What are the chances Greedy turns out?

[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.

[Icecube]

@the-gipper said:

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. 

Claypool had 1037 yards and 13 TDs playing vs. top Div 1 opponents (VA, GA, USC, MI, VT) his final season. Let me know when Peeps had a season anywhere near as productive as that. Go ahead. I'll put the porch light on. 

[gumby73]

@icecube said:

Claypool had 1037 yards and 13 TDs playing vs. top Div 1 opponents (VA, GA, USC, MI, VT) his final season. Let me know when Peeps had a season anywhere near as productive as that. Go ahead. I'll put the porch light on. 

turn your light on long enough so you can see Ian Book throw a ball verses Shea Patterson missing a wide open barn... ?‍?

    63.5% were in the bucket to several receivers... Shea Patterson 56.2% last season.... with Book having 18 more attempts... Those pockets looked fairly clean..and Ikie-gong's OL was rated better? 

Ok Gip, am just the warm-up marching band conductor ?‍️...now watch as I duck under my standing platform 

[The Gipper]

@icecube said:

Claypool had 1037 yards and 13 TDs playing vs. top Div 1 opponents (VA, GA, USC, MI, VT) his final season. Let me know when Peeps had a season anywhere near as productive as that. Go ahead. I'll put the porch light on. 

In 4 years  Claypool had 19 TDs.  In  3 years Peeps had  14 TDs.  I am kind of thinking that Peeps would likely have had at least  5 TDs his 4th season.  Maybe even 13.  

Oh, and FYI.....Sunshine Superman    was actually TUN's  THIRD receiving  option last year......guys named Ronnie Bell and  Nico Collins each had more catches and yards.  Claypool led ND in both categories. 

So, the first question is:  what is the potential of each based on where they came from...and the price each team had to expend.    I.e.:   Which may prove to be the better value going forward:    the #49 overall, or the #187 overall   who played one fewer season and had incrementally smaller numbers given that he was not his team's even first or second receiving option.

And the second question is:   Why am I doing Woody's dirty work for him?   Where the hell is Mr. Michigan Man defending his boy PBJ? 

And the third question is:  What kind of freeking schedule do you think it is that Michigan played?  Gee, they played Notre Dame n'est ce pas?  That may have been a weak part of their schedule.   And let's see:  Ohio State, Alabama and Penn St and Wisconsin  (possibly all better than ND) and the rest of the Big Ten. 

[Icecube]

@the-gipper said:

In 4 years  Claypool had 19 TDs.  In  3 years Peeps had  14 TDs.  I am kind of thinking that Peeps would likely have had at least  5 TDs his 4th season.  Maybe even 13.  

Oh, and FYI.....Sunshine Supe

OK, you do understand that the most recent season is most significant? Claypool more than doubled him. 

rman    was actually TUN's  THIRD receiving  option last year......guys named Ronnie Bell and  Nico Collins each had more catches and yards.  Claypool led ND in both categories. 

So, the first question is:  what is the potential of each based on where they came from...and the price each team had to expend.    I.e.:   Which may prove to be the better value going forward:    the #49 overall, or the #187 overall   who played one fewer season and had incrementally smaller numbers given that he was not his team's even first or second receiving option.

Umm, I'm sure there is a point in there some where. 

And the second question is:   Why am I doing Woody's dirty work for him?   Where the hell is Mr. Michigan Man defending his boy PBJ? 

And the third question is:  What kind of freeking schedule do you think it is that Michigan played?  Gee, they played Notre Dame n'est ce pas?  That may have been a weak part of their schedule.   And let's see:  Ohio State, Alabama and Penn St and Wisconsin  (possibly all better than ND) and the rest of the Big Ten. 

And Peeps did very little compared to Claypool. ?

[The Gipper]

OK, you do understand that the most recent season is most significant? Claypool more than doubled him. 

You understand that in their respective 3rd seasons, Peeps more than doubled him......and Peeps was only FMU's third option. 

[Icecube]

@the-gipper said:

OK, you do understand that the most recent season is most significant? Claypool more than doubled him. 

You understand that in their respective 3rd seasons, Peeps more than doubled him......and Peeps was only FMU's third option. 

Exactly. Peeps was only good enough to be the 3rd option. CC will dwarf Peep's production in the NFL. Peeps lacks bust and has bad hands. CC is taller and much bigger.  

[The Gipper]

@icecube said:

Exactly. Peeps was only good enough to be the 3rd option. CC will dwarf Peep's production in the NFL. Peeps lacks bust and has bad hands. CC is taller and much bigger.  

Except....that Peeps actually has a wider  armspread and much better vertical jump, and bigger hands. 

And the fact is.....ND literally had nothing else besides Claypool.   Mellow Yellow had some serious competition for production. 

I don't know what you mean by "lacks bust?   Do you mean that he does not have man boobs?   And I suspect his hands are just fine. 

I grant you that Claypool is built more like a Tight End. 

And, again...he was drafted 138 slots ahead of Mellow Yellow. 

[Icecube]

Greedy on Rome today; said the right things from what I heard.