there will never be another Mark Clayton! [Archive]

Sooner Among The Pack

4/12/2006, 10:16 PM

Clayton made so many people miss, it kinda makes you sick thinking we may never have another WR that talented..

I'll never forget the little turn around move he did to get free against an Alabama defender in that 02 game in Norman. It was like catch, turn, gone, vapor...yumm.

I've got the highlight from one of LASooner's video clips.

TXBOOMER

4/13/2006, 11:37 PM

Clayton was absolute greatness. I think Malcolm Kelly has a chance to be one of the greatest ever.

Eielson

4/14/2006, 12:00 AM

was Mark on that video last year? I just watched some highlights of his and let me tell you. there will never be another Mark Clayton!!!
We will never have another Clayton but we will have other receivers and maybe even others will be better.

Jimminy Crimson

4/14/2006, 12:06 AM

There's only ONE Mark Clayton...

stoops the eternal pimp

4/14/2006, 12:32 AM

I think that Iglesias kid could be a pretty good one...His dad is a great musician

OUGreg723

4/14/2006, 12:51 AM

The 2003 Texas game was greatness. I will never forget it for the rest of my life. He was literally making Texas look like a bunch of 12 year old girls out there. In my opinion Mark is one of the top 15 Greatest Sooners ever if you were to rank them. He was a special player.

He has a great NFL career ahead of him too. He may even be a better person than a football player. That is saying alot. He is the definition of a Sooner legend, and a hero.

BASSooner

4/14/2006, 01:01 AM

Yeah Mark was a great receiver. We shouldn't worry about him not being anymore though. I mean we have awesome receivers. We may not have Mark Clayton but we have Malcolm Kelly and Jaquin Iglesias;)

Soonerus

4/14/2006, 01:18 AM

Clayton was great but there will be better...natural evolution...

SicEmBaylor

4/14/2006, 01:20 AM

Clayton is not only a HUGE on the field talent, but an extremely well spoken Division I football player who is an excellent representative of his University.

A total class act. You guys were definitely lucky to have him.

Desert Sapper

4/14/2006, 07:53 AM

I think that Iglesias kid could be a pretty good one...His dad is a great musician

I think he could be the next Mark Clayton, and his dad is a great vocal talent, but his brother sucks IMO.:D

NickZeppelin

4/14/2006, 08:58 AM

Clayton had small things that most WRs don't have he's flat out special.

FlatheadSooner

4/14/2006, 09:02 AM

Clayton had small things that most WRs don't have he's flat out special.

I wouldn't tell him his things are small. ;)

NickZeppelin

4/14/2006, 09:14 AM

They ended up pretty big. Except for run. None of our WRs have those same skills. Now can all of our WRs be good? Yeah but not Mark Clayton good.

colleyvillesooner

4/14/2006, 09:16 AM

They ended up pretty big. Except for run. None of our WRs have those same skills. Now can all of our WRs be good? Yeah but not Mark Clayton good.

There is no way you could even know that.

http://www.fbcgalt.org/images/napoleon%20kip%20love%20connection.JPG

KC//CRIMSON

4/14/2006, 09:28 AM

Nick know's all to well about being special.

NormanPride

4/14/2006, 11:26 AM

I think one of Clayton's best plays was vs. CU in '04 when he took a rollout play the other way and sealed the game. I remember thinking "All right, first do-HOLY ****, HE'S GONNA TAKE IT!"

The best play I've ever seen him make was against KSU in the '03 beating. He made a 20-something yard gain out of completely nothing, and made their entire D look stupid. Too bad it was called back on a questionable block-in-the-back...

swardboy

4/14/2006, 11:44 AM

Kind of makes you wonder how he would have fared as a running back...a "lil Joe" type of runner?

NickZeppelin

4/14/2006, 11:45 AM

It was more then 20 yards. That play was about a 50 yard play. I think it was supposed to be a pass by Clayton but no one was open so he ran and got the TD but it was called back.

eastxsooner

4/14/2006, 12:05 PM

The home run threat will be Manuel Johnson. What other receiver took a 5 yd. slant pattern 55 yds. to the house while stiff arming a safety in route. His stats will show this big play potential this season. Comparing apples to apples, what were Clayton's stats after his redshirt Freshman season. That is still with a year more experience than Manuel but I believe MJ out performed Clayton. 6'0 4.4 speed at 180 lbs. State of Texas Long and Triple jump champion and Dave Campbell's football player of the year with 4300 yds passing and 48 TD passing/ 1100 rushing 15 TD's. He will be a Clayton/Bradley clone if our QB's can become consistant. Because of the slot position and the patterns they run (slants and crosses) timing is crucial where as Kelly and Iglesias split out receive alot of comebacks, curls and jump up and grab it passes. They are built for this but do not posses the explosiveness of Johnson (change of direction coupled with speed). If you aren't a believer, you will be come mid October if Bomar can stay upright and stick it out in the pocket instead of taking off for 8-10 yds and getting schlacked.

Desert Sapper

4/14/2006, 12:38 PM

Kind of makes you wonder how he would have fared as a running back...a "lil Joe" type of runner?

Or how good would little Joe have been as a flanker in the spread? I personally think he would have been one of the best receivers in the history of the game. Little Joe was one of the greatest pure athletes ever to play football. His returns are legendary. His runs were graceful and magnificent to watched. He showed Pro Ball how it was done that night on ABC's Monday Night Football. I've always been a little miffed that that suckeye Griffin stole the Heisman from Joe in '74.

I think Clayton would have been a Q Griffin type runner. Shifty, elusive, and fast with great balance and directional acceleration.

TJKDone

4/16/2006, 10:40 AM

I sure hope not:D

Hook'em

snp

4/16/2006, 02:02 PM

oumartin

4/16/2006, 02:04 PM

I'm a little partial to the Texas games. He seemed to go off on them.
But the block he threw on the Tech defender that sprung AD on that run will live with me forever.

Jello Biafra

4/16/2006, 03:39 PM

I think that Iglesias kid could be a pretty good one...His dad is a great musician

i think he is a singer......

or does he play the pan flute?????

noooo i think it was the skin flute..........

MiccoMacey

4/16/2006, 04:40 PM

My favorite Clayton play was vs OSU when he made like 4 guys miss.

Ol Bob Barry calls it pretty well "Mark Clayton makes the first man miss, second man miss, third man miss, fourth man miss, fifth man got him"

Unfortunately, that was the asshat known as Keith Jackson.

The problem with this line of thinking is two-fold:

1) If mark Clayton is the premier WR ever, being less than Mark Clayton isn't necessarily a bad thing. Being the second best receiver ever is still being a good receiver. So if we annoint MC as THE standard for all others to follow, logically #2 can still be pretty good as well.

2) As much as I loved watching MC, I'm not ready to say someone else won't surpass him in ability somewhere down the road.

NickZeppelin

4/16/2006, 04:44 PM

So far none of the freshmen WRs have had as good numbers as MC had as a freshman. And the offense in 2001 had less talent then our offense had last year.

OKC-SLC

4/16/2006, 04:45 PM

I'm a little partial to the Texas games. He seemed to go off on them.
But the block he threw on the Tech defender that sprung AD on that run will live with me forever.
http://www.jimsoklahomasportspage.com/videos/clayton-bighit.wmv
not a bad block by Runnels either.

emoinwinter

4/16/2006, 08:06 PM

http://www.jimsoklahomasportspage.com/videos/clayton-bighit.wmv
not a bad block by Runnels either.

Hopefully this year our WRs are going to be able to provide run support like that!

sanantoniosooner

4/16/2006, 08:08 PM

So far none of the freshmen WRs have had as good numbers as MC had as a freshman. And the offense in 2001 had less talent then our offense had last year.
When I'm feeling down, you always cheer me up.

MiccoMacey

4/17/2006, 04:11 PM

So far none of the freshmen WRs have had as good numbers as MC had as a freshman. And the offense in 2001 had less talent then our offense had last year.

So, none of our freshmen receivers beat a receiver who was our best WR ever. Even as a freshman.

Good point. I'll note that in the "that's a dumbass statement" department of my user control panel.

So what? The 2001 QB was better than the 2005 QB. The 2001 OL was better than the 2005 OL. And since AD was hurt part or most of the season, our 2001 RB was better than our 2005 RB-by-committee of JG and AP.

NickZeppelin

4/17/2006, 04:35 PM

2001 OL was not better then last years OL. 2001 QBs wasn't really better at that time then the 05 QB. Jason White may have been better if hew as healthy.

colleyvillesooner

4/17/2006, 04:38 PM

2001 OL was not better then last years OL. 2001 QBs wasn't really better at that time then the 05 QB. Jason White may have been better if hew as healthy.

Well, the 2001 QB(s) passed for 1,000 more yards.

KC//CRIMSON

4/17/2006, 04:40 PM

Did you guys know that if you look up redundant in the dictionary, it says look up redundant?;)

Half a Hundred

4/17/2006, 08:53 PM

http://www.jimsoklahomasportspage.com/videos/clayton-bighit.wmv
not a bad block by Runnels either.

The best part is, AD will score that TD on that play this year... holy crap! :D

MiccoMacey

4/17/2006, 08:54 PM

2001 OL was not better then last years OL.

Wrong. They were mostly freshmen as well, but they were much better than this group. Not by light years or anything, but at least better.

2001 QBs wasn't really better at that time then the 05 QB. Jason White may have been better if hew as healthy.

Answered by colleyville.

NickZeppelin

4/17/2006, 09:10 PM

MiccoMacey

4/17/2006, 09:50 PM

I wouldn't say Nate at that time was better then Bomar. But Jason might have been. I think some of the problems with the OL was that the Srs weren't playing some of the season for whatever reasons. But when they played they were a good group. 2001 was never a good line at any time which hurt Hybl at QB.

I agree that the 2001 line wasn't very good. But it was at least as good as this year's group. My opinion, only. Well, all this is opinion as there isn't anyway to quantifyably say who was better (cue jkm and his darn stat machine).

But 2001 Hybl was better than 2005 Bomar. Again, just my opinion. But he and White (who played what...three games???) had over 1,000 more passing yards than Bomar. This holds true especially if you think the 2001 OL was worse than the 2005 OL. Hybl had a harder time because of a worse OL, and produced as much or more.

OUGreg723

4/17/2006, 10:06 PM

hybl threw for 3000 yards in 2001??

OUGreg723

4/17/2006, 10:07 PM

RB 2005 stats:

2,018 yards 10 TDs 10ints 54.2% cmp

NH 2001 stats:

2,409 yards 14 TDs 13ints 59% cmp

OUGreg723

4/17/2006, 10:16 PM

Pretty even stats. Bomars are equally impressive given that everything went wrong last year, we played the toughest schedual in the nation, and Rhett was a freshman.

colleyvillesooner

4/17/2006, 10:21 PM

The other yards came from White. Take out Hybl's missed games, and average out what he did in the other games, and he throws for another 3-5 TD's. He missed Baylor and Kansas, half of Texas and Nebraska.

OUGreg723

4/17/2006, 10:21 PM

NickZeppelin

4/17/2006, 10:21 PM

I agree that the 2001 line wasn't very good. But it was at least as good as this year's group. My opinion, only. Well, all this is opinion as there isn't anyway to quantifyably say who was better (cue jkm and his darn stat machine).

But 2001 Hybl was better than 2005 Bomar. Again, just my opinion. But he and White (who played what...three games???) had over 1,000 more passing yards than Bomar. This holds true especially if you think the 2001 OL was worse than the 2005 OL. Hybl had a harder time because of a worse OL, and produced as much or more.

The thing the 2001 team had over this years team was a TE that could be a consistant reciever. That's really it. Fagan and Savage were more experience recievers too and Woolfolk still played WR some then too. But the WRs were real young for both teams. Peoples ended up with the most chatches for the WRs. But Clayton had more yards if I remember right.

The offense also didn't have as good a running game. Q was a really good back but he's not a work horse type guy that we had for 7 or 8 of the games last year. So the passing numbers in 01 should have been better.

colleyvillesooner

4/18/2006, 09:11 AM

The thing the 2001 team had over this years team was a TE that could be a consistant reciever. That's really it. Fagan and Savage were more experience recievers too and Woolfolk still played WR some then too. But the WRs were real young for both teams. Peoples ended up with the most chatches for the WRs. But Clayton had more yards if I remember right.

The offense also didn't have as good a running game. Q was a really good back but he's not a work horse type guy that we had for 7 or 8 of the games last year. So the passing numbers in 01 should have been better.

The 2001 passing numbers weren't higher because they didn't have to score as many points. The 2001 defense gave up 11 fewer points a game.

NickZeppelin

4/18/2006, 10:11 AM

That's true but the lack of a run game forced the passing game to get more yards. We never really lacked a run game last year. Outside of 1 or 2 games last year.

RedstickSooner

4/18/2006, 12:47 PM

The best receiver we've ever had on the team was Keith Jackson. We just didn't use him much, as we were a wishbone team.

Hands like butter, tall, strong, fast as hell. He would've seemed a strange choice for wideout (because he has a tight end's body, being a tight end 'n all) but his speed & hands would've proven themselves pretty quick. Imagine what he would've done in a passing offense (whether we played him at wideout or tight end).