Skins11 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Quarrels must be a jelly fish if Portis is soft :laugh: Not only did Portis take him out when he was blocking, but I think Portis ran right through him on his touchdown run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I think 350+ carries is a lot for a guy that size. Of course, like Spurrier said, "Hindsight is 50-50". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Clinton Portis -- not Mark Brunell -- is the main reason Washington's offense failed to produce in the playoffs. Portis ran out of juice late in the season, and should've been spelled more frequently by backup Ladell Betts. So it's Portis' fault that he wasn't spelled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dccat Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 It's not like Portis was injured or anything, with both shoulders completely ****ed up. It's not like one arm was completely numb. It's not like he had a stinger. It's not like Portis carried the team to the playoffs with 5 consecutive 100 yard games, either. :doh:And to say Portis is soft? I just have to laugh at that one. Idiot. Ditto!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkart Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I think the team was just beat up on offense. Nothing really worked after the Dallas game. Actually after the Giants game!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva69420 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 more like when u stack the line u will slow down the run game cuz we didnt have but moss and cooley to throw to conservative not wrong playcalling the defenses in the playoffs keyed the run and took there chances with the passing game tampa failed seattle didnt not portis's fault he can only plow/juke/and carry so many defenders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOVA2Tampa Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Whitlock is a moron... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbuzz1962 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Unfortunately, the author of the article chose the wrong way to explain his opinion. It was obvious that Portis was hurting, and not running with the same explosive breakaway running we were used to seeing at least a couple times a game. He was hurt, we all know that. There are some valid points about spelling Portis and using other backs more. To blame a single player for the loss is a sign of pure stupidity. This team was tired, injured, and just plain outplayed by Seattle, who had fresh players, did not have to travel, and a great supportive home team crowd that any team would be proud of. Were getting there fellas. Look at where we were this year versus last year. How short our memories are when we finally put a winning team on the field for the first time in 6 years. There is no team in the league that won't be worried when they seen the Redskins on their schedule next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs_pink Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Idiots have opinions too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 The title of this thread is misleading, and some of the people jumping on Whitlock didn't read what he said. Was Clinton Portis beat up? Yes. Was it on his shoulders that the Redskins made the playoffs? Yes. Isn't that Whitlock's point? YES! And Whitlock never said Portis was soft - he said that he ran soft because he was beat up and tired. This isn't a shot at Portis, he isn't saying he's not a good player. He's just saying that Betts should have gotten the ball more late in the season. Oh, and since Portis had a career high 352 carries this season and didn't have a bye since week 3, maybe Whitlock has a point. Although I do believe it is over simplistic to say any one factor was responsible for the Skins offensive dissapearance in the post-season. I think the list looks like this: 1. Brunell was beat up 2. Portis was tired & beat up 3. We have no threats at WR outside of Santana Moss 4. The offensive line was beat up (Randy Thomas) 5. The two teams we played had good defenses, especially Tampa Bay 6. Playcalling wasn't particularly imaginative I'm sure there are other factors that I am forgetting/that I don't know about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyf316 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Everybody's entitled to their own opinion. In my opinion, Jason Whitlock should strap his fat ass into a set of shoulder pads and a helmet and run for a few thousand yards next season if he's going to critique a runningback. I searched the Kansas City Star's website, and found nothing to his bio. Did this knucklehead even play ball? What's his background that lends him any credibility as a sports figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight_on_til_you_have_won Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I'm a big fan of Jason Whitlock, but he's flat wrong in this case. Has he ever considered that maybe the two defenses we faced matched up well against our running game? But the biggest mistake in his article is that he said that Brian Urlacher made no big plays against the Panthers. Uhh, who pulled a Dwight Clark and snagged that red-zone interception in the second quarter, Jason? Was it his brother, Burt Urlacher? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsiaticSkinsFan Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 he isnt 100% wrong... he is wrong about Portis running soft... and Portis not having good vision... their were no holes for him... but he is right, Portis ran out of steam... and was injured (which Whitlock shoulda mentioned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoreyuppies Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 There goes Whitlock, showing off his lack of mental capability. cut him some slack, he has to find some way to fit in with the rest of the media:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southeast jerome Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 That is absolutely crazy! Portis is one of the main reasons we even got to the playoffs. Remember the tackle he made in the first Philly game? We might have lost to a T.O.less Eagles team without that play. Reminded me of Theisman's play against Miami in the Superbowl when he knocked away a ball about to be picked. Hats off to Portis. The reason he had a bum shoulder towards the end was from giving it his all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAHOGFAN Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 If the Redskins had two weeks off like the Seagulls, I think the outcome of that game may have been different. The Skins were simply beat up after that amazing run to and in the playoffs. Hail to the Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsRoll05 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 The guy is wrong, Brunell is mostly to blame. The reason why Seattle stacked the line of scrimmage from the get-go was because they knew Brunell couldn't beat them with his arm. They knew there were a lot of throws he could not make or would be too afraid to try to make, they geared their coverage accordingly and put 8 men in the box in running situations. Brunell cost us a possible super bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 if that is the case, then what is Peyton Manning's excuse? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFan63 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/060119Clinton Portis -- not Mark Brunell -- is the main reason Washington's offense failed to produce in the playoffs. Portis ran out of juice late in the season, and should've been spelled more frequently by backup Ladell Betts. Portis ran the ball 33 times for 94 yards in Washington's two playoff contests. He averaged 2.9 yards per carry. Out of steam, he ran soft and with poor vision. Betts is one of the league's better backup tailbacks. He has the size and toughness to run inside. The Redskins have a power running game. Portis, who is a bit undersized, simply lacked the power to make plays down the stretch. Didn't I put the link at the beginning of the article? I don't understand what you're trying to tell me. Portis IS the reason we made it to the playoffs. This guy is an obvious ASS who should be skinned and rolled in salt. Hail!:point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey T Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Ladell Betts@St. Louis DNP injured (Rock Cartwright 9-118) @Arizona 5-6 Dallas 12-44 NY Giants 13-36 Philadelphia 5-30 Portis did not have 30 carries in any single game this year. Portis was spelled plenty. In the first 7 weeks of the season he averaged 1 carries a game. The final 11 weeks, including playoffs, he averaged 23 carries a game. For the season he averaged 22 carries a game. The Skins averaged 33 carries a game as a team, meaning that someone other than Portis carried it on average 11 times a game. He was spelled plenty. Why not post Portis carries and yds per game (all 16) instead of Betts? After all, the subject line is about Portis, not Betts :cool: Methinks you have a problem with Portis, agreed? :2cents: Get over it :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.