you joking? (not a “clap” - a question). If I have not been clear enough - Yes, they are wrong. Indubitably. They are the type of people who know just enough physics to be dangerous. This means that they know enough to haphazard a response, but not enough to realize that they are wrong. This happens because of the old saying “you don’t know what you don’t know”. That is the most dangerous combo there is, because these people are confident in their wrong answer and also confident enough to get people like you to believe them. You are also welcome to PM me and learn something. I won’t hold anything against you. By the end of the second lesson you’ll be making an apology post (if you are an honest person).

PM me and I’m happy to share exactly how you can calculate everything for yourself and I’ll also show you my work. I have free software Incan link you to as well, which makes the graphics and curve fits much easier (less manual work). I’m working on not destroying threads with information most people don’t care for - which, yes, I understand has already happened - But i’m not going to make it worse. This will be my last post in this thread but I am happy and willing to help you learn (and anybody else who is interested) if you’re genuinely interested in gaining a valuable skill and increasing your knowledge. A strong grasp of physics and maths will benefit you for a lifetime. If we get enough people who show interest, I’ll start a group PM. Long story short - PM me. This wasn’t me “clapping” (I assume this means insulting!?) anyone. This was giving direct and honest interpretation of what was occurring. None of what I said was meant to hurt anyone. It was meant as a direct reflection of what was causing their trouble.

Because it’s human nature to bully those who disagree with you and won’t back down from what they know is true.

It’s what you said, but your lack of understanding is clouding you. It doesn’t matter what sensors it has - that is irrelevant. They could have 50 sensors and that has nothing to do with the fact that I have told you. The statistics they release (mph) is not the speed of the run. It’s the terminal instantaneous velocity. You are confusing two separate concepts and trying to make a correlation via sensors that don’t matters. It is akin to you saying “banana is apple because of plums!”. Yeah, they’re all fruit, but what you are stating makes no sense. Im really sorry that your bullying tactics aren’t working for you. I’ve dealt with it for much of my life - you’re no different than the others. Let the anger out. Yell your tension into the atmosphereZ You will feel better. I’m happy to school you in PM’s if you’d like. This will be my last response to you.

And i’ve already told you that I am available via PM or office hours. You choosing not to respect that is not my issue. Heck, you can take our PM’s and copy them right into this thread if you’d like - but I won’t be the one to continue polluting it.

You either didn’t comprehend what I wrote, or you do not have enough respect for what I said and the forum that you are posting on. Either way, not okay.

I have never once said that. As for your other point - The angle at which he ran resulted in a displacement vector of a few yards additional. I can break this down for you if you’d really like, but please PM me if so, I don’t want to derail this thread any more than I already have. If you’re in the Rochester area, I also have office hours at the University.

It’s called hyperbole. The thread is littered with pages and pages of people trying to explain away the slow speed at which he ran by his stumble. Which the math shows is not why he was so slow. did it make him slower? Yes. but it’s not the reason why he was slow in general.

This is instantaneous velocity. NOT speed over the course of a route. They are NOT THE SAME THING. Some offensive linemen have a terminal instantaneous velocity of 18/-19mph. Equivalent of a 4.3 to 4.5 second 40 yard dash. No, they’re not as fast as WR’s. They just have a high instantaneous velocity at peaks. I hate that the NFL publishes these stats without telling people what they actually mean. This is what some of have been advocating! But others refuse to believe he is anything but a speed demon lol.

It’s never a good idea to debate with people who do not have the base understanding to know when they are wrong. Without the base conceptual knowledge, they will just continue to argue on and on. We both knew better than to try. Butchering physics equations, not understanding what terminal velocity, not realizing that velocity is at its weakest during acceleration. On and on. Goodness, they don’t even realize that they’re contradicting themselves. Out of one side of their mouth they’re saying he was only slow because he stumbled. Then on the other side of the mouth, they’re using a mile per hour instantaneous velocity stat (that they don’t understand), to claim that he was fast. They don’t know what instantaneous velocity even is! They don’t understand how that differs from speed over the course of a run. It’s all so frustrating because they will argue nonstop while simultaneously being very wrong, but they don’t have the conceptual knowledge to realize that they’re wrong, so they just continue going on. I am always trying to learn something. So if someone has something to teach me, I am ready to accept that they are right. But most posters in this thread show that they don’t actually want to know what’s right, they just want to win an argument. Long story short: Leave them to their wrongness. I should have done so in the beginning. .

Uh, yes, they are. lol. A persons terminal velocity during a run is the velocity they reach at their peak. It is quite literally their TERMINAL velocity. YOU, as a lay person pretending to do physics, arguing against someone who does physics every day, are likely thinking that terminal velocity is related to the max speed in free fall - because that’s what popular culture taught you. You are very lost. The correct equation is v = v0 + a * t, not v = a * t. You’re ignoring the initial velocity entirely, which is basic physics 101. The stumbler starts with an initial velocity and that’s not wiped out by a brief stumble. lYou can’t just handwave away initial velocity and focus on acceleration. Your argument falls apart because you’re misunderstanding the fundamentals of motion. But even if you did, acceleration can be compared across two people simply by equaling the equations. We do know that. Then we can take the rate of change in Coleman from his get off to when he catches the ball, OR post stumble (after regaining). Which is what I did. Then we can compare it to during and after the stumble. some of you either never passed physics, or took it 20 years ago, and remember nothing. This is ridiculous. Like clockwork though, they will continue arguing.

Ugh, not this again. I really thought that you all learned this concept during the whole Derrick Henry debacle. This is terminal instantaneous velocity. Instantaneous velocity is NOT speed. An object can be slow and still have a high instantaneous velocity. Example: A large rock heaved from a catapult will travel slowly to its target. BUT it will have an extremely high instantaneous velocity. Velocity is the rate of change over time. So what the NFL does is they take a split second snapshot (aka, instaneous velocity), where a player moves from one yard to the next yard, and computes that on how long it took. Problem: This does not tell you speed! Like the catapult example, it tells you how fast they are moving in a split second at their highest peak.

I guess we agree after all!