NFLN: Faulk: Portis is 'one dimensional'

[JustAfan47]

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

Well put my friend well put..:point2sky

[jnhay]

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.

Okay, okay. Maybe I counted wrong

...but he's still at least 30th. Last time I checked there were more than 32 running backs in the league. I'm not saying he's bad, he's just not among the elite pass-catching RBs in the league, and his numbers are enough to show that.

[pvkeeper19]

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.

I don't think it bothers Aikman to compliment Portis, because he's a good analyst. It sort of pains me to say that after I hated him for his years in Dallas, but the fact remains that he's good at his job. Faulk is not that good at his.

The point is, I think most smart football people would disagree with Faulk's assertion that Portis is a one-dimensional back. I know Aikman and John Madden have both repeatedly praised him as a great back. I value both of their opinions more that Marhsall Faulk's.

Also, to the point of his ability to be a capable receiver: he has caught 30+ balls four times, including 40- and 47-reception seasons in his time with the Redskins. :logo:

[DCDiesel44]

Portis not getting as many receptions as Westbrook has more to do with different styles of offense/playbook than it does Portis not being a good receiving back. Both are great players in their own right but to call Portis one-dimensional is entirely false. Any back in the league can run 1-10 yards down the field and catch the football, it takes more skill and effort to sell your body and make a block, but then again that's just me.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

eh we shouldn't worry too much about Portis, we'll be drafting a RB soon

Really? Man, QB, RB, OL, (kicker) the way vinny holds picks seems like we're a few years away from being a few years away. Ofcourse then the D will be "old"...

[fnkdctr(007)]

Portis is real good but c'mon he deserves a little criticism till he takes us to lombardi land.

I know........I know

[Adam291]

Okay, okay. Maybe I counted wrong...but he's still at least 30th. Last time I checked there were more than 32 running backs in the league. I'm not saying he's bad, he's just not among the elite pass-catching RBs in the league, and his numbers are enough to show that.

Yeah, I see what you did in counting all RBs rather than just starters and 'franchise' backs, but I'm not sure it's accurate or fair to compare 3rd down backs or role playing backs to starters and franchise backs. If you look at that, Ladell Betts is almost as productive as Portis was in receiving.

But either way you look at it, saying that Adrian Peterson, DeAngelo Williams and Michael Turner, Faulk's top 3 RBs with less receptions than Clinton Portis, are somehow better RBs because they're more involved in the passing game is absolutely nonsensical.

[SIXX99]

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.

The NFLN just continues to lose credibility. I'm kinda glad Comcast canned them.

[pvkeeper19]

Yeah, I see what you did in counting all RBs rather than just starters and 'franchise' backs, but I'm not sure it's accurate or fair to compare 3rd down backs or role playing backs to starters and franchise backs. If you look at that, Ladell Betts is almost as productive as Portis was in receiving.

But either way you look at it, saying that Adrian Peterson, DeAngelo Williams and Michael Turner, Faulk's top 3 RBs with less receptions than Clinton Portis, are somehow better RBs because they're more involved in the passing game is absolutely nonsensical.

:applause:

Case closed. Faulk lacks credibility, and that is reflected in his shortsighted thought process in coming up with his list. Should Portis be in the top 5? That could be argued, but his purported lack of production as a receiver is not sufficient reason to leave him out of consideration.

[jnhay]

Yeah, I see what you did in counting all RBs rather than just starters and 'franchise' backs, but I'm not sure it's accurate or fair to compare 3rd down backs or role playing backs to starters and franchise backs. If you look at that, Ladell Betts is almost as productive as Portis was in receiving.

But either way you look at it, saying that Adrian Peterson, DeAngelo Williams and Michael Turner, Faulk's top 3 RBs with less receptions than Clinton Portis, are somehow better RBs because they're more involved in the passing game is absolutely nonsensical.

I don't really like these lists to begin with, because I think that saying "He's one of the best" should be enough. To say this guy is 1 point better than that guy isn't really realistic given all the factors that are in play.

:applause:

Case closed. Faulk lacks credibility,

I doubt I could win an argument about who the best RBs in the league are with Marshall Faulk.

[pvkeeper19]

I doubt I could win an argument about who the best RBs in the league are with Marshall Faulk.

Judging by his analysis of the players on the list, we watch about as much game film as he does. That would mean he's no more qualified than you or I to comment on the "completeness" of one back or another.

[TheLongshot]

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:

How about last year? The first Dallas and Philly games were pretty dominant performances from him.

But, you want games where he "made things happen", you'd have to look at the run of games at the end of the 2005 season. All of those were sub-200 yard performances by Brunell. Sometimes, like the Cards game that year, Portis was really the ONLY offense that they could manage. I'd say he's made the running game go when otherwise it wouldn't have, particularly when the O-Line has been hurt.

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.

You know most players aren't going to say something like that. The player is usually the last person that is going to admit that, and probably not for a few weeks.

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.

Not at all BS if you watch Betts block. There have been quite a few times that I've seen Betts miss blocks. He's also not nearly as good at identifying and picking up the blitz.

[Adam291]

I don't really like these lists to begin with, because I think that saying "He's one of the best" should be enough. To say this guy is 1 point better than that guy isn't really realistic given all the factors that are in play.

I don't like them either, in fact, I'm absolutely tired of the countless lists and rankings of teams, offenses, defenses, players, coaches, rookies, blah blah. But when something like this comes up that obviously isn't based on reality, I think it's worth noting so maybe nobody will pay attention to them so much.

In this case, Faulk said that Portis does not make his top 5 RBs because he's not involved enough in the passing game. I do recall hearing that with Adrian Peterson, despite his playmaking ability, is often taken out of the game on 3rd down because he's not a very good pass blocker, while Chester Taylor is. So added to the fact that AP had less production in the passing game than Portis, AP is one dimensional in the eyes of Marshall Faulk. By Faulk's own logic, AP isn't worthy of his list, much less #1. I haven't heard anything specific about Williams, or Turner in their blocking, but also having less production as receivers should disqualify them for Faulk's list if CP doesn't produce enough to qualify.

Personally, I don't think you really can rank RBs. Looking at game stats doesn't mean much since football is a team game, and so much depends on how your team plays, as well as how the opponent plays.

I doubt I could win an argument about who the best RBs in the league are with Marshall Faulk.

I don't think Marshall Faulk could win an argument with himself about who the best RBs in the league are.

[Loyal2Washington]

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?

Now post there 2008 rushing stats. Do you maybe see why Turner was placed above CP??? So CP was unable to grab 50 rec. in any year playing under offensive minded coaches like Mike Shanahan, Joe Gibbs, Al Saunders, and now Jim Zorn? Please, after 7 seasons you can't point the finger at coaches or schemes. The guy simply isn't a receiving threat out of the backfield.

[pvkeeper19]

Now post there 2008 rushing stats. Do you maybe see why Turner was placed above CP??? So CP was unable to grab 50 rec. in any year playing under offensive minded coaches like Mike Shanahan, Joe Gibbs, Al Saunders, and now Jim Zorn? Please, after 7 seasons you can't point the finger at coaches or schemes. The guy simply isn't a receiving threat out of the backfield.

Being really good in one dimension of his game doesn't make Turner less one-dimensional. That's what we've been discussing here. Portis may not be as good a runner as some of the guys on the list--that's debatable--but being one-dimensional is not a valid reason for excluding Portis from the list while including Turner. That's what the poster you quoted was getting at, I think, as are the rest of us.

[jnhay]

Being really good in one dimension of his game doesn't make Turner less one-dimensional. That's what we've been discussing here. Portis may not be as good a runner as some of the guys on the list--that's debatable--but being one-dimensional is not a valid reason for excluding Portis from the list while including Turner. That's what the poster you quoted was getting at, I think, as are the rest of us.

I'd imagine, considering he has a limited time frame to discuss his opinions, that his lack of receiving yards isn't the only reason he wasn't on the list. I doubt Faulk took blocking ability into account though.

[Loyal2Washington]

Being really good in one dimension of his game doesn't make Turner less one-dimensional. That's what we've been discussing here. Portis may not be as good a runner as some of the guys on the list--that's debatable--but being one-dimensional is not a valid reason for excluding Portis from the list while including Turner. That's what the poster you quoted was getting at, I think, as are the rest of us.

If Faulks reason for leaving CP off the list was his lack of receiving skills then he is absolutly correct, again never over 50 rec. in any year. The other poster brought up Turner's receiving numbers as compared to CP's but failed to leave off his better across the board rushing numbers, which was Faulks factor for having Turner on his list. Turner's lack of receptions is a way for ES members to "prove" Faulks ineptness while bringing down another player and pumping up our own player. Oh and you don't pay someone the king's ransom CP has been given to be a one dimensional player that happens to be a good blocker.

[pvkeeper19]

If Faulks reason for leaving CP off the list was his lack of receiving skills then he is absolutly correct, again never over 50 rec. in any year. The other poster brought up Turner's receiving numbers as compared to CP's but failed to leave off his better across the board rushing numbers, which was Faulks factor for having Turner on his list. Turner's lack of receptions is a way for ES members to "prove" Faulks ineptness while bringing down another player and pumping up our own player. Oh and you don't pay someone the king's ransom CP has been given to be a one dimensional player that happens to be a good blocker.

I'm not sure why you think Portis is not an effective receiver. Is he like Roger Craig or Faulk in his ability to catch the ball out of the backfield? No, but neither is anyone else on that list, with the possible exception of Westbrook. Yet they still made the list. So lack of elite receiving skills is obviously not grounds for exclusion from the list.

What evidence do you have that Portis is a poor receiver? The fact that he didn't catch 50 balls isn't necessarily indicative that he is a poor receiver. 8 backs caught 50+ balls last season, only half of whom were every-down players like Portis is. The limiting factor for Portis's receiving game is not that he's unskilled, it's that he's used more frequently in blitz pickup than as a receiver. When he's thrown to, he has domnstrated himself to be a capable receiver in the past. He has caught 30+ balls in 5 of his 7 seasons. He missed that mark by 2 last year, and by 13 in 2006 when he played only 8 games.

[McD5]

1. Mad Mike makes the best points of the entire thread imho.

2. It isn't necessarily a knock on Portis that he lacks in the receiving department. The reason why it never makes sense to throw to Portis is that the defense always expects him to get the ball. When he catches it, he is hit immediately.

That, and the fact that he already takes too much of a pounding. It is stupid to give him anymore via the air.

He is constantly misused here. Like Barry Sanders and AD, he shouldn't be blocking more than a few times a game. When Portis stays in to block, as opposed to running or going out for a pass--we punt. With the exception of picking up a few blitzes, you should Never want to see Portis blocking.

And he should rarely get the ball thrown to him. Ditto for Sellers.

[Shilsu]

Clinton Portis' hands are horrible and have led to at least a couple of interceptions. One off the top of my head was the Seahawks game in 2005 when he tipped the ball up and had it intercepted, almost sealing the deal for the Redskins. Yes, the ball was thrown a little behind him by Mark Brunell, but as a receiver, if the ball hits you in the hands, you have to catch it, especially when you're not in danger of being laid out.

With that said, when Portis does catch the ball, he can turn it into a big play... Houston Texans in 2006... Chicago Bears in 2007... So on.

[Loyal2Washington]

I'm not sure why you think Portis is not an effective receiver. Is he like Roger Craig or Faulk in his ability to catch the ball out of the backfield? No, but neither is anyone else on that list, with the possible exception of Westbrook. Yet they still made the list. So lack of elite receiving skills is obviously not grounds for exclusion from the list.

Portis has and never will be a good receiving threat, yes the amount of balls you catch is a very good indicator of how one's coach views them within the passing game. If Shanahan, Gibbs, Saunders, or Zorn really felt that he was a valuable receiving target then he would have been featured as such. Is CP an avg. RB out of the backfield, sure but I don't think you are going to find anyone outside of CP's fanbase to agree with your judgement of his receiving ability.

Again Faulks reason for leaving CP off was his lack of receiving skills, that doesn't effect his reasons for his other selections, each selection has his own merits. Weatbrook for example was given the nod based upon his multi-dimensional abilites. Where as Turner was selected becasue of his great rushing numbers.

[Adam291]

If Faulks reason for leaving CP off the list was his lack of receiving skills then he is absolutly correct, again never over 50 rec. in any year. The other poster brought up Turner's receiving numbers as compared to CP's but failed to leave off his better across the board rushing numbers, which was Faulks factor for having Turner on his list. Turner's lack of receptions is a way for ES members to "prove" Faulks ineptness while bringing down another player and pumping up our own player. Oh and you don't pay someone the king's ransom CP has been given to be a one dimensional player that happens to be a good blocker.

But Faulk doesn't take just rushing into account, obviously. If he did, why wouldn't he just have the top 5 rushers on the list? Peterson, Turner, Williams, Portis and Jones. Instead, he was listing best RBs overall, and left Portis off because he didn't think Portis was good enough as a receiver, which makes no sense in context with Faulk's top 3. So he goes with the top rushing RBs for the first 3, jumps down to LDT (who deserves to be on any list), but then ends up at Westbrook and MJD. One of those guys has never had a 1000 yard season, and one has only had 2 in 7 seasons. That doesn't really scream 'top RBs' in my book.

If Faulk did want more balance in pass catching and running ability, go with Matt Forte or Steven Jackson, both of whom were prolific receivers and good runners. With this list, Faulk swung from great rushers with low-to-average impact in the passing game, LDT who has been great in both areas, and on to mediocre rushers with a big impact in the passing game. It's just an arbitrary list without much credibility.

[TheLongshot]

1. Mad Mike makes the best points of the entire thread imho.

Ha! You would think so.

2. It isn't necessarily a knock on Portis that he lacks in the receiving department. The reason why it never makes sense to throw to Portis is that the defense always expects him to get the ball. When he catches it, he is hit immediately.

And why is that? Because it has been a long time when you could expect the Skins to stretch the field. Make the deep threat a real threat and you will give Portis some room to wiggle.

He is constantly misused here. Like Barry Sanders and AD, he shouldn't be blocking more than a few times a game. When Portis stays in to block, as opposed to running or going out for a pass--we punt. With the exception of picking up a few blitzes, you should Never want to see Portis blocking.

And he should rarely get the ball thrown to him. Ditto for Sellers.

You are either contradicting yourself, or you are suggesting his best use is as a glorified decoy, which is beyond stupid.

I'm getting the impression that you don't want to see him block people because you think he's fragile, but I don't recall him getting hurt because he was blocking someone.

[McD5]

I'm getting the impression that you don't want to see him block people because you think he's fragile, but I don't recall him getting hurt because he was blocking someone.

I don't want to see him blocking people because that it a total waste of his talent. It is as stupid as asking AD to block for the Vikings.

Anyone can beat us. Stop Portis running, cover Cooley and Moss, and the game is over.

If Portis stays back to block, that is 1/3rd of our only offensive threats gone.

When Portis blocks, it makes it even easier for defenses to stop us.

Portis blocks......we punt. It's as simple as that.

Now....to keep Portis from blocking, that requires us actually having an offensive line that doesn't require Portis to always block.

To have that line, that requires us having a FO intelligent enough to realize that the line is more important than the RB.

Unfortunately, we haven't had that in forever. And because of that, Portis will continue to block, and we will continue to suck offensively.

[DGREENHULK]

With the exception of Mayock the nfl network is the minor league of sports broadcasting and Faulks comments prove that. Dieon and Jamie Dukes are 2 more yahoos