Owen Schmitt

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Round 2

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

Sweet im Guile. Theo can be Chun-Li. I do prefer the green spinning guy though.

 

[theogt]

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.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

No, we haven't established that.

Yes, it exists.

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 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).

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).

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.

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.

Whatever Theo. You keep trumping up NFLDraftScout the bastion of Edunce.

As for the rest you don't know so you keep going with your line by lines that are worthless.

You showed National Scouting existed in 1977. I invite anyone reading this to google "national scouting."

If you knoew they existed and then didnt mention them when it would have bolstered your argument thats pretty dumb on your part. But the point was I knew of Blesto. i didnt know little factoids like the Bears joined in later and all that but hey its all good.

As for your theories on whatever the creation of their numbers comes from. There is one thing that is certain the Stanback times do not bear up to it and the times are crap.


But hey NFLDraftScout said their sources are the BEST!!!!!

 

[Signals]

I found out yesterday Rachel Ray is a Commanders fan.

It really put a damper on my weekend

That just hurts me.

That one dude needs to leave his Ronald McDonald pajamas at home next time.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Owen Schmitt will not be a Cowboy. Lets not worry about some other teams player. :laugh2:

 

[Hostile]

Owen Schmitt will not be a Cowboy. Lets not worry about some other teams player. :laugh2:

The odds are against it since there are 32 teams. But I can hope, and I do.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The odds are against it since there are 32 teams. But I can hope, and I do.

Hos i just want it to be clear as i battle theo here i dont hate the player. He would be an upgrade to Hoyte on our roster BUT I do hate reaching for him. Were in a position that we can let talent drop to us and I see Schnitt being no exception.

Targeting pet cats and then reaching leads to bad drafts.

 

[Hostile]

Hos i just want it to be clear as i battle theo here i dont hate the player. He would be an upgrade to Hoyte on our roster BUT I do hate reaching for him. Were in a position that we can let talent drop to us and I see Schnitt being no exception.

I understood that from the get go. Same with a couple of others.

If we get him all of you will love the kid. I can't help myself, he's a FB.

 

[JPM]

I understood that from the get go. Same with a couple of others.

If we get him all of you will love the kid. I can't help myself, he's a FB.

I think he'll drop to the 4th round, and if Dallas has a CB, WR, RB already selected I don't see the issue with pulling the trigger on him. I don't think a 4th is a reach for him. I wouldn't pick him in the first 2 rounds, no way. I know you said you'd take him in the 3rd, but I don't know if I could do that.

 

[Vintage]

I just want to know if Schmitt can run a 4.58.

 

[JPM]

I just want to know if Schmitt can run a 4.58.

We better draft him if he does. I don't care if it's the first round. We'll finally have a player who runs a real 4.58...

 

[YosemiteSam]

I just want to know if Schmitt can run a 4.58.

If he does, maybe he can replace Reeves. :

 

[Hostile]

We better draft him if he does. I don't care if it's the first round. We'll finally have a player who runs a real 4.58...

Dreams do come true.

 

[JonJon]

All I want is for someone that will finally block that invisible linebacker that was always tackling Julius behind the line of scrimmage.

 

[Hostile]

One more comment, I'd be happy with Peyton Hillis too, but since I think we're going to take Felix Jones I tend to think we'd spread the love and not go all Razorbacks.

 

[theogt]

Whatever Theo. You keep trumping up NFLDraftScout the bastion of Edunce.

As for the rest you don't know so you keep going with your line by lines that are worthless.

You showed National Scouting existed in 1977. I invite anyone reading this to google "national scouting."

If you knoew they existed and then didnt mention them when it would have bolstered your argument thats pretty dumb on your part. But the point was I knew of Blesto. i didnt know little factoids like the Bears joined in later and all that but hey its all good.

As for your theories on whatever the creation of their numbers comes from. There is one thing that is certain the Stanback times do not bear up to it and the times are crap.


But hey NFLDraftScout said their sources are the BEST!!!!!

Actually, I showed that they exist today. And, as professional organizations that are paid highly by NFL teams and media, I think they're the best source. If all you can come up with is the fact that you disagree with a couple of their 40 times, there's not much to your argument is there? Well, I shouldn't discredit some guy watching youtube videos. That just drips with credibility.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, I showed that they exist today. And, as professional organizations that are paid highly by NFL teams and media, I think they're the best source. If all you can come up with is the fact that you disagree with a couple of their 40 times, there's not much to your argument is there? Well, I shouldn't discredit some guy watching youtube videos. That just drips with credibility.

Whtever Theo.

Your source told you that Schmitt didnt run and that draftdaddy article you think proves anything states that they report two weeks after the draft the underclassmen they had run.

SCHMITT DIDNT RUN.

Quite franly its pretty obvious from their BS made up times, that Blesto/Combine didnt come up witht hose numbers because other than your email from NFLDraftScout i have no indication anywhere that they are in the business as making up crap and then presenting it as fact.

And let me give you a bit of information about Brian Hitterman he was on a panel from the Sportsxchange and was not even given credit for the article from a player ranking done for USA Today in 2005. You can see the article HERE

He does not work for USA Today yet he puts that in his sig. He works for SportsXchange which in turn owns NFLDraftScout. He misrepresents his involvement with USA today and you dont even think that the obvious bogus times are being misrepresented as well.

Because that is what NFLDraftScout's legacy is on their guesses: complete and utter crap. Hes a web pimp just like Philpott.

And again i invite you to google National Scouting and you will see that they run the combine but guess work is not part of their job description. I find it very hard to believe Mr Hitterman that BLESTO or the Combine is in the business of making crap up and reporting it as fact.

Becaseu lets get one thing clear here, there are no times for Schmitt or Stanback yet NFLDraftScout reports it as if there are.

And hey you can be like edunce and prance around touting that 4.57 from that site time if you want. I really dont care i have all the information i need and i think everyone else does too.

 

[theogt]

Whtever Theo.

Your source told you that Schmitt didnt run and that draftdaddy article you think proves anything states that they report two weeks after the draft the underclassmen they had run.

SCHMITT DIDNT RUN.

Of course he didn't. It's an estimate.

Quite franly its pretty obvious from their BS made up times, that Blesto/Combine didnt come up witht hose numbers because other than your email from NFLDraftScout i have no indication anywhere that they are in the business as making up crap and then presenting it as fact.

So basically you're calling NFL Draft Scout a liar. I have an e-mail from the operator of the site that that's where he gets the numbers. If you want to call him a liar that's fine, but just so you know, that's what your argument has boiled down to. DENY! DENY! DENY! Deny they exist. Call him a liar. Whatever it takes to make you feel like you were right.

And let me give you a bit of information about Brian Hitterman he was on a panel from the Sportsxchange and was not even given credit for the article from a player ranking done for USA Today in 2005. You can see the article HERE

He does not work for USA Today yet he puts that in his sig. He works for SportsXchange which in turn owns NFLDraftScout. He misrepresents his involvement with USA today and you dont even think that the obvious bogus times are being misrepresented as well.

Because that is what NFLDraftScout's legacy is on their guesses: complete and utter crap. Hes a web pimp just like Philpott.

SportsXchange is hired by all sorts of news organizations. They are hired by NFL.com for crying out loud. When you read the draft bios on NFL.com they're done by SportsXchange. Brian Hitterman simply works for them. Are you seriously trying to argue that because he wasn't credited on a random article he doesn't work for them? Wow.

And again i invite you to google National Scouting and you will see that they run the combine but guess work is not part of their job description. I find it very hard to believe Mr Hitterman that BLESTO or the Combine is in the business of making crap up and reporting it as fact.

I did google it. And I found the articles that proved that it exists today. I've already linked to one such article.

Becaseu lets get one thing clear here, there are no times for Schmitt or Stanback yet NFLDraftScout reports it as if there are.

They report the times provided by National Scouting and BLESTO. We've been over this. Sometimes the numbers provided by those organizations are estimates and sometimes they're actual times when the underclassmen run at the pro days.

And hey you can be like edunce and prance around touting that 4.57 from that site time if you want. I really dont care i have all the information i need and i think everyone else does too.

I'm not prancing around toting any 40 time. I'm not basing my opinion on his 40 time on their number at all. I think it's reasonably accurate, but it's not how I formed my opinion.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course he didn't. It's an estimate.

So basically you're calling NFL Draft Scout a liar. I have an e-mail from the operator of the site that that's where he gets the numbers. If you want to call him a liar, but just so you know, that's what your argument has boiled down to. DENY! DENY! DENY!

SportsXchange is hired by all sorts of news organizations. They are hired by NFL.com for crying out loud. When you read the draft bios on NFL.com they're done by SportsXchange.

I did google it. And I found the articles that proved that it exists today. I've already linked to one such article.

They report the times provided by National Scouting and BLESTO. We've been over this. Sometimes the numbers provided by those organizations are estimates and sometimes they're actual times when the underclassmen run at the pro days.

I'm not prancing around toting any 40 time. I'm not basing my opinion on his 40 time on their number at all. I think it's reasonably accurate, but it's not how I formed my opinion.

He doesnt work for USAToday so he lied about that. So yes i will call him a liar. The time is prima facia garbage. You can believe the pimp if you want to.

And National runs the combine. The article you pimp from draftdaddy specifcially says they report the underclassmen two weeks after the draft. If there is no time there is nothing to report and i will say this agin i dont not believe they make crap up and present it as fact. Thats up to Mr USA Today.

You dont even adress that so youre pointless to talk to. Whatever Theo its like babysitting my sisters kids with you.

 

[theogt]

He doesnt work for USAToday so he lied about that. So yes i will call him a liar. The time is prima facia garbage. You can believe the pimp if you want to.

Prove that he doesn't.

And National runs the combine. You dont even adress that so youre pointless to talk to.

Yes, they run the Combine. And they provide other services as well.

Whatever Theo its like babysitting my sisters kids with you.

That name-calling crutch is never too far is it?