Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Icecube

What are the chances Greedy turns out?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, 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.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 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. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 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/

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 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.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 3:27 PM, 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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×