SMOSS89 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 He says this because he is not involved in the passing game and the top five running backs for him are best at being two dimensional (passing game and running game). Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vnmenon1 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 yea, because blocking is hardly a dimension.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 He's obviously never paid attention to Portis' mad blocking skillz. But really.....wtf Faulk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailfrmDEN Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 He said, westbrook had blocking passing everything. Portis didn't knock out all of faulks favorite defensive players because he cant block. He catches the ball out of the back feild all the time. Marshall you should know better. Ask Madden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 In all seriousness, I sometimes wonder what the people on the NFL Network look at when they watch film and evaluate players. My friend and I were discussing this yesterday. Maybe we just don't know what to look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Faulk is paid to read off a cue card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 last season: 28 catches 218 Yards 7.8 YPC career: 233 catches 1906 yards 8.2 YPC not to mention his thrown TD passes:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhearn Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 to be fair portis usually ends up sitting back and blocking on most passing downs, whereas westbrook is thrown to every damn time mcscrub is in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagletooth Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Portis is strictly a dump-off or short hitch over the middle guy. Seems like he is too stiff in the upper-body to be a natural pass catcher. Not that it necessarily excludes him from a top five ranking, but I agree he is not multi-dimensional as a pass catcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinklein Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 That was a pretty interesting list of RBs for the Top 5. Maurice Jones-Drew? I like the guy, and I think he's great, but Top 5 has gotta be a stretch. And Michael Turner at 3? He had a great year, but to call him Top 5 in the game is again, a little much. As for the Portis comment- I thought the way Faulk delivered that comment was really strange. He kind of hesitated when he was asked "What's wrong with Portis" and then as he spoke it sounded like he was searching for an answer on the fly. Go back and watch it if you can find a clip- maybe I'm just crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stickyshooZ Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Don't take it personal, it's just who he views as the top guys in the game. It's not like it's some official list. And in a lot of ways, I agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero21 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I wouldn't call him one dimensional. Just because something isn't a strength does not mean it's a weakness. It's not like Portis drops every pass his way, he can catch it fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 ironic that Faulk would say such a thing, since CP is one of the most versitile backs in the league. There is nothing that he can't do on the field, but when you consider that he has to stay back and block on 3rd down alot of the time, then its obvious that recieving yards will suffer. Faulk should know better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Marshall is a very astute individual when it comes to football, I think he's been kind in his observation of Portis. Portis YPC have been near the bottom of the league amongst legitimate starters since he's arrived in DC. IMO he's been highly overrated because of his personality, and ability to promote himself. I guess the best thing people point to about Portis when ever this discussion comes up is his blocking. Big deal! As if most backs aren't, or can't become adequate blockers. Did we give up all we gave up to get portis for his blocking, or his ability to move the chains? Portis doesn't run with power [although he is tough for his size] he doesn't get the big runs like a legitimate speed back, and he doesn't catch much either, now that could be due to the QB, scheme whatever, but the fact remains he doesn't. The fact that Portis spends time in the backfield blocking may be an indictment on the rest of his abilities? I wonder why Marshall didn't spend a lot of his time in the backfield blocking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Here's the video: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8112aff6&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true Portis is on the nfl.com list at #2, but in the video Faulk says what is mentioned in the OP. So Portis wasn't even in his top 6, crazy. As far as being one dimensional that is just crazy. He had more receptions than AP (not as many receiving yards), but still i'd say they are both pretty equal as far as receiving goes. And everyone knows Portis is a great blocker. I guess the best thing people point to about Portis when ever this discussion comes up is his blocking. Big deal! As if most backs aren't' date=' or can't become adequate blockers. Did we give up all we gave up to get portis for his blocking, or his ability to move the chains? Portis doesn't run with power [although he is tough for his size'] he doesn't get the big runs like a legitimate speed back, and he doesn't catch much either, now that could be due to the QB, scheme whatever, but the fact remains he doesn't. He had 13 runs over 20 yards which tied him for 3rd in the league... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 eh we shouldn't worry too much about Portis, we'll be drafting a RB soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 In all seriousness, I sometimes wonder what the people on the NFL Network look at when they watch film and evaluate players. My friend and I were discussing this yesterday. Maybe we just don't know what to look for. I think you and your friend are on to something. The sheer numbers of former players clogging the airwaves these days has diluted the knowledge pool. Some obviously keep up with the game and the players while others sort of phone it in. I have not seen Faulk so I can't say about him, but after wasting almost 20 minutes watching an obviously unpreparen Warren Sapp flounder around trying to describe defensive line play I can say some analysists are beter then others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stickyshooZ Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Marshall is a very astute individual when it comes to football' date=' I think he's been kind in his observation of Portis. Portis YPC have been near the bottom of the league amongst legitimate starters since he's arrived in DC. IMO he's been highly overrated because of his personality, and ability to promote himself. I guess the best thing people point to about Portis when ever this discussion comes up is his blocking. Big deal! As if most backs aren't, or can't become adequate blockers. Did we give up all we gave up to get portis for his blocking, or his ability to move the chains? Portis doesn't run with power [although he is tough for his size'] he doesn't get the big runs like a legitimate speed back, and he doesn't catch much either, now that could be due to the QB, scheme whatever, but the fact remains he doesn't. The fact that Portis spends time in the backfield blocking may be an indictment on the rest of his abilities? I wonder why Marshall didn't spend a lot of his time in the backfield blocking? I don't know if it's an indicator of his abilities (or lack thereof) but simply because our line sucks at blocking. However, I do agree with you on everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Marshall is a very astute individual when it comes to football' date=' I think he's been kind in his observation of Portis. Portis YPC have been near the bottom of the league amongst legitimate starters since he's arrived in DC. IMO he's been highly overrated because of his personality, and ability to promote himself. I guess the best thing people point to about Portis when ever this discussion comes up is his blocking. Big deal! As if most backs aren't, or can't become adequate blockers. Did we give up all we gave up to get portis for his blocking, or his ability to move the chains? Portis doesn't run with power [although he is tough for his size'] he doesn't get the big runs like a legitimate speed back, and he doesn't catch much either, now that could be due to the QB, scheme whatever, but the fact remains he doesn't. The fact that Portis spends time in the backfield blocking may be an indictment on the rest of his abilities? I wonder why Marshall didn't spend a lot of his time in the backfield blocking? You don't average five and a half yards per carry for two years in Denver if you suck at running. Our line and ability of our passing game to keep defenses honest have been much bigger problems than Portis' ability. Also, I've always been of the opinion that Portis could be a much bigger factor in the passing game if the coaches would use him; Betts may be a bit smoother catching the ball, but Portis can do a lot more after the whole "catching" thing is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Big deal. MF is entitled to his opinion, as wrong as it may be. CP's play on the field will speak for itself. He'll be the #1 RB in franchise history for rushing yards by year's end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeTK Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 marshall..... first no cooley in your tight ends list, now this hate. this is getting a little ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaSkins21 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Portis may be declining in terms of production, but his blocking more than makes for that. There was an awesome youtube video that was recently posted on this board of Portis just flat out pancaking Kiwanuka of the Giants. In fact no RB in this league can be considered one-dimensional with all they're asked to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoyler23 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 How many times did the offense complete a pass because Portis took care of a rushing threat and bought time? Stats don't always tell the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam291 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 So Clinton Portis isn't on the list because he isn't a very good receiver, eh? But Michael Turner is #3 because...why exactly? Michael Turner, 2008: 6 rec, 41 yards, 6.8 avg, 18 long, 2 1st, 0 20+ Clinton Portis, 2008: 28 rec, 218 yards, 7.8 avg, 29 long, 11 1st, 1 20+ Turner has a career 17 rec, while (coincidentally) 17 rec was Portis' career low in 2006, when he only played in 8 games. Oops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I think you and your friend are on to something. The sheer numbers of former players clogging the airwaves these days has diluted the knowledge pool. Some obviously keep up with the game and the players while others sort of phone it in. I have not seen Faulk so I can't say about him, but after wasting almost 20 minutes watching an obviously unpreparen Warren Sapp flounder around trying to describe defensive line play I can say some analysists are beter then others. I can usually deal with players being commentators, but it seems like as of late they are spewing out garbage. They are absolutely entitled to their own opinion, but I think too often they state their opinions as fact, which is where things go downhill for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.