Major Harris Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 when watching ladell betts run in gibbs' offense(in the limited opportunities he has had), do you ever get the feeling that maybe we would have been better off taking a different deal for champ, say, a 1st round pick, and just went with betts? we would have essentially had 2 more picks, and a lot of cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FARAPS Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 no........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 no........ just curious, do you think portis, in this offense, is that much better than betts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 No, Clinton Portis is one of the most, if not the most talented running backs in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffSchmeff Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 I don't remember exactly when the play happened, but we ran a stretch play against the Bengals and Betts didn't have the speed to turn the corner. I think CP makes that play and turns it into a few yards. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 I don't remember exactly when the play happened, but we ran a stretch play against the Bengals and Betts didn't have the speed to turn the corner. I think CP makes that play and turns it into a few yards.:2cents: true. but there are also times when betts bangs it up for 6 or 7 yds. where clinton might not have the size to get more than a couple. i'd like to see betts carry more than 90 times this season, which i think he will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Portis is definitely better than Betts, but the question is kind of irrelevant because we had to get something for Bailey, and that was probably the best deal we could have expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice of Reason Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 I think we should have just found our back through the draft (Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, or Stephen Jackson all would have been great), but there's no way I'd take Betts over Portis. Portis is easily a top 10 back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 just curious, do you think portis, in this offense, is that much better than betts?Portis was used to a certain type of blocking and a certain way of lining up in the backfield that worked for him well in Denver. The Redskins coaching staff have added new blocking schemes and made other adjustments that will better suit Portis's running style. To answer your question, yes, I do think that Portis is the better back in this offense. Especially since this offense is now taylor made for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 Portis is definitely better than Betts, but the question is kind of irrelevant because we had to get something for Bailey, and that was probably the best deal we could have expected. the question is not irrelevant. i know we had to get something for bailey. i'm asking if trading him for a 1st round pick (which i would think we could have gotten one), keeping our 2nd round pick, and saving the money that we spent on portis (pass rusher, maybe?), would be better. i'm not overlooking the fact that we had to get something for bailey. i'm asking if, in hindsight, we would've been better off taking something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 Portis was used to a certain type of blocking and a certain way of lining up in the backfield that worked for him well in Denver. The Redskins coaching staff have added new blocking schemes and made other adjustments that will better suit Portis's running style. To answer your question, yes, I do think that Portis is the better back in this offense. Especially since this offense is now taylor made for him. just to clarify, i'm not saying that betts is a better back than portis. just that, maybe, he's not so far behind him that giving up a potential 1st round pick (via trade) and our 2nd round pick, plus a lot of cash to sign him was not the best route. the fact that the coaching staff had to completely re-design the offensive scheme only adds to the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 I think we should have just found our back through the draft (Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, or Stephen Jackson all would have been great), but there's no way I'd take Betts over Portis. Portis is easily a top 10 back. people forget that betts was only taken 5 spots behind portis. why would we use another high draft pick on a rookie back when we a) had betts, and had the opportunity to acquire a 2 time 1,500 yd. rusher with that pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 the question is not irrelevant. i know we had to get something for bailey. i'm asking if trading him for a 1st round pick (which i would think we could have gotten one), keeping our 2nd round pick, and saving the money that we spent on portis (pass rusher, maybe?), would be better.i'm not overlooking the fact that we had to get something for bailey. i'm asking if, in hindsight, we would've been better off taking something different. I definately see what you are saying Harris. Your theory on what we could have done is interesting, but the bottom line is that Joe Gibbs came back and wanted a homerun hitter as a runningback. I guess in his opinion, Betts wasn't that homerun hitter and Portis was. IMO, Betts could start for any team in the NFL, but not in front of a back like Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 just to clarify, i'm not saying that betts is a better back than portis. just that, maybe, he's not so far behind him that giving up a potential 1st round pick (via trade) and our 2nd round pick, plus a lot of cash to sign him was not the best route. the fact that the coaching staff had to completely re-design the offensive scheme only adds to the argument. Well, if he gets 2,000 yards this season and we end up in the play-offs, it would have been well worth it...dont you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hands11 Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 I for one didnt think we needed to trade for Portis at the time. I wished Gibbs would have just come in and played with what he had at the skilled possitions. No Portis. No Brunell. Ramsey would have started last year and Betts and Rock would have run the ball. Kenny Watson looked great against us in the Cini game. He was oneof our also. This would have fit the offense Gibbs wanted to run better and we could have used the picks on something else. But thats not what happened. Portis is great but at some point we are going to get ride of players because we arent going to be able to keep them all. Well probably loose Betts evenually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Portis is better than Betts by a big enough margin to call the trade a success. Chump was leaving, so it was just a matter of finding the best deal available. For example, a healthy Portis would have had about 60-70 yards more against Minnesota than Betts got. There were at least two runs that Portis probably takes to the house that Betts could not. Although he's not a power runner, Portis does have some skill at picking up the tough yards. Thing is, Portis presence may make this Betts last year in a 'Skins uniform (this is his contract year, isn't it?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Major, you raise an interesting point...Betts does seem to fit the 90's style Gibbs offense better than Portis, but Portis is definately a much more talented back...Let's not forget that when Gibbs came in Betts was coming off an injury and wasnt a proven commodity he had only shown flashes of what he could do, so Gibbs went and got a known commoditity in Portis to build his scheme around.. Also let's not forget that Portis has added some muscle this off-season to better be able to hit the hole, but also maintained his speed to turn the corner on sweeps and stretch plays...I think the season Portis is going to have will remove any doubt from your mind about the trade... Overall we have a nice stable of backs...We have our Ferrari in Portis, our Honda Accord in Betts, and our Hummers in Nemo and Rock.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceman330 Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 I for one didnt think we needed to trade for Portis at the time. I wished Gibbs would have just come in and played with what he had at the skilled possitions. No Portis. No Brunell. I agree. I didn't like the Bailey, draft pick for Portis. I like Portis alot but I think Gibbs needs backs that will break the first tackler, like Jamal Lewis (Ah, that thought gives me chills, he'd have 2000 yrds). Last year, I thought Portis was going to get killed w/ the hits he took. But I think Gibbs will find a way to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncsuapex Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 When Coach Gibbs came back I immediately thought we would take the Jones RB out of Vtech with the #5 pick. I was pretty sure he would go after a RB first thing. With the new "offensive" rules it made sense to trade a CB and get a very good RB. Denvers Oline made many RB's look great, but there is no doubt that Portis is the real deal. All you have to do is take a close look at the first time Portis touched the ball last year, cut left, cut right, boom, 60 yards. I fully expect to see him get 1800 yards this year if he's healthy all year. But in this league you can never have too many QB's or RB's, so there are plenty of opportunities for Betts to shine as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Portis is considered to be a TOP 5 fantasy pick this year... If he doesnt drop out of the top 10 you don't mess with success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk4theHall81 Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Portis has the ability to go the distance on any play, Betts does not. Betts may be a better fit for the typical Gibbs back, but a player of Portis' ablility is so rare that we are lucky to have him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiral Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 when watching ladell betts run in gibbs' offense(in the limited opportunities he has had), do you ever get the feeling that maybe we would have been better off taking a different deal for champ, say, a 1st round pick, and just went with betts? we would have essentially had 2 more picks, and a lot of cash. LB is a pretty good RB, but remember, he has been nicked up a lot,relative to the amount of carries he's had.There's no way LB holds up for a season in a Gibbs style offense. CP is the closest thing we have to Barry Bonds,anytime he touches the ball we might see a TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 What it boils down to is that we have two quality backs instead of one. I'd take that problem any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 In a way, I would prefer to have Betts...he fits the mold a little better. But I think Portis is phenomenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neophyte Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 My answer is I am happy with Portis and here is why. 1. Portis is a threat to go to the house every time he touches the ball. There are few guys in the NFL you can say that about (Vick, Harrison, Green, Owens, Westbrook, a few others). Defenses have to respect that and DC's have to game plan for it which makes the other teams job much more difficult every week. 2. Betts has not proven to anyone that he is durable enough at this level to be a full time feature back. I am liking him more than I used to but I still don't trust him to not get hurt and so I consider the choice of who the coaches go with in the 3rd RB slot very important. 3. Draft choices are very hit and miss. They look good up front but in the end are only as good as the player you get with them. Getting a picks or multiple picks for Bailey might have yielded the next Darrell Green or might have yielded the next Heath Schuler. Portis was and remains a proven commodity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.