Owen Schmitt

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Did you miss the e-mail I posted?

We will. Rumor out of his camp is that he's going to run sub 4.6. I doubt that, though.

I asked if you were scared to attempt to prove me wrong. Either you were or you were too lazy. There's no name calling going on.

Actually, I didnt. i will repeat myself. An estimate with a variance of .2 is suspect.

If i asked you to estimate what his 40 time was you wouldnt tell me a 4.57 and a 4.78. Thats just asinine.

And again its not laziness when you havent shown anything. im not here to prove your points that are based on no citation or evidence. you come up with evidence THEN I do its not me that does all the work.

 

[theogt]

Actually, I didnt. i will repeat myself. An estimate with a variance of .2 is suspect.

If i asked you to estimate what his 40 time was you wouldnt tell me a 4.57 and a 4.78. Thats just asinine.

I don't really care how accurate you think it is.

And again its not laziness when you havent shown anything. im not here to prove your points that are based on no citation or evidence. you come up with evidence THEN I do its not me that does all the work.

It's not as if I was attempting to prove something suspect. I was just relaying information about a company that obviously exists and does what I said it does. You attacked it and essentially called me a liar. You were proven wrong. You come into the conversation obviously ignorant of essential information and question my word. And you call me childish in the process.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't really care how accurate you think it is.

It's not as if I was attempting to prove something suspect. I was just relaying information about a company that obviously exists and does what it says I did. You attacked it and essentially called me a liar. You were proven wrong and look like a fool for questioning me.

I didnt call you a liar so keep your sanctimonious whines to yourself. You said you had done it a year previous. as such it could have been anything you remembered.

Second the more I think about it. if they have two 40 times and then there average and claim to get their info from two sources then it stands to reason that one 40 time is from each source.

if thats the case then one of tose sources thinks hes going to run close to a 4.8 which would be close to the sources i gave.

but whatever theo. i get tired of arguing with someone with the midset of a child. the last word is yours.

 

[theogt]

I didnt call you a liar so keep your sanctimonious whines to yourself.

You implied it by saying that I couldn't back up my statements. You did everything short of calling me a liar. You actually even claimed that the company didn't exist, which is to say that I was lying.

You said you had done it a year previous. as such it could have been anything you remembered.

No, I did not claim that I had done it a previous year. I did it earlier in this season. Just months ago.

Second the more I think about it. if they have two 40 times and then there average and claim to get their info from two sources then it stands to reason that one 40 time is from each source.

if thats the case then one of tose sources thinks hes going to run close to a 4.8 which would be close to the sources i gave.

No, that's not how they do it at all.

but whatever theo. i get tired of arguing with someone with the midset of a child. the last word is yours.

Hop on that crutch. You have some serious "growing up" to do.

 

[TheCount]

I see the other points of view. I just don't happen to agree with them. Last time I checked that was legal.

So this is 31 pages of people saying, "I understand your point, but I disagree." Or is it 31 pages of people saying, "Not only is your point stupid, but you are stupid for having that opinion."

This argument could go on till April, not that it bothers me, 31 pages about a full back, that's gotta be some kind of record.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL i just realized that NFLDraftScout was the source for Eduncan's rants about Stanback's 4.65 speed.

 

[theogt]

LOL i just realized that NFLDraftScout was the source for Eduncan's rants about Stanback's 4.65 speed.

Hence me looking up how they come up with their numbers. I've mentioned this several times in the thread. You apparently weren't even reading my posts.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hence me looking up how they come up with their numbers. I've mentioned this several times in the thread. You apparently weren't even reading my posts.

You said you were looking it up about Stanbacks 40 times but I didn't realize they were the source itself. I finally looked and sure enough they're the ones with those complete crap figures.

Thats sure some 'quality.'

 

[Hoofbite]

Oh man. If only we could get a couple of those 40-time-freaks in here.....this thread would take off to a new solar system quick.

you know the ones. The guys who would draft anything if the 40 is right regardless of species or number of legs.

Come on, I know its an early start but lets get some of these peeps out of the woodwork to watch this thing fly.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

LOL i just realized that NFLDraftScout was the source for Eduncan's rants about Stanback's 4.65 speed.

what is his "real" time? I thought it was 4.45?

 

[JPM]

what is his "real" time? I thought it was 4.45?

The "actual" time he post was 4.58, hence the little joke Hos and I have about saying 4.58 to each other. But, Stanback has stated that he was never offically timed in the 40 and he has no idea where that number came from.

 

[theogt]

You said you were looking it up about Stanbacks 40 times but I didn't realize they were the source itself. I finally looked and sure enough they're the ones with those complete crap figures.

Thats sure some 'quality.'

Having one 40 time that you disagree with (or in this case 2 40 times that you disagree with) doesn't discredit them or the claim that they're the best available source for such information.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The "actual" time he post was 4.58, hence the little joke Hos and I have about saying 4.58 to each other. But, Stanback has stated that he was never offically timed in the 40 and he has no idea where that number came from.

yeah, all scouting services make up times that they believe players run by watching tape, some players are faster in pads, but end up running slower 40s, and viceversa, then they change them to the official combine times, but unfortunately for us, Stanback never ran, so his supposed 4.58 speed never changed

idk why theo and fuzzy can't wait till the combine to argue about Schmitt's speed

edit: though I will say this an argument that fuzzy is bound to lose, I think Schmitt is a legit 4.6 guy, he could even suprise some and run a 4.5

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Having one 40 time that you disagree with (or in this case 2 40 times that you disagree with) doesn't discredit them or the claim that they're the best available source for such information.

It certainly calls into question everything about their estimates. As far as I am concerend those two meaurements are about as off base as possible. They can send you emails saying they come from JC himself but if their 'estimates' are putting a track star at a 4.65 then that tells me all I need to know about their scouting.

To be honest I would doubt that Blesto would actually say something like that which calls that entire site into question. The answer you got was a canned answer if Ive ever seen one anyway.

But really the sad past here is your touting eduncanc source for an obviously bogus 40 tie once again.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yeah, all scouting services make up times that they believe players run by watching tape, some players are faster in pads, but end up running slower 40s, and viceversa, then they change them to the official combine times, but unfortunately for us, Stanback never ran, so his supposed 4.58 speed never changed

idk why theo and fuzzy can't wait till the combine to argue about Schmitt's speed

edit: though I will say this an argument that fuzzy is bound to lose, I think Schmitt is a legit 4.6 guy, he could even suprise some and run a 4.5

Wait though. According to the email theo got this Stanback score came from Blesto and that was a 4.65 and not 4.59. Where is the source for 4.59 cause Ive never seen that.

And well see but ive seen him run full stride and he doesnt outrun JAG LBs so yeah I guess well just have to wait and see.

 

[theogt]

It certainly calls into question everything about their estimates. As far as I am concerend those two meaurements are about as off base as possible. They can send you emails saying they come from JC himself but if their 'estimates' are putting a track star at a 4.65 then that tells me all I need to know about their scouting.

Of course it calls their accuracy into question. But it does nothing to refute that they're the best source for this information and these types of estimates.

To be honest I would doubt that Blesto would actually say something like that which calls that entire site into question. The answer you got was a canned answer if Ive ever seen one anyway.

LOL. More denial. You didn't even think the companies existed in the first place, so this isn't surprising. When you're proven wrong, just continue to deny. It's very convincing.

But really the sad past here is your touting eduncanc source for an obviously bogus 40 tie once again.

There's a reasonable explanation for the Stanback 40 time. If the estimate was made for the '07 offseason, when Stanback was injured, it's actually very reasonable that he'd have run a 4.58 40. Regardless, this is a logical fallacy known "poisoning the well," which only proves that you have no real, defensible position in this debate.

 

[superpunk]

Round 2

Maybe we can interject the statistical opinion that noone should ever draft a WR in the first round into the discussion.

 

[Stash]

Is a fullback's 40-time worth this much argument?

How many non goal-line carries would he be seeing?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course it calls their accuracy into question. But it does nothing to refute that they're the best source for this information and these types of estimates.

LOL. More denial. You didn't even think the companies existed in the first place, so this isn't surprising. When you're proven wrong, just continue to deny. It's very convincing.

There's a reasonable explanation for the Stanback 40 time. If the estimate was made for the '07 offseason, when Stanback was injured, it's actually very reasonable that he'd have run a 4.58 40. Regardless, this is a logical fallacy known "poisoning the well," which only proves that you have no real, defensible position in this debate.

Whatever theo. you go from saying that of course it calls into question their accuracy but then out of the other side of your mouth you say they are the best source. weak sauce.

nfldraftscout puts up VERY bogus 40 times. We have established that and other than your press releases from them about how 'great' their sources we see the evidence of their greatness before us. NFLDraftScout blows arse.

also I certainly knew that the National Scouting Combine and BLESTO existed but National Scouting in and of itself doesnt exist. Weve been over this many time theo and your latest tact is a blatant misrepresentation. I once again invite you to google "national scouting." you will once again see that this firm you report charged $143k a year in 1977 to teams cannot afford a website. Its the combine now theo just deal with it.

As for Blesto you never said that in the first place and it only got into the equation after that email. you didnt bring them up. thats a failing on your part, not mine. i am very aware of blesto.

As for your theory, its just as valid as mine on two 40 times from two different sources means that the low and high score mean they dont agree with each other. Not all 40 tests get two tests and it is possible that the two figures reported were the averages. But if they are estimates then the estimate will be a single figure not two.

As for your 'theory' it is certainly plausible and it would be a measure of bad scouting. It in no way shape or form gives a representation of the players abilities. It would makes sense to make use of the low and high here by putting 4.45 as the low and 4.65 as the high. In Stanbacks case using a .2 spread makes sense. In Schmitts its a load of crap.

If you want to buy that sites 'credible' then fine. I will not and will wait for the National Scouting Combine.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is a fullback's 40-time worth this much argument?

How many non goal-line carries would he be seeing?

how many goal line carries would he see with Barber anyway.

its not so much about his 40 time as it is the credibility of the turd that is NFLDraftScout.