NFLN: Faulk: Portis is 'one dimensional'

[[[ghost]]]

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?

Westbrook isn't better than Portis at running or blocking, two of the three basic components of being a running back.

I believe the primary task for a Running Back is to run. Westbrook is not as good at running than Portis.

Therefore, Westbrook is better. Damn, how'd we miss that?

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?

But Matt Ryan plays for Atlanta. And Michael Turner has big ol' thighs.

Simple mathematics tells us that this is Campbell's fault. With that said, when Brennan throws the first of his 32423 touchdown passes this season, we can all expect Portis to rise dramatically on Top RB lists, regardless of whether or not his production goes up.

[CRobi21]

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?

Marshall Faulk: Owned?

[TheLongshot]

The only minor point that he might have is that Portis hasn't been much of a threat once he gets the ball out of the backfield. He's not a guy who is going to break your back doing that, unlike say Westbrook. Considering the source, I can see why he sees things that way.

But, IMO, it is probably one of the few weakness in his game, and it isn't even a big one. He's a solid receiver who usually catches what is sent his way. It isn't like we are talking hands of stone here. I think he's actually rather underrated in the league given what he does. He's not flashy, but his numbers are at the top of the league most years.

[Blackest Eyes]

But, IMO, it is probably one of the few weakness in his game, and it isn't even a big one. He's a solid receiver who usually catches what is sent his way. It isn't like we are talking hands of stone here. I think he's actually rather underrated in the league given what he does. He's not flashy, but his numbers are at the top of the league most years.

I completely agree. If the Skins can get a passing game going and not have to rely so heavily on the run, Portis has the potential to be even more dangerous running the ball because he won't be so beat up!

The season needs to start already!

[RedskinWarship]

faulk never threw a block in his life

[Hubbs]

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?

Snap, son.

[Touchdown Redskins]

Marshall Faulk is right. Portis has just okay hands (Betts' hands are much better), and he doesn't run as great routes as other multi-dimensional backs. He rarely breaks a big run for a touchdown, and he has shown himself to be overly critical and rebellious. Honestly, we need to get over our man-crush of Portis.

Great, he can block well...most backs can do an adequate job of that. If Portis is such a great pass-catcher according to you guys, then why are we looking for game-breaking scat-backs WHO CAN CATCH THE BALL?

[NoVaSkins21]

(Betts' hands are much better)

I'm sorry, but there's no way that's true. Betts is a threat to fumble every time he touches the football.

[paloffs]

YES! We need a running back that can catch the ball like Brian Westbrook. Who, in some ways, is like a wideout already. He's fragile and about 90% of the times he touches the ball, it's from a pass.

[HighOnHendrix]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dagF3Xoyq3Q

And let's not forget how he hurt his shoulder in 06: making a tackle after an interception. I wish it had never happened, but it is another strike against Marshall's premise of being one-dimensional. Comparing his receiving numbers to Westbrook's is not fair at all. When you consider that the Walrus chooses to call 70% passing plays, it only stands to reason that the RB in that system is gonna get a ton of catches and yards. Portis has not been used in that fashion in DC to date.

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?

Killer post.

[Redskins:Victory_or_Death]

Great, he can block well...most backs can do an adequate job of that. If Portis is such a great pass-catcher according to you guys, then why are we looking for game-breaking scat-backs WHO CAN CATCH THE BALL?

Because they are called "change-of-pace" backs for a reason?

[HighOnHendrix]

Because they are called "change-of-pace" backs for a reason?

Exactly. They are not looking for some little burner with good hands to replace Portis, they are looking for that guy to compliment him. It's a great idea, IMO.

[TSO]

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?

Looks like someone is suffering from highlight reel syndrome.

It's ok, lots of people have it these days. Sports Centeruenza is quite the virus. Once you catch it, no player can be truly great in your eyes unless he has the highlight reel plays. It's an awful affliction. May God remove it from you.

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?

Ahhh, the truth. Thank you.

[Arsenic]

...

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.

hmm

Maybe he's worried about having to avoid confrontation, knowing about the BMitch incident.. ??

:whoknows:

I wouldnt be surprised if having such a conversation puts an athlete on bad terms with other media sources.

[jrfriedm]

Faulk is paid to read off a cue card.

exactly. No of these idiots has any actual thoughts of there own. They spend all night trying to figure out how to say the four and five letter words that the NFLN writers give them, and then just pray that they can get through it.

[turbodiesel#44]

Um, yeah. CP should get his butt down the field and catch some balls. As soon as he finishes leveling that linebacker about to devour JC. This guy Faulk apparently doesn't actually watch games, just peruses stats.

[Bang]

I tend to like Faulk, but as far as I can see any time they're talking about the top five this or the top ten that, it really helps if you wear a Patriots jersey.

~Bang

[scruffylookin]

I'm sorry, but there's no way that's true. Betts is a threat to fumble every time he touches the football.

"Betts is a better receiver than Clinton" is a myth that somehow has taken hold to be fact in some people's minds.

I have never, ever, seen any evidence to back that statement up.

Betts' career reception totals and avg per rec are

12 12.8

15 11.1

15 7.2

10 7.8

53 8.4

21 8.3

22 9.1

Hardly evidence of him being the second coming of Larry Centers.

As for Clinton not being a top 5 back.

Well all Clinton has done is have a combined 11108 yards in rushing and receiving in 100 games played as a pro. That is an average of 111.1 yards per every game Clinton Portis has played as a professional.

The Clinton hate that some Redskins "fans" have is just amazing. You don't like the guy, fine, but don't embarrass yourself by not recognizing the special talent the man has.

[SWFLSkins]

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?

Good Job Adam. Facts are Facts, and Marshall Faulk does not like the Redskins, his history of that is clear. But what is not clear is why some posters on here are actually buying into these "LIST's" by the NFLN and get all worked up over them. And those who don't see the value in Portis are just naive in football reality.

REALLY though, Who cares what the Cowboy's network annoucers think?

[Thinking Skins]

I kinda agree with this one. Portis is mainly a running threat. He isn't nearly as effective as a receiver. Thats part of the reason he stays to block so much. I give his blocking a lot of credit, but he's not on Westbrook's level as a WR (and Westbrook's not on Portis's level as a runner).

[Thinking Skins]

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.

you do if their line and scheme is THAT good

[Thinking Skins]

I'm sorry, but there's no way that's true. Betts is a threat to fumble every time he touches the football.

Are you kidding me? Thats one of the reasons Betts may see the field more in the WCO scheme - the fact that he catches the ball better. Add to that the facts that he runs better routes and gets more involved in the passing game overall (other than just staying in to block or as a safety valve), and there can be a legitimate argument made that Betts deserves more snaps in the backfield. I just wish Betts was a better runner.

[Koolblue13]

Portis is as one dimensional as Marcus Allen was.

[dfos81]

I guess the best thing people point to about Portis when ever this discussion comes up is his blocking. Big deal!

Well if you watched any football before, if your coach is telling you stay in and block, how do expect to catch the ball or run? If your coach is telling u to help protect the qb.:doh:

Portis has done something only a few backs in history have EVER done, just compare his career rushing stats so far, to any of the greats. Then tell me where he ranks on that list. Facts show different.

[Mad Mike]

Fan - short for fanatic = crazy people.

When Faulk paused to answer why Portis is not a top five back, it was understandable. He is a good running back after all. But he could have kept it simple and said... "Portis just doesn't make many big plays."

That said, Portis is also a willing, and tough blocker who sometimes makes mental mistakes and cant take it when the coaches try to help him get better...

"Jason on his [butt] all game long, you try to stay in and help, then it's 'Aw, you should have gone out.' ... If he's over there and can't breathe and unconscious where he done got the wind knocked out of him from being sacked, then it's 'Aw you got to help out, you've got to chip,'" Portis said. "So I don't think they know what they want me to do."

I know this is complicated Portis but sometimes you have to block and sometimes (when everyone is blocked or on a screen) you have to go out and be the checkdown man. The coaches are counting on YOU to make a good choice. Look in the mirror and quit blaming your failure on everyone else.

Betts is the better receiver out of the back field. Every coach we have had has said as much. Why is it so hard for some of you to believe? I guess I shouldn't have to ask when the same people call Betts a fumbler even though he fumbles no more than Portis.

Fan - short for fanatic = crazy people.