GiantsFanMan Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 As a Giants fan, I think both Portis and Davis are great RBs.Although when the Giants played the Redskins, I worried ALOT more about facing Davis, then I do about facing Portis. Yeah Davis used to kill us for some reason. Its odd because he was the only big back that ever gave the Giants problems. It was normaly the smaller backs the Giants have a hard time stoping. That being said I'd take Portis now over Davis in his prime still. Portis can just do more things then Davis, and they both give you about the same amount of production running the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 last time i checked john riggins was better then davis Last time I checked, Davis and Riggins were similar backs in different eras. Both could do things as a Redskin, that Portis has struggled to do. And that is get into the endzone, and keep drives going on 3rd down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Who says that? And when "they" do, are they talking about S. Davis today, or circa '99? That Davis would have been a great fit in a Gibbs offense, no doubt. Whether "better" than the CP we have today or not is an interesting hypothetical debate, I guess, but clearly not a slam dunk in either direction. Two different backs, both with strengths in areas the other doesn't/didn't have. I think the Larry Brown of the late 60s or early 70s would be a perfect fit for this offense. Oh, how about having Sonny at QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 so your saying you prefer a power back instead of a speedster I'm saying that Stephen Davis in his prime would be better suited for the Joe Gibbs offense than Clinton Portis. And that the main reasons for this is that Davis was much better in the redzone, and much more reliable when it came to picking up the short yardage 1st downs. I thought I was making my arguement pretty clear... :whoknows: Guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 Last time I checked, Davis and Riggins were similar backs in different eras. Both could do things as a Redskin, that Portis has struggled to do. And that is get into the endzone, and keep drives going on 3rd down. Yes its called a power back If gibbs wanted a power back he would have gotten one. But he wanted portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Yes its called a power backIf gibbs wanted a power back he would have gotten one. But he wanted portis. And he would have been better off with a back that was better suited to play his style of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 And he would have been better off with a back that was better suited to play his style of football. And your a mindreader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I was never big on Stephen Davis. When he was here, he was a fumbler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HateYanksDukeCowboys Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 personally, i'd like to see how nehemiah broughton develops over the next couple of years. remember davis didn't really see extended action until his 3rd or 4th year out. broughton doesn't seem to have the speed and explosiveness davis had back then, but he probably weighs 10-15 lbs more than davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 And your a mindreader? What does mind reading have to do with any of this? Gibbs has a back that doesn't fit his system all that well. Doesn't take a mind reader to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I was never big on Stephen Davis. When he was here, he was a fumbler. Same could be said for Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Same could be said for Portis. True. But nothing Portis has done compares to Davis' fumble on Monday Night against Dallas. We had that game won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 If you are paying a guy like we're paying Portis, he should be able to do it all. Davis could do it all. You didn't have to bring in another back in short yardage situations, because the team had confidence that on 3rd and short, he'd make the yardage. Or that in a goal line situation, he'd punch it in. And from time to time, he'd break a long run.This team doesn't have that same confidence in Portis. And for the rep he brings as a homerun hitter, Portis doesn't break the long ones like he should. If he'd break the long run more than once a year, I could forgive him for being a sub par short yardage back. You're almost always wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addicted2Skins Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Davis was more exciting to watch for me. He got more yards on his own (without the O-lines help) than Portis. Davis may have been a better combo of power and speed. But Portis is here and ready to produce for the Skins. He's a team player and he can take this team all the way... The TD catagory can be misleading. Sellers has a lot of would be Portis TDs.:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atown Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 what happen to Davis in 01 he couldn't punch in for tds? if you look at Davis's career he actually gets worse as season progresses. And clinton portis will only get better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter56s14gc Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 well if we take it back to the 80's early 90's gibbs era... who did we have. We had E. Byner, G. Riggs and B. Mitch. Byner was starting running back, Riggs was short yd. B Mitch was all purpose. So... from what im seeing in what we have right now... we have it all, portis, betts, rock, and sellers. what are we complaining about. gibbs can use sellers like riggs if he wanted to, he just thinks that he can pass. im not a mind reader so im not going to speculate. just look at what we have compared to gibbs last era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 what happen to Davis in 01 he couldn't punch in for tds?if you look at Davis's career he actually gets worse as season progresses. And clinton portis will only get better In 2001, Davis rushed for 766 yards in his last 8 games, finishing out with 148 yards in his last game... Hardly getting worse as the season progresses. He also scored 4 of his 5 touchdown during the second half of the season. Touchdowns are more a reflection of a team's overall offensive success. To evaluate a player based on how many touchdowns he has can be misleading. I can't remember Davis ever having a problem punching it in when we needed it. It was more a lack of opportunities that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinzelwashington Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 davis is the natural patient, high stepper, power runner gibbs is looking for...as for clinton, just give him the ball let him do his own this.. may lose yards or gain big time yards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 last time i checked john riggins was better then davis I also think Joe Gibbs is wrong. God bless Joe Gibbs, but he says a lot of things that just aren't true. And saying that Portis is the best running back he ever had is one of them. Portis might be the most talented back he ever had. He's almost certainly the most athletically gifted back he ever had. But in the fourth quarter on 3rd and 1, I would rather have Earnest Byner running the ball than Portis. And Byner was probably not as fast as I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoeRedskins Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I think both backs are great, but you can't bring in 99-01 stephan davis, no matter how hard you wish. I'll take portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dccat Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 As a Giants fan, I think both Portis and Davis are great RBs.Although when the Giants played the Redskins, I worried ALOT more about facing Davis, then I do about facing Portis. I dont know why, b/cuz CP destroyed ya'll @ FedEx last year. And its not like you stopped him this year we got behind, therefore his carries were down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I also think Joe Gibbs is wrong.God bless Joe Gibbs' date=' but he says a lot of things that just aren't true. And saying that Portis is the best running back he ever had is one of them. [/quote'] I don't recall Gibbs saying this. Could someone post the quote. In the post article the other day, someone said that Portis was "the best without the ball" that the Redskins had ever had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I would take Davis in his prime over Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockeyZulu Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I dont know why, b/cuz CP destroyed ya'll @ FedEx last year. And its not like you stopped him this year we got behind, therefore his carries were down. Yes, Portis did have a great game at Fed Ex and I give him credit for that. But he had that success against an injury riddled Giants team who had already lost two of our best defensive players Michael Strahan and Girbil Wilson for the season. In the two games the Giants have been healthy with Strahan and Wilson in the lineup, Clinton Portis has combined for 0 TDs, 78 rushing yards for 3.2 average in two games. Davis on the other hand, when he was a Redskins, could take over a gave and dominate. He did it several times against the Giants. I worried EVERY time facing Davis because he can wear you out. I don't feel the same way about Portis. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcarey032 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Davis of old would be a better fit, but Portis doesn't have the old fumbleruski problems that Davis has and he is able to catch the ball and Davis isn't a great receiver. Overall portis is a better back, but the old davis is better between the tackles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.