PDA

View Full Version : How are the 40 times in prospect profiles determined?


moTIGS
09-19-2008, 01:21 AM
I'm sure this has been asked, but it's the first time I've looked at the forum and I didn't see anything on a quick search (first time on the forum, but been reading the mocks/profiles here for years).

I ask, because looking at two profiles for first round prospects (William Moore and Jeremy Maclin), I know they go against virtually every published report or rumor I've seen in the past two years of following that team pretty religiously.

Moore is listed with a 4.50. Maclin's got a 4.40. Neither is a bad time. But neither matches anything I've ever read, either. Both claim sub-4.4 times, and in the past the reported/rumored times for Mizzou players have been fairly close to what they tested at for their pro days in front of NFL scouts.

BuddyCHRIST
09-19-2008, 01:39 AM
they are just estimates right now and when everyone runs official 40's they'll be updated. School 40's are notoriously unreliable so I think Scott just writes what they look like.

moTIGS
09-19-2008, 02:41 AM
That strikes me as kind of silly.

Yatta!
09-19-2008, 07:32 AM
That strikes me as kind of silly.

So what is a better method? Those are reasonable estimates for Moore and Maclin and they are the same on several other sites. Everyone knows that pretty much every school inflates the reported 40-times for players and it means that many players get overrated.

CashmoneyDrew
09-19-2008, 11:19 AM
If Scott went off of every schools "official" 40's for players, then everyone would run a sub 4.4.

Turtlepower
09-19-2008, 11:24 AM
A lot of players still have 40 times tested from high school. Anyway, the 40 time is become a more and more useless measurement tool when athletes train for months just to run a fast 40.

bored of education
09-19-2008, 12:13 PM
By time :)

moTIGS
09-19-2008, 12:28 PM
So what is a better method? Those are reasonable estimates for Moore and Maclin and they are the same on several other sites. Everyone knows that pretty much every school inflates the reported 40-times for players and it means that many players get overrated.

A better method would be to not list any time until you actually have one.

Mizzou's reported times have been very consistent with the times put up by their players at their pro day or the combine.

Woody56
09-19-2008, 01:29 PM
i think he gets them from scouts inc

Race for the Heisman
09-19-2008, 01:41 PM
A better method would be to not list any time until you actually have one.

Mizzou's reported times have been very consistent with the times put up by their players at their pro day or the combine.

So you're upset because two prospects from your school have sub-par 40 times according to Scott's initial evaluations?

Whatever the case is, a scout can look at a player and tell you "He plays like a 4.5 guy" and that is enough for me in terms of initial rankings. Personally I have Moore between 4.45-4.50 and Maclin between 4.30-4.35, so I don't really have a problem with either ranking. I do notice that there are often discrepancies between what I see and what Scott lists but I think Scott goes on the safe side and he's also been doing it for a lot longer so I'll defer to his expertise.

jnew76
09-19-2008, 01:43 PM
That strikes me as kind of silly.

Listen, I know you are new here, and as a fellow Mizzou fan I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Scott's numbers are try to be as accurate as possible at this stage of the game. While I believe that they error on the side of being conservative, that is the only way to be prudent until the combine, where everyone runs on the same track under the same conditions where it is electronically timed.

Missouri's times may be as accurate as anyones in the country at their timing day, but the fact is that not all the numbers are accurate. At this stage Scott's #'s are put there purely as an estimate.

Scott has been doing this a long time and if he had a better way being more accurate in SEPTEMBER, I think he would have done so by now.

don5252
09-19-2008, 01:58 PM
i could care less what someones 40 time is whether they run a 4.3 or 4.7. the 40 is by far the most overated stat ive ever seen. I dont care how fast they run in a straight line in shorts and a tshirt. I want to know how fast they look on the fileld with pads and moving in diffrent directions and making cuts.

Gchu83
09-19-2008, 07:32 PM
i could care less what someones 40 time is whether they run a 4.3 or 4.7. the 40 is by far the most overated stat ive ever seen. I dont care how fast they run in a straight line in shorts and a tshirt. I want to know how fast they look on the fileld with pads and moving in diffrent directions and making cuts.

But then what would Mel Kiper talk about?

Brent
09-19-2008, 07:38 PM
But then what would Mel Kiper talk about?
he would find something

saintsfan912
09-19-2008, 07:45 PM
But then what would Mel Kiper talk about?


His helmet, er I mean hair.

moTIGS
09-25-2008, 05:33 AM
So you're upset because two prospects from your school have sub-par 40 times according to Scott's initial evaluations?

Whatever the case is, a scout can look at a player and tell you "He plays like a 4.5 guy" and that is enough for me in terms of initial rankings. Personally I have Moore between 4.45-4.50 and Maclin between 4.30-4.35, so I don't really have a problem with either ranking. I do notice that there are often discrepancies between what I see and what Scott lists but I think Scott goes on the safe side and he's also been doing it for a lot longer so I'll defer to his expertise.

No, I couldn't care less about those two in particular. I cite them because I know what they've run, not because I am personally upset about anything.

I was simply wondering where the times came from. If they're estimates, they should be labeled as such.

Listen, I know you are new here, and as a fellow Mizzou fan I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Scott's numbers are try to be as accurate as possible at this stage of the game. While I believe that they error on the side of being conservative, that is the only way to be prudent until the combine, where everyone runs on the same track under the same conditions where it is electronically timed.

Scott has been doing this a long time and if he had a better way being more accurate in SEPTEMBER, I think he would have done so by now.

There's nothing prudent about generic estimates.

But it's really not a big deal. I was just curious.

Iamcanadian
09-25-2008, 09:45 AM
The only 40 times I take seriously before the draft are those posted by players who ran track in college or were state champions in track in high School. You have some reasonable expectation that these guys are indeed fast. For the rest, I wouldn't give 2 cents for what their schools report unless that particular school has a strong record for accuracy which few do.