Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

ESPN - Indispensible List

Riggo#44

By Riggo#44
in Around the NFL

Recommended Posts

Hooper

Hooper

Posted
Posted
We have much better backups at RB than Philly does, and most of the league for that matter.

Yep. And at receiver.

But we have no depth on either line, linebacker, and our secondary is full of guys who are borderline NFL players.

Great job, front office. But that free-agent frenzy sure did generate some headlines and excitement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OWUeagleMD

OWUeagleMD

Posted
Posted
Somehow Brian Westbrook is the 2nd most indispensible RB in the league...over Portis, Larry Johnson?

Otherwise it's an interesting article:

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=2637885

EDIT: I did a search - sorry if this as been posted.

He is definitely more indespensible than Portis or L.J., or even Tomlinson.

This reveals the problem with the term indespensible, though. Indespensible generally speaks to the nature of the team as a whole, or the player's backups, more than it actually speaks to the player in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo#44

Riggo#44

Posted
  • Author
Posted
He is definitely more indespensible than Portis or L.J., or even Tomlinson.

This reveals the problem with the term indespensible, though. Indespensible generally speaks to the nature of the team as a whole, or the player's backups, more than it actually speaks to the player in question.

That's ridiculous. Portis is way more valuable to the Redskins than Westbrook is to the iggles. You can't possibly be that much of a homer. Jsut look at the record when Portis rushes for 100 yrds and when he doesn't. Or when Porits gets more than 25 carries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thespaniard

thespaniard

Posted
Posted
That's ridiculous. Portis is way more valuable to the Redskins than Westbrook is to the iggles. You can't possibly be that much of a homer. Jsut look at the record when Portis rushes for 100 yrds and when he doesn't. Or when Porits gets more than 25 carries.

I'm fairly sure that the stats would be about the same for any team if their RB ran for 100 yds. What you have to ask is "If I take this person away, how good is this team?"

The skins were still ok (not great) without Portis, as Betts did a decent job filling in. The Eagles have zero running game without Westbrook, and would be pretty terrible because they would have to throw it all the time (a la last year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IrishOrange15

IrishOrange15

Posted
Posted
Shawn Andrews ???

Eagles Lost tons of weight in the offseason, now gaining reputation as one of the elite linemen in football. His improvement is a major reason Donovan McNabb is enjoying such good protection this year.

:laugh:

I've watched Andrews pretty closely this year. Last year he was an overrated joke, this year he has played extremely well.

YAKUZA

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo#44

Riggo#44

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm fairly sure that the stats would be about the same for any team if their RB ran for 100 yds. What you have to ask is "If I take this person away, how good is this team?"

The skins were still ok (not great) without Portis, as Betts did a decent job filling in. The Eagles have zero running game without Westbrook, and would be pretty terrible because they would have to throw it all the time (a la last year).

They have zero running game WITH Westbrook. They don't run the ball. If westbrook went down the Eagles could still win, the offense focuses more on McNabb that it does Westbrook. The Redskins, when playing to their strength (hint, hint), revolves around Portis. As Portis goes, so do the Redskins. You can't POSSIBLY say that about Westbrook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thespaniard

thespaniard

Posted
Posted
They have zero running game WITH Westbrook. They don't run the ball. If westbrook went down the Eagles could still win, the offense focuses more on McNabb that it does Westbrook. The Redskins, when playing to their strength (hint, hint), revolves around Portis. As Portis goes, so do the Redskins. You can't POSSIBLY say that about Westbrook.

Actually, the Eagles are 8th in the NFL in rushing. The skins, who haven't had portis for a good part of the season, are still 7th in the NFL in rushing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eagles78

eagles78

Posted
Posted
They have zero running game WITH Westbrook. They don't run the ball. If westbrook went down the Eagles could still win, the offense focuses more on McNabb that it does Westbrook. The Redskins, when playing to their strength (hint, hint), revolves around Portis. As Portis goes, so do the Redskins. You can't POSSIBLY say that about Westbrook.
You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OWUeagleMD

OWUeagleMD

Posted
Posted
That's ridiculous. Portis is way more valuable to the Redskins than Westbrook is to the iggles. You can't possibly be that much of a homer. Jsut look at the record when Portis rushes for 100 yrds and when he doesn't. Or when Porits gets more than 25 carries.

I'm such a ridiculous homer that I'm agreeing with the bipartisan New England reporter who wrote the article to begin with.

Who's really being the homer here, guy?

Back to the point of my original post. The point you chose to ignore.

The problem with the term "indispensible" is the fact that it judges the reserves behind the player in question, and the system in which the player in question plays, moreson than it actually judges the player.

In respect to this debate, indispensible judges the amazing lack of talent the Eagles have at running back behind Westbrook. It also judges the fact that he is a pass-catching running back who plays on a pass-happy team that happens to have slightly above average wideouts. As a result, Westbrook is indispensible. Portis, on the other hand, has two good running backs behind him and is playing in an offense that doesn't particularly mesh with his strong suits, thus making him, at least relatively speaking, dispensible.

You reacted emotionally because you love Portis. If you actually read my post, you'd probably realize that you are in fact acting far more the homer than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpgirth

jpgirth

Posted
Posted
You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

Riggo44's analysis sounds pretty accurate to me.

Are you saying if Portis goes down, we are still good, or when Mcnabb goes down and Westbrook is in the game you guys are good?

Last game Westbrook played and Mcnabb didn't

Monday Night Football

Seattle42

Eagles 0

Worst loss in MNF history.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20051205021

You don't know have a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpgirth

jpgirth

Posted
Posted
I'm such a ridiculous homer that I'm agreeing with the bipartisan New England reporter who wrote the article to begin with.

Who's really being the homer here, guy?

Back to the point of my original post. The point you chose to ignore.

The problem with the term "indispensible" is the fact that it judges the reserves behind the player in question, and the system in which the player in question plays, moreson than it actually judges the player.

In respect to this debate, indispensible judges the amazing lack of talent the Eagles have at running back behind Westbrook. It also judges the fact that he is a pass-catching running back who plays on a pass-happy team that happens to have slightly above average wideouts. As a result, Westbrook is indispensible. Portis, on the other hand, has two good running backs behind him and is playing in an offense that doesn't particularly mesh with his strong suits, thus making him, at least relatively speaking, dispensible.

You reacted emotionally because you love Portis. If you actually read my post, you'd probably realize that you are in fact acting far more the homer than I.

His point is when Portis is used (hint..hint) properly, he feels he is as or more

valuable to the skins as you feel Westbrook is to the eagles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eagles78

eagles78

Posted
Posted

You don't know have a clue.

Um, yeah sure. I just watch the guy every Sunday. There's a reason McNabb himself calls Westbrook the 'ultiamte weapon'. McNabb is the most important cog in the offense, but the gap between him and Westbrook is very, very small.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpgirth

jpgirth

Posted
Posted
Um, yeah sure. I just watch the guy every Sunday. There's a reason McNabb himself calls Westbrook the 'ultiamte weapon'. McNabb is the most important cog in the offense, but the gap between him and Westbrook is very, very small.

42-0 small at home?

Mcnabb also stated you guys will be 14-2/13-3 this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpgirth

jpgirth

Posted
Posted
What do you mean to suggest with this stat page?

The writer states "elite lineman" and the big reason why Mcnabb has been given such great protection.

Are sacks an indication of "great protection?"

Well if this is the case then half the league has better guards than Andrews?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...