redman Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 I copied this off of a fantasy football emailing list I'm on with footballguys.com: Hi Folks,Here's the lates from our friend Bob Harris of the www.tflreport.com on Washington RB Stephen Davis. Joe ///////////////////////////////////// SKINS WILL ASK DAVIS TO PULL THE LOAD AGAINST CHICAGO... Posted Friday December 21, 2001 @ 03:55 PT Washington running back Stephen Davis has been remarkably durable this season. He heads into his 14th game of the season and hasn't missed a game so far, the first time in the past two seasons he has been able to do that. However, Davis -- listed as questionable this week with a bruised knee -- is clearly showing signs of wearing down after hauling the rock 275 times this season. Davis, who sat out Wednesday's workout all together, only took part in portions of Thursday's practice. Nonetheless, head coach Marty Schottenheimer told reporters he expects the tailback to practice fully Friday before starting and playing as usual against the Bears this Sunday. Of course, no one can be sure how his knee will hold up against one of the more punishing defenses in the league. That could be a problem because Ki-Jana Carter is still bothered by a sore shoulder. Carter has had just six carries in the past three games. The team will need to get more out of him this week because Davis is likely to need more rest than usual. ... Whatever the case might be, the Redskins desperately need Davis to carry the load. So far this season the Redskins are 3-1 when he gains 100 yards. Given the fact that quarterback Tony Banks has tailed off the last couple weeks, Washington is geared towards running 40 times against Chicago. "It's going to be physical," Davis said yesterday. "We've got to go do what we do best: Control the clock [and] keep their offense off the field." The Redskins have been doing what they do best especially well the past two weeks with Davis, whose 1,116 yards rank third in the NFL, racking up 110 yards at Arizona on Dec. 9 and 111 yards against the Eagles last weekend. Washington ranks a solid 10th in the NFL in rushing offense (115.8 yards), and that figure would be even higher if the club hadn't struggled so badly during an 0-5 start. The Redskins have averaged 135.9 rushing yards over the past nine games; for the season, only one team averages more (Pittsburgh, 174.2). The Bears, on the other hand, have held opponents to less than 100 yards on the ground eight times this season, including Tampa Bay last weekend (61 yards on 18 carries). And Chicago has only allowed two running plays of 20 yards or more this season (Davis has six such runs this season). "My thing is, we've got to go in there and see what's going to work," Davis said. "We'll run some plays, see what works against them and just play hard." It's worth noting that two of Chicago's last four opponents have topped the 100-yard mark, including Green Bay two weeks ago. That day the Packers rushed for 167 yards in a 17-7 victory. The Redskins believe they could have similar success. They don't want to belittle the Bears' ranking or reputation, but they're ready to test the Bears primary strength "Our identity is to run the ball," tight end Walter Rasby said. "We're a running offense. We take pride in what we do best. It's not anything about the Bears are coming to town, saying this or saying this. We do what we do. They do what they do. It's going to be a good, physical football game up front." ************* Our View ************* The only thing that I'd add to this would be the Bears have not played as well on rush defense lately as they had earlier in the season. They did hold Tampa Bay down last week and they did limit Detroit to 67 yards rushing in week 12. But they also gave up 124 yards rushing to Minnesota and a whopping 167 yards rushing to Green Bay two weeks ago. They are very good but in my opinion, they're not in the "shut down" category of rushing defenses like Pittsburgh is this year or Baltimore was last year. In fact, over the last 4 weeks, they rank # 16 in the league. I think they're better than that but clearly some teams have recently had success against them. We'll know more after Friday's practice but wanted to shoot this to you now. Also, don't understimate the impact of Ki-Jana Carter's injury. Without a solid alternative, Davis may be asked to do more than he would if Carter was 100%. Joe /**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/ Bryant Analytics, Inc. All Rights Reserved 1999-2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payton34 Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 Running on the bears is no esy task. The teams that have run on the bears, as strange as it may seem, is the teams that have shut down our offense. The trick is to keep the defense on the field and get to two big guys in the middle tired. All the teams who have gain over a 100 yards have done it mostly in the second half. Another way is to call run plays when their not in, but that is usually third and long a definite passing down. I really don't expect the skins to have much luck running the ball due to davis' injury. I'd hate to see a good back like davis get hurt worse than he already is, in a game that for the most part has no meaning, trying to run him 40 times this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 " ... a game that for the most part has no meaning ... ?" For real? Your guys are playing for home field in the playoffs; our guys are playing to have something to play for beyond Sunday. It's the home stretch, brother. There is meaning, trust me. And your concern for Stephen's health is touching. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted December 21, 2001 Author Share Posted December 21, 2001 What Om said. Originally posted by payton34:The teams that have run on the bears, as strange as it may seem, is the teams that have shut down our offense. The trick is to keep the defense on the field and get to two big guys in the middle tired. All the teams who have gain over a 100 yards have done it mostly in the second half. In addition, you'll note that Davis is a back who tends to have better/stronger second halves than first halves. If I had to guess, his first half yards per carry average is probably 3.5-3.7; his second half average is probably in the 4.2-4.4 range. Also, I believe that our defense can shut down your offense, although as we've found in recent weeks that will occur only if our D-line stays disciplined in their rush, and our CB's don't fall asleep and allow a big play. This is a fascinating matchup, because both teams resemble each other closely, and their strengths will be matched against the other team's strengths. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payton34 Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 Originally posted by Om:" ... a game that for the most part has no meaning ... ?" For real? Your guys are playing for home field in the playoffs; our guys are playing to have something to play for beyond Sunday. It's the home stretch, brother. There is meaning, trust me. And your concern for Stephen's health is touching. Really. Actually my concern over davis is true. I've seen him run and a few times I've seen glimpses of 34. As for the game I was talking only in the skins point of view. I know you guys are still alive but even if you made it how far would you get? The bears are a better team and I don't even think they have the experience to get far. Are you saying the a wildcard spot is worth the health of your best player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 Under Norv hes was a first half-back (especially in the second quarter) but this mostly came because he would rip his long run then. This year, his most effective quarter has been the fourth. His situational stats at http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/football/nfl/players/splits/1440_split.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 I take it from your comments, payton34, that you don't think an NFL team would or should lay it all on the line for a chance to make the playoffs. Again ... are you for real, or just fishing? And feel free to answer without quoting my entire post. I mean, it's flattering and all, but not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payton34 Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 For the past week its been fun arguing with you om. I love how you are always picking a fight even though your team is 6-7. I thought you would be able to understand what I was saying but I guess I gave you to much credit. The skins are better than they have played this year and should be favorites for the division next year. First of all, do you honestly think the skins can make it to the superbowl or even the playoffs? I think your smarter than that. Lets say the skins win this game but davis' injury gets worse and hes out for a year. Not only are your chances for this year over but next year too. So you'd be willing to risk next year for a playoff slot that you dont deserve this year? If the skins gave it there all in the first half of the season they probably would've clinched a spot already. Yes teams should give it their all, but if a was a skin fan I wouldn't want them to make the playoffs because they don't deserve to be there, and they're just going to be a doormat for someone else anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 I wasn't aware we had "argued" yet. Thanks for setting me straight. I'll return the favor shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 "We won't run on the Bears we will run over them" JackC Dec 2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payton34 Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 arent YOU going to give it your all OM? No answers to the questions I asked? Come on defend your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebelYell Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 payton, I can't let this one slide. First of all, I agree that the Redskins have a pretty slim chance of making the playoffs. However, the chance is slim right now, mainly because I think we have a pretty slim chance of beating you guys. If we can beat the Bears, the perspective really changes. We are left with two winnable games - the Saints and the Cardinals - which if we win both will give us a very good chance of getting to the playoffs. Right now the final wild card spot is a five way struggle between WAS, NYG, ATL, NO and TB. I don't think either NYG or ATL is playing well right now, so neither has much hope of claiming the spot. TB has a ridiculously tough schedule from here on out: NO, BAL, PHI. They could very easily lose two of their last three. We play NO, and if we win we would have the same record as them and obviously hold the tie-breaker because we would have won the head-to-head. NO have a tough schedule as well: TB, WAS, SF. So the long and the short of it is, that if we can beat you guys we do have a legitimate shot at the playoffs, especially if NO beats TB on Monday. Sure we would go in as the last seed, but I'm not sure that we would be totally outclassed. Assuming we win our last three, we would have gone 9-2 over our last eleven games - including three (or maybe even four if Denver gets in) matchups against playoff teams. In those games against playoff teams we would have had a 2-1 or 3-1 record! Of course it's a huge stretch to suggest that we will win the last three, particularly the game against you guys on Sunday - but we are certainly not going to give up before we start. The other point is that Stephen has a bruised knee, not a strained ligament. It's not the kind of injury which, if aggravated, will put him out for the year. It may just mean he's a little less effective this Sunday. That's all. RebelYell [<IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/edited.gif" border=0> by RebelYell on December 21, 2001.] [ by RebelYell on December 21, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted December 21, 2001 Author Share Posted December 21, 2001 payton- I'm not sure how you've developed your extremely high aversion to risk, but given its development I'd suggest that your temperment is ill-suited to professional football. How on earth does a 6-7 team that's vying for the last wild card spot say to their best offensive weapon - who certainly wants to play and play hard himself - that he should sit out of a game in late December because they're concerned about a nagging injury that he has? What team would write off a season like that? And you have me confused- are you saying that a team should not jeopardize the health of any of its players when it does not expect to win the Super Bowl? In the next breath you say that you don't believe that the Bears have enough experience to win it this year. Does that mean that the Bears should sit any players who are even slightly dinged up because this year is a write-off? I'd be shocked anyway over such views, but it's doubled by the fact that it comes from a fan of the "Monsters of the Midway". ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payton34 Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 I was misinformed on his injury. There have been reports in chicago that it was a ligament. I thought it was more serious. Now about the playoffs. I'll admit I might feel differently if a was a skin fan, but I'm not so without the blinders on its easy to see that if the skins miraclously make the playoffs, AND somehow beat the eagles again, then the rams will just wipe there feet off on you guys on their way to the championship game. I guess what I'm saying is theres nothing to give up because I just dont expect it to matter. Honestly what will it take for the skins to make the playoffs? How much help do they need? I thought the buccs just have to win sunday to wrap up the final spot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 payton34, I'm here, son ... just dealing with life; you know, job, family, that kind of thing. Don't worry, though, you'll get your answers. And then some, I'd wager. Might have to be tomorrow, though. Be patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payton34 Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 om, well I'll be in and out until 5:00pm today and wont be back til Monday. Most likely wont be on-line this weekend(spend it with my kids). So If I don't hear from you til then enjoy or weekend and good luck Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted December 21, 2001 Author Share Posted December 21, 2001 This may be the first time that somebody punted before the game started! ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payton34 Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 Who is punting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins57 Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 Davis seems to always have a small injury but he always seems to be close to 100 percent on Sunday the day that matters. As far as giving him the ball 40 times and fearing for his health, why even play the game at all if you are afraid of injury. Davis is a horse and is very capable of carring the ball 40+ times. He should be getting the ball 30-40 times a game this time of year. He is our offensive weapon. Hopefully it is your D players that get beat up over his 40+ carries honestly I think he get the rock 25-30 times and you see alot of play action passes deep. It should be a great game and I hope neither teams has any injuries Hail Skins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 Hey, Payton34, nobody is talking SuperBowl. We're talking playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payton34 Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 It would be an amazing feat to make the playoffs after a 0-5 start. I just do see it happening. If the pack win there in. So you have these teams fighting for the last spot: Tampa Bay 7 6 0 4-4 6-4 New Orleans 7 6 0 4-3 5-4 Atlanta 6 7 0 3-4 6-5 N.Y. Giants 6 7 0 4-3 5-5 Washington 6 7 0 3-4 4-5 3 games to leap frog 4 teams is going to be hard, especially if you lose sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebelYell Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 The chance of us going to the playoffs now is about 5.5%. That is based on the following Chance of beating Chicago: 33% Chance of beating New Orleans: 50% Chance of beating Arizona: 66% Chance of Tampa losing 2 of the next 3 (against NO, BAL, PHI): 50% Chance of NYG or ATL winning 3 straight: negligible If we beat Chicago this weekend and NO beats Tampa, then the odds increase to about 30%. RebelYell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted December 21, 2001 Share Posted December 21, 2001 The formula for beating the Bears IS Stephen Davis. The problem is getting Banks to complete necessary passes to sustain a drive or even help capitalize on short fields or when we create turnovers. Look at his percentages and you'll puke! Against a team like the Bears, they will get a share here and there of field goals, turnovers, etc. However, when their volume increases on possession, like most decent teams in the NFL, the production goes up and the score. A sore Davis can still get some yardage and make a few plays, but with a throttled passing game, it's predictability only helps the defense, meaning Chicago's. Yes the Bears can be beaten and thoroughly by the Skins, as long as the passing game compliments like it should, including getting first downs when they really, really count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 22, 2001 Share Posted December 22, 2001 I'm a running guy, and I think it is pretty sound football advice to attack the Bears with what our strength is. But, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the coaching staff goes a different direction this week. Banks had moments against the Eagles, but, mostly he botched some plays he shouldn't have botched, especially that poorly. The season is wrapping down. The Bears are TOUGH against the run. And Davis is a bit dinged. The coaching staff needs to finalize a decision on Banks that leads us to know whether he can do something when he's the focus or not. While the answer is likely not, I think we have to find out. I think we are going to attack through the air frequently and, if it's failing, to our frustration . My guess is we open the game passing, and we pass a whole lot to see what happens. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 22, 2001 Share Posted December 22, 2001 Don't go getting soft on me now, payton34, I thought you wanted to play. Anyway, here I am ... Tempting as it is to simply ignore the silliness that runs through your earlier post, brother, because my guess is you simply don't really know any better, I'll play a bit anyway. There is so much silliness, in fact, that I'll just pick and choose a bit for amusement's sake. You'll decide where we go from here. "For the past week its been fun arguing with you om." Right off the bat, you're one up on me. As I said, I don't recall arguing with you at all. If memory serves, I commented once, maybe twice, on some portion of one of your deeply though-provoking posts. Trust me on this ... if you stick around long enough to find out, you'll discover that what we've done – or not done – to this point far falls quite short of "arguing." Actually, make it TWO up on me: I haven't "enjoyed" you much to date at all. In fact I've barely taken notice. "I love how you are always picking a fight even though your team is 6-7." See, here's we I begin to doubt that you and I really have much to talk aboutr. Do us both a favor: go look up inane, baiting non sequitur, and get back to me. Until then I won't was my time on this one. "I thought you would be able to understand what I was saying but I guess I gave you to much credit." If you're going to go the easy insult route, son, at least strive for originality. Show a middling, moderate modicum of panache. Insulting you back won't be much fun for me if this gem proves you to have already reached the level of your Peter. If you're not conversant on the Principle of which I speak, look on the bright side ... you now have two things to look up. "The skins are better than they have played this year ... " That's certainly debatable, were we inclined to do so. If you were to ask me, I'd suggest that in my opinion the Skins are pretty much exactly as good as their record. They've been bey turns horrendous, pretty damn tough, and pretty damn average; all over the course of just 13 games. That they should be find themselves hovering around .500 is probably just about right. As I said, though, it's debatable. Problem is, your statement clearly does not lend itself to debate. You don't elect to debate; you choose to make a flat statement, backed apparently only by what we'll have to assume is your vast and unassailable familiarity with and knowledge of the 2001 Washington Redskins, and the totality of the circumstances that comprises them. You following the line of thinking, here? " ... and should be favorites for the division next year." While you have your Dictionary handy, look up "speculation." If you watch the NFL for a few years, you'll maybe understand the fallacy of saying such a thing fully a year in advance. As one example of this fallacious thinking only, consider the 2001 Chicago Bears. Now go back one year in time (that would be the 2000 Chicago Bears), and imagine some fan of another team coming to your Bears board and making such a pronouncement about your team for the 2001 season. Pretty silly, no? I like the IDEA you're proposing, certainly, and on good days can even see it happening. I can and do see this, bro, because I follow the Redskins. I follow them closely. I have a pretty good idea where they're strengths and weaknesses lie, even beyond the national press skimmings that you may or may not read. No, you come back next year, around this time, or even say in September, and maybe we'll break the 2002 Redskins down then. But if you do, please come prepared to talk specifics, and not by casting about empty absolutes like those you're wasting Blade's bandwidth with now. "First of all, do you honestly think the skins can make it to the superbowl or even the playoffs? I think your smarter than that." And by this point, junior, I have a pretty good sense of just how lacking in that particular trait you are, or at least that you seem quite intent on proving yourself to be. But our relative IQ's aren't really at issue here, so we'll move on. Do I think they "can" make the Super Bowl? I hardly know where to start on this one. Do you mean this year, or next? Rhetorically, or in terms of percentage of likelihood? Metaphysically, or with the current personnel and philosophies? What are you asking, young man? Strive for clarity, please, it adds so to the message board experience. Even knowing what you're asking, by the way, wouldn't really change the answer. Sure they "can" make the Super Bowl. Most anything "can" happen. Again, witness the 2001 Chicago Bears. And the fact that you managed to find your way here, and even log on. Are they likely too make the Super Bowl, either this year or next? Okay, I'll bite. This year, I'd have to say no. There are lots of reasons why I would say that, but you don't want to hear them and I certainly am not going to lay them all out right here and now. Stick around, though, and read the board for a while, and maybe you'll find your answers. Next year? Me, I'll probably wait to decide until next year to answer that one with any conviction; but if pressed, as of today, I'd have to say that I have my doubts ... as do, I imagine most of the posters around here who, again, unlike you, actually follow the team. If you'd like more expansive answers, follow the advice above, and also try to ask better questions. I'll be happy to oblige, as will, I'm sure, the board at large. It's what we do. "Lets say the skins win this game but davis' injury gets worse and hes out for a year. Not only are your chances for this year over but next year too. So you'd be willing to risk next year for a playoff slot that you dont deserve this year?" If Davis were to suffer a season-ending injury on Sunday, it would indeed be a bad thing, both for him and for the team. If the injury were serious enough to keep him out until this time next year, it would certainly go from "bad thing" to "really bad thing." It would not, however, despite your confident if misguided observation, render our "chances" for next year "over." See, in the NFL, they let you add more players. They let you make adjustments. They let you rethink you're philosophies, both on the field on gamedays and in the meeting rooms during the week. See, this way, if one of the main cogs in one of your units, in this case your offense, is no longer available to you ... you can kind of take steps to ameliorate (you know the drill, look it up) the circumstances. Pretty cool, when you think about it. As to the part about "deserving" to make the playoffs, I can only hope that in the time that has passed since you first posted that, as well in light of the perspective you are hopefully achieving as you read, that you know just how ridiculous a statement that is in context of any debate. If not, more's the pity. "If the skins gave it there all in the first half of the season they probably would've clinched a spot already." Lame, wally. See the comments on "speculation" above. Also, look up "simplistic in the extreme," "unquantified," "not germaine," and also "tedious" (which in this case means "not worth the time to refute because the finer points of why it is all of those things would surely be lost on you"). Let me put it in terms you're likely to understand: wtf are you talking about? Are you implying that the team should have given "there all" early, but since they didn't, in your expert opinion, until it was too late, that they should now NOT give it "there all," because of fear of injury to one player? Is that really what we're talking about here? "Yes teams should give it their all, but if a was a skin fan I wouldn't want them to make the playoffs because they don't deserve to be there, and they're just going to be a doormat for someone else anyway." Priceless. I think I'll just let that one stand on it's own. * If you're of a mind to continue this, partner, do us all a favor and actually think about what you're going to say next. I' sort of torn between really getting into it (just warming up here, how about you?), or just blowing you off entirely. If it's to be the former, please come back with something worth "arguing" about, and we'll get started. Otherwise, go ahead and put your dictionary away, because I won't waste my time sending you scurrying for it's security and educational value any more. Let me know. I'll be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.