Hunter_R Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 But then I remember the Giants game from 07. Betts is NOT a short yardage back! Neither is Sellers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJL Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I would agree with you, but I remember the Bengals game last year. well that was on the second try of the exact same play. If they'd changed it up even slightly it might not have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbnva Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 What does Betts do well? Can anyone clue me in? catch passes in the flats, I believe he was scott's number one receiver a few seasons ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloffs Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I still don't understand why we dont have Mike Sellers line up at running back on short yardage situations....Ladell Betts is not the answer in these situations because in the past couple of years he has consistently been denied. Plus this change will give portis some resting time....We have a brandon jacobs on our team and we must use him:point2sky I feel like I hate Sellers because I almost always respond to these kinds of threads/posts. I'll put it simply, Sellers is nowhere near as effective a ball carrier in ANY aspect than Betts. While Sellers is a lot bigger and probably a lot stronger, he's incredibly slow. He's unable to move the pile and if the OLine makes a hole (which is rare in the redzone), Sellers certainly can't fit through them. Thus, the comparison to Jacobs is even worse. I agree that Betts is not the redzone or short yardage answer. Portis, as far as I'm concerned, is the only running back we have that can pound it through the middle and actually get positive yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Neither is Sellers. Agreed. He's lethal if he is used correctly and by that I mean catching the short to mid range stuff, gaining momentum, and running over DB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 If Portis isn't in I'd rather just throw the ball in. Why don't we run more play action on 1st or 2nd and goal? With guys like Kelly, Cooley, and possibly Davis and Mitchell we should have the size to be able to punch it in through the air, especially against rock solid Ds like the Steelers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinSkins Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I've thought about this idea when it's come up on ES board before. Unfortunately Mike Sellers missed the block that kept Betts out of the end zone on third down last night. It's unusual for him to do so, but it happened. If he's the ballcarrier maybe he gets in, but maybe he doesn't get close because we haven't got an equally good lead blocker replacement. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Portis is our short yardage back. End of story. Regardless if Zorn uses him for it or not. Portis is a great short yardage back, the same mold of Marcus Allen. Sellers is a good blocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emonroe726 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I've thought about this idea when it's come up on ES board before. Unfortunately Mike Sellers missed the block that kept Betts out of the end zone on third down last night. It's unusual for him to do so, but it happened. If he's the ballcarrier maybe he gets in, but maybe he doesn't get close because we haven't got an equally good lead blocker replacement. :confused: I don't think Sellers missed the block, Betts missed the hole. Sellers blocked his out out and Betts should have cut in behind him. He essentially made Sellers look bad on that play. If you watch it again, look at Sellers after the play, signaling Betts should have cut up. The play was there. With that said, I do not like Sellers as a ball carrier in short yardage. He's not a strong enough runner imo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPAllTheWay012 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 There are some backs that have a nose for the endzone. Tomlinson, Peterson, and Portis are among them. Give him the carries down there. The only time I ever remember him missing an opportunity on the goal line was the home game against Dallas in '06. We got a safety from the defense our next play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub52 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Dorsey is the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I will not trust Mike Sellers as a short yardage back until he stop leaving his ******* feet on 3rd/4th and short rather than just plow into the crowd. He is horrible at jumping, and loses all momentum and power when he does so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 The hole was there last night Betts just got hit and turned sideways like he always does. I swear, to be the bigger of the two Betts sure doesn't make me confident in short yardage like Portis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 betts up the middle in the redzone = the worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloffs Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 betts up the middle in the redzone = the worst And yet, we've seen it all too many times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rexrode21 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 We don't have a great short yardage back other than Portis. And unfortunately they have already declared Betts to be our 3rd down back and possibly that means short yardage as well. I can only hope they'd be smart enough to use Portis where he is a beast. I think we'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBush Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 If Portis isn't in I'd rather just throw the ball in. Why don't we run more play action on 1st or 2nd and goal? With guys like Kelly, Cooley, and possibly Davis and Mitchell we should have the size to be able to punch it in through the air, especially against rock solid Ds like the Steelers. Yep - The Fade is the new Run. I think Zorn tries at least one each time were in the redzone after seeing betts get stood up. I think the deep passes even though incomplete opened up some running lanes then when we got close they would have totally sold out on the run if we play faked. Wasted 4 points IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedinBurgNGold Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I swear Betts looked like he was heading towards the corner on that 3rd and Goal from the 1. He is absolutely not a short yard back. I don't even know what the hell kind of back he is.. =\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I believe Portis is probably the best down there. But we need better coaching there too. We seem to get tense. Everyone on earth knew we were running left. I mean, come on. That puts any RB at a huge disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 the play calling got disgustingly conservative on the goal line during the 1st drive last night. i doubt that will translate to the regular season, or at least hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloffs Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I believe Portis is probably the best down there.But we need better coaching there too. We seem to get tense. Everyone on earth knew we were running left. I mean, come on. That puts any RB at a huge disadvantage. This is true too. Which is why I marvel at Portis' ability to STILL be able to punch it in. Not always but if he has two chances, I'm betting he gets it in on one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashburn Dave Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'd rather see both Portis and Sellers in on short yardage. Let's Sellers open holes and then occasionally hand it off to Sellers for a quick hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 This is true too. Which is why I marvel at Portis' ability to STILL be able to punch it in. Not always but if he has two chances, I'm betting he gets it in on one of them. Agreed. But it is frustrating when you see other teams do play action down there, and throw to a wide open TE for a touchdown. Or even a QB bootleg. I mean what the hell is going on with that play-calling down there? It is awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 As much as I like Sellers, he's not explosive enough to be a short-yardage back for us. He's strong, but it takes him too long to build enough momentum to be effective in that role. He'd be much better catching the ball in the flat and running people over. We need a guy who can hit the hole hard by the time he gets to the LOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatles2885 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Don't make the mistake in assuming that Sellers must be a great short yardage back because he's huge. He's not a good runner. He's a threat when he has momentum, but he doesn't hit the line with intensity and he will not push the pocket. Short yardage must be Portis, no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.