NFLN: Faulk: Portis is 'one dimensional'

[Mooka]

I don't want to see him blocking people because that it a total waste of his talent.

Everyone has their blocking assignment. You want Portis to just let blitzers go right by him or something?

It is as stupid as asking AD to block for the Vikings.

AD is asked to block, he's a RB. He's just not a great blocker and not a great pass catcher so they put in Chester Taylor in those situations.

But if Peterson is on the field, he has his blocking assignments like everyone else.

[McD5]

Everyone has their blocking assignment. You want Portis to just let blitzers go right by him or something?

AD is asked to block, he's a RB. He's just not a great blocker and not a great pass catcher so they put in Chester Taylor in those situations.

But if Peterson is on the field, he has his blocking assignments like everyone else.

The job of your star RB is not to block. His job is to get the ball and score points.

We only have 3 offensive threats.

When Portis blocks, we only have two offensive threats. Anyone can shut us down when Portis blocks.

Anytime over the last three seasons that Portis lined up in the backfield to block, you knew the play was over before we snapped the ball.

[Justsomeguy]

Less blocking is needed with 3 step drops and other quick plays which we have alot of in a WCO. Faulk made a huge mistake not including portis on his little fraudulent list.

[TheLongshot]

The job of your star RB is not to block. His job is to get the ball and score points.

The biggest thing that holds back younger running backs is whether or not they can block. You have to at least be decent at it so that your QB doesn't get killed by blitzers.

We only have 3 offensive threats.

When Portis blocks, we only have two offensive threats. Anyone can shut us down when Portis blocks.

See, this is the major flaw in your argument. The solution is to get more offensive weapons and/or improve the O-Line so that you don't need him in blocking as much. (Because, why does he need to be in so often? The same argument applies to Cooley as well.)

Anytime over the last three seasons that Portis lined up in the backfield to block, you knew the play was over before we snapped the ball.

I probably could find plays where giving the QB the extra second made the difference in making the play rather than getting a sack. The only reason why the play would be over would be the lack of other weapons, which I already said above.

[HailfrmDEN]

I guess you can say that about portis. We have seven years of stats to look at. With AP you have 2 and turner and deangelo you have 1 as starters. I had deangelo as a backup for fantasy 2 years ago and he was hurt often.

[21forlyfe]

Faulk also didn't have Cooley as a top 5 TE either?wtf

According to NFL network Terrance(i've been torched into a)Newman is a top 3 db in the NFL.lol

[Going Commando]

yea, because blocking is hardly a dimension....

Yeah apparently Faulk never had to block in his career and so never realized that it was part of the passing game...

[pvkeeper19]

The job of your star RB is not to block. His job is to get the ball and score points.

If your star running back is never asked to block, then the defense knows that he's getting the ball every time he's on the field. That makes him easy to stop. By varying his assignments, you keep the defense on its toes. Knowing what's coming is a huge advantage. If they know a run play is coming because Portis is on the field, they can stop him 9 out of 10 times.

[McD5]

If your star running back is never asked to block, then the defense knows that he's getting the ball every time he's on the field. That makes him easy to stop. By varying his assignments, you keep the defense on its toes. Knowing what's coming is a huge advantage. If they know a run play is coming because Portis is on the field, they can stop him 9 out of 10 times.

Anytime the defense sees Portis equal to, or in front of JC, they know the play is going to Moss or Cooley.

And they stop it 10 out of 10 times.

We only have 3 offensive weapons. Taking one of them, and when Cooley has to help Heyer, 2 of them out of the play isn't an option. It is embarrassing.

Gibbs 2 had a pathetic offense. This is even worse.

Equally as embarrassing, is hearing our own fans talk about how great a blocker he is. Barry Sanders and AD fans don't even mention blocking. I wonder why? Maybe because they are great RBs who can run and catch?

We talk about blocking, like fans of Vince Young and Michael Vick used to say that they were great runners.

You don't want your star QB running, and you don't want your star RB blocking.

Get a real FO, one that understands the importance of linemen, and we may actually see Portis and Cooley play offense again.

And who knows? We may even score more than ten points.

[Going Commando]

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.

No offense but this is a bad argument and I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Most running backs, including the blue-chippers, stay home to pick up the blitz about half of all passing plays. Why should we treat Portis any differently? And if you say he shouldn't be picking up the blitz yet we shouldn't throw the ball to him, what the hell is he supposed to do on passing plays? Just stand around and look busy?

The difference between Portis and other blue-chip backs is that he is actually a skilled blocker and a willing hitter. He's not Adrian Peterson or Barry Sanders. Why on earth would we try and make him stop doing something that he excels at? That is the definition of misusing a player.

We aren't doing anything different from a conventional offense with Portis--I don't see what taking him off blitz pickup and having him run a route every single play would do, especially since you say we shouldn't throw it to him anyway. Play action? You can't run that all the time or it loses it's effect. That leaves nothing else for him to do but blitz-pickup. We can't only sub Portis in when we want to run the ball because we'd become transparent as hell. Defenses would put 9 or 10 guys in the box every single play Portis is in the backfield for.

And if Mike Sellers can catch the ball, why on god's green earth should we ignore him? He can catch and he's probably one of our best red zone options right now. If I'm going to play texas hold 'em, would I completely ignore any Jacks I'm dealt because I'd prefer to have other face cards? You have to play with all the cards in the deck.

[McD5]

When Portis blocks....we have two offensive options. No more.

How hard is it to double Cooley and Moss? Pretty easy. We lose.

It was amazing watching our coaching staff think we could possibly score points like that.

Hopefully D Thomas can become something of a threat this year. A better bet, would have been to acquire someone like Boldin or Whosyourmama. Then we would know we had at least three offensive threats, if a back was forced to stay in and block.

[TheLongshot]

When Portis blocks....we have two offensive options. No more.

How hard is it to double Cooley and Moss? Pretty easy. We lose.

It was amazing watching our coaching staff think we could possibly score points like that.

Pretty easy answer: they knew it was going to be tough. That's why they really wanted at least one of the three receivers we drafted last year to contribute. It didn't happen, but it is almost a sure thing that at least one of those guys will make some major contributions this season.

Course, considering that you don't seem to believe much in Portis as a receiver (by saying earlier that the team should "rarely" throw to him), how much of a difference does he make in your mind in the receiving game? It doesn't seem like much. Yet, you'd rather seem him out running patterns....

[pvkeeper19]

When Portis blocks....we have two offensive options. No more.

How hard is it to double Cooley and Moss? Pretty easy. We lose.

It was amazing watching our coaching staff think we could possibly score points like that.

Hopefully D Thomas can become something of a threat this year. A better bet, would have been to acquire someone like Boldin or Whosyourmama. Then we would know we had at least three offensive threats, if a back was forced to stay in and block.

Your argument is simplistic and inaccurate. By virtue of having 5 eligible receivers on the field, there are at least that many options at all times. Are all of them viable on every play? No, for a number of reasons, including the fact that not all the spots are occupied by star players, and that coaches have to vary their playcalling to avoid becoming predictable.

In a perfect world, Portis would not have to block, because the offensive line would pick up all rushers on every play. Unfortunately there are only 5 of them and 11 defenders. That means that sometimes, eligible receivers can't go out and run routes.

By subscribing to your offensive theory, Portis should never block. That means that any time he is on the field, the defense knows what he's not going to be doing. That means that he will either run a pass route or carry the ball.

Oh, no, wait, you said Portis shouldn't catch the ball either. He should just run it. That is the definition of predictability. HOW IS THAT AN IMPROVEMENT?

[Renegade7]

Portis will do anything you ask him to do, including catching passes. Based on what I've seen, which is practically every game since he's been here, is he's not asked to be a Reggie Bush or Brian Westbrook. He's not as fast as he used to be, but he can definitely catch the ball. I'm hoping that if the o-line can hold up, we'll see his potential maximized in the WCO. Until further notice, he's a running back, not a halfback.

[McD5]

Pretty easy answer: they knew it was going to be tough. That's why they really wanted at least one of the three receivers we drafted last year to contribute. It didn't happen, but it is almost a sure thing that at least one of those guys will make some major contributions this season.

.

Pretty easy answer is right: They have no concept about the need for an offensive line, over the need for one single star RB.

They have failed miserably over recent years on the line.

Once they were saved by Kendall becoming available at the last second.

On Jansen and Heyer, they continue to show their complete lack of understanding on how to build a real offense, and on priorities.

Then to compound matters, they draft a WR with a bum knee, and another with one year of experience against questionable competition.

So now, we are left to hope that Malcombs knee completely heals, or that D Thomas wakes up....or that we can find some formation to use Fred Davis in--another terrrible waste of a pick.

And if they don't? Then we will watch Portis blocking again, and pray that other teams forget to double Cooley and Moss.:doh:

[McD5]

In a perfect world, Portis would not have to block, because the offensive line would pick up all rushers on every play. Unfortunately there are only 5 of them and 11 defenders. That means that sometimes, eligible receivers can't go out and run routes.

Forget a "perfect" world. How about just an "average NFL team" world.

Heyer needs to be able to block on passing downs. If he can't, as we already know, then Cooley is taken out of the play because he has to help Heyer.

If both Heyer and Cooley together can't block defenders.....we are totally screwed.

So on top of Heyer and Cooley, now we take Portis completely out of being an offensive threat. That isn't a formula for success. As our point total indicates.

And as far as Portis catching??? He already gets the ball too much. So much, that he is banged up and completely useless the entire second half of the season in most years.

And if we make the playoffs? He has taken such a pounding that he is completely useless.

For every catch he makes, take a run away from him. He doesn't need additional workload. We can never go anywhere like that.

[Going Commando]

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.

I don't see where you declining comment came from. He put up almost 1,500 rushing yards last year.

[pvkeeper19]

Forget a "perfect" world. How about just an "average NFL team" world.

Heyer needs to be able to block on passing downs. If he can't, as we already know, then Cooley is taken out of the play because he has to help Heyer.

If both Heyer and Cooley together can't block defenders.....we are totally screwed.

So on top of Heyer and Cooley, now we take Portis completely out of being an offensive threat. That isn't a formula for success. As our point total indicates.

And as far as Portis catching??? He already gets the ball too much. So much, that he is banged up and completely useless the entire second half of the season in most years.

And if we make the playoffs? He has taken such a pounding that he is completely useless.

For every catch he makes, take a run away from him. He doesn't need additional workload. We can never go anywhere like that.

You're ignoring my points. Your offensive strategy is to take Portis out of the game on plays where he's not going to touch the ball. And if, as you say, the team only has 3 offensive options, why take one off the field? How is that better than using him as a pass blocker, which he's demonstrated that he's pretty good at? On such plays, even if he's not going to get the ball, he at least presents a pre-snap offensive threat for the defense to worry about. Then, when they realize he's not getting the ball, he's there to help on blitz pickup.

[McD5]

You're ignoring my points. Your offensive strategy is to take Portis out of the game on plays where he's not going to touch the ball.

My offensive strategy would consist of two parts. They are our only options for winning:

1. Trade Portis. No team wins with the entire offense centered around one single RB. Find a team to pay part of his cap hit. Unload him quickly, and either get a real lineman who can block, or someone like Boldin--a real receiver that we can actually count on. Not some high risk gamble like Malcomb or D Thomas.

2. If we are stuck with him, cut his workload by 40-50%. We know he gets so banged up by playoff time with the way that we currently overuse him, that there is no sense in even going down that route again. That is, unless your goal is a wild card and out.

[Going Commando]

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:

The Vikings are a bad example since they have perhaps the best run blocking line in the league--a surefire hall of famer in Hutchinson and had multi-pro-bowl guys like McKinnie and Birk who excel in run blocking.

Samuels is excellent, and Randy Thomas was pretty good a couple of years ago, but I don't think you can make an argument that Portis has had anything close to the level of talent and consistency blocking for him that Peterson has. And our passing game is about the same as theirs. No one is denying how good Peterson is, but he is getting far more help than Portis is.

And there are plenty of games that feature huge Portis plays last year, let alone in his entire Redskins tenure. How about the eagles away game for starters. Cowboys at Dallas is another good example. For god sakes, half of all sports publications were calling Portis the closer last year because of how nasty he is in the fourth quarter despite being run into the ground all game long.

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.

It's obvious that you don't like Portis. That's fine, but you simply can't argue against his level of production for our team and still sound rational.

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.

You don't know this any more than the people you are arguing against. But judging from his performance last year, Betts isn't great at picking up the blitz. He just looks hesitant or a little lost. Portis is the opposite. We don't have a tougher player on the team than him.

[pvkeeper19]

My offensive strategy would consist of two parts. They are our only options for winning:

1. Trade Portis. No team wins with the entire offense centered around one single RB. Find a team to pay part of his cap hit. Unload him quickly, and either get a real lineman who can block, or someone like Boldin--a real receiver that we can actually count on. Not some high risk gamble like Malcomb or D Thomas.

2. If we are stuck with him, cut his workload by 40-50%. We know he gets so banged up by playoff time with the way that we currently overuse him, that there is no sense in even going down that route again. That is, unless your goal is a wild card and out.

It's pretty clear that we're "stuck" with him at this point, and cutting his workload by half could just as easily keep us out of the playoffs. If, as you say, he constitutes one third of our offensive options, why replace him with players who aren't as good? That's no better than keeping him in the game as a pass blocker: either way, by your logic, that leaves us with only 2 viable offensive options, both of whom will be double covered.

Trading him is no different. Who do you replace him with?

[Oldfan]

My offensive strategy would consist of two parts. They are our only options for winning:

1. Trade Portis. No team wins with the entire offense centered around one single RB. Find a team to pay part of his cap hit. Unload him quickly, and either get a real lineman who can block, or someone like Boldin--a real receiver that we can actually count on. Not some high risk gamble like Malcomb or D Thomas.

2. If we are stuck with him, cut his workload by 40-50%. We know he gets so banged up by playoff time with the way that we currently overuse him, that there is no sense in even going down that route again. That is, unless your goal is a wild card and out.

Your first option probably isn't going to happen. Most teams will look to the draft if they want a RB. Option Two is quite likely, IMO.

My case against using the RB in pass protection goes like this:

1) It puts your player on the short end of the Physics problem. You have a guy weighing 280 coming with momentum against a 210 pound back;

2) Clinton's blocking technique is effective, but very high risk. It's a minor miracle that he hasn't had his neck jammed into his litisimus;

3) Since the RB can swing out of the backfield, left or right, with equal ease, two LBs are occupied on their intial coverage assignments;

4) Many defenses have a LB reading the RB. If he stays in, they blitz. So, the net effect of keeping the RB in to help protect is to draw one more defender rushing at the QB with momentum;

5) Peyton has said that he prefers the RB to be used as an outlet; he doesn't want to have him blocking.

[McD5]

Your first option probably isn't going to happen. Most teams will look to the draft if they want a RB. Option Two is quite likely, IMO.

My case against using the RB in pass protection goes like this:

1) It puts your player on the short end of the Physics problem. You have a guy weighing 280 coming with momentum against a 210 pound back;

2) Clinton's blocking technique is effective, but very high risk. It's a minor miracle that he hasn't had his neck jammed into his litisimus;

3) Since the RB can swing out of the backfield, left or right, with equal ease, two LBs are occupied on their intial coverage assignments;

4) Many defenses have a LB reading the RB. If he stays in, they blitz. So, the net effect of keeping the RB in to help protect is to draw one more defender rushing at the QB with momentum;

5) Peyton has said that he prefers the RB to be used as an outlet; he doesn't want to have him blocking.

Ty Oldfan. I was sure at least someone else could see it. Good to see you posting again.

And nice to see Peyton Manning saying the same thing too.

[pvkeeper19]

And nice to see Peyton Manning saying the same thing too.

Oh, did we sign Peyton Manning? Wait, no... and he doesn't run the same offense. So that comparison is absurd and irrelevant.

The simple fact is that coaches want their best players on the field as much as possible, because that's how they win games. That's why Brian Orakpo is getting looks at linebacker: to get a great athlete on the field. And that's also why Portis stays (as he should) on the field. He's better than any other back on the roster at everything the backs are asked to do.

Frankly, I trust NFL coaches' opinion on offensive football theory more than I trust yours. Based on their playcalling, most of them would agree that your philosophy on the use of running backs is poorly conceived.

[Hunter_R]

Oh, did we sign Peyton Manning? Wait, no... and he doesn't run the same offense. So that comparison is absurd and irrelevant.

Yeah, he runs a good offense that scores more points than the 0-16 Lions.