scskinsfan Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/redskins/MGBPOCJ99JD.html Spurrier's theory could give Skins ground-rule trouble JOHN MARKON TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Aug 12, 2003 Steve Spurrier still has something to prove in the NFL - even if it isn't what he was trying to prove last season. Spurrier's rookie year as the Washington Redskins' head coach was all about the idea that Spurrier's offensive schemes were so effective that he could throw the ball and win without big-name, high-priced talent at either quarterback or wide receiver. There was time and money available to upgrade these positions, but with Spurrier's OK, team owner Daniel Snyder sunk his resources into acquiring defensive help. On offense, Spurrier was happy with his fill-ins and retreads, particularly those who'd already been with him at the University of Florida. Washington averaged a modest 19 points per game and had to close fast to finish 7-9. This winter, Snyder's wallet was opened for offensive talent, most notably (and most expensively) wide receiver Laveranues Coles. The Skins still don't have a big-money QB, but that's only temporary. If they can win with second-year pro Patrick Ramsey as the trigger-man in Spurrier's "Fun and Gun," Ramsey soon will be making big money. Spurrier's quest this year seems to be to prove he can win without anything resembling a power running game. Toward this end, he forced out 230-pound Stephen Davis, who powered out 5,790 yards as a Redskin, and brought in several free-agent linemen who allegedly excel as pass protectors. Davis will be replaced by four guys, all of them pass-catcher, scatback types. "We're going to run the ball," insisted tackle Jon Jansen, one of the few Redskins linemen with a real affinity for run blocking. "We may not grind it out running straight at people, but we'll make big plays in the running game." Obviously, they weren't made in last weekend's exhibition opener in Charlotte, where the Skins lost 20-0. Washington rushed for 78 yards, 50 of them by undrafted rookie Sultan McCullough against Carolina Panthers fourth-stringers in the fourth quarter. Eliminating QB scrambles and garbage time, the Skins rushed only eight times for 13 yards. There were reasons Spurrier may have preferred not to run. Ladell Betts, one of Washington's four committee leaders at running back, was out with an injury, and Kenny Watson (one carry) was supposedly playing despite a sore knee. Spurrier's history, of course, is that he seldom runs when passing is an option. In 12 years at Florida, he had only two backs - Errict Rhett (1991, 1993) and Fred Taylor (1997) - reach 1,000 yards. It didn't stop him from winning 122 games. While most "run and shoot" type offenses have flopped in the NFL, the St. Louis Rams did win a Super Bowl with a pass-first offense that featured Marshall Faulk, certainly a big-play running threat but hardly a power runner. Barry Sanders, the best "big-play" runner of all time, never played in an NFC title game, let alone a Super Bowl. Most NFL teams and coaches eventually gravitate to the idea that an inside running game is a necessity. It's very difficult to control the clock or protect a lead if you can't line up and hammer out a few first downs running the ball. Spurrier's betting that defenses will be forced into playing the Redskins the way they play the Rams - overplaying the pass to such an extent that even Betts, Watson and Rams reject Trung Canidate will be able to rack up yards. Washington has a roster full of third-down backs, which might not be so bad. Without a running game, the Redskins will be looking at a lot of third downs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Didnt Barry play against us in the 91 NFC Championship game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Originally posted by blakman211 Didnt Barry play against us in the 91 NFC Championship game? Yes. I do believe that guys like Roger Craig did just fine by their pass-first teams as well. If the point is that we have to prove ourselves with relatively unproven talent at RB, or that a pass-then-run approach to offense bucks NFL tradition, then I agree but that's not news to us. If his point is that he doubts it will work, then we're all eyes aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I love the way folks try to imply that SS "forced out" Davis because he wanted to prove a point. They make it sound like he sheathed his sword, just so he could try to prove he can win unarmed. The 'Skins had 11 million reasons why they had to let Davis go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Yes, our running game does concern me, not b/c we don't have the pieces to make it work, but b/c SS sometimes flat out refuses to run the ball. But, with Ramsey's armstrength a few early downfield strikes may open it up as defenses adjust. That's not something this team was able to have happen until the last few games of the season last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 So you're going to write a piece about SS and this running game, and you decide to go with how we "forced out" Davis, without word one about the contract or bad fit both on the field and off in the SS scheme ... and go without any reference to the stats from last year that show both Betts AND Watson having success in Davis' stead? Whatever happened to laying an honest foundation upon which to build an argument or state what we are to take as an informed opinion? Regardless of whether this guy proves "right" or not, this piece is moldy swiss effing cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Yes, Sanders did play in that game. Usually, I'm not one to criticize writers, but this guy is a local columnist. What a hack! How can he work in this market and still exhibit so little knowlege of Spurrier's history and system. Or even a basic understanding of football. He's simply spewing cliches. Not to mention factual errors and extremely questionable observations. I don't really have time to do extensive research, but just a little looking was very instructive. Spurrier's championship season is very instructive. No, he did not produce a 1000 yard rusher that season. But his team produced 2257 yards rushing, 25 rushing TDs, and over 170 yards rushing per game. Most of us remember the names of Fred Taylor and Terry Jackson. But, unless you are a Florida fan, how many remember the names of Elijah Williams (the leading rusher in '96 with 671 yards) and Eugene McCaslin (4th leading rusher with 290 yards)? While Ladell Betts and Kenny Watson may not be power backs in Davis' mold, but calling them scat backs is hilarious. That's like calling Earnest Byner a scat back. It hardly describes their running style. The one thing that's true is that Spurrier sets up the run with the pass. But he can't do that unless the passing game is a true threat. So I expect most of the work in the preseason to be done on the passing game. To say we don't have a running game is simply assinine. Hell, the Chiefs didn't have a running game a couple of seasons ago because their main running back was an undersized, slow, undrafted backup who was regarded as a marginal starter and had lost his job to Jamal Lewis -- a "power back." And I guess the Raiders didn't have a running game, either, because they didn't produce a 1000-yard rusher. What a putz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 you can package it any way you want. Spurrier's offense is not revolutionary enough to abandon the basics of what has made passing attacks successful in the NFL since the 1940's: an accurate qb making good decisions with the ball, receivers who can run good routes and produce RAC, and running backs who can catch and make plays in the short and intermediate zones once they have been cleared of dbs and lbs covering the receivers and tight ends all the rest is semantics. the offense will click once Ramsey gets comfortable enough to know where Coles and Gardner and Jacobs are going to be without having to think about it first. And the same goes for the receivers, who will learn that Ramsey's arm allows them time to work and not give up on plays once there is a breakdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 32 teams did not think Davis was able to create $11M of value this year. Carolina figured he'd create about half that. Even without the argument about Davis not being a fit with Spurrier, all the teams thought he would not add enough value to even come close to that $11M number. Could we have gotten him down to a reasonable figure? Maybe but all the hard evidence says no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 A funny story about Markon. Back in school he was teaching a special sports column class that I was in. He gave me a D on a column and I questioned him as to why and he went into why -- his reasoning being it was too personal revealing too much of my own voice. I just shook my head, knowing my mentor at the time, James Kilpatrick, who is a far more accomplished writer than Markon, said my voice is what sets me apart from other writers. Anyway, I turned that D paper in and won a national collegiate sports column award that year as given out by the Society of Professional Journalists. I then got a job at the Times-Dispatch and worked with Markon. I put that award on his desk next to the paper with a letter, "Some people know. Some people don't." He and I never got along after that for some reason . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 And I'll say it again ... regardless of what he has left in the tank - which remains to be seen - I STILL don't think keeping him here and trying to run him as the feature back in this offense was our best option. The man does NOT have quick enough feet to be an effective draw runner in this league any more. I'm not sure he ever did. And he does NOT have good enough hands OR quickness after making the catch to be a real threat catching out of the backfield. If Marty was still here, and we were gonna pound between the tackles 30 times a game, I would have been all for trying to rework his contract and winding him up and sending him out there on Sept. 4. But nobody is going to convince me, even if he runs for 1300 in Carolina this year, that he would have been the right guy for this offense. I understand the frustration of some to SS's apparent unwillingness to tailor his offense to FIT Davis' style a bit better, and that if he had been, the contract might have been able to be re-negotiated. But that isn't what SS was brought here to do. I hope Stephen does just fine for another year or two, which is what I think he has left. I just don't see any way that he was going to be able to do that here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Art, James Kilpatrick is the MAN. I read his sunday column every week, and as a writer, it's so refreshing to get back to the basics. l love how he tears apart pieces that appear in reputable publications like the NY Times and the New Yorker. That's a great story, what years were you at the T-D? What was your beat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I was with the T-D from 94-98. Auto racing as Blake's sidekick and short track. General feature writing, etc. Copy desk. Agate desk. Jack of all trades, master of none really. Kilpatrick is an excellent writer. He still suffers from the stigma of some of his earlier political commentaries, but no one can doubt his skill in the craft. He and I used to exchange pieces three times a week and tear each other apart, something he was much better suited for than I was . But he loved it. He won't talk to me now though unless I publish a book or leave my wife and start writing, for real, again. Calls it a tragedy to surrender a gift for a woman's c@nt. I tried to tell him she has breasts too . He was a funny, cranky old guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaganaut Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I put that award on his desk next to the paper with a letter, "Some people know. Some people don't." Is this really true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Originally posted by Reaganaut Is this really true? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBlue Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Originally posted by scskinsfan While most "run and shoot" type offenses have flopped in the NFL, the St. Louis Rams did win a Super Bowl with a pass-first offense that featured Marshall Faulk, certainly a big-play running threat but hardly a power runner. Barry Sanders, the best "big-play" runner of all time, never played in an NFC title game, let alone a Super Bowl. Does this guy even understand what the "run and shoot" offense is? Look, the FNG is simlar to the run and shoot in that both offenses involve 11 players and attempt to score touchdowns via running and passing the ball. Aside from that, there is not much similarity. Look, without doubt, there are viable questions about the Redskins running game heading into the season. This hack, however, does not deserve any attention in addressing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I would think the WCO would dismiss the notion that one needs a run first offense to win in this league. Art, nice story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 they failed to mention that in the USFL Spurrier had 2 backs gain 1000 yards.. last season watson and Betts both had 100 yards the same game.. Spurrier runs the ball..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 If S Davis goes for 1300 yds then more than likely the panther offense may be better than ours and that would really p1ss me off. And yeah I'm a smashmouth guy. Every since we have abandoned that style you get the impression that the skins are becoming soft overall. And WTEM is having a call in talking about the same thing as I post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.