Burgold Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Based on your argument, Riggins is better than Barry Sanders right? ... You put both Portis and Riggins on the same team in their prime and Portis will put up the bigger numbers. Riggins was a great player and so is Portis but I just think Portis has the edge talent wise. Both played the game with a lot of heart. Both are great Redskins and we should be proud to have them both. Except that the Riggins we all know and remember is one that was way past his prime and already in his mid 30's. That's the Riggins that we are comparing Portis to right now. We are comparing Portis at 26-28 to Riggins at 33-35. Otherwise, I agree with your post. Edit: Oh, and Riggins was a better back than Sanders. Look at how many carries for losses Sanders had every game. Riggins was always a positive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Oh, and Riggins was a better back than Sanders. Look at how many carries for losses Sanders had every game. Riggins was always a positive Barry Sanders wasn't the same type of back, though. He's more like an Adrian Peterson type than a Riggins. Anyhow, I think it's hard to compare the two, really. What I think is an unfair slight against Portis, though, is how he hasn't carried the team in the playoffs when there hasn't been a lot of opportunities for him to do so. Riggins is getting a lot of love for the time period in which he played. Super Bowl wins cover up a lot of dirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Seriously though, TJ. How many fourth quarter leads have the Redskins blown while Portis has been here. When it's time for the running back to take over the game, Portis can't. I agree, but.... the skins had a much better o line back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanhillbilly Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Riggins never had more than 300 carries in a season until he was 33, though...plus he sat out a year lol. In Riggins' first 7 seasons, he had 1,158 rushing attempts. Portis, in his first 7 seasons, has had 2,056 rushing attempts...almost double the rushing attempts. I think that pretty much tilts the field in Riggins' favor as far as still being able to be effective when he was 33 years old. In terms of pure number of carries, Portis last year was right at the point Riggins was at during the 1982 Super Bowl season. I think both showed some pretty damn good moves for the amount of carries and wear and tear they had been subjected to by that point. Father time catches up faster and harder than carries do... At 28 your bullet proof. At 35 you wonder what is going to hurt when you get out of bed in the morning. And that is just my non football playing self. In Riggins first few seasons he played with a guy name Joe Namath. They didn't run the ball much up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Except that the Riggins we all know and remember is one that was way past his prime and already in his mid 30's. That's the Riggins that we are comparing Portis to right now. We are comparing Portis at 26-28 to Riggins at 33-35.Otherwise, I agree with your post. Edit: Oh, and Riggins was a better back than Sanders. Look at how many carries for losses Sanders had every game. Riggins was always a positive We are comparing both backs in their prime. Riggins didnt hit his prime until then. We will also see where Portis ends up stats wise when his career is done. It may not even be close if he plays another couple of years. If this team ever is good enough to win a Superbowl, I dont think the comparison will even be close any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Barry Sanders wasn't the same type of back, though. He's more like an Adrian Peterson type than a Riggins.Anyhow, I think it's hard to compare the two, really. What I think is an unfair slight against Portis, though, is how he hasn't carried the team in the playoffs when there hasn't been a lot of opportunities for him to do so. Riggins is getting a lot of love for the time period in which he played. Super Bowl wins cover up a lot of dirt. I think the argument is though that if Portis were better than Riggins and truly a GREAT running back, he would have created those opportunities, like Barry Sanders did, like Eric Dickerson did. Neither got the ring, but they were so good that their team was able to ride them to the playoffs year after year despite wimpy olines, mediocre or worse qbs and blah defenses. Portis hasn't been able to do that and for me that is necessary because the wins matter more than the stats. But mainly, I'm just enjoying the argument for the sake of the argument. It is impossible to know who's truly better or who would have done what if we placed Portis back in the 80's. Personally, I don't think he survives. It was a more brutal league back then. We've created so many rules to protect players and make life easier for offenses and still Portis misses a couple of games every season, but he also might have been a superstar because he is a tough, heart player, with a lot of speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceviker Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Seriously though, TJ. How many fourth quarter leads have the Redskins blown while Portis has been here. When it's time for the running back to take over the game, Portis can't. Because he hasn't had half the offensive line and qb that riggins had. I'm not saying Portis is better than Riggins at this point - he's not. If Portis gets a ring with the Skins, I think then he takes that throne away. Portis is the only reason we haven't been a complete bust over the past several years. On the other hand playing devil's advocate, had we not had Portis and just stank up the joint, we probably would have had better draft picks so maybe we would've ended up with a Phillip Rivers or a Larry Fitz or something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W1N_SKINS Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Riggins played with one of the best offensive lines in history if portis had that he might have been considered one of the best in history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 We are comparing both backs in their prime. . Speaking like someone who hasn't reached their thirties yet Time does impact you. Recovery from injury is slower too. 35 is just different than 25. We can be as strong, but... Nah, you're right. You whipper snappers are inferior in every way!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLWORLD Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Father time catches up faster and harder than carries do... At 28 your bullet proof. At 35 you wonder what is going to hurt when you get out of bed in the morning. And that is just my non football playing self. In Riggins first few seasons he played with a guy name Joe Namath. They didn't run the ball much up there. I hope you really don't think that... Riggins' carries the ball like Portis has and he is no doubt a different player at 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I don't think Riggins cares. He was making a correct point last season about Portis being a "headache" for mocking hte head coach during the season, causing lost focus and hurting the team. Now the media is building this snowball of words... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I think the argument is though that if Portis were better than Riggins and truly a GREAT running back, he would have created those opportunities, like Barry Sanders did, like Eric Dickerson did. Neither got the ring, but they were so good that their team was able to ride them to the playoffs year after year despite wimpy olines, mediocre or worse qbs and blah defenses. Portis hasn't been able to do that and for me that is necessary because the wins matter more than the stats. Fair enough. Though I'm not certain of any truly great running backs now that could carry their team individually to the playoffs. Maybe Tomlinson a couple of years ago, maybe Peterson, but I think that's even a stretch. But mainly, I'm just enjoying the argument for the sake of the argument. It's tons of fun. Discussions like these are why I joined this site. It is impossible to know who's truly better or who would have done what if we placed Portis back in the 80's. Personally, I don't think he survives. It was a more brutal league back then. We've created so many rules to protect players and make life easier for offenses and still Portis misses a couple of games every season, but he also might have been a superstar because he is a tough, heart player, with a lot of speed. I joked around in the other thread that Riggins was so drunk that he couldn't feel the pain anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Just to throw in another variable...Riggins was 33-35 during the run with Gibbs. Lets see if CP is still playing at that age and putting up numbers or will he be put out to pasture like Emmet was. Portis just turned 28 and many people, even on this board, have said that he has lost more than a step and doesn't have anything resembling a burst or top end speed anymore. People are talking about their view of history being skewed and Riggins not being that good, looking at some of the vids, he was making contact in the backfield and moving forward. Maybe the hogs were not as great as everyone remembers. This isn't Timmy Smith in the superbowl where even Bostic said anyone could have racked up those numbers and run through those holes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGI0U1DDT4E& Now looking at CP's highlights, he is untouched on his big runs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GNPmwhQZy8 Personality wise, when Riggins got fed up and didn't want to play he retired. He drank beer and played cards with his O-line and took care of them. He did pass out and tell sandy to lighten up. He snuck out of camp to have beers in town while at training camp. Riggins respected Gibb and the rest of the staff. Portis threatened to have a mutiny against Zorn when they had a curfew during the "meaningless game" at san fran last year (It was not meaningless, they would have finished 9-7 and had a winning season) he throws his o-line under the bus over and over (I guess he had to work for those yards instead of just running through open holes), has an off the field feud with B. Mitchell, goes on to say M. Vick and do what ever he wants with his dogs. He has battled his coaches (gibbs included) on the sidelines, talked them down on the air. Riggins played in the era of the 14 game season for part of his career as well. good points! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Im pro Portis on this one. The supporting cast behind Riggins was phenominal, anyone could have run for those yards with that O-line and receivers taking pressure off the middle. Donny Warren even made a bunch of nice blocks during that time frame if my memory serves me right. Portis has had to earn these yards behind a mediocre againg line, no receivers and a band aide at QB since he has been here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Father time catches up faster and harder than carries do... At 28 your bullet proof. At 35 you wonder what is going to hurt when you get out of bed in the morning. And that is just my non football playing self. In Riggins first few seasons he played with a guy name Joe Namath. They didn't run the ball much up there. I don't agree at all. It's not the years, it's the mileage. A healthy, althletic 33 year old isn't going to be much different than a healthy, altheltic 28 year old if neither have had any wear and tear. The 33 year old is not gonna wake up to aches and pains that the 28 year old will not. However, if both experienced the same workload, then 5 extra years of carries will have its effect. Riggins, however, did NOT have the same workload as Portis...it was much less. MUCH MUCH less. To ignore the role that played in allowing Riggins to still be effective when he was 33 would be foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I hope you really don't think that... Riggins' carries the ball like Portis has and he is no doubt a different player at 30. Definitely, yep :yes:...he may not have even played in any of the Super Bowls because he may have been replaced by then or been let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLWORLD Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Definitely, yep :yes:...he may not have even played in any of the Super Bowls because he may have been replaced by then or been let go. not bad thinking for a west coaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanhillbilly Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I don't agree at all. It's not the years, it's the mileage. A healthy, althletic 33 year old isn't going to be much different than a healthy, altheltic 28 year old if neither have had any wear and tear. The 33 year old is not gonna wake up to aches and pains that the 28 year old will not. . Trust me on this one. Yeah it does... I don't recover as fast, I'm not as fast, my knees sound like pop rocks going up and down stairs, I can't put on muscle as fast. When I was in my late 20's, I was bullet proof, recovery time was zip. There is a reason why people retire and "loose a step" after 30... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Speaking like someone who hasn't reached their thirties yet Time does impact you. Recovery from injury is slower too. 35 is just different than 25. We can be as strong, but... Nah, you're right. You whipper snappers are inferior in every way!!! I agree with you but John Riggins in what you define as his prime didnt do a whole lot. He didnt get going until he got older. So if we want to compare Riggins to Portis at Portis's age, Riggins wouldnt even be in the discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Riggins played with one of the best offensive lines in history if portis had that he might have been considered one of the best in history Riggins was a power back who made a very good O-line look even better. Power backs make tougher yardage more consistently than lighter backs. Riggins was the better back, no question in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLWORLD Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Riggins was a power back who made a very good O-line look even better. Power backs make tougher yardage more consistently than lighter backs. Riggins was the better back, no question in my mind. There ya go, Riggins was a power back. Portis is not. apples... oranges... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLWORLD Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Trust me on this one. Yeah it does... I don't recover as fast, I'm not as fast, my knees sound like pop rocks going up and down stairs, I can't put on muscle as fast. When I was in my late 20's, I was bullet proof, recovery time was zip. There is a reason why people retire and "loose a step" after 30... Insanity... So why is the lifespan of baseball players longer than football players? (hint people, PHYSICAL CONTACT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 When the skins got the 3yd line they didn't put a different RB in... nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I agree with you but John Riggins in what you define as his prime didnt do a whole lot. He didnt get going until he got older. So if we want to compare Riggins to Portis at Portis's age, Riggins wouldnt even be in the discussion! George Allen used Riggins as a blocking back -- watch the video of Riggins on NFL Films/network (whatever it is) -- and he lost considerable time to injury with the Skins. Watch this at the 55 sec. mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQKQStyhVME This is 3 years before the Hogs. (Warning, it's "highlights" of the infamous 1979 game.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanhillbilly Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Insanity...So why is the lifespan of baseball players longer than football players? (hint people, PHYSICAL CONTACT) Baseball is like a big video game except the have to run 90 feet .300 of the time they get to bat (if they are lucky). And for 150 days a year they have to sleep with their wives instead of getting strange. they have been roided up, andro'd up, and HGH'd up for years (lack of test plan) and recover from the 90 foot run faster. Come on, have you ever played baseball and said afterwords "wow I sure am tired from standing around in the outfield today while waiting for someone other than the pitcher and catcher to touch the ball". So basially they last until their hand eye reflex goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.