FuzzyLumpkins;1953005 said:
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.
What doen't you understand? They're not perfectly accurate. No estimate is. Thus, any deviance will call into question their accuracy. It does not, however, refute the claim that they're the best source available. Every source that bases it's times on estimates will deviate from whatever the true time may be.
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.
No, we haven't established that.
also I certainly knew that the National Scouting Combine and BLESTO existed but National Scouting in and of itself doesnt exist.
Yes, it exists.
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.
I've given you links with evidence that it exists. Your lame attempt to argue that it doesn't exist because it doesn't have a website is laughable.
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 am I. Just because I didn't mention them, doesn't mean I didn't know they exist or that I didn't know NFLDraftScout received their numbers from them. In the past e-mail exchanges, they've said the same thing (i.e., that their numbers are averages from the two organizations -- or if only one organization provides numbers, then they just post those).
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.
No, they're estimates. They're low and high estimates. For example, I estimate that the lowest 40 Antoine Cason could run is in the 4.38 range. And the highest possible 40 he will run is in the 4.55 range. I think he'll most likely run in the 4.45-4.48 range, but those are my high and low estimates (both are reasonable and vary by .2 seconds).
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.
It depends on what they're asking for. If when National or Blesto is reporting them to the teams and media they say that the 4.58 time best represents his 40 time regardless of injury, then that's bad scouting. If they say that it represents his 40 time due to injury, then that's reasonable scouting.
If you want to buy that sites 'credible' then fine. I will not and will wait for the National Scouting Combine.
Of course the Combine will have the most accurate numbers. No one denies that. But for pre-combine estimates, the best source is National Scouting and Blesto.
:
