Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron


    
      
        Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron
        (https://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi)
      

        the Gridiron >> the Red Zone >>  Tough young rookie
        
(Message started by: steelkings on Oct 27^th, 2003, 9:11am)

Title: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 27^th, 2003, 9:11am

If you or someone hasen't already picked him up, the waiver wire wonder is Houstons running back Dominic Davis. This kid looks strong. Look at his stats.
At home against the Jets week 7
27 carries-129yrds
9 Rec- 70 yrds
0 -td's
On this day Stacy Mack stole both red zone touchdowns from Davis making fantasy owners leary. Then look at this weeks stats.
On the road against Indy
25 carries-109yrds
7 rec-27yrds
2 TD'S
Stacy mack had 1 insignificant carry in the game. 1 Davis TD was a 15 yarder and the other was from 2 yrds out. Mack didnt steal that one.
The other arguement is that he plays for Houston. Because of that you shouldnt get caught up in getting excited about players from bad teams. However, That team seems to be getting better and better. Its possible that this could be a great pick up for someone. Especially if its a keeper league. Your thoughts?

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by PrimeTime on Oct 27^th, 2003, 9:14am

I picked him up in three of my four leagues, two of which are keeper leagues :)

One of the leques is the GBRFL2 which you can check out by clicking on the link above.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 27^th, 2003, 11:51am

sk, you're presenting this as if it were new news. You do know this is old news, right? I mean if Davis hasn't been picked up in one's league yet, that's not a good statement about one's league. :-[ Depending on roster depth, Davis should have been picked up once he started to flash those skills with some regularity like FIVE or SIX weeks ago or at least after his performance against ~~Indy~~ the Jets LAST week. Anyway, not to toot our horns too loudly here, and granted we have deep 21-man rosters, but frankly speaking, in the GBRFL, Davis was DRAFTED in (the 9th and final round of) our August 2nd (re-stocking) draft and has been held on to by said owner the whole time (said owner is not me :'( ).

Okay, continue your discussion of the obvious... ;)

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by Keyshawn Johnson 76yards on Oct 27^th, 2003, 3:41pm

Um, who's Dominick Davis?

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by bakes781 on Oct 27^th, 2003, 4:18pm

Other than a few highlights, I have yet to see this kid play. His stats were :o enuff that I picked him up 2 weeks ago. Started him this week & I'm sure glad I did. I am an avid draft nut. & I hate to admit it this, but I don't remember his name or anything about him. What college did he go to & what round was he drafted in?

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 27^th, 2003, 4:54pm

once he started to flash those skills with some regularity like FIVE or SIX weeks ago or at least after his performance against Indy LAST week.

Wow Steg,
You guy's in the Grid Iron leagues must be really smart. And way ahead of schedule. I thought that the Texans played Indy yesterday. where did the time go? I dont know how I didnt see those skill flashes Davis was displaying. Maybe he was hiding behind his 7 carries a game average in the first 5 games. Or maybe it was the massive 171 yrds he ran for over those 5 games. Or maybe it was the Stacy Mack Uniform he wore when he scored in those 5 weeks. Maybe I was blinded by the fact he was benched in favor of Tony Hollings and Stacy Mack During the Kansas City game. If only Dom Capers would have consulted you first, they could have flashed their way past the Chiefs. [smiley=doseofreality.gif]
21 man rosters? Is there that many players in the NFL? We play with 12 spots [smiley=annoyed.gif]. I picked Davis up Friday.
Flashes for 5 or 6 weeks? Indy last week?
I"ve insulted the great and powerful Oz
On purpose even!
Ive retracted several insensitive things from my original reply........ Hopefully I did anyway.....Im still to stupid to use the machine in front of me. I do apologize. The adult thing for me to have done would have been to let it go.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by DirkDiggler on Oct 27^th, 2003, 5:03pm

on 10/27/03 at 16:54:37, steelkings wrote:

once he started to flash those skills with some regularity like FIVE or SIX weeks ago or at least after his performance against Indy LAST week.

Wow Steg,
You guy's in the Grid Iron leagues must be really smart. And way ahead of schedule. I thought that the Texans played Indy yesterday. where did the time go? I dont know how I didnt see those skill flashes Davis was displaying. Maybe he was hiding behind his 7 carries a game average in the first 5 games. Or maybe it was the massive 171 yrds he ran for over those 5 games. Or maybe it was the Stacy Mack Uniform he wore when he scored in those 5 weeks. Maybe I was blinded by the fact he was benched in favor of Tony Hollings and Stacy Mack During the Kansas City game. If only Dom Capers would have consulted you first, they could have flashed their way past the Chiefs. [smiley=doseofreality.gif]
21 man rosters? Is there that many players in the NFL? We play with 12 spots [smiley=annoyed.gif]. I picked Davis up Friday.
Flashes for 5 or 6 weeks? Indy last week? Are you writing for Fanball now Stegman? I dont usually get uninformed garbage around here.

I"ve insulted the great and powerful Oz [smiley=flipoffangrily.gif][smiley=flipoffangrily.gif]

Steel kings--

No need for the finger or for anyone to be a [smiley=dick.jpg] or a [smiley=caughtonthecan.gif].

No one's upset. (except maybe you.) But there have been posts in regard to Davis. Numerous posts in numerous threads. JetDoc has actually provided many different insights in regards to him in his weekly analysis.

However, we are talking two different worlds of leagues. Keeper leagues truly had him targeted ages ago. As Steg pointed out, one guy actually drafted him in our league.

In addition, Steg said, "depending on roster size". On a 12 team league, depending on how many starters, I doubt I would have him either weeks ago. BUT, I would of have my eye on him weeks ago and probably added him at least a week ago. Just like you should have your eye on Rudi Johnson, Lamont Jordan, Ricky Williams(ind), etc.... Now with all that being said, I do agree with your conclusion he was a good pick up a week ago. Sportsline had him as the number one add after that Jets game.

SO relax, have a [smiley=alcoholic.gif], [smiley=bonghit.gif], or whatever your drug of choice is. Enjoy the site, keep posting, and have fun.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 27^th, 2003, 5:28pm

Lamont Jordan? Ricky Williams?
Ricky williams -164 yrds rushing in 6 games (INDY)
Lamont Jordan-82 yrds rushing in 7 games
Ect. Ect.
You guys must get points if your running back just shows up. How many do you get for that?
I can only start 2 backs a game and they sure as hell arent gonna be Williams or Jordan.

I didn't get a chance to read the Oiler...opp's.. Texan week whatever anal-isis. All I did was point out....
SORRY....Iwont do it again. Now back to my bong

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 27^th, 2003, 5:45pm

Pardon me... I meant his 100+-yard game against the Jets two weeks ago. ::) If you'd have stopped and thought about it for a second, you'd have realized my quite small mistake rather than opportunistically playing off it. As for your inane and erroneous Fanball allusion/comparison, [smiley=nono.gif] if a) I were making a living from this and supporting a dozen or more employees and had a home office like Fanball, hell, if I were making ANYTHING from this, and then b) this was something I stated in an article or other "official product" and not on a message board forum, which, by the way, I provide along with a bunch of other cool stuff for FREE, sure, fire away... lop off my head... Otherwise, and in fact, that is just a jerky approach to take against me. [smiley=no.gif]

As DD points out, the topic of Domanick Davis has been discussed quite a bit here already. That is what the handy-dandy "Search" feature is for. This topic did not merit a new thread to be started about it. That's ultimately whence I am coming here... trying a) to keep the thread proliferation here to a reasonable minimum so people's stuff doesn't go flying off page 1 in like half a day like at many other sites and b) to maintain organization and consolidation of discussion topics making it easier for us to get "the whole story" and get our facts straight by not just having disparate posts about a particular topic here, there and everywhere like at many other sites. :-/

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 27^th, 2003, 6:11pm

This site is one of my favorites. I think your work on it is outstanding! Its better than outstanding!

Now that ive blown ya.. lets digress.
I simply pointed out a player. I felt that in turn you called me stupid. You called my league stupid! Maybe we are.
As far as a topic without merit, thats bullshit. With your history search I found the subject last in the June 6th Texans Preview. I suppose I should instant message you with my topics before I post them.

Now, you are right, 1/2 the shit I said was unfair. that go's both ways tho.
Try to keep in mind that im still new. I dont know how to use 1/2 of this site. Give me a break and ill return the favor.
Middle finger retracted
SK

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 27^th, 2003, 6:19pm

on 10/27/03 at 16:54:37, steelkings wrote:

I dont know how I didnt see those skill flashes Davis was displaying. Maybe he was hiding behind his 7 carries a game average in the first 5 games. Or maybe it was the massive 171 yrds he ran for over those 5 games. Or maybe it was the Stacy Mack Uniform he wore when he scored in those 5 weeks.

Hmmmm... According to your very own numbers there, over his first five games, he had 35 carries for 171 yards. That's 4.9 yards-per-rush on a team that could hardly drum up a 3.0 yards-per-carry rusher. Point being, the guy "showed flashes" before Week 7. It is just that he "broke out" that week and REALLY broke out this week. There is a difference between "showing flashes" and "breaking out". The real savvy fantasy footballer extrapolates from those "flashes" or whatever and sees ahead; he does not (just) grab a player after the "breaking out" has begun (not that you shouldn't do that if it's possible) and, moreover, boast about it after the fact (not that that is what I am saying you are doing). Perhaps, as per the quoted sections at the top, after nastily and rather ignorantly bashing our league's system, the GBRFL system, you should reflect inwardly and ponder how your 12-man league makes you think (about things fantasy football) vis-a-vis how our 21-man deep-keeper league makes us think. Case in point, our guy knew about Domanick Davis back on August 2nd; you are starting a thread about him today, October 27th. That's fine! Don't get me wrong. But, without getting all flustered, you follow what I am trying to point out? We tend to think "in the box"... "in our box".

Quote:

I"ve insulted the great and powerful Oz [smiley=flipoffangrily.gif] [smiley=flipoffangrily.gif]
On purpose even!

We don't do a lot of that around here, something I believe you yourself have noted and complimented us and the site on. So, why is it so "cool" to do it now... moreover, to me? :-/

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 27^th, 2003, 6:28pm

on 10/27/03 at 18:11:25, steelkings wrote:

Give me a break and ill return the favor.
Middle finger retracted
SK

My last post was made before seeing your one right above it. :-[ But, I'm not going to be a total pussy and delete it. I don't think you'd want me to do that. I also think that there are some valuable thoughts worth considering (in general by everybody) contained in it. So,... [smiley=shrug.gif] I'll "modify" it, though. :)

Anyway, I'm with ya, bro'... [smiley=letsmakeup.gif]

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 27^th, 2003, 6:33pm

I dont like to insult anyone. Everyone has league pride. thats a good thing.

" Ignorance is a trait that drives men apart"

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 27^th, 2003, 6:53pm

on 10/27/03 at 18:11:25, steelkings wrote:

With your history search I found the subject last in the June 6th Texans Preview.

Just a point of clarification here... I hate having inaccurate "realities" spread, which, moreover, may discourage some from using the extra convenience features we have here, in this case, the "Search" feature... If you do a search for "Domanick" just in "the Red Zone" over the last "60 days", you come up with a plethora of threads on which he was discussed quite a bit, dating as recently as late last week. [smiley=bow.gif]

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 27^th, 2003, 7:05pm

way to get the last word in. Almost. :D I guess I must have used the word Davis in the search. ?.?.?

Ps.
This topic has had more hits than the Beagle week 8 analysis. I knew it would be popular.

DISCLAIMER
The "B" in front of Eagle was purely accidental and not intended to inflict insult on Eagle fans. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 27^th, 2003, 8:52pm

Sorry about the Beagles shot. losing is a pain in the ass when you are looking forward to a title. That kinda pain is felt by the whole state of Pennsylvania. As a Steeler fan all I can say is as long as the Cowboys and Ravens are division leaders there is always hope. ;)

Ps
what are mb's.....Go slow im from Indiana

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 27^th, 2003, 10:19pm

on 10/27/03 at 20:28:42, 5-on-it wrote:

This is by far the superior MB of any (FF or other) that I have ever been to [smiley=thumbsup.gif].

on 10/27/03 at 18:11:25, steelkings wrote:

This site is one of my favorites. I think your work on it is outstanding! Its better than outstanding!

Here's what I don't get... Why is the correlation between how I run things and what is stated above not clearly perceived (or at least perceived to a similar degree that my condescendingness apparently is)? I hear this kind of thing from time to time, but I very rarely hear, besides from myself, "Hey guys, you really like it here because there's something a little different going on and it's got a good feel. Remember that it has something to do with how the dude runs the place... even if it comes at your VERY occasional expense. Just take it with a grain of salt. He does what he has to do the way he thinks it should be done and, go figure, we all generally love it." I mean you guys like not having out-and-out flamewars; you guys like the general tenor of the place. Most of the dregs are driven off by the way I run the show here, and if the droves of idiots do come through someday, you will be happy that I, at least, as administrator held my ground and ran a tight ship... setting according precedent and avoiding hypocrisy. Sometimes the captain of the ship has to do just that, captain the ship... and sometimes as site admin you have be a little harsher about "things" to get the point across... to hammer the point in. This way it's not forgotten... obviously and the person pauses and thinks twice the next time. That's the substantive effect... affect I am looking for. If I were to simply say, as you suggest, "hey steelkings, there are a few other posts already started regarding this subject," it would be forgotten like yesterday, especially by some of the flotsom that we could have coming through here. That fluff is for you guys to say to each other. (Since I don't usually get much help with that,) I've got to be a little more forceful,... but, of course, not outrightly disrespectful, which I am not; e.g., I very rarely stoop to name-calling. I'm not just another member; I'm the guy setting the tenor... that keeps out the morons and has guys thinking twice before posting (whatever bullshit they "feel" like posting willy-nilly), all of which ultimately reduces the chances of flamewars and makes for a nice, organized environment. My primary background is in teaching. I know... you give an inch, they'll take a yard. And, who says I'm not having fun? ;) I enjoy running a site that's about "something", "something more" rather than just another free-for-all schmuck festival like what goes on at many other FF message boards. Perhaps the way I write intimidates. It shouldn't. Just take it whence it comes. I am ultimately going to run the show here the way I see fit, and ironically everybody who hangs on here seems to like it A LOT. I also have to say that this perception of condescendingness should be considered further. Most of the time that kind of "vibe" is at least as much about the perceiver as it is about the perceived... Now I just hope that didn't come off condescendingly. :-[ [smiley=shrug.gif]

Anyway, 5'er, how about some links to your boards? I'd love to drop by... and be just a visitor once in a while. ;)

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 27^th, 2003, 11:19pm

I am actually having an epiphany here. It's all making sense. I think what you perceive as my at times holier-than-thou approach is in fact my trying to be harsh/tough without name-calling or overtly flaming the guy.

In any case, this has been a productive discussion,... [smiley=thumbsup.gif] what do ya know! ;)

Let's all have an ice cream now... [smiley=letsmakeup.gif] [smiley=letsmakeup.gif] [smiley=letsmakeup.gif]

;D

P.S. (Ironically, it is my writing style that cost me U. of H. [smiley=no.gif] [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] )

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 28^th, 2003, 7:13am

A dreg, an Idiot. An hypocrit, and a moron. I think those were all directed at me. :-[ There was also Flotsom but Im not sure what it is so i'll choose to ignore that one. :)Now that was flat out mean. I was just beginning to feel the love then wammo! :o Again I apologize. When i started that thread I didnt realize the place had been boombarded with d.Davis stuff. I also didnt notice I was standing on anyones nuts. Now on the serious side, im not clear if the message is that I was asked to leave this site. I wasnt a very good student. If thats the message here, step up, I can take it. and i'll go! [smiley=tired.gif]

At least im not a Jackass ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
SK

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by Philly on Oct 28^th, 2003, 9:28am

[offtopic]...[/offtopic]

For what it's worth... I really like Domanick Davis and his upside. Around draft time I thought his LSU teammate, LaBrandon Toefield, would be the better back this year. I didn't think Fred Taylor could stay as healthy as he has. Plus I saw Davis as more of a third down back who would be a returner before a RB.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 28^th, 2003, 1:01pm

Holy cow, [smiley=batman.gif] , who passed around the plate of paranoia and insecurity (yes, I mean you, sk, this time) and why did this guy take such heaping portions? [smiley=no.gif]

on 10/28/03 at 07:13:44, steelkings wrote:

You thought wrong, my friend. NONE, and I repeat, ABSOLUTELY NONE of that was directed at you, sk. I was speaking generally. Hell, I did not even use the word "hypocrisy" to point a finger outwardly at all at anybody.

Quote:

Now on the serious side, im not clear if the message is that I was asked to leave this site. If thats the message here, step up, I can take it. and i'll go!

This is not at all what is being asked of you. You are welcome to stay. You've been a decent member here so far.

[smiley=letsmakeup.gif]

I just can't believe you're reading this as though it's ALL about you and twisting it up to so much to where the truth can hardly even be deciphered (if it were up to you). Originally, we had a beef. So, we had it out [smiley=arguing.gif] sort of. But, you can't go (subsequently) reading into everything that it's all about you. That's something you gotta' look inside yourself and figure out. No one is responsible for reading your mind and dealing with what's going on inside you. All I can say is that everything is not a personal attack on you... unless you prove to be an idiot, a moron, a dreg, etc., etc., which I hope you are not and do not think you are, or if that's what you think you are, which I surely hope you don't, but ultimately do not have any control over, anyway, as that is inside you. Are we straight now and can we let this drop? :-/

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 28^th, 2003, 1:41pm

on 10/28/03 at 13:01:57, StegRock wrote:

Are we straight now and can we let this drop? :-/

Evidently not completely, as I now see that you have your little cutesy, passive-aggressive "no post is insignificant" line under your avatar, not that I ever even mentioned the "significance or insignificance" of a post and not that yours was insignficant. I talked about organization, not significance. It's funny how things can be twisted (moreover, by someone looking to do so). Anyway, dude, rebel looking for a cause (yes, directed at you, sk), if you believe the spirit of that line of yours (not the substance of it as substantively I'm not sure what it means), then you may want to consider calling another FF forum home. There are a TON "out there" that have admins that are totally hands-off/don't give a shit and have absolutely no standards and will let you post whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, however you want, for whatever reason you have. Of course, you may get flamed BIG-time for it, compared to how our "Gridiron Officials" go about things and/or my little, VERY occasional haughty barbs trying to push people to toe "the Gridiron" line. Not to mention, though I did not blink an eye on my initial reads of your post, now that I see how you think, I see that it is very plausible that you directed that "Jackass" (back, or as you perceived it to be "back") at me. [smiley=nono.gif]

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 28^th, 2003, 1:56pm

YOU HAD ME AT HELLO! [smiley=awwgee.gif]

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 28^th, 2003, 2:00pm

I wanted to get the cheesey Jerry Mcguire ref in first.
I do want to say that you and I have the uncanny ability to write responses to each other at the same time. Now stop it. :D
Hopefully you got my apology! Now lets get down to football.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 28^th, 2003, 2:08pm

All right , ill go. Hopefully you will allow me a thought out letter on my way out. Thanx

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by bakes781 on Oct 28^th, 2003, 2:16pm

In the famous words of Rodney King, "CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?"

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 28^th, 2003, 2:54pm

on 10/28/03 at 14:08:51, steelkings wrote:

All right , ill go. Hopefully you will allow me a thought out letter on my way out. Thanx

Well, now that you've figured out how to do the tag lines, why leave now? I mean you can't leave having not conquered the "quote" thing. ;D Why not scrap the thought-out letter, not waste your time and stay for a while... and have an ice cream? [smiley=letsmakeup.gif]

[smiley=shrug.gif]

on 10/28/03 at 14:00:00, steelkings wrote:

I do want to say that you and I have the uncanny ability to write responses to each other at the same time. Now stop it. :D
Hopefully you got my apology! Now lets get down to football.

I was completely with you here... What changed all of a sudden? ?.?.?

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by Keyshawn Johnson 76yards on Oct 28^th, 2003, 3:49pm

Steg, another confrontation? Is this becoming a habit? [smiley=ohshit.gif] [smiley=rabbit.gif]

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 28^th, 2003, 4:35pm

Alright. Im tired of writing this shit. I hope you find my new tag line homurous. Thats how its ment.
SK

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 28^th, 2003, 4:39pm

That's what happens, KJ, when you stick to your guns and stand for and are trying to accomplish something greater, which requires standards and actions the greater goals of which usually elude the average person not thinking things through even just part of the way. Bottom line, I know who "gets it" and is basically, fundamentally, or otherwise behind me and if I do get to where I want to go with this someday, they'll be the ones with whom I share the success. Bottom bottom line, there are a plethora of FF message board forums out there that basically just allow for "whatever". So, why be so insistent in bucking me here and trying to get me to change the way I do things here when you've got all those "theres" you want? This place is what it is. Those places are what they are. Just make the choice and live with it...

I am so on the edge of going into my spiel about the weakening of the American and how our standing for "everything", yet in reality standing for NOTHING, is making us a bunch of "principle-less" pussies (football players, who, e.g., can't take being yelled at on the sidelines Vince Lombardi-style :'( ) headed straight for the demise of the Romans.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by StegRock on Oct 28^th, 2003, 4:41pm

on 10/28/03 at 16:35:39, steelkings wrote:

Alright. Im tired of writing this shit. I hope you find my new tag line homurous. Thats how its ment.
SK

Got it! [smiley=bow.gif]

And, welcome back, bro! [smiley=cheers.gif]

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by goody58 on Oct 28^th, 2003, 5:44pm

Well if nothing else we at least found out what school he went to! Thanks philly.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by PrimeTime on Oct 28^th, 2003, 10:21pm

Here is something I just never seem to be able to understand...

Most publications and most people who posted regarding D. Davis earlier this year always mentioned that he was more of a 3rd down back (in fact Philly mentioned the same thing in this thread). I believe this means that he is too small to be an everydown back. I have also seen this in relation to other backs.

What confuses me is this -- Just what size is too small to be an everydown back? I think it depends on the individual back (some just run "harder" than others); so why do all the "experts" who publish magazines and web sites assume a back is a third down back only based on his size?

As a point of reference I found the following on CBS Sportsline:

D. Davis 5'9 216
P. Holmes 5'9 213
M. Faulk 5'10 211
E. Smith 5'10 210
R. Williams 5'10 228
T. Henry 5'9 215
A. Green 6'0 217
S. Alexander 5'11 225

It seems to me that anything in the 5'9 to 5'11 and 210 to 225 seems to be fine as far as being a everydown back. Am I missing something? ?.?.?

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by Philly on Oct 28^th, 2003, 11:10pm

on 10/28/03 at 22:21:16, PrimeTime wrote:

I referred to him as a third down back because that is originally how he was described by his own team. Stacy Mack was going to be the workhorse and Davis (with his speed and elusiveness) would be the change-of-pace back.

I think it has more to do with running style than size.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by PrimeTime on Oct 28^th, 2003, 11:21pm

on 10/28/03 at 23:10:41, Philly wrote:

I was only using your comment as an example. I agree with you... I think it has more to do with running style.

I just always find it interesting that the magazines refer to some RB's as being "too small" yet they are the same size as very good backs in the NFL. Does 5 pounds really make a big difference?

Are there any NFL player personnel directors on this board? Maybe you can explain this to me?

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by Philly on Oct 28^th, 2003, 11:45pm

on 10/28/03 at 23:21:30, PrimeTime wrote:

I'm not an NFL Player Personnel Director, but I play one on TV. Anyway...

If you look at a back like Barry Sanders, a small man in the NFL playground, then size probably shouldn't matter. But Barry Sanders was so special, so elusive, that he didn't take the beating that so many other backs do.

I don't know that I would ever consider Ricky Williams, Shaun Alexander, Ahman Green, or Priest Holmes small backs. They are very solid backs and can take a beating and deliver a hit as well.

I would consider Brian Westbrook a small back - he is 5'8" and about 200#. His small stature led to him playing at Villanova instead of a higher profile college. His small stature led to him being taken in the 3rd round of the draft despite a great college career. He has proven he can carry the ball effectively in the NFL. Unfortunately he has not proven that he can take the beating that NFL RBs take. He's already had two injuries this year.

Look at the backs who are leading the league this year... Jamal Lewis, Stephen Davis... they're considered big by RB standards.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by steelkings on Oct 29^th, 2003, 8:02am

on 10/28/03 at 23:21:30, PrimeTime wrote:

[quote]I just always find it interesting that the magazines refer to some RB's as being "too small" yet they are the same size as very good backs in the NFL. Does 5 pounds really make a big difference?

I dont Know about the size, but Amo's Zero??way was Pittsburghs every down back. Now they have swithched back to the bigger Bettis. I think that bigger backs wear on a defence a little more.
However, watching the hometown colts last weekend, Davis didn't appear that small. Maybe he's been loading up on carbs

I know that wasnt a good thought I had there because I was distracted by my new trick. Look what your baby boy just did! He just took a step!

Fan or not....everyone hum the Michigan fight song.

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by captainpurple on Oct 29^th, 2003, 10:16am

I agree with you guys that it's the running style, but another factor we could consider: running maturity.

Take the Vikings (of course!) ::)

Robert Smith is drafted and used as a 3rd down back, then matures into an All-Pro. He couldn't anticipate a hole if he were watching it on Tivo in slo-mo his first couple years!

Then take Michael Bennett. Almost a carbon copy of RSmith, but faster. He was drafted/forced into the starting lineup by suprise retirement of said Smith, and hampered by ankle injury 1st 3 games. Then started 13 as a rook and gained only 682 yards (52/gm). Seemed to mature faster than Smith as he broke out in 2002 for 1500 yds.

I'm sure countless stories like these exist, and I haven't even given homage to O-line quality, blocking style or O-Coord. play calling.

Still, I think part of the reason a 'normal' sized back gets the '3rd down back' tag is maturity. Talent will get you on the field, but to carry the load, you simply have to learn how to run the ball in the NFL.

[smiley=shrug.gif] my .02

GO VIKES! Bring on the Cheeseheads!

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by bakes781 on Oct 29^th, 2003, 10:59am

Last night I pulled out my Sporting News FF Guide. I looked up Domanick Davis. They said he lacked size & speed to be an every down back. At best he'd provide points on special teams, but otherwise he has no value. That might be the last time I purchase anything from TSN. lol

Title: Re: Tough young rookie
Post by PrimeTime on Nov 2^nd, 2003, 9:02am

Well, just when I thought I was starting to understand the issue with size as it relates to RB's I found these to quotes from two seperate newspapers in two seperate cities:

(1) In an article published Monday, Buffalo News beat man Allen Wilson advised readers Henry should remain the focal point of the running game regardless of McGahee's status.

Allen added: "Henry has been banged up but is showing the explosiveness, power and burst that made him a 1,400-yard rusher last season. Henry needs 20 to 30 touches to get into a rhythm. He has proved that when given a chance, he can be a load. His size (5-9, 215), strength and low center of gravity make him difficult to bring down.

(2) In an article published Monday, Pro Football Weekly noted that Davis impressed Jets defensive coordinator Ted Cottrell. "I think he has a darn good future in this league," Cottrell said about the 5-9, 216-pound Davis, who many observers thought was too small to endure the pounding of an every-down back.

If Travis Henry rushed for over 1,400 last year because is "size (5-9, 215), strength and low center of gravity make him difficult to bring down". Why would "many observers (think he) thought was too small to endure the pounding of an every-down back" when he is 5-9 216?? If Henry's size was a factor in his rushing for 1,400, why wouln't you assume that Davis' size would lead him to rush for 1,400?

It seems to me that the writers use size to argue both ways or they think the readers are too stupid to see what they are doing?