oompa lumpa Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 677 yards in 19 games played or 35.6 yards a game (he missed 2 games last year)awesome avg. for only a second round pick :laugh: oh and his ypc is 5.64, not 6.0 (120 att 677 yard) Thats just stupid. He is obviously not a starter so why would you say something that stupid. OMFG lavaar sucks, look at his stats he averages less then a tackle a game.....hmmmmmmm I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 677 yards in 19 games played or 35.6 yards a game (he missed 2 games last year)awesome avg. for only a second round pick :laugh: oh and his ypc is 5.64, not 6.0 (120 att 677 yard, 6.3 carries per games played)) Bubba to be fair he only got playing time in maybe the last 6 games last year. He still has more TD's then Portis and a better ypc then Portis. He is a good back, and in time will get better. Mike Anderson has also been playing great this year which has hurt his ability to get on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 He had injury issues last year buddy.and mike anderson flat out won the starting job this spring. Plus I think Shanny might have felt bad because anderson missed all of last season due to a preseason injury playing on special teams for no reason. Most bronco fans you talk to believe he will be a star, and that way before yesterdays game. He is one of the fastest RB's in the league to go along with a big body. I see - Anderson won the job because Shannahan felt bad about getting him injured last season. Makes Perrrrrrrrrrrfect sense now. Unfortunately for Bell, there are other qualities RBs need to succeed in this league besides just taking the ball and running to daylight. Blitz pick-up, receiving skills, getting the tough yards - and he has yet to display them. That's why he doesn't play more. Don't bother to look any further. It's not that complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da#1skinsfan Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 He is unbelievable. I seriously would pop him in the jaw if I ever saw him, I dont think I could hold myself back. So now he implies Tatum Bell, a guy who has had one decent game in his career (which were comprised of TWO BIG RUNS by the way) is better than a guy with over 4000 rushing yards in his first 3 years. Hey hey hey! Did you hear Lamar Gordon is now considered a top 10 back! Yeah, Aaron Stecker too. Trung Canidate, now thats a guy who has had one or two good games, why did we EVER get rid of him? Quentin Griffin? Stud. Amos Zerouoe? Superstar! What a STRETCH this article is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREDICTOR Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 BS...Portis had a big run early in the game that got called back...if we caught any breaks yesterday (other than the ones we got in the final drive), we would have won that game. It's not the altitude that is the home team advantage in Denver...is the refs. Breaks don't win games....talent does. And Bell is talented. But Shanahan is more talented than Gibbs. Shanahan can take ANY average running back and turn him into a 1000 yard back....as he has proven. Finding a sucker to trade for one of those average backs is also another talent he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Gotta love how Lenny P can't write anything positive about the Skins -- even the Moss tidbit was a quote from a scout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchip703 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Breaks don't win games....talent does. And Bell is talented. But Shanahan is more talented than Gibbs. Shanahan can take ANY average running back and turn him into a 1000 yard back....as he has proven. Finding a sucker to trade for one of those average backs is also another talent he has. haven't figured it out yet but what team are you a fan of. Reading all your posts I know its not the Redskins.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Like he did with Maurice Clarett? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Well let's examine what the "great" Broncos FO could have done. They traded a franchise runningback who is averaging nearly 100 yards rushing per game played in his 48 game career for a very expensive cornerback in an age when rules have been tightened to the point where corners are being called for contact on a regular basis thus their "shutdown" cover ability is hampered. They then select a runningback with their 2nd round pick who has not stayed healthy in 2 seasons and has only shown flashes of ability. Please remind me......what's Bell's 2 season total compared to Clinton's 2 years in Denver? The "great" Bronco FO, could have kept Clinton and signed Shawn Springs to a much cheaper contract.....or better yet, not given up on Deltha O'Neal who has done very well for himself in Cincinnati. See hindsight can go both ways Lenny. Bottom line Clinton Portis + Shawn Springs > Tatum Bell + Roland Bailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefoot Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Breaks don't win games....talent does. And Bell is talented. But Shanahan is more talented than Gibbs. Shanahan can take ANY average running back and turn him into a 1000 yard back....as he has proven. Finding a sucker to trade for one of those average backs is also another talent he has. Have you ever heard "better to be lucky than good". Denver did NOT win on luck, they outscored us because they took advantage of their breaks better than we did. But to say that breaks don't win games is pure ignorance. Every game considered to be a classic in the history of the NFL has been decided by some kind of break, good or bad. After Shanahan wins another SB, retires from the game for a decade or so, returns to an organization that's in shambles to bring it back to a competetive, respectable level in the 2nd year, then you can say Shanahan is EQUALLY talented. As far as the trade, Shanahan has been on the hot-seat in the recent past because of his pesonell decisions, (see Plummer) so I don't see that as a talent. :helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Bubba to be fair he only got playing time in maybe the last 6 games last year. Mike Anderson has also been playing great this year which has hurt his ability to get on the field. jbooma... duh! that was THE POINT :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feeshta Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Bell played well, with a little help from cheating teamates on the second TD though. What really confuses me about all the trade talk around the Portis Bailey deal though is that everyone completely ignores the stuation at the time for the skins. Basically we were going to lose Bailey to free agency within a couple weeks. He made it abundantly clear he wanted to get out of DC, and more importantly to him be the highest paid corner in NFL history. So basically, he was already going away no matter what for us. Enter Denver, who has an upset young stud RB making the NFL equivelent of minimum wage and not very happy about it, and we have the possibility of actually gaining something out of losing Bailey. We had to throw in that 2nd rounder because Denver was well aware we would simply lose Bailey in a few weeks, so they had some leverage. Basically what it boiled down to was we get a proven quality NFL back for a second round pick as Bailey was gone anyway you dice it anyways, and Denver gets Bailey and a second rounder for their best running back. Luckily for Denver they always keep a healthy stock of RB's, seemingly always selecting at least one in every draft, so they had a quality backup for Portis to fall back on, and they selected a decent guy with the #2 pick we gave them as well just in case. It was and is a win-win situation, as all trades should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Native,NC_Fan Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Breaks don't win games....talent does. And Bell is talented. But Shanahan is more talented than Gibbs. Shanahan can take ANY average running back and turn him into a 1000 yard back....as he has proven. Finding a sucker to trade for one of those average backs is also another talent he has. Uhh, why are you here? You guys blew us out like you said you were, so go celebrate with your fellow fans. Oh, and you're 54 years old from Mississippi, so :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 and he forget the other talents Portis brings like pass blocking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Who cares about Tatum Bell? The Broncos would have made a move with another team to get him if they wanted him enough. Had the Redskins kept the pick they would have probably gone in a different direction anyway (with Portis coming on and Betts on the roster). I also hate the way "experts" evaluated that trade. Bailey was out of here. The Redskins were geniuses in getting Portis in vs. having to release Champ outright or package him for a pick or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorgantownHokie88 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Len is missing a "BIG" point here. Bailey wasn't going to sign with us. We didn't want to pay him max dollars, because we didn't think he was worth that. Sooooooo, we trade a guy, who we were going to lose anyway, for Portis. Funny how he also includes the trade of the pick, but then also fails to mention Champ's replacement Shawn Springs. Also, let's take a look at what Tatum Bell has done for the past year and half, and what Mr. Portis has done. I don't think it's even close. You can't give judgment on the trade after one game. You have to look 2 or 3 years down the road to see if Mr. Bell turned into a 1500 yard rusher, if Champ "Toast" Bailey has continued to play at either a Pro Bowl level or a 2004 level, or if Portis continues to run for 1300+ yards. His articles are just so repetitive. Go eat a steak Len. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e16bball Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 There are several teams that would love to try to salvage (Washington linebacker) LaVar Arrington, but his contract makes him untradeable. When he's cut at the end of the year, though, he'll get action in the market. It's certainly possible that I'm missing something here, but if his contract is large enough to prohibit a trade, is it not large enough to prohibit a straight cut? Why in the world would we cut him at the end of the season and not trade him? That doesn't make sense, unless, as I said before, I'm missing something in LaVar's contract/NFL's cap accceleration rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 It's tremendously unfair to compare Portis and Bell. Bell has 6.0 ypc avg, but has run about 50 times in his career. Also, he isn't nearly the receiver Portis is out of the backfield and blocking? Forget it. He had a nice game, but he is not the virtuoso [or leader] Portis is. Also worth mentioning: Bell is 6 months OLDER than Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 He didn't watch the game, did he. This guy is an moron...a fat moron. As once said in a classic cinematic work of art: "fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life...". But, at that paragon of quality journalism, ESPN, it pays well.:puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Both our defense and our running game are much improved from 2003, so we are doing fine from the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zallera Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I agree it wasn't Champ or Portis who determined the game it was the dam second round pick we gave up :doh: Yes I love we got Portis but it wasn't worth giving up a 2nd as well. I completely agree. Yes, I'm happy we have Portis and I think he's going to be sick, but we didn't have to give up the 2nd rounder as well as Champ. I think our front office got fleeced on that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TODD Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Len is missing a "BIG" point here. Bailey wasn't going to sign with us. We didn't want to pay him max dollars, because we didn't think he was worth that. Sooooooo, we trade a guy, who we were going to lose anyway, for Portis. Funny how he also includes the trade of the pick, but then also fails to mention Champ's replacement Shawn Springs. That argument is completely overlooked by the media, and it's a very valid one. Especially the first part... we obtained a star running back for a player that wasn't going to be on our team anyway and a second round pick that may or may not have been used on Tatum Bell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SittingBull Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Face it guys we got the bad end of the deal. When faced with the decision to recieve a 1300+ yards a year RB or nothing at all for a player that was going to leave anyway and that was replacable we should have gone for nothing. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F Landry Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 your right. He is only averaging 6 yards a carry so far in his carreer.pathetic If hes so good why doesn't your coach start him? Smart ass... :finger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaSkin Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 He also fails to mention that by letting Champ go we were able to sign not only Portis but Springs and Griffin for the money we saved. Yet that's overlooked. Typical trash. That's not the point. The point is that we did not get good value for Champ. No matter who we traded Champ to and for what we would have had the mondy to sign Springs and Griffin. Pastabelly's point was that we gave didn't get good value. And to an extent, I think he's right. I was unhappy about the 2nd rounder at the time and I still am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.