Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 1999 was | 14 | 290 1405 4.8 17 | 23 111 4.8 0 | | 2000 was | 15 | 332 1318 4.0 11 | 33 313 9.5 0 | | 2001 was | 16 | 356 1432 4.0 5 | 28 205 7.3 0 | His only good year was 1999 after that his stats are pretty much lower then clinton portis. portis catches more balls too. How does it make davis better. After his 17 tds in 99 he hasnt really showed us anything else. In 2001 he had only 5 tds. portis had 7 total tds last year. this year portis is in the pace to have about 11 tds which would tie davis 2nd best season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 the 1999-2001 Stephen Davis would have been the perfect fit for this offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Portis is a better overall player than Stephen Davis. Still, a healthy Davis would probably be a better fit in this offense than Portis. The issue most of us have with Davis is that we had him, let him go because Spurrier felt that Trung Freakin' Canidate would be better, watched him lead the Panthers to the Super Bowl, and then ended up with Gibbs who loves big power backs...just like Stephen Davis. And then to get a good back for Gibbs, we got raped in the deal with Denver to get Portis. A lot of us say, "Wouldn't it had been easier just to keep Davis in the first place?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Who says that? And when "they" do, are they talking about S. Davis today, or circa '99? That Davis would have been a great fit in a Gibbs offense, no doubt. Whether "better" than the CP we have today or not is an interesting hypothetical debate, I guess, but clearly not a slam dunk in either direction. Two different backs, both with strengths in areas the other doesn't/didn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 the 1999-2001 Stephen Davis would have been the perfect fit for this offense. Well davis is not 25 years old anymore now is he? Iam shure cowboy fans want emmit smith back, cause barber and jones kinda u know suck!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BleedinBurgundyandGold Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 yea I dont think its been an argument of talent or ability. Obviously Portis is a more versatile back, but Stephen Davis of 99-01 is exactly the type of back that the redskins need now. Last Sunday's game was great, but it was ST LOUIS.....if we close the Dallas game like we did this past one, then maybe I'll start rethinking Portis' fit in our offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Davis got the team into the endzone alot more than what Portis is doing for us now. He got the tough yards more often than not on 3rd and short... and overall in his prime, he would have been a better fit for the Joe Gibbs style offense. Portis has yet to better Davis in his 2000 or 2001 seasons... he MIGHT do that this year. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 1999 was | 14 | 290 1405 4.8 17 | 23 111 4.8 0 || 2000 was | 15 | 332 1318 4.0 11 | 33 313 9.5 0 | | 2001 was | 16 | 356 1432 4.0 5 | 28 205 7.3 0 | His only good year was 1999 after that his stats are pretty much lower then clinton portis. portis catches more balls too. How does it make davis better. After his 17 tds in 99 he hasnt really showed us anything else. In 2001 he had only 5 tds. portis had 7 total tds last year. this year portis is in the pace to have about 11 tds which would tie davis 2nd best season. How can you say that Davis only had one good year here? If he wasn't scoring 17 touchdowns a year, does that mean that he laid an egg? It's probably more of a reflection on his team. I'm not trying to put down Portis, but Davis was definately a great back for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 Davis got the team into the endzone alot more than what Portis is doing for us now. He got the tough yards more often than not on 3rd and short... and overall in his prime, he would have been a better fit for the Joe Gibbs style offense. After the 99 season davis did't really go into the endzone. you call 11 tds and 5 tds better then portis? Portis had 5 tds with one of the worst offense in nfl last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 After the 99 season davis did't really go into the endzone.you call 11 tds and 5 tds better then portis? Portis had 5 tds with one of the worst offense in nfl last year. Portis has yet to better Davis in his 2000 or 2001 seasons... he MIGHT do that this year. We'll see. 11 TDs was about average for Davis, Portis would have to get 5 more TDs in 4 games to match that. Yards being the same overall, I'll take the guy who can punch it into the endzone and convert short yard situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 Portis has yet to better Davis in his 2000 or 2001 seasons... he MIGHT do that this year. We'll see. 11 TDs was about average for Davis, Portis would have to get 5 more TDs in 4 games to match that. Yards being the same overall, I'll take the guy who can punch it into the endzone and convert short yard situations. Thats what full backs are for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Thats what full backs are for If you are paying a guy like we're paying Portis, he should be able to do it all. Davis could do it all. You didn't have to bring in another back in short yardage situations, because the team had confidence that on 3rd and short, he'd make the yardage. Or that in a goal line situation, he'd punch it in. And from time to time, he'd break a long run. This team doesn't have that same confidence in Portis. And for the rep he brings as a homerun hitter, Portis doesn't break the long ones like he should. If he'd break the long run more than once a year, I could forgive him for being a sub par short yardage back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistere Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Comparing Davis and Portis as who was better is not a fair comparison. Their running styles make them different at no fault to eaither one of them. Who do you want running up the middle portis or davis? Davis every time. Who do you want to bounce it back outside portis or davis? Portis every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs' Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 As of right now when we look back we would have to say that Davis was the better Redskin back.....but I think when all is said and done it will be Clinton Portis by far....he is still very young and I think he plans on being here for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 If you are paying a guy like we're paying Portis, he should be able to do it all. Davis could do it all. You didn't have to bring in another back in short yardage situations, because the team had confidence that on 3rd and short, he'd make the yardage. Or that in a goal line situation, he'd punch it in. And from time to time, he'd break a long run.This team doesn't have that same confidence in Portis. And for the rep he brings has a homerun hitter, Portis doesn't break the long ones like he should. If he'd break the long run more than once a year, I could forgive him for being a sub par short yardage back. So i guess joe gibbs is wrong huh? when gibbs said hes the best rb he coached in his career he was jokeing right? when he said portis matched riggins best year, with a bad oline and no passing game he just said it to make portis sound better right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockeyZulu Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 As a Giants fan, I think both Portis and Davis are great RBs. Although when the Giants played the Redskins, I worried ALOT more about facing Davis, then I do about facing Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 So i guess joe gibbs is wrong huh? when gibbs said hes the best rb he coached in his career he was jokeing right? when he said portis matched riggins best year, with a bad oline and no passing game he just said it to make portis sound better right? Last time I checked, Gibbs didn't coach Stephen Davis. So how this relays into your arguement is questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs' Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 As a Giants fan, I think both Portis and Davis are great RBs.Although when the Giants played the Redskins, I worried ALOT more about facing Davis, then I do about facing Portis. Interesting perspective from another team's fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 Last time I checked, Gibbs didn't coach Stephen Davis. So how this relays into your arguement is questionable. last time i checked john riggins was better then davis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HateYanksDukeCowboys Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 If you are paying a guy like we're paying Portis, he should be able to do it all. Davis could do it all. You didn't have to bring in another back in short yardage situations, because the team had confidence that on 3rd and short, he'd make the yardage. Or that in a goal line situation, he'd punch it in. And from time to time, he'd break a long run.This team doesn't have that same confidence in Portis. And for the rep he brings as a homerun hitter, Portis doesn't break the long ones like he should. If he'd break the long run more than once a year, I could forgive him for being a sub par short yardage back. bovey, couldn't agree more. i can honestly say that when its 3rd & 2 and i see portis back there, i tell my wife that we'll be seeing Derek Frost in about 1 minute. Seems like 9 times out of 10 i'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 bovey, couldn't agree more. i can honestly say that when its 3rd & 2 and i see portis back there, i tell my wife that we'll be seeing Derek Frost in about 1 minute. Seems like 9 times out of 10 i'm right. Thats funny cause we throw in 3rd down and short not run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supafly Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Davis has power yards. A more consistant reliable pound up the middle for 5. Portis has more finesse yards. Variating yardage up the middle with the periodic big run. Gibbs is more geared torwards the constant pounding up the middle style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Thats funny cause we throw in 3rd down and short not run The team throws more on third and short than they should, because when Portis is asked to pick up the tough yards, he can't do it. That's why Sellars has so many TDs in goal line situations, because Gibbs isn't confident that Portis can punch it in. Brunell attempts so many passes on 3rd and short, because Portis hasn't proven he can pick up the tough yards when the team really needs him to. We've lost games this year in the final moments, because Portis couldn't get the tough yards for first downs when the team needed him to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HateYanksDukeCowboys Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Thats funny cause we throw in 3rd down and short not run you say this as if we've done it 100 out of 100 times. can you personally stand behind that statistic? i know i'm not the only fan who's noticed his ability to fall a half yard short of the first down marker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 The team throws more on third and short than they should, because when Portis is asked to pick up the tough yards, he can't do it. That's why Sellars has so many TDs in goal line situations, because Gibbs isn't confident that Portis can punch it in. Brunell attempts so many passes on 3rd and short, because Portis hasn't proven he can pick up the tough yards when the team really needs him to. We've lost games this year in the final moments, because Portis couldn't get the tough yards for first downs when the team needed him to. so your saying you prefer a power back instead of a speedster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.