Sports Writers are so Predictable and WRONG

[Tony Soprano]

When the combine results came in, I posted here saying that wait until the season starts - the announcers, commentators, and sports writers will have Vince Young being 245 and running a 4.3.

At the Combine, Vince Young ran a 4.59 forty.

I bought the USA Today Sports WEEKLY today - it's their draft special. They have a long, glowing article on Vince Young and it says he ran 4.4 Forty. That didn't take long.
These guys ratchet up the numbers on their favorite stars with every report, so much so, that when a fan finds out a DB coming out runs a 4.4 - they're thinking that's not fast at all.

The combine is one of the only places where players compete against each other on the same surface with the same people holding the watches. It is refreshing in that it provides unvarnished numbers before hero worship based reporting
mutilates the facts.

[Drew4EverRams]

im fed up of hearing drafted players height changing all the time-ive already seen Klopfenstein`s height as 6`4",6`5" and 6`6",Wroten at 6`1,6`2",Hill 5`9",5`10" Palmer 6`1",6`2" so on and so forth-measure their heights and stick to it FFS!!!!

[HUbison]

Originally Posted by Drew4EverRams

im fed up of hearing drafted players height changing all the time-ive already seen Klopfenstein`s height as 6`4",6`5" and 6`6",Wroten at 6`1,6`2",Hill 5`9",5`10" Palmer 6`1",6`2" so on and so forth-measure their heights and stick to it FFS!!!!

That's why I like nfldraftcountdown.com. Scott Wright reports heights out to the 1/8th of an inch.

Don't know that 1/8th of an inch matters, but it's nice to see that much attention to detail.

[bigredman]

I agree Soprano...Young is going to be an overrated bust in Tennessee just like Vick in Atlanta and Culpepper in Minnesota. These sport writer fall in love with these big, tall, strong armed, "run first" scrambling QBs out of college where the collegiate game lends credence to such play, but it doesn't translate in the NFL

[general counsel]

HUBISON, i dont know if an 1/8 of an inch matters either. Frankly, i think so many of these stats are just stupid. Lets see them play ball and see how they do. Once they are on the field, the combine measurables mean a LOT less than actual production. I never did see a ram bench press another player during the action! Nor have i ever seen the relevance of an offensive lineman running a 40 yard dash.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[HUbison]

On that same note, GC......I've never seen a football game played in t-shirts and shorts. Why don't they suit these guys up in full uniform and then get their measurables?

And while we're at it, why not put each player in his game stance to start each drill...ie, LBs in a 2-point stance, DEs in a 3 point, so on and so forth.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Tony Soprano

At the Combine, Vince Young ran a 4.59 forty.

I bought the USA Today Sports WEEKLY today - it's their draft special. They have a long, glowing article on Vince Young and it says he ran 4.4 Forty. That didn't take long.

Well first of all, Young didn't run at the combine. He ran at his pro day, and NFL.com reports it was actually a 4.57. Just thought I'd post that since this is a thread about how sports writers are the ones who are wrong.

But that number was most likely supplied by NFLDraftScout.com, as USA Today had a very good working relationship with Draft Scout prior to the draft itself as evident by DS's mock drafts being featured on USA Today's website. And the idea that either of them just makes up information to hype their favorite players just seems pretty farfetched to me. Chances are there was more than one person with a stopwatch at Young's pro day.

Originally Posted by HUbison

Don't know that 1/8th of an inch matters, but it's nice to see that much attention to detail.

Let that be a lesson to you, kiddies. Size doesn't matter.

[general counsel]

Or to say it another more traditional way, its not the size of the wand, its the magic.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[Tony Soprano]

Originally Posted by Nick

Well first of all, Young didn't run at the combine. He ran at his pro day, and NFL.com reports it was actually a 4.57. Just thought I'd post that since this is a thread about how sports writers are the ones who are wrong.

Okay Nick, here's a perfect example ESPN's Chris Mortensen says he ran a 4.58 on a FAST TRACK.

Now, Who's closer, Tony from home or a National Media Organization with sportswriter's saying 4.4?

Is 4.59 closer to 4.58 or 4.4?

Why doesn't the media err on the slower side ever?

Quarterback Vince Young was timed in 4.58 seconds in the 40-yard dash Wednesday on what is considered a fast track at the University of Texas in Austin, one NFL scout told ESPN's Chris Mortensen. The scout said Young's time was slower than anticipated.
Source:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft0...ory?id=2380236

One watch says 4.58 and another 4.4, that seems pretty farfetched to me. That's the difference between a LB and a DL in many cases.

It doesn't seem hard to believe that USATODAY would exaggerate his times. Does M. Vick get an inordinate amount of publicity versus his performance as a QB?

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Tony Soprano

Okay Nick, here's a perfect example ESPN's Chris Mortensen says he ran a 4.58 on a FAST TRACK.

Well for one, I don't buy into the fact that it's a fast track, and here's why:

Following the workout, there was speculation that the players ran on a fast track. It's my belief that it was not a fast track. My reason? Four different players that ran in Indianapolis chose not to run in Texas -- an indication that they felt the track would not be as fast. The 4.57 that Vince Young ran may not be truly representative.

I'm sorry, but I will put my money on Gil Brandt over Chris Mortensen and his sources every day of the week when it comes to draft knowledge and information.

Originally Posted by Tony Soprano

Why doesn't the media err on the slower side ever?

It's common practice by every draft resource I've seen to record and report the fastest time run by the player because you want to know what a player is capable of. If a player is capable of running a 4.35, why would you not report that?

A lot of them record both 40-yard attempts from the combine, but if only one is listed, it's the fastest. In the case of a pro day various resources will have slightly different numbers depending on who is doing the timing.

USA TODAY (again, likely through Draft Scout) has a different forty time for Reggie Bush than the one recorded on NFL.com. Clearly they're drawing from a different source, and I see nothing wrong with that...? Again, there's not one lone guy standing there who reports one number that everyone goes off of, so obviously there will be variations in reported measurables.

Originally Posted by Tony Soprano

It doesn't seem hard to believe that USATODAY would exaggerate his times.

Yes it does. To me anyways. Because I see no reason for USA TODAY to completely fabricate a player's measurables.

As I pointed out, they likely got their information on Young from the same place they got all their other info - from a widely-used draft resource. That's who you should be looking at if you have a problem with this reported time for Young. You keep referencing a 4.4, yet USA TODAY's own website says the time was a 4.48, which is exactly what their draft resource - NFL Draft Scout - reports the time as.

It's one thing for analysts in editorial-like rants or articles to hype up a player like many do with Vick. It's a completely different thing for a professional publication to completely fabricate and falsify a recorded measurable for a player. And I've yet to see any motive as to why they'd do this that makes more sense than the notion that they're just pulling their info from a different source.

I guess I just don't see much support for your theory here. I am curious though what the publication date of that draft special is.

[Tony Soprano]

Originally Posted by Nick

I'm sorry, but I will put my money on Gil Brandt over Chris Mortensen and his sources every day of the week when it comes to draft knowledge and information.

Christ Mortensen is one of the sportswriters, the thread was referring to.. Thanks for making my point.

Originally Posted by Nick

Well for one, I don't buy into the fact that it's a fast track,

The Fast track came right from ESPN. Again, You're making my point.
Source:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft0...ory?id=2380236

You seem to be arguing with info from ESPN. This seems like it's going in a circle.

.

[Fat Pang]

Well, I think part of the reason sports writers get it wrong as often as they do, is that they are dealing with vast quantities of information form a huge variety of sources, to do with people who, quite often, they haven't seen in the flesh.

Added to this confusion is the additional problem of deliberate misinformation put out there by agents,schools interested in seeing their alumni go on the first day, and the players themselves eager for a bigger paycheck.

Not lying exactly, but its disengenuous at best.

In a system where so much weight is put on measurables, upside and intangibles should we really be surprised that there's so much of it?

Part of the problem with the draft I think is that too much emphasis is put on measurables, relative to whether the kid concerned can actually play football.

I'm reminded of something Howie Long said in an NFL players video once..."They didn't care about my long jump, my broad jump or how bad my dreams were, they just gave me a helmet and said you're going to play defensive end"..........or something like that anyway.

He could play.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Tony Soprano

Christ Mortensen is one of the sportswriters, the thread was referring to..

Actually he couldn't be, since your original complaint was about sports writers ratcheting up and inflating numbers of their favorite stars to make them look better, and that's not what Mortensen and ESPN is doing in this instance.

Originally Posted by Tony Soprano

You seem to be arguing with info from ESPN.

And you seem to be using them to support your statements, only to turn around and say how inaccurate they are. If anything's going in circles... :drunk:

Still curious about the date of the USA TODAY publication, whenever you get a chance.

[Tony Soprano]

Nick,

The Title is 'Sports Writers are so Predictable and WRONG'

Chris Mortensen is a Sports...

This is not productive.

My wife threw out the Sports Weekly - The dates are by weeks and not specific dates


I'm bowing out, but I'll tape a National Broadcast of the Titans. I guarantee they're be exaggerations in his numbers (weight, height, or speed). I've seen too much football. If someone disputes what I said in that Televised game, I'll mail the Tape or put up a link to the audio.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Tony Soprano

The Title is 'Sports Writers are so Predictable and WRONG'

Yes, and there was also more to the thread than its title. The actual body of the message was referencing a specific action that made sports writers predictable and wrong - the inflation of measurables by writers to make certain athletes look better. That didn't describe Mortensen and ESPN in this instance.

Either way, it doesn't explain using sports writers as sources to support an argument only to turn around and talk about how inaccurate and wrong they are. It would seem you brought Mortensen and ESPN into this thread to show the inaccuracies of USA TODAY's information, yet now you're trying to claim Mortensen and ESPN fit into the net of incorrect writers. If they're wrong, why cite them?

So yeah, I'd have to agree that this isn't very productive... or logical.