NFLN: Faulk: Portis is 'one dimensional'

[dockeryfan]

So now Runningback has only two dimensions? Rushing and passing? NFL Network seriously dumbs down this game.

Portis has lost break away speed. It's true and everyone knows this. But he was one of the best pure football players I've watched play. Even with a little off the top, he's still top ten.

[dellman]

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?

Interesting that the person he left off the list is the guy who may pass him next year in rushing yards. If Clinton gets 1500 yards this season then next year he will be poised to overtake Marshall Faulk on the all time rushing list.

I enjoy it when people insult Redskins players because a guy like Portis will hear about this and be even more dedicated and fired up, if that is possible.

[TheLongshot]

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."

Which is BS because he made plenty of big plays last year. Fact is, since he's been here he hasn't had a credible passing game to keep defenses honest. It is kinda hard to make big plays when the defense is always focusing on you.

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...

To be fair, the main problem late last year was that he couldn't practice, which means in that game he wasn't as up on the game plan as he could have been. There were a few players who made that point.

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.

He is, but that's probably the only place where Betts is a better. Betts is certainly a far worse blocker, and he doesn't create much out of the nothing that Portis usually gets.

[Mad Mike]

Which is BS because he made plenty of big plays last year. Fact is, since he's been here he hasn't had a credible passing game to keep defenses honest. It is kinda hard to make big plays when the defense is always focusing on you.

Go ahead and name some big plays. Look at his whole career here and tell me which games were signature games for him. Damn the passing game. Great running backs make things happen. Are you going to tell me the vikings had a great passing game that opened up the run? :hysterical:

To be fair, the main problem late last year was that he couldn't practice, which means in that game he wasn't as up on the game plan as he could have been. There were a few players who made that point.

Then maybe he should have said " Coach was right to bench me, I wasnt prepared because I was injured all week." instead of acting like an ass.

He is, but that's probably the only place where Betts is a better. Betts is certainly a far worse blocker, and he doesn't create much out of the nothing that Portis usually gets.

I call BS. Is Portis a better blocker? Probably. A little better. But Betts is in no way a poor blocker, a poor runner, or fumble prone. That's just a load of BS manufactured by Portis fans.

[dfos81]

Marshall Faulk must of forgot his

Faulk is just hating on CP b/c he has beat Marshall's best rushing season 4 out of his 1st 7 seasons.

By the way, Marshall's best rushing season came in year 8 for him. Portis is going into year 8 this season.

Portis has a better yard per carry avg. 4.5, Faulk> 4.3 career avg.

On January 1, 2006, he broke the Redskins' franchise record for the most rushing yards in a season with 1,516 yards and tied the most 100+ yard games in a season (5).

Clinton Portis joined O.J. Simpson as the only players in NFL history to rush for at least 120 yards in five consecutive games twice in a career.

Bottom line, no matter what way you cut it, Portis is doing in his career what only a few other backs in history have done.

Dam FAULK! If Portis gets any better then he'll be mentioned in the same breath as the best running backs in history, oops he already is :doh: He'll have other great running backs critiquing his game, oops he already does :doh:. He'll break franchise records, opps he already has :doh:. Looks like CP just needs a superbowl ring and he's well on his way to Canton.

I belive he could catch 40-60 balls a year too, but just look at the system. If your dogging CP for not catching enough balls, then tell the coaches to let him go out on pass route, instead of blocking on passing downs.

Case closed

[CRT3]

OK lets look at the guy who claims to be the best on the famed greatest show on turf. Keep in mind Faulk has played in 76 more games then Portis. That is approx. 4 1/2 Seasons more.

* Indicate Where Portis has Done Better Then Faulk.

Clinton Portis

Rush.

Games ~ GS ~ %GS to Games Played

100 ~ 95 ~ 95%*

Att. Yds. TD Lng. Y/A Y/G A/G

2052 9202 72 65 4.5* 92* 20.5*

Rec. Yds. Y/R TD Lng. R/G Y/G

233 1906 8.2 4 74 2.3 19.1

Passing

Att. Comp. Yds. TD Pass Rtg.

5* 3* 47* 3* 130.8*

Yds. From Scrimage TDs Rec & Rush Fumbles FRecoverd %Recov.

19154 76 25* 10 40%*

Marshall Faulk

Rush.

Games GS %GS to Games Played

176 156 89

Att. Yds. TD Lng. Y/A Y/G A/G

2836 12279 100 71 4.3 69.8 16.1 767

Rec. Yds. Y/R TD Lng. R/G Y/G

767 6875 9.0 36 85 4.4 39.1

Passing

Att. Comp. Yds. TD Pass Rtg.

2 0 0 0 0

Yds. From Scrimage TDs Rec & Rush Fumbles FRecovered % Recov.

19154 136 36 13 36%

[bulldog]

Westbrook has benefited from playing with McNabb on a team where quality quarterbacking has been there on a fairly consistent basis.

Portis has been THE offense for the Redskins with Mark Brunell, Todd Collins, Jason Campbell, etc. playing quarterback.

His YPC average is a function both of the defense keying on him and also the type of offense the Redskins employed under Gibbs, ie the Redskins did NOT use a spread offense with the quarterback in the shotgun like a lot of teams where the runners have a gaudy per carry average.

That said, he does not have great hands, but he is not a sub-par receiver either. Once he catches the ball he makes the most of operating in space.

But to go back to the beginning of the thread, Faulk indicates certain backs are 'one dimensional'.

So, what?

Running backs are supposed to carry the football. The fact Westbrook has to be used to be a primary receiver because the Eagles traditionally have not had a #1 receiver (outside of 2004 with Owens), shouldn't be used as a factor to degrade Portis or other backs.

In the WCO backs are going to get more passes thrown their way, it's the tendency of the scheme.

At the same time it's not the only way to go.

With a productive passing game there is no reason a straight ahead runner like John Riggins can't be an MVP type player 'just' running the football and setting the Super Bowl rushing record

[NoVaSkins21]

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.

IMO, they need a younger option than Betts especially with all the responsibilities that Portis has on the field. What the Skins need is a two-back system that most teams have like Carolina and Tennessee.

[dfos81]

OK lets look at the guy who claims to be the best on the famed greatest show on turf. Keep in mind Faulk has played in 76 more games then Portis. That is approx. 4 1/2 Seasons more.

* Indicate Where Portis has Done Better Then Faulk.

Clinton Portis

Rush.

Games ~ GS ~ %GS to Games Played

100 ~ 95 ~ 95%*

Att. Yds. TD Lng. Y/A Y/G A/G

2052 9202 72 65 4.5* 92* 20.5*

Rec. Yds. Y/R TD Lng. R/G Y/G

233 1906 8.2 4 74 2.3 19.1

Passing

Att. Comp. Yds. TD Pass Rtg.

5* 3* 47* 3* 130.8*

Yds. From Scrimage TDs Rec & Rush Fumbles FRecoverd %Recov.

19154 76 25* 10 40%*

Marshall Faulk

Rush.

Games GS %GS to Games Played

176 156 89

Att. Yds. TD Lng. Y/A Y/G A/G

2836 12279 100 71 4.3 69.8 16.1 767

Rec. Yds. Y/R TD Lng. R/G Y/G

767 6875 9.0 36 85 4.4 39.1

Passing

Att. Comp. Yds. TD Pass Rtg.

2 0 0 0 0

Yds. From Scrimage TDs Rec & Rush Fumbles FRecovered % Recov.

19154 136 36 13 36%

Faulk doesn't realize Portis just needs 10 more rec yds a game and he'll avg. the same as Faulk did. If I recall correctly, Faulk played in a much more pass oriented offense as well.

I think Portis is well on his way of being one of the top running backs n history. Even the best get blasted by other greats, mainly media.

[Thinking Skins]

IMO, they need a younger option than Betts especially with all the responsibilities that Portis has on the field. What the Skins need is a two-back system that most teams have like Carolina and Tennessee.

I wouldn't mind it if somebody beats Betts out, but I don't think we should just get rid of him for the sake of it. If Aldridge, Dorsey or Rock don't present a better option, then I'm in favor of keeping Betts. I like the speed element that Aldridge and Dorsey offer, but it remains to be seen how they will perform in this system. The one thing we know about Betts is that he can play in this system and we can be effective with him at RB. I know the talk of the town is dude in San Diego or teams like Carolina and Tennessee, but lets not just dismantle our team trying to imitate other teams. We've got some good competition at the RB spot this year. Lets just see how it plays out.

[dfos81]

Faulk doesn't realize Portis just needs 20 more rec yds a game and he'll avg. the same as Faulk did. If I recall correctly, Faulk played in a much more pass oriented offense as well.

I think Portis is well on his way of being one of the top running backs n history. Even the best get blasted by other greats, mainly media.

[jnhay]

Portis is 32nd among runningbacks in receiving. He doesn't really have that dimension. EDIT: Though the year before he'd be 9th this year. (tied for 7th last year)

It's more like he's 2 dimensional if an RB has 3 dimensions (run, block, receive).

[dfos81]

Its one good runningbacks opinion about another. Nuthin more, nothin less.

If CP keeps pumpin out 1400-1500yd seasons and the haters will keep hatin.

He could catch just as many balls as the next best back, if the offense was so inclined to. :cool2:

[dfos81]

Portis is 32nd among runningbacks in receiving. He doesn't really have that dimension. EDIT: Though the year before he'd be 9th this year. (tied for 7th last year)

It's more like he's 2 dimensional if an RB has 3 dimensions (run, block, receive).

If your going to look at that stat, shouldn't you also look at how many times Portis went out for a pass vs. blking vs. running.

Wouldn't you think the most important stat would be his times thrown to vs. other backs and his amount of catches out the passes thrown to him.

Its not like he drops a ton of balls and can't catch.

Don't always get caught up in stats, sometimes you gotta just watch the games to know what really happens.

[Adam291]

Portis is 32nd among runningbacks in receiving. He doesn't really have that dimension. EDIT: Though the year before he'd be 9th this year. (tied for 7th last year)

It's more like he's 2 dimensional if an RB has 3 dimensions (run, block, receive).

Where do you get those stats from? Portis had more rec and more yards than other RBs, so how could he be last?

[SolidSnake84]

I was watching yesterday when they did the top #5. I knew that Portis wouldn't be in there. There are a lot of reasons why IMO that he wouldn't be.

That's not to say he hasn't been a good back for us. He has been servicible and productive over the last two seasons. I think sometimes that alot of the "crush" that people have on CP here keeps them from noticing alot of his problems. Alot of the people who crushed on JC for no reason eventually wisened up to see why he isn't good for us as a starting QB.

But i wonder how people will think about CP if he happens to get injured again this year and miss games, or if his production is down. Also, he has a very negative attitude when things go bad for him. I can't blame him on everything, but year after year we all hear how he rips his coaches and team mates, like he's the only one who played good all year.

And alot of people are going to say that he's our only Offense. I hate hearing that statement.

Portis is aging, the injuries are piling up, and attitude problems and other issues have people like Faulk making bad judgements on him. Marshall Faulk was one of the best ever, so i think we can take some of it to heart what he said.

[jnhay]

If your going to look at that stat, shouldn't you also look at how many times Portis went out for a pass vs. blking vs. running.

Wouldn't you think the most important stat would be his times thrown to vs. other backs and his amount of catches out the passes thrown to him.

Its not like he drops a ton of balls and can't catch.

Don't always get caught up in stats, sometimes you gotta just watch the games to know what really happens.

I don't think teams would waste his receiving talent, if he had much, considering he's been a starter for 7 years. I've never said he can't catch. Receiving just isn't his forte.

Where do you get those stats from? Portis had more rec and more yards than other RBs, so how could he be last?

There are more than 32 running backs in the league. I actually counted them down (ranking them by receiving yards)through the NFL.com stats.

[Ryman of the North]

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.

He had 13 runs over 20 yards which tied him for 3rd in the league...

But But I thought Portis was garbage as a blocker and never made any big plays?

[dfos81]

I've never said he can't catch. Receiving just isn't his forte.

There are more than 32 running backs in the league. I actually counted them down (ranking them by receiving yards)through the NFL.com stats.

You can look at his rec. stats all day long. Can you u tell me why? Was it b/c he dropped balls?

Was it b/c he's blking more often to help the qb from getting murdered on the field?

You admit he can catch, so whats the real reason he doesn't have the stats of other backs rec?

Do you know how many passes were thrown to Portis vs. all the other backs you looked at?

[jnhay]

You can look at his rec. stats all day long. Can you u tell me why? Was it b/c he dropped balls?

Was it b/c he's blking more often to help the qb from getting murdered on the field?

You admit he can catch, so whats the real reason he doesn't have the stats of other backs rec?

Do you know how many passes were thrown to Portis vs. all the other backs you looked at?

We all know that every year he's played, he hasn't made a big impact receiving. That's all we need to know to not put him among the elite receiving running backs.

It's like saying Marcus Mason is the best runner in the league. You can say that, but he hasn't shown it.

[pvkeeper19]

Portis contributes to the offense in more important ways than running routes and catching passes. For that reason, he's a better fit for the Redskins than a guys like Faulk or Westbrook would be. His receiving ability isn't on par with Faulk's, but that's not necessary to the scheme. It doesn't call for him to line up as a slot receiver like the Rams did with Faulk. If anything, that would be a weakness. Why take your best running back out of the backfield? Portis is a great checkdown option for his quarterback, and he runs hard after catching the ball. He's also a much better blocker than Faulk ever was.

In summary: different offense, different requirements for backs. If Faulk interprets that as Portis being one-dimensional, so be it. I've never thought Faulk was a particularly good analyst, so I don't put too much stock in this analysis just because he was a running back himself.

[Adam291]

I don't think teams would waste his receiving talent, if he had much, considering he's been a starter for 7 years. I've never said he can't catch. Receiving just isn't his forte.

There are more than 32 running backs in the league. I actually counted them down (ranking them by receiving yards)through the NFL.com stats.

What, no way. I did that breakdown of Michael Turner within the first couple pages of this thread, and it clearly shows Portis had more receiving production than Turner. I just looked up Brandon Jacobs, and he had 6 rec for 36 yards to Portis' 28 rec and 218 yards. Willie Parker had 3 for 13. Cedric Benson had 20 for 185. Edgerrin James had 12 for 85. Even Joseph Addai, with the prolific Colts passing offense, only had 25 for 206 yards. These are just random guys off the top of my head, but looking at the numbers, I don't see where you're getting Portis being last. He's at least in the middle of the pack for starting, franchise backs.

Oh, and Adrian Peterson only had 21 rec for 125 yards.

I understand that circumstances change, and maybe Portis was just a checkdown last option rather than a primary receiver out of the backfield, but he's way more in the passing game than Faulk and some of you guys acknowledge.

[Vicious]

Portis does his homework on blocking and our Oline is not very good. Lets be realistic here, he is going to look one dimensional to a lot of people. We know the holes Portis fills. He's burned himself out on a hit in preseason, the guy plays 100%. We might lose him soon to how much we use him.

[2cents]

In some ways, Faulk was one-dimensinal as a pass catching RB. You probably can't remember any long run of his that did not come from a pass. That is OK, just how he was used, like Portis is not asked to catch passes on almost every play.

[Santana_89]

Marshall Faulk must of forgot his

Faulk is just hating on CP b/c he has beat Marshall's best rushing season 4 out of his 1st 7 seasons.

By the way, Marshall's best rushing season came in year 8 for him. Portis is going into year 8 this season.

Portis has a better yard per carry avg. 4.5, Faulk> 4.3 career avg.

On January 1, 2006, he broke the Redskins' franchise record for the most rushing yards in a season with 1,516 yards and tied the most 100+ yard games in a season (5).

Clinton Portis joined O.J. Simpson as the only players in NFL history to rush for at least 120 yards in five consecutive games twice in a career.

Bottom line, no matter what way you cut it, Portis is doing in his career what only a few other backs in history have done.

Dam FAULK! If Portis gets any better then he'll be mentioned in the same breath as the best running backs in history, oops he already is :doh: He'll have other great running backs critiquing his game, oops he already does :doh:. He'll break franchise records, opps he already has :doh:. Looks like CP just needs a superbowl ring and he's well on his way to Canton.

I belive he could catch 40-60 balls a year too, but just look at the system. If your dogging CP for not catching enough balls, then tell the coaches to let him go out on pass route, instead of blocking on passing downs.

Case closed

And those are the cold hard facts.

I find it funny the one media personality who literally gushes on air about what a great and tough back CP is ...is a former cowboy.I guess that's because he actually watches enough Redskins games to know what the hell he's talking about.

Marshall is entitled to his opinion but the facts speak for themself concerning C.P.