DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Interesting take on James Davis

I beat you! I beat you by mere fractions of a second.

The term "stats are for losers" is not something made up here on the board. A lot of notable sports figures think the same thing. I wrote this up two or three years ago and found it still residing on my hard drive.

Within it there may be some explanations of why stats are for losers as well as what is commonly meant by that. The stuff comes from various sources I found on the net. Some of the links may be broken by now, I didn't check them.

I think I probably highlighted some of the stuff in bold white because I was probably arguing with someone and wanted to make a point boldly stand out.




Charlie Weis may not know much about fashion, but he does realize that when it comes doen to it, the only thing that matters is the scoreboard.
“Stats are for losers,” the Notre Dame head coach said Saturday after his team lost to the USC Trojans by 20 points.

web page




There is an old saying in sports that statistics are for losers. The premise is simple; your team continually loses, so you point to statistics to show how they are actually better than their record, but just keep losing for some strange reason.

Usually, the fan blames a key turnover or a bad call by the ref (but never the team itself) as the cause for the losses. The Buffalo Bills and their defense have exemplified this phrase.

For the past two seasons, the Bills propaganda has referred to the defense as "playoff caliber." Sorry folks, the defense is decent-it certainly is much better than the offense-but it is far from being playoff caliber.

In some sort of statistical mirage, the Bills claim their defense was the second best in 2003. Call me crazy, but I don't think they were better than Baltimore, Miami, New England, or about 10 other teams that won more games than they lost last year. This ranking is strictly based on the amount of yards teams gained against the Bills. I agree that this is a fairly decent barometer to use when analyzing defenses, but the numbers can be skewed to make the team look better.

For example, how many games were the Bills losing so badly that teams were strictly "running out the clock" in the fourth quarter, rather than attempting to score? They didn't need to drive 90 yards to tie or beat the Bills, they needed to kill 4 minutes, so they got one first down then took the kneel down play. In some games when the Bills were flat out getting destroyed, teams could just pack it in, run three plays and punt, knowing there was no way Bledsoe and company would mount any kind of comeback. They didn't even attempt passes because there was no reason. Therefore there weren't many yards gained. In one game the Bills opponent, Houston, actually ran backwards some twenty yards to take a safety, just to finish out the clock. That certainly looked good on the stat sheet, but once again the Bills were losers.

Buffalo Beast.com




And the Cowboys lost, 24-21, before 56,813 at Three Rivers Stadium (capacity 59,000). Afterward, the depressed Cowboys looked like they were deciding which of the three rivers to throw themselves into.

• Pelluer completed 24 of 37 passes for 289 yards. The Cowboys trailed by 10 points twice in the second half (17-7 and 24-14) but Pelluer kept them in the hunt by throwing touchdowns of 35 yards to rookie wide receiver Michael Irvin and eight yards to wide receiver Ray Alexander. Until Little's interception, Pelluer had completed 12 of 14 passes for 165 yards in the second half.

Pelluer also scrambled for 33 yards and picked up six first downs with third-down completions. The Cowboys' offense generated 25 first downs and 414 yards.

"Stats are for losers," Pelluer said.

Dallas News




A couple weeks ago Mike Tomlin said that stats are for losers to make them feel good about themselves .

web page





More on Statistics For Losers

A few issues ago (March 2006) I wrote about statistics and how they don’t always provide the correct information – and in many instances can paint a completely false picture if not properly quantified.

Some people in youth hockey actually think that coaches at the “next level” up actually look at individual statistics in evaluating a player. Some might, but I don’t know a junior or college coach who values his job who would view individual stats as an important component of the evaluation process. In fact in some instances, falsely over-inflated statistics would probably hurt a players chances of getting an opportunity to play at the next level rather than enhance them.

Players and coaches know who gets the goals and assists, and more importantly, who did what to create the goals. Oftentimes the player who does the dirty work gets nothing on the score sheet, while the glory-seekers rack up the points and do very little to earn them.

Everybody in the game who knows anything about the game knows who the point suckers are – they’re the players who get the second assist, even when a second assist wasn’t earned. They’re the guys who score the eighth goal in a blowout, but are nowhere to be found in a 3-2 game. They’re the guys who have no problem stealing a teammate’s goal or assist and on paper show some gaudy statistics, but get no respect from their teammates.

To me, they are the reason why statistics are for losers. You can record anything you want individually on paper, but the real game is played as a team on the ice.

Hockey Journal





Green Bay A common refrain in the sporting world goes as such: "Statistics are for losers."

The 2005 Green Bay Packers bear that out.

If one looked at the final numbers without looking at scores and records, one might think the Green Bay Packers had a successful season.

Of course, that isn't the case considering the Packers finished at 4-12.

For instance, the Packers finished the season with more first downs, more passing yards, more total yards, an edge in time of possession, a better third-down percentage and a better yards-per- play average than the opposition.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel





Statistics are for losers....

How many times have you heard that? I'll wager a lot. And, I'll also wager by people who think numbers are merely characters sewn onto the backs of jerseys.

Statistics are the revealed performance of individuals and teams. There isn't anything inherently "winning" or "losing" about statistics, they are merely "data." The trick is in knowing which of them serve to illuminate, and more important, which of them can be used to distort.


web page





"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts -- for support rather than for illumination." - Andrew Lang

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

"Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures." - Evan Esar

"There are three kinds of lies lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

"I will match his command style with your statistics anytime" - Picard

"Statistics are for losers." - Scotty Bowman (former National Hockey League head coach)

Bored.com





Winner, 41, is in his first year as St. Louis' head coach, but he was to the manner born — so to speak — since he is the son-in-law of Weeb Ewbank, coach of the American Football League's New York Jets. Weeb is an accomplished coiner of aphorisms, which Charley is fond of quoting. His favorite: "Statistics are for losers."

Time Magazine




Middle Tennessee outgained the Terrapins 321-274 on offense and won the time of possession battle by nearly nine minutes. The Blue Raiders fared better than Terrapins on third down, converting on nine out of 16 tries, compared to Maryland's 3 of 8.

But Middle Tennessee Coach Rick Stock still took a more realistic slant.

"Statistics are for losers," he said. "And we lost the game."

Washington Post



At 25, John Unitas had the Colts (8-1) on the rise, one step shy of a Western Conference crown. Also at stake was his streak of having passed for at least one touchdown in 22 consecutive games, one short of the NFL record set in 1942 by Green Bay's Cecil Isbell. But a championship ring was all that mattered, Unitas said. "Statistics are for losers," he told reporters before the game.

Baltimore Sun

I really don't see what the debate is about..first the Browns need a back who can take the load off Lewis in case he bogs down..
This is who we have..the other backs are not the kind who can run between the tackles and pick up tough yards..
Davis is not a power nor speed back but one who can do what the offense needs plus he does have some shiftyness and enough speed..
U guys are worried about 40 times????

Quote:

---

Daman, I have seen a lot more of Davis that shows he doesn't have top end speed than one video that shows he does.

---

Two things, on the other thread, "top end speed" wasn't what I was debating. It was that he has enough overall speed not to be caught from behind like someone was saying.

The other thing is, I showed 3 videos, two of which showed multiple plays proving my point and 1 showing the one time I've been able to find where he was actually kinda caught from behind..

I don't care if he crawls or uses a walker. get into the end zone! some folks just produce beyond their stats. I welcome an offense where there is no more "only one to run" between the guards' on first two downs, then the draw (fool 'em THIS time, fer shure!). Kid is quicker & slicker than JL at this point, and can run away from some of the defense. Get him in air and turn 'em loose. I would be excited to see him AND JL in the backfield at the same time; tough to defend what can come out of that, and it will perhaps make other team put 7 and 8 in the box if JL is lone set.

I didn't knock him for speed coming out of school. I watched all the videos available for him and what I kept thinking was that he didn't seem to have much cut-back or change of direction speed. He's small for a pure down hill battering ram and not quite elusive enough for a star back but I think he's going to be serviceable, a decent weapon who will only occasionally break one off.

"Top end speed is over rated. Flat out."

I have broken down Speed...training and usage in sports...specifically football.

1. Tempo Speed (this is 75-80% of top end speed or all out sprint)
2. Explosion speed - Sprint mode.

The faster you are in Tempo speed obviously there is an advantage...you see the theory is that in Tempo speed you can Cut, Change directions its a non-committed speed with a normal heart beat and vision with read and react in it.

If a RB has 4.3 speed and is a NATURAL Runner - not just a track guy. His Tempo speed will be above par. And when moving horizontally (big time stretch need for a running attack) would force pursuers to use Sprint Speed to keep up - creating an advantage for the RB.

In inside running again the most important variable is to an instinctive RB with good vision. But the ability to run in their at Temp speed and then accelerate to Sprint speed - Explosion Speed through a sliver of a whole is PRICELESS.

Over Rated...never in football and I'll tell you why. Supply and Demand. Sure Instinctive RBs is a must...but there are so many in supply from college year in n year out. Speed is what will separate the men from the boys. It is what makes AP so special. Chris Johnson, McFadden, Jones of Dallas.

There are so many capable RBs instinctively coming out of College - you can get picky and look for the Speed guy...It is what made Jamal Lewis so good in his prime...4.4 speed for a big RB -

And thats in shorts...I do agree they should do combine times in full pads. Cause there are guys who are 4.6 in shorts and 4.65 in pads and then 4.4 in shorts and then 4.7 in pads. Jacobs always had the speed and is the Lewis type of RB of yesteryear. But both have/had great "GAME DAY" speed!

Top Speed in any position in football is a GREAT ASSET - without a doubt they have to be FOOTBALL PLAYERS no denying that. But in an Industry with so much Supply and just 32 team rosters - you got to go with Speed. Pick the football players and group them...then go speed out of that group. Also raw talent - guys who have the POTENTIAL (meaning desire to play and are coachable) with great speed - spend 2-3 years to develop them cause its worth it if 1 out 10 make it!

Top Speed Overrated??? Not in a League with such Parity as the NFL...its usually the deal breaker.

JMHO

Arch, I have said countless times that I love James Davis and I hate 40 times, yet you continue to say this.

I really wish you would stop hating on Davis and basing everything on his 40 time.

I just wish he'd stop thinking this thread was about him and people's opinion about his opinion

You want me to get out the scouting reports?

I agree!!!!

I agree with all of that. Including the last part.

just cuz I like playing devil's advocate...this one calls him speedy...only mentions his lack of blocking ability as a negative and that Clemson misused him.

http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/profile_display.cfm?prospect_id=1339

James Davis, RB, Clemson
Many feel James Davis is one of the best senior backs in college football today. Yet, his fellow running back in the Clemson backfield, C.J. Spiller, is the better pro prospect. Davis has led the team in rushing since he was a freshman in 2005 and that should not end in 2008. In his first three years with the Tigers, he tallied 3,130 rushing yards and 38 total touchdowns. During his senior year he should break just about every career rushing related record in the Clemson books.
But the perennial all-conference honoree is not just a runner. Davis is a solid pass-catcher out of the backfield, although Spiller has taken away many of those opportunities the last few years. Even without the great numbers to back it up, Davis is very comfortable and dangerous catching the ball. The speedy 5-11, 215 pound back is a north and south type of rusher and does a great job finding the hole quickly and attacking it with his 215 pound frame.

Davis should be considered by most at this point as one of the top three senior running backs. With a decent senior season and showing at the combine, he should stay as a first day selection in the draft, but due to his consistent college numbers, he could emerge as the safest running back in the 2009 draft.

10/6 Update: For some reason the Clemson offense is sputtering and Davis is doing his part to unravel Clemson's once high expectations. Through five games, Davis is averaging just 12.2 carries per game. Obviously splitting carries with Spiller is part of the problem, but last year Davis tallied nearly 16.5 carries a game while splitting carries with Spiller. This year the Tigers are finding themselves behind and having to throw more --which is not working very well either. Davis is still a nice looking back, but if he does not turn things around this year, his lack of production as a senior could move him down some draft boards.

12/25 Update: Davis has seen his workload increase a little bit as the season progressed and he has done a decent job with those opportunities. Through the regular, he has averaged 4.6 yards per carry and managed to reach the end zone 11 times. On a team that struggled so much on the offensive side of the ball, Davis' ability to get into the end zone sparked the Tigers' late turnaround.

3/24 Update: In the end, Davis would have been better off entering last year's draft. He was misused much of the year and that really hurt his numbers. He could still be a nice change of pace back and somebody will take a chance on him in the third or fourth round. Davis' lack of blocking ability will scare off more than one team and it is that (not his rushing ability) which will keep him out of the first day.

this one had him clocked at 4.4 coming out of high school which goes closer to what he ran at Clemson pro-day:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/iowa/football/recruiting/player-James-Davis-23449

I have previously stated that I would have taken him in the 2nd or 3rd. And I will show you scouting reports that say the same thing, but also say he isn't very fast.

I'm not saying he isn't fast enough, but does not have breakaway speed.

How about this, would you say he has great speed if he was 15 pounds bigger? Because I understand the argument that his size/weight ratio isn't excelent. For example, he's not a whole lot bigger than Reggie Bush and Bush has a distinct advantage in speed and elusivness.

But I still wouldn't say that he 'lacks speed,' I mean is it really so common to have a running back be capable of consistently outrunning an entire defensive backfield on speed alone? I would consider that fairly rare. I can see the argument that he's not fast in those terms, but to just say flat out that he's not fast almost sounds like 'he's slow.' And what's more, saying that he can 'only' break off 20 to 30 yrds at a time is kinda cheap as well... I mean remember Rueben Droughnes long runagainsf Miami a couple years ago? What's the cliché? Usually when you see a long run, it's because your recievers were making good blocks down field... Along those lines, he's plenty fast enough!

But I get your general point - he's not exactly a physical specimen - it's just that you can make that point more clearly if you qualify it. I mean Tyson Gay is pretty slow compared to Usain Bolt, but that does mean he's not fast.

People can point at his 40 time all day, the guy is gameday fast. He's the best RB on the team right now, if you were just watching the RB's and not factoring in Jamals past, everyone would think Davis is the best. He's fast enough, and thats all that matters.

Jamal is only the starter because he was good two years ago, not because he's producing right now. Said it before, Davis will be the #1 back by the bye week.

Agree 100%.

James Davis is the best running back on the team right now, for two reasons.

1) He has exceeded expectations.

2) Jamal Lewis has fallen off quite a bbit.

I would be slobbering all over myself if we would have davis and whould have gotten Shown green instead of one of our wide outs. i was yelling at the TV on draft day in the 2nd round

that would be a nasty young 1-2 punch IMO>

j/c

I want to see Davis and Jennings get some PT! I don't care who else gets cut to make it happen.

Davis looks like diamond in the rough, and Jennings looked as good IF NOT better against the scrubs in ps-game 4! I wouldn't know how to act if we actually had a consistent PRODUCTIVE running game. Don't know if these guys are the answer but I really feel like Jamal/Harrison is NOT.

Well I'm starting a new debate...after seeing Jennings all preseason I like him better than Harrison

Hmm..Lewis/Davis/Jennings-Harrison...

Ok, I'm going to say this one last thing, and then I am done for good with this topic. James Davis has average speed for a running back. He isn't necessarily slow, but he is far from a burner. We will see him get caught from behind.

With that said, I have little doubt that he is our best back, and that we got an absolute steal. I was ecstatic when we took him, and still am. I thought he deserved to go in the 2nd or 3rd round. He has great vision and burst, but lacks real elusiveness, and ability to make people miss.

We will love the guy in Cleveland and there is no reason he can't be our feature back, or a big key to a two headed monster.

I know you aren't hating on the guy.. and I know that what you think is just your opinion..

I just happen to disagee with ya.... Everything I've seen on video says otherwise.. who cares what some scout thinks.. for all we know, he caught him on a bad day.

U mean Lewis....wellllll....not quite ready to turn the running game over to the unproven youngsters just yet..but I would give him less carries..

All I'll say is this...Davis is a football player.

The fact that he has surprising game day speed is just FANTASTIC

If the Fact that Butler claims that Davis runs now in the 4.3's

Then he is something special...cause you put the combo of sick speed with actual Football player...and you got a future star!

I'll say this...If he ran a 4.38 at the Combine he would have been a first rounder...this draft was void of top end speed in the upper echilon RBs.

What sort of confuses me...is where did all this speed come from??? And why didn't his agent get the most out of it in their Pre-Combine camps???

Can we be so Lucky...cause I'm telling you if he has this kind of Speed and is a football player which I think is a given. Finally we got a young kind of Special on this team at RB

JMHO

Perhaps he is a Jerry Rice type player..game speed is actually better than he tested..
I think what I see is a quicker acceleration into the hole and open field..he's probably quicker than actually fast..they can't time quickness..

The numbers don't mean anything at this stage - you can see him on the field against NFL players and he is plenty fast enough.... and that is all that matters.

Combine numbers, scouting reports and garbage like that are only of use when you can't or haven't seen them against NFL level competition. We've seen that now, and he is perfectly fine and his speed is not a concern at all.

I would rather see Harrison make this team then Jennings, or Herron. And I think that Mangini see's Harrison as Clevelands Leon Washington, so I believe he is pretty safe from cut-downs. I would be really surprised to see him cut.

Has there been any specification as to what type of injury JH has?