TSN: Redskins Team Report June 30, 2008

[Thinking Skins]

http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1414107&nid=293

Defensive coordinate Greg Blache said it was too early to say where Landry will line up.

"He could start as a free safety or a strong safety," Blache said. "Right now, there's no need to rush into that."

[McD5]

two words describe why we don't use Betts more often:

Betts fumbles

:bsflag: Joe, is that you? Let's hope our coaching IQ improves this season.

[Stadium-Armory]

On thing lost in this discussion is the fact that H.B. is likely going to get some more snaps. Which I think is a great thing. He reminds me of Sam Mills. Given what we saw last year - in practice, pre season, and some game time - he has the potential to be a great role player for us. And that's what I like to see - us developing solid role players. Every good team has them, and I think he's going to become a good one for us.

[phatSkins27]

I get the impression from what they do and what they say in pressers they want versitility in the secondary to give them option so either saftery can drop in the box, blitz or cover any coverage.

[DieselPwr44]

The author stated Betts is a power back that breaks tackles.

The author therefore has no credibility.

[Vicious]

I'm sorry but our division is crawling with some ridiculously skilled ball catchers in Plexico Burress and Terrel Owens. TO had FOUR touchdowns last time he played us because Sean Taylor was not in the FS position. If those receivers are playing against us and going deep.. I'd really feel much better if Laron Landry was back there.

[Hunter_R]

two words describe why we don't use Betts more often:

Betts fumbles

As opposed to Clinton Portis and his 6 fumbles (2nd place for running backs)?

I'm sorry but our division is crawling with some ridiculously skilled ball catchers in Plexico Burress and Terrel Owens. TO had FOUR touchdowns last time he played us because Sean Taylor was not in the FS position. If those receivers are playing against us and going deep.. I'd really feel much better if Laron Landry was back there.

Not to mention the Raiders' fans' glee after releasing Schweigert was on par with the Skins' fans' glee after releasing Lloyd.

[steamroller#99]

Not to mention the Raiders' fans' glee after releasing Schweigert was on par with the Skins' fans' glee after releasing Lloyd.

Wow, at least Schweigert touched the ball every once in a while. That's more than you can say for Lloyd, an offensive player.

[darrelgreenie]

All I'm saying is that if Blache or another team official said they are moving Landry to SS lets see it

Otherwise its just specualtion, ifs, maybes, etc...

So do you think that they're going to bench Landry if Stu wins at FS?

well, if they find sweigert ot be a starter at FS, they could move Landry back to SS, which is where he started his career. Blache didn;t say it in this interview specifically, but it is pretty well-known and not really needed to be said in an interview... time to play football.

Those are pretty big IFs

Why would anyone think that Stu: benched then released from Oakland

Would Beat out Landry:

2007 NFC Pro Bowl Alternate

2007 First-Team All NFL Rookie Defense

Ranked as the best FS in his draft class

Why would we shake up the secondary of a top 10 defense to let Stu Schweigert play his 'natural' position of FS

IMO the only safety good enough to move Landry to SS was #21

And don't get me wrong I think Stu provides versatility and depth to our secondary, but to say that the team plans to move Landry to SS so Stu can play FS is nothing but conjecture and borderlines on............

[Thinking Skins]

All I'm saying is that if Blache or another team official said they are moving Landry to SS lets see it

Otherwise its just specualtion, ifs, maybes, etc...

Those are pretty big IFs

Why would anyone think that Stu: benched then released from Oakland

Would Beat out Landry:

2007 NFC Pro Bowl Alternate

2007 First-Team All NFL Rookie Defense

Ranked as the best FS in his draft class

Why would we shake up the secondary of a top 10 defense to let Stu Schweigert play his 'natural' position of FS

IMO the only safety good enough to move Landry to SS was #21

And don't get me wrong I think Stu provides versatility and depth to our secondary, but to say that the team plans to move Landry to SS so Stu can play FS is nothing but conjecture and borderlines on............

We would shake up our secondary because the goal is to put the best 11 men on the field. If Stu shows that he and Landry provide a better safety combination than Landry and Reed, then we are more likely to see Landry playing SS.

I provided a quote in reply #26, but here it is again:

http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1414107&nid=293

Defensive coordinate Greg Blache said it was too early to say where Landry will line up.

"He could start as a free safety or a strong safety," Blache said. "Right now, there's no need to rush into that."

Saying that the ONLY person good enough to move Landry to SS is Taylor is a bit crazy. According to you, even if we signed Troy Palamoau to play SS, we wouldn't move Landry to FS. We are a team thats lucky enough to have a player that excels at both FS and SS. So the question of where he plays will probably depend a lot on how well the players around him play.

As a side note, Blache has also commented on Kareem Moore having great ability, and he actually compared him to Taylor. Here's the link.

http://was.scout.com/2/752116.html

On Kareem Moore, sixth round draft pick at safety from Nicholls State:

"I like the way he played physical. He hit people. He hit people like the late Sean Taylor. He doesn’t have the range or size that Sean had but there were times when I saw him come across and intimidate receivers and there’s only one other person I’ve been around that could do that – that was Sean. And he did that a couple of times and like I said it just kind of touched me. I was like, ‘I want this guy on our football team. I think this guy can come in and be a force in the NFC East as a safety.’ Time will prove me right or wrong but at the same time I think the guy has potential and that’s what we saw in him. We knew about the injury and kind of felt like he’d fall back to where we got him and we feel very good about it. We feel like we got a real fine football player in the later round because of the injury."

I think how these players play in camp and how they develop will uptimately have a lot to do with where Landry plays.

[IbleedBnG83]

I like the idea of Betts and Portis splitting more carries. They run differently. Betts hits the holes hard while Portis is a scat back and waits to find his holes. It would be wise to utilize Betts more. I think CP in the red zone is still the better option.

[IbleedBnG83]

The Landry thing has got me annoyed. Although he maybe OVERALL better playing the SS than FS(ie. he is a 98 at SS while a 94 at FS), he is still an awesome FS and probably top five in the league if ranked. I just hope the utilize him well. We don't need to be getting beat deep by TO!

[box8276]

To answer the question about which position LL will play look no further than the first Dallas game. Put LL at strong safety and some scrub like Stuart at the FS position and i bet that experiment wont last very long.

What is so hard for people to understand about LL playing FS? Why didnt the Skins put ST at the strong safety position if he could make more of an impact there?

Well?.........

[McD5]

The author stated Betts is a power back that breaks tackles.

The author therefore has no credibility.

Some fans apparently don't even watch our games.

Therefore, they have no credibility.

[lupin_iv]

two words describe why we don't use Betts more often:

Betts fumbles

:bsflag: Joe, is that you? Let's hope our coaching IQ improves this season.

Career fumble numbers:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PortCl00.htm

Portis: 1710 rushes, 22 fumbles = 1 fumble every 78 carries

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BettLa00.htm

Betts: 659 rushes, 12 fumbles = 1 fumble every 55 carries

Last two years:

Portis: 452 rushes, 6 fumbles (0 in 2006) = 1 fumble every 75 carries

Betts: 338 rushes, 7 fumbles (6 in 2006) = 1 fumble every 48 carries

Just this year:

Portis: 325 rushes, 6 fumbles = 1 fumble every 54 carries

Betts: 93 rushes, 1 fumble

It appears that Portis has a better fumble rate over his career, even though he had a career worst 6 fumbles in 2007. However, Betts did have only 1 fumble in 2007 (after having a career worst 6 fumbles in 2006). So, it's possible that going forward even if he gets more carries he'll shed that 'fumble-prone' label.

My concern with giving Betts more carries is touchdowns. He's only had 10 in his career, while Portis has had 63 in that same span. Obviously not an entirely fair comparison since Betts has only had more than 100 carries once in his career while Portis has only had less than 200 carries once in his career. However, in 2006 with 245 carries, Betts only had 4 touchdowns. During that same season, with only half the attempts Portis had 7 touchdowns. This is probably because despite their size and style differences, Portis is the better goal line back. I'd like to see Betts really work on his vision at the goal line. (From what I've seen, he actually is decent at breaking tackles. Not a monster, but decent.) If he does this and continues holding onto to the ball, he'll become the weapon we all expected him to be after the 2006 season.

[DieselPwr44]

Some fans apparently don't even watch our games.

Therefore, they have no credibility.

Whatever.

So that's why we're so horrid on 3rd and 1 and 4th and 1 since his time here??

Rarely does Ladell "knock him down with a feather" Betts ever break a tackle.

He's good at running into his own blockers,heck even injuring them (Randy Thomas,2005), but he's never been a pile mover, which is what one expects out of a powerback.

Now, just what fantasy version of Ladell Betts have you been watching???

BTW, here's the Betts most unbiased Redskins fans know(notice the ball security):

[McD5]

Whatever.

So that's why we're so horrid on 3rd and 1 and 4th and 1 since his time here??

Rarely does Ladell "knock him down with a feather" Betts ever break a tackle.

He's good at running into his own blockers,heck even injuring them (Randy Thomas,2005), but he's never been a pile mover, which is what one expects out of a powerback.

Now, just what fantasy version of Ladell Betts have you been watching???

BTW, here's the Betts most unbiased Redskins fans know(notice the ball security):

How good were we on 3rd and 1, and 4th and one last season with Portis carrying the ball?

League worst if I am not mistaken.

Of course, the expected response will be "Well our line was injured."

And I agree that was part of it........part of it, but not 100% of it.

Another part was Gibbs trying to use Portis to do what Betts or Sellers should be doing--running between the tackles. Something Portis doesn't thrive at.

Now as far as the fumbling goes.....I heard the same bs about Tiki Barber before he dominated us season after season.

Fumbling is easy to correct. It typically happens when the RB gets 10% or less of the reps in practice, and sees little if any time with the starters during live games.

See Betts.

You can't give a guy the ball once in a blue moon, and expect that he will be as comfortable in the situation as the starter is, who gets the reps in practice every single day.

You can teach anyone not to fumble, even Tiki or Betts. What you can't do is teach someone to run for 1100 yards in basically half a season. 100 yards less than Portis ran in a full season last year.

And further on the fumbling topic, you have seen what a good receiver he is....there is no question he has great hands, he just needs some reps, and a coach working with him. Just like Tiki did.

The guy runs like an animal.....is our best receiver out of the backfield, risks his body returning kicks pretty well when asked....and does it at roughly 20% of the salary of Portis.

Not sure what more you could possibly ask of a player.

[McD5]

Career fumble numbers:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PortCl00.htm

Portis: 1710 rushes, 22 fumbles = 1 fumble every 78 carries

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BettLa00.htm

Betts: 659 rushes, 12 fumbles = 1 fumble every 55 carries

Last two years:

Portis: 452 rushes, 6 fumbles (0 in 2006) = 1 fumble every 75 carries

Betts: 338 rushes, 7 fumbles (6 in 2006) = 1 fumble every 48 carries

Just this year:

Portis: 325 rushes, 6 fumbles = 1 fumble every 54 carries

Betts: 93 rushes, 1 fumble

It appears that Portis has a better fumble rate over his career, even though he had a career worst 6 fumbles in 2007. However, Betts did have only 1 fumble in 2007 (after having a career worst 6 fumbles in 2006). So, it's possible that going forward even if he gets more carries he'll shed that 'fumble-prone' label.

My concern with giving Betts more carries is touchdowns. He's only had 10 in his career, while Portis has had 63 in that same span. Obviously not an entirely fair comparison since Betts has only had more than 100 carries once in his career while Portis has only had less than 200 carries once in his career. However, in 2006 with 245 carries, Betts only had 4 touchdowns. During that same season, with only half the attempts Portis had 7 touchdowns. This is probably because despite their size and style differences, Portis is the better goal line back. I'd like to see Betts really work on his vision at the goal line. (From what I've seen, he actually is decent at breaking tackles. Not a monster, but decent.) If he does this and continues holding onto to the ball, he'll become the weapon we all expected him to be after the 2006 season.

All legit points......and it would seem only logical to assume that extra reps would equal fewer fumbles. I addressed that just above.

As far as the touchdowns go? Look at how many attempts TJ Duckett got in the red zone in 2006. Now if half of those attempts had been given to Betts, I think it is safe to say that he would have had another 2-3 tds that season.

The only game many remember was when Betts was called in cold off the bench last season against the Giants, where he failed to get in at the last second.

Part of that is his fault. Another, maybe larger part was the fault of Gibbs and/or Portis if he pulled himself out, expecting the guy to come in cold and just drive it in. That was asking a lot.

When Sellers fails in that situation, which he did last season, no one says a word.

When Portis runs the ball 7 times in a row in the red zone and doesn't score--no one says a word.

Several times last season Betts would get the ball down to the 10, and Portis would come in to get the td. I am 100% for that....whatever works.

But to insinuate that Betts has some phobia of the end zone is probably a little unfair if people are honest.

I have seen some on here even go as far as to say in the Philly game in 2006--a game where Betts rushed for a record 172 yards--that somehow that effort is discounted because we didn't win the game.

I say if someone is running for 172 yards against a division rival and we STILL don't win--you need to look at the other guys on the field that had their hands on their hips, watching Betts run. Betts was the only reason that game didn't look like the Patriots game from last season.

Anyway, good post.

[elkabong82]

Some fans apparently don't even watch our games.

Therefore, they have no credibility.

Trotting out the man crush pics again eh? Too bad Betts isn't even breaking a tackle in that play. He gets tackled at the legs, and 2 other defenders happened to be close enough to get in on the play.

When Betts runs. he hits the holes nice. Betts doesn't break a bunch of tackles. He typically falls down after the first hit. This is why he sucks on the goalline. But then again, given your sig I don't expect a lot of reality from you when Betts is discussed.

[elkabong82]

How good were we on 3rd and 1, and 4th and one last season with Portis carrying the ball?

League worst if I am not mistaken.

Of course, the expected response will be "Well our line was injured."

And I agree that was part of it........part of it, but not 100% of it.

:

You actually have a link to back that statement up? It'd be pretty interesting to see how Betts did in '06, vs. CP in '05. We were one of the best at 3rd down conversions in '05, you know, with a healthy OL. Anyways, how good were we with Betts on the goalline, ever? His 4 TDs in 2006, despite starting half the season, and CP's 7 despite playing injured, suggest once again on the subject of CP and Betts that you're full of it.

And don't pretend that CP gets excused when he fails on the goalline, cuz it gets brought up a lot on here when it happens. You may not here of it often though, because it doesn't happen often. BTW, who was it in NY who lost the game for us on the goalline? '06 or '07, cuz either way it's the same answer. I've never seen a "power back" who stunk on the goalline.

[lupin_iv]

All legit points......and it would seem only logical to assume that extra reps would equal fewer fumbles. I addressed that just above.

It's also a possibility that more carries may mean more fumbles, since the one season Betts had more than 100 carries he had the most fumbles of his career. I think either outcome is possible at this point. However, I'll be optimistic here and think he'll build on 2007.

As far as the touchdowns go? Look at how many attempts TJ Duckett got in the red zone in 2006. Now if half of those attempts had been given to Betts, I think it is safe to say that he would have had another 2-3 tds that season.

This seems to be a bit of a logical leap here. It's possible that with Betts in the game different plays get called there and maybe the Skins pass more. Or, even with the play calls being the same, maybe some of those calls were just wrong and Betts would have been stopped as well. However, I understand what you're getting at. They didn't call Duckett "Twinkle Toes" for nothing. It never looked like he trusted the offensive line to do their jobs and consequently he never got the push a back of his size should get.

The only game many remember was when Betts was called in cold off the bench last season against the Giants, where he failed to get in at the last second.

Part of that is his fault. Another, maybe larger part was the fault of Gibbs and/or Portis if he pulled himself out, expecting the guy to come in cold and just drive it in. That was asking a lot.

I agree that Betts only shares some blame there. First of all, running the same play back to back with the game on the line makes no sense. Second, didn't the Skins have a timeout there? Why didn't we use that and really make sure we've made the right call? Also, Portis didn't pull himself out there. He didn't even take the field on that last possession. I remember sitting there puzzled as to why the Skins' best offensive skill player was not on the field with the game on the line. That whole thing was botched, from the personnel to the play calling to the execution. Total team loss there, no blame on just one guy.

When Sellers fails in that situation, which he did last season, no one says a word.

When Portis runs the ball 7 times in a row in the red zone and doesn't score--no one says a word.

Sellers has been roasted on this board for the ridiculous attempt to hurdle the pile in the playoff game, as well as getting stopped at the goal line against Minnesota. As for Portis, I think you're referring to the second Dallas game in 2006 where they couldn't punch it in even after Dallas stupidly gave them a new set of downs with a penalty. That was pretty brutal, but I think it was wiped away in the euphoria of how the Skins won that game. Portis got some criticism, but it was more towards the offensive line.

Several times last season Betts would get the ball down to the 10, and Portis would come in to get the td. I am 100% for that....whatever works.

But to insinuate that Betts has some phobia of the end zone is probably a little unfair if people are honest.

It could be that Betts hasn't gotten enough opportunities to punch the ball in from the red zone, but there's something to be said for taking advantage of opportunities when they're presented. I don't believe he's done that yet in that particular situation. Maybe more opportunities will present themselves this year and that will change. I think everyone would welcome that, as it would mean adding yet another dimension to the red zone attack.

I say if someone is running for 172 yards against a division rival and we STILL don't win--you need to look at the other guys on the field that had their hands on their hips, watching Betts run. Betts was the only reason that game didn't look like the Patriots game from last season.

I agree that it's ridiculous that people try to downplay the effort of Betts in that game. Both he and the offensive line were phenomenal. However, I believe the defense also did pretty well in that game, keeping the Skins in it after they failed to punch it in over and over again (Suisham went 4-4). I think had they been able to convert just one of those field goals to a touchdown, the momentum would have shifted to the Skins and that would have been it.

Interesting that it took two years for the red zone issues to finally (hopefully) be addressed. Frustrating too.

Anyway, good post.

Thanks.