Predict the top back in the NFCE 2006

[MRMADD]

please tell me that you don't think ELI is a plus for TIKI.. he is not experienced or good. if we are talking experienced QB's in this division Eli does not compare to anyones qb as all of the other teams have veteran qb's..

get your story straight

ELi sucks

I see school's out for the summer...

[Henry]

I think what you are pointing out is that Westbrook had a much better 2004 than Portis and I'd agree with that. A few less yds despite being rested the last 2 or 3 games of the year because home field was assured.

How is 1550 yards much better than 1515 yards? I don't remember Westbrook resting against us in week 14. He didn't rest against Dallas in week 15. I think maybe you meant to say he had one game of rest. But if you want to throw in mitigating circumstances, go ahead and add supporting casts, and take into account who faced a larger amount of attention from opposing defenses.

Bottom line: Westbrooks' career year warrants an alternate spot behind Portis in the pro-bowl during Portis' worst year. Only an Eagle fan would even attempt to spin this as an advantage for Westbrook.

If you want a number for a 16 game season throw in the 3 post season games for Westy that year in which he provided about another 350 yds of O. He came up big in the playoffs......how did Clinton do?

If Portis gets to sit out for week 17 this season before a few home playoff games I'll bet you real money that his numbers will dwarf what Westbrook put up in the '04 playoffs. For now, I'll be happy to put up Portis' performance in week's 15, 16 and 17 this year against Westbrook's 04 playoff run ... or you can just ogle over Westbrook's 15 rushes for 44 superbowl yards to your heart's content.

So in the 2 years Westbrook has been the feature back for the Eagles and Portis has been in Washington the score is 1-1 and it wouldn't be surprising at all if Westbrook outproduces Portis this year in total yards.

No. In 4 years Westbrook has never outproduced Portis. There is no evidence to support any belief that this will change in the future.

[mrtacconi]

Tiki will have more yards

Portis will have more tds

Westbrook will have more rec yards

Jones will have more injuries:laugh:

thats hilarious, and ur exactly right

[Henry]

Give a monkey the ball enough times, he'll also produce 1500 yards.

If he doesn't get hurt and miss half the season, that is.

[Bryan_Randall]

And I would be completely worried if Marion Barber III didn't exist.

BTW, claiming Portis had a better year in 2004 than Westbrook is straight homerism.

[Henry]

And I would be completely worried if Marion Barber III didn't exist.

Indeed. Now you have the luxury of being only mostly worried.

BTW, claiming Portis had a better year in 2004 than Westbrook is straight homerism.

Portis was first alternate to the pro-bowl that year. Westbrook was second alternate.

I'm pretty sure I didn't place ALL the votes that year.

I know I know, the pro-bowl is just a popularity contest. Clearly a guy on a 6-10 team and the 31st ranked offense in the league is bound to get more votes than a guy on a 13-3 team with the 8th ranked offense ... ahem.

[ArmchairRedskin]

I think you should recheck Portis' 05 #'s because ESPN has him at 1516 and 216 which is 1732 yds and not 1905.

You're right. I added some wrong figures it looks like. My bad.

[bubba9497]

Portis the first "3000 total yards in a season" running back

[Seabee1973]

How is 1550 yards much better than 1515 yards? I don't remember Westbrook resting against us in week 14. He didn't rest against Dallas in week 15. I think maybe you meant to say he had one game of rest. But if you want to throw in mitigating circumstances, go ahead and add supporting casts, and take into account who faced a larger amount of attention from opposing defenses.

Bottom line: Westbrooks' career year warrants an alternate spot behind Portis in the pro-bowl during Portis' worst year. Only an Eagle fan would even attempt to spin this as an advantage for Westbrook.

If Portis gets to sit out for week 17 this season before a few home playoff games I'll bet you real money that his numbers will dwarf what Westbrook put up in the '04 playoffs. For now, I'll be happy to put up Portis' performance in week's 15, 16 and 17 this year against Westbrook's 04 playoff run ... or you can just ogle over Westbrook's 15 rushes for 44 superbowl yards to your heart's content.

No. In 4 years Westbrook has never outproduced Portis. There is no evidence to support any belief that this will change in the future.

Didnt Portis sit out the final game that season? I know Betts had 100 yards and i think Rock did also but cant remember Going off that i think Portis would have swamped Westbrook had he played

[Pocono]

How is 1550 yards much better than 1515 yards? I don't remember Westbrook resting against us in week 14. He didn't rest against Dallas in week 15. I think maybe you meant to say he had one game of rest. But if you want to throw in mitigating circumstances, go ahead and add supporting casts, and take into account who faced a larger amount of attention from opposing defenses.

Bottom line: Westbrooks' career year warrants an alternate spot behind Portis in the pro-bowl during Portis' worst year. Only an Eagle fan would even attempt to spin this as an advantage for Westbrook.

If Portis gets to sit out for week 17 this season before a few home playoff games I'll bet you real money that his numbers will dwarf what Westbrook put up in the '04 playoffs. For now, I'll be happy to put up Portis' performance in week's 15, 16 and 17 this year against Westbrook's 04 playoff run ... or you can just ogle over Westbrook's 15 rushes for 44 superbowl yards to your heart's content.

No. In 4 years Westbrook has never outproduced Portis. There is no evidence to support any belief that this will change in the future.

Portis and Westbrook both missed one game due to injury in 04 and Westbrook sat out the last TWO games[remember there are 17 weeks in a season] and to get those 35 extra yds in two extra games Portis had to touch the ball 133 more times than Westbrook. Westbrooks run's averaged 4.6 per and his receptions averaged 9.6 per while Portis did 3.8 per run and 5.9 per pass. They stopped Westy's runs real good in the SB but he caught 60 yds worth of passes. Portis was stopped dead in the Skin's 2 PO games in 05 and he did nothing through the air. Portis' run average in 04 was well below average and his yds per catch was downright pathetic. Westy had 1 fumble lost in 04 and Portis[from memory] had 4 I think. Come on Henry you're the level headed one around here. Are you telling me if you had a choice between Portis' #'s and Westy's #'s in 133 fewer touches you'd take Portis' numbers?

[Henry]

Portis and Westbrook both missed one game due to injury in 04 and Westbrook sat out the last TWO games[remember there are 17 weeks in a season] and to get those 35 extra yds in two extra games Portis had to touch the ball 133 more times than Westbrook. Westbrooks run's averaged 4.6 per and his receptions averaged 9.6 per while Portis did 3.8 per run and 5.9 per pass. They stopped Westy's runs real good in the SB but he caught 60 yds worth of passes. Portis was stopped dead in the Skin's 2 PO games in 05 and he did nothing through the air. Portis' run average in 04 was well below average and his yds per catch was downright pathetic. Westy had 1 fumble lost in 04 and Portis[from memory] had 4 I think. Come on Henry you're the level headed one around here. Are you telling me if you had a choice between Portis' #'s and Westy's #'s in 133 fewer touches you'd take Portis' numbers?

Listen to what you are saying. Westbrook had two games off, a bye week and then got two homes games in the playoffs, and you are comparing his performance to a guy who had to play two playoff games on the road with no rest? When it comes to durability and maintaining level of play throughout the season, I'll take Portis every single time.

Or let's look at it this way: When Portis was on a team with an injured QB, banged up line and no WRs, he gained 1550 yards and was a pro-bowl alternate. When Westbrook was on a team with an injured QB, banged up OL and no WRs, he gained 1233 yards and had pundits wondering when the Eagels were going to actually, you know, RUN the ball.

When everything was going great on offense, Westbrook gained 1515 yards. Under similar, yet not as favorable circumstances, Portis gained 1732.

All things being equal, I'll put my money on Portis.

And I'll tell you this, when it comes to RBs, Ill take the guy who can carry the ball 350 times over the guy who can't carry it 200 times every single year. I don't give a rats posterior about 'touches.' All fewer touches means to me is a back that doesn't command respect from opposing run defenses. Take a look at the greatest RBs of all time. Pick any one. See how many of them ever rushed as few as 177 times in any non-strike season of thier careers, which is Westbrook's career HIGH. Emmitt Smith did it once, in his 14th season. Payton, never. Sanders, never. Martin, never. Bettis, never. Dickerson, not until his 8th season. Dorsett, never. Jim Brown, please. Faulk, only his 12th and last season. Marcus Allen, not until his 8th season (when he was in the dog house with Al Davis.) And that was just a casual glance a the top ten.

Sorry, 'touches' mean squat. It's how well you RUN the ball that matters, and Westbrook can't run it. If you want to run a draw on third and 17, he's your man. But if you want a guy you can rely on to establish a running game, he's just about the last guy in the conference you'd choose.

Seriously, touting a RB who catches the ball and can't run is like propping a QB who can run but can't throw. It's a nice asset to have, but not in the absense of the ability to perform the actual duties required of the position. And while it amazes me Eagle fans refuse to acknowledge this, it baffles me even more that Andy Reid does as well, especially in light of how the Eagle consistantly crash and burn in the playoffs, when smoke and mirrors no longer work.

So you keep on ignoring the run. That will make things easier for the rest of us in the division. Or you can try and hand the ball off to Westbrook more than 12 times a game. I'd LOVE to see you guys try that.

Either way, I'm pleased as punch we've got Portis, a guy who emulates the top RBs of all time, and you don't.

[Bryan_Randall]

Doesn't Michael Vick get routinely more pro bowl votes than 85% of all quarterbacks? What is your stance on him?

Westbrook had roughly the same raw production in 04 as Portis did, and did it in much less time with much more efficiency. He only played 13 games to Portis's 15, touching the ball about 130 less times less times, and wound up with 35 less yards. Portis has yet to come even close to the Portis he was in Denver.

[Dirk Diggler]

It's sheer idiocy to equate rushing yards with receiving yards when gauging the value of a RB and how it relates to the bottom line: winning football games. Would you rather have a back with 1500 yards and 200 receiving or 1000 rushing and 800 receiving? I take player A and so would 32 teams out of 32 teams, regardless of the # of touches.

When you're running the ball, your Oline and TEs are beating the hell out of the defense. When your passing the ball, your Oline and QB are getting beat up BY THE DEFENSE.

[WeownU]

In my personal opinion, I think Tiki may come out on top again. He's shown that he can get the job done and stay healthy the whole season. He'll be hard to dethrone as King of the NFCE running backs.

Here's how I see it:

1 Tiki -

2 Portis -

3 Westbrook -

4 Jones

I won't discuss total yardage as that is a grasp at straws at best, but I agree exactly about the order in which you rank them.

[Henry]

Doesn't Michael Vick get routinely more pro bowl votes than 85% of all quarterbacks? What is your stance on him?

Personally, I prefer pure-pocket passers. That said, at least Michael Vick can throw the ball.

Vick wins pro-bowl votes because he has a great highlite reel and he has extremely unique abilities, far above and beyond anything Westrbook has ever exhibited. However, until he learns to trust his ability to throw, he'll never win a damn thing, just like very other pro QB that ever relied on his legs more than his arm.

Westbrook had roughly the same raw production in 04 as Portis did, and did it in much less time with much more efficiency. He only played 13 games to Portis's 15, touching the ball about 130 less times less times, and wound up with 35 less yards. Portis has yet to come even close to the Portis he was in Denver.

For about the third time, Portis had no OL, no WR, and no QB in 04. He was literally the only, and I mean ONLY, option on the entire offense. Westbrook in 04 was one of three weapons that defenses had to key on. He had the luxury of benefitting from defenses that had to account for McNabb and Owens. It's no wonder he had the best year of his career that year, though one would think he'd have been able to out-produce his counterparts on 6-10 teams with no offense. He managed 1 out of 3. Impressive.

Again, touches are irrelevant. While I could argue that Santana Moss is a more efficient player than Westbrook because he out-produced Westbrook this year on 130 fewer touches, that in no way proves that Moss is a better runningback. Brian Mitchell is third all-time in combined career rushing/receiving/return yards. Was he a more effiecient player than Emmitt Smith, or better yet, a superior runningback? Of course not, and that's just as ridiculous a notion as you are putting forth.

Statistically, Portis has been a top ten rusher every single year for the past four years, which coincidentally is his entire career. He's been top 5 three of those four years. No other RB in the league can make that claim. Not one. Not Alexander. Not LT. And CERTAINLY not Westbrook.

Portis has also been top ten in combined yards from scrimmage every single year he's been in the league. Only one other RB, Tomlinson, can boast the same over the past four years.

Westbrook has never been top ten in either category. Ever.

And yet, some of you are trying to suggest that Westbrook is somehow LIKELY to eclipse Portis in production because one time a year ago when he was on a 13-3 team and Portis was on a 6-10 team, Westbrook missed more games than Portis, and Westbrook catches some passes, so he's got some nice averages or something. And worse, there's even the claim thrown out there that Westbrook is a better RUNNINGback. It's a laugh. There's not one shred of factual evidence to support this nonsense, other than Westbrook's receiving out of the backfield somehow makes up for the fact that he can't run, even though the word 'run' is in the title of his freaking job.

You guys are going to have to try a lot harder than that to put forth a decent case.

Now Tiki? Then we have a discussion.

[LongLostSkin]

Personally, I prefer pure-pocket passers. That said, at least Michael Vick can throw the ball.

Vick wins pro-bowl votes because he has a great highlite reel and he has extremely unique abilities, far above and beyond anything Westrbook has ever exhibited. However, until he learns to trust his ability to throw, he'll never win a damn thing, just like very other pro QB that ever relied on his legs more than his arm.

For about the third time, Portis had no OL, no WR, and no QB in 04. He was literally the only, and I mean ONLY, option on the entire offense. Westbrook in 04 was one of three weapons that defenses had to key on. He had the luxury of benefitting from defenses that had to account for McNabb and Owens. It's no wonder he had the best year of his career that year, though one would think he'd have been able to out-produce his counterparts on 6-10 teams with no offense. He managed 1 out of 3. Impressive.

Again, touches are irrelevant. While I could argue that Santana Moss is a more efficient player than Westbrook because he out-produced Westbrook this year on 130 fewer touches, that in no way proves that Moss is a better runningback. Brian Mitchell is third all-time in combined career rushing/receiving/return yards. Was he a more effiecient player than Emmitt Smith, or better yet, a superior runningback? Of course not, and that's just as ridiculous a notion as you are putting forth.

Statistically, Portis has been a top ten rusher every single year for the past four years, which coincidentally is his entire career. He's been top 5 three of those four years. No other RB in the league can make that claim. Not one. Not Alexander. Not LT. And CERTAINLY not Westbrook.

Portis has also been top ten in combined yards from scrimmage every single year he's been in the league. Only one other RB, Tomlinson, can boast the same over the past four years.

Westbrook has never been top ten in either category. Ever.

And yet, some of you are trying to suggest that Westbrook is somehow LIKELY to eclipse Portis in production because one time a year ago when he was on a 13-3 team and Portis was on a 6-10 team, Westbrook missed more games than Portis, and Westbrook catches some passes, so he's got some nice averages or something. And worse, there's even the claim thrown out there that Westbrook is a better RUNNINGback. It's a laugh. There's not one shred of factual evidence to support this nonsense, other than Westbrook's receiving out of the backfield somehow makes up for the fact that he can't run, even though the word 'run' is in the title of his freaking job.

You guys are going to have to try a lot harder than that to put forth a decent case.

Now Tiki? Then we have a discussion.

Well said

:eaglesuck :gaintsuck :dallasuck

[DallasCowboys1776]

Julius Jones. T.O. is gonna open everything up. Double team Owens? Hit Glenn or Witten. Try to stop the run? Hit Owens for a TD. The Cowboys are invincible this year. Not to mention the ressurection if the Doomsday Defense!

6 in '06!

[Mister Happy]

Doesn't Michael Vick get routinely more pro bowl votes than 85% of all quarterbacks? What is your stance on him?

You said anybody who thinks Portis had a better 2004 than Westbrook was a homer. Are the Pro Bowl voters Redskins homers?

[Passizle]

Julius Jones. T.O. is gonna open everything up. Double team Owens? Hit Glenn or Witten. Try to stop the run? Hit Owens for a TD. The Cowboys are invincible this year. Not to mention the ressurection if the Doomsday Defense!

6 in '06!

Dreaming...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Tom [Giants fan]]

tiki is going to be the biggest disappointment of 2006, mark my words[/Quote]

These are the types of things that they have been saying about Barber since he came into the league. When will some people learn?

[1028046]

The main point of this thread is that Tiki Barber is the best RB in the NFC East until someone proves me wrong.

Portis, Westbrook and Jones all had less total yards then tiki had rushing last year.

Someone try and tell me that portis is still better so I can laugh some more.

[Redsk58417]

Question for all the smart folks 'round here. Tiki is best....right now. But allow me to ask this. "If you were starting a team.....right now. Out of the NFC East backs, who would be your RB pick?" Also for what its worth? Portis is the NFC East's youngest STARTING RB.

[HoyaSkins28]

There is no way that Brian Westbrook gets 1800 in that offense.

Portis: 1850

Barber: 1700

Westbrook: 1300

Jones: 1150

[Tom [Giants fan]]

Starting a team right now, you obviously wouldn't pick Tiki just because of age. But if you are looking at right now and this season, Barber is the best. As far as future seasons, Portis has more of them so you would take him for a new team.

[Redsk58417]

']Starting a team right now' date=' you obviously wouldn't pick Tiki just because of age. But if you are looking at right now and this season, Barber is the best. As far as future seasons, Portis has more of them so you would take him for a new team.[/quote']

Very astute Tom. I feel the exact same way. See ya on "Fantasy Football Sundays" (Motor City Redskins).