Uffda,
Since you seem so fond of quote mining, from the very article you posted earlier while discussing Skov:
Hoping to post a time in the 4.8s -- within the accepted range for run-stopping inside linebackers"
Borland ran a 4.83. Yes that's slower than average, but if you look at 40 times for inside linebackers you'd probably find the median is mid to high 4.7s, so his time is not outside the range of 40 times you typically find for linebackers.
Then there's this:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/257212751.html He was removed from at least one team's draft board and others expressed concern for the shoulder injury while not eliminating him from consideration.
Suggesting I'm obfuscating the issues that led to Borland's draft position by pointing out there were factors other than his 40 time that contributed is simply daft.
To pull more from that article you posted:
More significant than the 40 time, not only for Skov but all prospects, is what scouts call "play speed." It's established by analyzing film and determining whether a prospect plays above, below or to the standard for his position.
"The 40 doesn't equate to football speed," Rice said. "A guy could run a great 40, and then you put pads on him and he doesn't have lateral movement or he can't come out of his cuts. He just doesn't have it."
Rice is the marquee example. He never timed well but on game day no one ever caught him.
You also said the evidence didn't support my assertions. I've been telling you that there are other factors that contribute to draft position. Pulling the 40 times of the 34 receivers taken in this last draft, plotting those times against draft position, and finding that the data showed essentially 0 correlation is evidence that the 40 times aren't the be all, end all metric your incessant harping on them would suggest. That doesn't mean the 40 time doesn't play it's part, that it's not considered important; but it probably means there are other factors in play.
Born and bred a cheesehead