Bet on Betts Having a Career Year

[kuraitengai]

When you put all this together, I think it's likely that Ladell Betts will get more touches than he has in the past and lead the team in combined yardage this year.

while i dont disagree that betts is strong in the receiving game, i really dont think he will lead the team in combined yardage UNLESS portis gets hurt.

granted it was a different coaching regime, but look at last year. betts was coming off a career year after taking over for the injured CP and how often did we use him? not too much. i can see them both on the field at the same time in the WCO, but i dont see betts getting more action than CP. he is still our star and the way he has refocused this offseason, that would almost be a slap in the face if betts was given the priority.

[Oldfan]

I know Zorn wasn't offensive co-ordinator but I don't recall Alexander sharing much game time with other backs in Seattle when he was healthy so I see no reason why Portis won't be a feature back in this offense.

Apples and oranges. There isn't as much separating our two backs in overall skills as in Seattle and Zorn wasn't the head coach in Seattle.

[Oldfan]

I agree, we can't exculsively use Betts as a receiver and Portis as the runner...

Did someone say we should?

[Truant]

Zorn talking about having Betts and Portis in the backfield at the same time sounded more theoretical than anything.

The consistent talk all off-season has been to work Portis and get the ball in his hands, so I find it hard to imagine that Betts tops 100-150 carries (if Portis stays healthy). With that amount of carries he won't top the year he had in '06.

Betts is great out of the backfield. He's become a better blocker than he was, but he's a really good pass receiver, so I think that he'll have his best receiving year, but topping his '06 season while entrenched behind Portis is unlikely. While the system is probably better for him, he won't have the opportunity he had in '06.

And I hope that is the case because having both Portis and Betts available makes us a better team.

[Cooley4President]

Did someone say we should?

Just responding to the statement above:

even so, if you bring betts, everyone knows that he is a one demensional "threat."

I guess my point is that in order for Betts to be effective, he would have to get a number of receptions and carries so as to not tip off the defense when he's in the game. While I do feel he's a superior receiver to Portis, I just don't think he'll get enough plays in the game to take advantage of the things he's better at, meaning him not being as good in the running game will mean he's not in the game as much to catch passes which is what he does well.

[Oldfan]

... i can see them both on the field at the same time in the WCO, but i dont see betts getting more action than CP. he is still our star and the way he has refocused this offseason, that would almost be a slap in the face if betts was given the priority.

I hope Jim Zorn doesn't worry about Clinton's feelings in making his decisions.

If Ladell is on the field at least 35% to Portis's 65%, with Ladell catching more passes and Clinton getting more carries, the yards per catch average would likely make them very close in combined average.

[Morneblade]

Would you care to give any reasons for your opinion? Where did I go wrong in my reasoning offered in the OP?

Well a couple of things. First off Betts is not going to be the primary guy in any part of the offense, or special teams. If he was going to be retutning kickoffs full time or starting at RB for several games I can see it. But you also stipulated that injuries were not part of why you thought he would have such a big year. Now, Betts already has a 1600 yards season. So for him to have a career year, he'd have to break that, correct? He did that starting 9 games at RB.

Baring injuries, Portis is our starting RB and is going to get the bulk of the carries. Betts is a much better route runner and I think will be used more in out of the backfield and to spell CP. But, how is he going to break 1000 yards, much less 1600? Betts will mostly likely get the majority of his yards out of the backfield as a receiver. But is going to get 600-700 yards doing this? Those are Cooley like numbers, and I seriously doubt, with everyone else involved he's going to pull that off. So, does he get closer to that amount rushing the ball? CP will have to be out of the lineup alot more than in the past for Betts to get those kind of numbers. And Portis does not have the option to pull himself out of the game as he has in the past. And since he doesnt return kicks anymore, no special teams opprotunities to get yards from.

So, where and how do you see him cracking 1000 yards? Or the 1600 he'll need for his career year?

[Oldskool]

For Betts to have a career year, he will need to beat the following numbers:

16 games, 245 rushing attempts, 1154 yards 4.7 ypc, 4 rushing TD

53 receptions, 445 yards 8.4 ypc 1 TD

6 fumbles.

He will play 16 games, unless he gets injured.

Unless Portis is injured, there is no way that he gets 245 touches on the ground. He will not get over 1000 yards rushing. He will have more 4 rushing TD. He will not have more than 53 receptions or more than 445 YPC. He will have more than 1 TD via pass.

These assumptions are drawn by looking at the comparisons of Shaun Alexander numbers and those of his primary backup Maurice Morris, who is a Betts clone.

http://www.nfl.com/players/mauricemorris/profile?id=MOR472481

If this system is a variant of the Holmgren tree, then we can assume how many touches the primary and the secondary RB will have.

These are Morris' career year numbers:

161 rushes, 628 yards, 4.5 YPC, 23 receptions, 213 yards 9.3 YPC, 1 TD.

[Oldfan]

The consistent talk all off-season has been to work Portis and get the ball in his hands...

I can't see Portis being the workhorse that he was with Gibbs calling the shots. All things considered, Betts is as potent a weapon as Portis in this scheme.

[Oldfan]

I guess my point is that in order for Betts to be effective, he would have to get a number of receptions and carries so as to not tip off the defense when he's in the game. While I do feel he's a superior receiver to Portis, I just don't think he'll get enough plays in the game to take advantage of the things he's better at, meaning him not being as good in the running game will mean he's not in the game as much to catch passes which is what he does well.

I think you and the others are assuming that Jim Zorn will see the two players the way Joe Gibbs saw them and use them accordingly. I'm thinking he won't.

[Oldfan]

So, where and how do you see him cracking 1000 yards? Or the 1600 he'll need for his career year?

I won't let you decide what I meant by "career year." What I said was that he would likely lead the team in combined yardage even with a healthy Clinton Portis sharing the load.

[Cooley4President]

I think you and the others are assuming that Jim Zorn will see the two players the way Joe Gibbs saw them and use them accordingly. I'm thinking he won't.

I'm just going by what I have seen of both during their time in Washington. Maybe the way Gibbs used them affected what I saw and therefore how I assess the two. I think Betts had a great year in 2006 but did it because of the line and didn't make many of those yards on his own. I also think he doesn't have the nose for the end zone that Portis does (I believe Portis had 7 TDs to Betts 4 that year despite playing less than half of the time he did) and that he can't be trusted to get those last tough yards. Great backup? Of course. Team leader in yards from scrimmage? I'm not seeing it.

[Morneblade]

I won't let you decide what I meant by "career year." What I said was that he would likely lead the team in combined yardage even with a healthy Clinton Portis taking sharing the load.

Then why dont you define it for us? But it's already been posted what his career year was. I've posted why I dont think he'll break 1k in total yards this year. You have yet to post how Betts will lead the team in total yards. And since this is your post, the burden of proof is on you.

[Oldskool]

I think you and the others are assuming that Jim Zorn will see the two players the way Joe Gibbs saw them and use them accordingly. I'm thinking he won't.

Running back by committee is only done when you have no true #1 RB in the system and need to split carries to maximize the effectiveness of a less than stellar RB corps.

That is clearly not the case in Washington. Portis is clearly heads and shoulders more talented than Betts is. This is a fact and cannot be logically refuted.

As I said below, splitting time with Portis can and will most likely yield the following results:

For Betts to have a career year, he will need to beat the following numbers:

He will play 16 games, unless he gets injured.

Unless Portis is injured, there is no way that he gets 245 touches on the ground. He will not get over 1000 yards rushing. He will have more 4 rushing TD. He will not have more than 53 receptions or more than 445 YPC. He will have more than 1 TD via pass.

These assumptions are drawn by looking at the comparisons of Shaun Alexander numbers and those of his primary backup Maurice Morris, who is a Betts clone.

http://www.nfl.com/players/mauricemorris/profile?id=MOR472481

If this system is a variant of the Holmgren tree, then we can assume how many touches the primary and the secondary RB will have.

These are Morris' career year numbers:

[Oldfan]

For Betts to have a career year, he will need to beat the following numbers:

Why do you get to decide what a "career year" means when I say it? I said the I think it's likely that Ladell will lead the team in combined yardage even with a healthy Portis on the field.

If this system is a variant of the Holmgren tree, then we can assume how many touches the primary and the secondary RB will have.

To assume anything like that is absurd.

[Oldskool]

Why do you get to decide what a "career year" means when I say it? I said the I think it's likely that Ladell will lead the team in combined yardage even with a healthy Portis on the field.

A career year is defined as what said player has accomplished in a specific task in his career. Anything that betters those numbers will now be defined as a career year in that stat. There is no other definition. You personally do not get to decide what a career year is.

To assume anything like that is absurd.

It is apparent that someone never took probability and statistics as part of his higher education.

You can accurately predict (read: make an educated assumption) about how a player performs by taking his historical statistics and factoring in other variables such as production of other running backs in similar systems under the tutelage of coaches that are disciples of the same coaching tree.

This is done constantly and is quite valid. Whether or not you like it is immaterial to this argument.

[Oldfan]

Running back by committee is only done when you have no true #1 RB in the system and need to split carries to maximize the effectiveness of a less than stellar RB corps.

Is that in the rulebook?

That is clearly not the case in Washington. Portis is clearly heads and shoulders more talented than Betts is. This is a fact and cannot be logically refuted.

No matter how highly you value them, your subjective opinions aren't irrefutable facts.

I think Betts is as good a weapon in the WCO as Portis for the reasons I gave in the OP. I think Zorn will agree.

[Dan T.]

I just don't think Betts will be on the field enough for him to lead the team in total yardage. It's not going to happen. Oldfan, I think you're right in that we'll see many more short passes to the running backs, but Portis is going be on the receiving end of a good chunk of those. And he'll get the lion's share of running plays. Betts will not outgain Portis this year.

[Oldskool]

Is that in the rulebook?

What rule book is that Oldfan? There is no "rule" for this.

No matter how highly you value them, your subjective opinions aren't irrefutable facts.

Absolutely correct. There is nothing in this game stat wise regarding future player performances that can be stated as 100% irrefutable.

Saying that, laws of probability using scientific analysis are much better than just a guesstimation.

I think Betts is as good a weapon in the WCO as Portis for the reasons I gave in the OP. I think Zorn will agree.

That is your opinion based on what?

What numbers has Betts put up in any form of West Coast Offense? Fact is, Betts has never taken a snap in an NFL game playing in a WCO. There are zero stats to base your assumption on.

Portis however has shown during his time in Denver to be very effective in Shannahan's version of the WCO.

[IbleedBnG83]

I think Betts is at least worth a B+. He hits holes hard, is shifty in an open field, and is consistant. I'm not sure he will have a career year because he is splitting the load with CP, but it will better performance than in the past when sharing the load i'm sure. I'm excited what the addition of Betts on a regular basis in our offense can translate to on the field.

[Oldfan]

A career year is defined as what said player has accomplished in a specific task in his career. Anything that betters those numbers will now be defined as a career year in that stat. There is no other definition. You personally do not get to decide what a career year is.

When I use a word or a term, it means whatever I choose it to mean. I defined it for readers in the OP.

You can accurately predict (read: make an educated assumption) about how a player performs by taking his historical statistics and factoring in other variables such as production of other running backs in similar systems under the tutelage of coaches that are disciples of the same coaching tree.

:laugh:

[RunClintonRun26]

Save for an injury to Portis, Betts will not see the field that often IMO. That, or if we blow out a team early. While Betts is a wonderful backup, I think that he reached his peak (in terms of numbers) in 2006 when Portis went down for the year. So for him to have a career year, and I assume that "career year" is defined by stats, then I cannot see him surpassing the yards he put up that year. Portis will be involved in the passing game more, which will take touches away from Betts. We will have formations with D. Thomas, Kelly, and Davis out there more . . . and of course you still have the weapons of Cooley, Moss, ARE . . . so as mentioned earlier, that too will limit Betts' touches. To be honest, I don't even see Betts as our primary 3rd down RB anymore . . . I have a feeling Zorn will keep Portis in there more often than we think. It certainly will not be like what Gibbs did with the two.

[Oldfan]

I just don't think Betts will be on the field enough for him to lead the team in total yardage. It's not going to happen. Oldfan, I think you're right in that we'll see many more short passes to the running backs, but Portis is going be on the receiving end of a good chunk of those. And he'll get the lion's share of running plays. Betts will not outgain Portis this year.

If JZ sees what Betts can do for his passing game, he'll prove me right. I'm counting on JZ to see what Al Saunders saw, but Joe didn't.

Do you remember that Al talked about more production for Ladell when Al first arrived? That never happened.

[KNGwithOUTaCrwN]

hmm, i doubt hes guna do better than how he did a couple years ago when he started cuz portis was out....

[Oldskool]

When I use a word or a term, it means whatever I choose it to mean. I defined it for readers in the OP.

Right.

Sorry. You cannot simply define a word or a term to mean what you wish it to mean.

:laugh:

Your ignorance is astounding. Bravo, sir. :applause: