What are the chances Greedy turns out?

[The Gipper]

@icecube said:

4.2's is sick speed. That's Deion level speed there. I tried to find Minni highlights and nothing comes up! All they have is Minni AND Dixon vids, I know it was a long time ago, but geez man. I thought you could find anything on youtube! 

I am not sure they were testing 40 times back in the 80s.  Were they? 

[Icecube]

@the-gipper said:

I am not sure they were testing 40 times back in the 80s.  Were they? 

That's probably why he said "It was reported in college he ran 4.2s" instead of actually stating it as fact. 

[Dutch Oven]

@the-gipper said:

I am not sure they were testing 40 times back in the 80s.  Were they? 

Considering Paul Brown allegedly came up with it, I would guess so. Probably wasn't well-known info, though. 

[Flugel]

@icecube said:

That's probably why he said "It was reported in college he ran 4.2s" instead of actually stating it as fact. 

Thanks Ice!  Yeah, I said "FWIW, rumor had it that Hanford Dixon was frequently but unofficially clocked in the 4.2s down at So Miss before we drafted him 22nd overall in the 1st round."  The NFL combines didn't start up until 1982; and they moved to Indy in 1987.  I don't know what they did for official times back then beyond NFL teams doing the "we shall see for ourselves with the stop watch."   My guess?  If he ran in the 4.2s for anybody - he would have been drafted before we got to him at #22 overall. 

[Flugel]

@dutch-oven said:

Considering Paul Brown allegedly came up with it, I would guess so. Probably wasn't well-known info, though. 

I couldn't tell if Gips was busting my balls or not.  But yeah, I thought I've read the same thing about Paul Browns' advanced scouting technology well before everyone wanted to give Tom Landry all the credit for doing a lot of the things Brown had already been doing in the 40s, 50s and 60s.

[The Gipper]

@flugel said:

I couldn't tell if Gips was busting my balls or not.  But yeah, I thought I've read the same thing about Paul Browns' advanced scouting technology well before everyone wanted to give Tom Landry all the credit for doing a lot of the things Brown had already been doing in the 40s, 50s and 60s.

No, not busting your balls at all. I just don't ever recall seeing 40 times from only as far back as the 80s.  At one point we had tried to see if there were 40 times available for Jim Brown, but could not find anything.   If you know where we can get 40 times for players from the 80s....Dixon, Minnifield, Kosar!!   Slaughter, etc. let us know. 

[ballpeen]

Neither one of those guys ran 4.2 40's.  Maybe 4.5  or a little higher.

[Dutch Oven]

@the-gipper said:

No, not busting your balls at all. I just don't ever recall seeing 40 times from only as far back as the 80s.  At one point we had tried to see if there were 40 times available for Jim Brown, but could not find anything.   If you know where we can get 40 times for players from the 80s....Dixon, Minnifield, Kosar!!   Slaughter, etc. let us know. 

I know the Indians were checking their players' 40 times back in the late 80s. 

They were amazed by Willie Mays Hayes' time. 

[Dutch Oven]

@ballpeen said:

Neither one of those guys ran 4.2 40's.  Maybe 4.5  or a little higher.

Yeah, I mean there's only a handful of people in the world TODAY that run that. 

[Flugel]

@the-gipper said:

No, not busting your balls at all. I just don't ever recall seeing 40 times from only as far back as the 80s.  At one point we had tried to see if there were 40 times available for Jim Brown, but could not find anything.   If you know where we can get 40 times for players from the 80s....Dixon, Minnifield, Kosar!!   Slaughter, etc. let us know. 

Does it matter?   I only brought up the rumor of what Hanford Dixon was unofficially clocked at when he played for So Miss before Cleveland drafted him in round 1. It was more or less to give people the idea - rumor is he can run. I also clarified a few posts later that if he ran that time for NFL teams, there's no way he drops to us at #22 overall. However, he was fast enough to be drafted in round 1 and make Pro Bowls for us.  There were rumors that Bo Jackson ran a killer good 40 time too.... When anyone watched Bo play - was there any reason to doubt he could blaze?

Just because they started keeping better records of this stuff when the NFL Combine moved to Indy in 1987 - doesn't mean guys weren't running the 40 yard dash before then.  My junior and senior seasons in high school were 1980 and 1981; and we had to run the 40. Many college teams that showed interest in some of us wanted to know 40 times and see film. I went to football camps from 77-81 and we had to the the 40. 

They didn't keep good records of QB sacks throughout the career of Deacon Jones either - does it really mean he didn't sack the QB at an elite/HOF level?  Here's 1 summary of his QB sacks:

	Games	Def Interceptions	Fumbles
Year	Age	Tm	Pos	No.	G	GS	Int	Yds	TD	Lng	PD	FF	Fmb	FR	Yds	TD	Sk	Sfty	AV
Career				191	168	2	50	0	50			0	15	10	0	0.0	2
1961	23	RAM	lde	75	14	6							0	3	10	0	0.0		4
1962	24	RAM	LDE	75	14	14							0	1	0	0	0.0		7
1963	25	RAM	LDE	75	14	14	1	0	0	0			0	1	0	0	0.0		7
1964*	26	RAM	LDE	75	14	14							0	3	0	0	0.0		10
1965*+	27	RAM	LDE	75	14	14											0.0	1	10
1966*+	28	RAM	LDE	75	14	14	1	50	0	50			0	1	0	0	0.0		15
1967*+	29	RAM	LDE	75	14	14							0	1	0	0	0.0	1	15
1968*+	30	RAM	LDE	75	14	14											0.0		14
1969*+	31	RAM	LDE	75	14	14							0	1	0	0	0.0		12
1970*	32	RAM	LDE	75	14	13							0	1	0	0	0.0		10
1971	33	RAM	LDE	75	11	10											0.0		5
1972*	34	SDG	LDE	75	14	14							0	2	0	0	0.0		7
1973	35	SDG	LDE	75	12	12							0	1	0	0	0.0		5
1974	36	WAS		75	14	1											0.0		2

Here's another summary:

https://www.nfl.com/players/deacon-jones/stats/

[Flugel]

@dutch-oven said:

Yeah, I mean there's only a handful of people in the world TODAY that run that. 

Oh yeah?   I did it running backwards with a cigar in my mouth while you, Flugel and all these other knuckleheads were too busy researching the fatassss dime a dozens.

[Icecube]

@the-gipper said:

 

Brother, their measurables are similar, but the giant difference: Claypool has already produced, Peeps is just potential. Ask Jimmy Johnson, Big Tuna and Hoodie about player evaluation: Production trumps all. Everything else is secondary. Do you honestly think Peeps will out produce Claypool in the next 5 years?  

[The Gipper]

@icecube said:

Brother, their measurables are similar, but the giant difference: Claypool has already produced, Peeps is just potential. Ask Jimmy Johnson, Big Tuna and Hoodie about player evaluation: Production trumps all. Everything else is secondary. Do you honestly think Peeps will out produce Claypool in the next 5 years?  

WTF has Claypool "produced" that Peeps has not?   They are both freeking rookies and both produced fuck all in the pros so far.   So...PROVE what you say.....copy their college stats here that you say show that Claypool has been so much more productive.  I honestly did not follow either closely in college. So, back up your claim. 

[The Gipper]

I figured that I would have to do this, so I just went ahead and will do so:

Claypool college stats:

Receiving & Rushing

 

 

		Receiving	Rushing	Scrimmage
Year	School	Conf	Class	Pos	G	Rec	Yds	Avg	TD	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Plays	Yds	Avg	TD
Career	Notre Dame					150	2159	14.4	19	3	6	2.0	0	153	2165	14.2	19
2016	Notre Dame	Ind	FR	WR	8	5	81	16.2	0	1	9	9.0	0	6	90	15.0	0
*2017	Notre Dame	Ind	SO	WR	11	29	402	13.9	2	2	-3	-1.5	0	31	399	12.9	2
*2018	Notre Dame	Ind	JR	WR	13	50	639	12.8	4	0	0		0	50	639	12.8	4
*2019	Notre Dame	Ind	SR	WR	13	66	1037	15.7	13	0	0		0	66	1037	15.7	13

DPJ stats: 

Note....Peeps only played 3 years....Claypool 4. 

Receiving & Rushing

 

 

		Receiving	Rushing	Scrimmage
Year	School	Conf	Class	Pos	G	Rec	Yds	Avg	TD	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Plays	Yds	Avg	TD
Career	Michigan					103	1327	12.9	14	9	87	9.7	0	112	1414	12.6	14
*2017	Michigan	Big Ten	FR	WR	13	22	277	12.6	0	4	57	14.3	0	26	334	12.8	0
*2018	Michigan	Big Ten	SO	WR	13	47	612	13.0	8	3	37	12.3	0	50	649	13.0	8
*2019	Michigan	Big Ten	JR	WR	11	34	438	12.9	6	2	-7	-3.5	0	36	431	12.0	6

On an average annual basis it stacks up as follows:

Catches    Claypool  37.5    Peeps   34.33

Yards      Claypool  539.75   Peeps  442.33

Avg. ypc   Claypool  14.4  Peeps 12.9

TDs         Claypool  4.75   Peeps  4.66

Round selected:  Claypool  #49 overall.    Peeps:   #187

So, there is your "production" comparison......not incredibly significant in Claypools favor, given the disparity in draft position. 

[Icecube]

@the-gipper said:

I figured that I would have to do this, so I just went ahead and will do so:

Claypool college stats:

Receiving & Rushing

 

 

		Receiving	Rushing	Scrimmage
Year	School	Conf	Class	Pos	G	Rec	Yds	Avg	TD	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Plays	Yds	Avg	TD
Career	Notre Dame					150	2159	14.4	19	3	6	2.0	0	153	2165	14.2	19
2016	Notre Dame	Ind	FR	WR	8	5	81	16.2	0	1	9	9.0	0	6	90	15.0	0
*2017	Notre Dame	Ind	SO	WR	11	29	402	13.9	2	2	-3	-1.5	0	31	399	12.9	2
*2018	Notre Dame	Ind	JR	WR	13	50	639	12.8	4	0	0		0	50	639	12.8	4
*2019	Notre Dame	Ind	SR	WR	13	66	1037	15.7	13	0	0		0	66	1037	15.7	13

DPJ stats: 

Note....Peeps only played 3 years....Claypool 4. 

Receiving & Rushing

 

 

		Receiving	Rushing	Scrimmage
Year	School	Conf	Class	Pos	G	Rec	Yds	Avg	TD	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Plays	Yds	Avg	TD
Career	Michigan					103	1327	12.9	14	9	87	9.7	0	112	1414	12.6	14
*2017	Michigan	Big Ten	FR	WR	13	22	277	12.6	0	4	57	14.3	0	26	334	12.8	0
*2018	Michigan	Big Ten	SO	WR	13	47	612	13.0	8	3	37	12.3	0	50	649	13.0	8
*2019	Michigan	Big Ten	JR	WR	11	34	438	12.9	6	2	-7	-3.5	0	36	431	12.0	6

On an average annual basis it stacks up as follows:

Catches    Claypool  37.5    Peeps   34.33

Yards      Claypool  539.75   Peeps  442.33

Avg. ypc   Claypool  14.4  Peeps 12.9

TDs         Claypool  4.75   Peeps  4.66

Round selected:  Claypool  #49 overall.    Peeps:   #187

So, there is your "production" comparison......not incredibly significant in Claypools favor, given the disparity in draft position. 

In both of their latest seasons, Claypool dwarfed Peeps production. It doesn't get much more obvious than this. Thank you for proving my point. You're growing tedious. 

[Dutch Oven]

@the-gipper said:

I figured that I would have to do this, so I just went ahead and will do so:

Claypool college stats:

Receiving & Rushing

 

 

		Receiving	Rushing	Scrimmage
Year	School	Conf	Class	Pos	G	Rec	Yds	Avg	TD	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Plays	Yds	Avg	TD
Career	Notre Dame					150	2159	14.4	19	3	6	2.0	0	153	2165	14.2	19
2016	Notre Dame	Ind	FR	WR	8	5	81	16.2	0	1	9	9.0	0	6	90	15.0	0
*2017	Notre Dame	Ind	SO	WR	11	29	402	13.9	2	2	-3	-1.5	0	31	399	12.9	2
*2018	Notre Dame	Ind	JR	WR	13	50	639	12.8	4	0	0		0	50	639	12.8	4
*2019	Notre Dame	Ind	SR	WR	13	66	1037	15.7	13	0	0		0	66	1037	15.7	13

DPJ stats: 

Note....Peeps only played 3 years....Claypool 4. 

Receiving & Rushing

 

 

		Receiving	Rushing	Scrimmage
Year	School	Conf	Class	Pos	G	Rec	Yds	Avg	TD	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Plays	Yds	Avg	TD
Career	Michigan					103	1327	12.9	14	9	87	9.7	0	112	1414	12.6	14
*2017	Michigan	Big Ten	FR	WR	13	22	277	12.6	0	4	57	14.3	0	26	334	12.8	0
*2018	Michigan	Big Ten	SO	WR	13	47	612	13.0	8	3	37	12.3	0	50	649	13.0	8
*2019	Michigan	Big Ten	JR	WR	11	34	438	12.9	6	2	-7	-3.5	0	36	431	12.0	6

On an average annual basis it stacks up as follows:

Catches    Claypool  37.5    Peeps   34.33

Yards      Claypool  539.75   Peeps  442.33

Avg. ypc   Claypool  14.4  Peeps 12.9

TDs         Claypool  4.75   Peeps  4.66

Round selected:  Claypool  #49 overall.    Peeps:   #187

So, there is your "production" comparison......not incredibly significant in Claypools favor, given the disparity in draft position. 

Freshman through Junior years, Peeps had the advantage.

Claypool went back to school for his senior year, had a very good season, while Peeps opted to enter the draft instead. 

That's the difference. 

[ballpeen]

@flugel said:

Does it matter?   I only brought up the rumor of what Hanford Dixon was unofficially clocked at when he played for So Miss before Cleveland drafted him in round 1. It was more or less to give people the idea - rumor is he can run. I also clarified a few posts later that if he ran that time for NFL teams, there's no way he drops to us at #22 overall. However, he was fast enough to be drafted in round 1 and make Pro Bowls for us.  There were rumors that Bo Jackson ran a killer good 40 time too.... When anyone watched Bo play - was there any reason to doubt he could blaze?

Just because they started keeping better records of this stuff when the NFL Combine moved to Indy in 1987 - doesn't mean guys weren't running the 40 yard dash before then.  My junior and senior seasons in high school were 1980 and 1981; and we had to run the 40. Many college teams that showed interest in some of us wanted to know 40 times and see film. I went to football camps from 77-81 and we had to the the 40. 

They didn't keep good records of QB sacks throughout the career of Deacon Jones either - does it really mean he didn't sack the QB at an elite/HOF level?  Here's 1 summary of his QB sacks:

	Games	Def Interceptions	Fumbles
Year	Age	Tm	Pos	No.	G	GS	Int	Yds	TD	Lng	PD	FF	Fmb	FR	Yds	TD	Sk	Sfty	AV
Career				191	168	2	50	0	50			0	15	10	0	0.0	2
1961	23	RAM	lde	75	14	6							0	3	10	0	0.0		4
1962	24	RAM	LDE	75	14	14							0	1	0	0	0.0		7
1963	25	RAM	LDE	75	14	14	1	0	0	0			0	1	0	0	0.0		7
1964*	26	RAM	LDE	75	14	14							0	3	0	0	0.0		10
1965*+	27	RAM	LDE	75	14	14											0.0	1	10
1966*+	28	RAM	LDE	75	14	14	1	50	0	50			0	1	0	0	0.0		15
1967*+	29	RAM	LDE	75	14	14							0	1	0	0	0.0	1	15
1968*+	30	RAM	LDE	75	14	14											0.0		14
1969*+	31	RAM	LDE	75	14	14							0	1	0	0	0.0		12
1970*	32	RAM	LDE	75	14	13							0	1	0	0	0.0		10
1971	33	RAM	LDE	75	11	10											0.0		5
1972*	34	SDG	LDE	75	14	14							0	2	0	0	0.0		7
1973	35	SDG	LDE	75	12	12							0	1	0	0	0.0		5
1974	36	WAS		75	14	1											0.0		2

Here's another summary:

https://www.nfl.com/players/deacon-jones/stats/

They have been timing players forever.  It just wasn't published information.  You didn't have PFF sites crunching all sorts of numbers, but coaches knew how fast their players were.  I am sure they did some kind of strength metric.

[mjp28]

@ballpeen said:

They have been timing players forever.  It just wasn't published information.  You didn't have PFF sites crunching all sorts of numbers, but coaches knew how fast their players were.  I am sure they did some kind of strength metric.

Sports is stats old or new(er) primarily NFL or MLB it's a generational thing part of why we love and follow our favorite teams and players.

Now especially with broadband computer hookups it's turned into an industry of its own.

Another thing about the old(er) HOF greats like the Deacon they are even better with a great group like the Fearsome Foursome only the truly great players stand out on bad teams.

[The Gipper]

@ballpeen said:

They have been timing players forever.  It just wasn't published information.  You didn't have PFF sites crunching all sorts of numbers, but coaches knew how fast their players were.  I am sure they did some kind of strength metric.

Well, we have had these conversations like:  "How fast was Jim Brown compared to yada yada  current NFL RB".   Thing is, like you said....not published info,  so we don't have that data.  But I say he would have compared favorably with any RB going these days when it comes to his speed.  

[ballpeen]

@the-gipper said:

Well, we have had these conversations like:  "How fast was Jim Brown compared to yada yada  current NFL RB".   Thing is, like you said....not published info,  so we don't have that data.  But I say he would have compared favorably with any RB going these days when it comes to his speed.  

Maybe.  All that really matters is he compared favorably to the players he played against.  That is the only real barometer we have.