Lavar's argument on CP versus Monk, Riggo, and Green

[chipwhich]

Its hard to judge players from different eras, but Portis does deserve the same level of recognition because he was a core redskins at a time when they weren't going to Superbowls. He helped carry them into the playoffs, and lived through the tragedy of losing a best friend and still staying with the team. Maybe he didn't have fifteen years, but in an era where careers for RBs seem short, he deserves major props. It is a sad day in Washington and he will be missed.

This is a fair post. If you want to talk being fair.

If you want to claim Portis is the best running back the Redskins have ever had, well then that's where the problem lies.

I have posted this before, in 10 years Portis will be remembered much like Stephen Davis, or for the younger crowd, like Larry Brown. Which is mostly forgotten. Portis will also, if given the chance, be much like Lavar and will disparage this franchise. Just wait and see.

[Enter Apotheosis]

It's funny all of this talk with CP versus Riggo....but no mention of Larry Brown.

CP is the 3rd best back to play for the Redskins behind those two. Larry Brown's career is probably more in line with Portis results, except Larry played in seasons consisting of 14 games instead of 16. Both backs were run to the ground and littered with injuries.

Unlike Portis, Brown and Riggo were both league MVP's.

Unlike Portis, Brown and Riggo were both ridden to get to the Super Bowl.

Larry Brown didn't get a ring, but went to 4 consecutive pro bowls, and had more accolades than Portis ever received.

Even if you dismiss Riggo, Brown was a better back than Portis.

Who the better back was is completely open to interpretation. There are a lot of different factors to take into account, many of which are subject to partiality. For what it's worth, I'd say that Larry Brown in his prime was the best Redskins back relative to his own era. None of the guys we've had were truly great on a league-wide scale for a variety of reasons, though.

Brown falls short because of his extremely short effective career. Riggins had durability and longevity but was not a particularly spectacular runner in his own era, particularly given that he was running behind perhaps the greatest offensive line to ever grace the NFL. He was good enough in the playoffs to earn a spot in the Hall of Fame but he's one of the flimsier inductees when you consider the whole of his career (not too different from Lynn Swann, really). Portis was a spectacular talent who may have been considered an all-time great had he stayed out in Denver but was limited by injuries, poor surrounding talent, and a scheme that never quite fit his natural ability.

All of these guys are a notch below the likes of Baugh, Jurgenson, Mitchell, Taylor, Monk, Clark, Green, Houston, Jacoby, and Grimm.

Portis will also, if given the chance, be much like Lavar and will disparage this franchise. Just wait and see.

That wouldn't be too unlike Riggins or Brian Mitchell.

[skinsinpdx]

its not Portis' fault he played behind such crappy offensive lines. If Portis ran behind the '91 offensive line, you all would be singing a different tune.

[joeknows]

to me the difference is simple....

neither riggo or portis are what you would call a speed back. however.... if i had 3 or 4 yards to go on 3rd or 4th down... i wouldnt think twice about giving the ball to riggo.... something i probably wouldnt do for portis. riggo was a "go to" guy much more than portis was. despite the way people feel about us riding him to the playoffs a few times

[chipwhich]

Who the better back was is completely open to interpretation. There are a lot of different factors to take into account, many of which are subject to partiality. For what it's worth, I'd say that Larry Brown in his prime was the best Redskins back relative to his own era. None of the guys we've had were truly great on a league-wide scale for a variety of reasons, though.

Brown falls short because of his extremely short effective career. Riggins had durability and longevity but was not a particularly spectacular runner in his own era, particularly given that he was running behind perhaps the greatest offensive line to ever grace the NFL. He was good enough in the playoffs to earn a spot in the Hall of Fame but he's one of the flimsier inductees when you consider the whole of his career (not too different from Lynn Swann, really). Portis was a spectacular talent who may have been considered an all-time great had he stayed out in Denver but was limited by injuries, poor surrounding talent, and a scheme that never quite fit his natural ability.

All of these guys are a notch below the likes of Baugh, Jurgenson, Mitchell, Taylor, Monk, Clark, Green, Houston, Jacoby, and Grimm.

That wouldn't be too unlike Riggins or Brian Mitchell.

On a league wide scale, Riggins and Brown were NFL MVP's

And when you win Super Bowls ala Riggins and Brian Mitchell, you have a pass to at least talk a little smack

Portis and Larry Brown have the same number of years in the NFL to date BTW.

So you can call Riggins flimsy, or whatever, but he was MVP in the league. I don't consider that flimsy. Plus he had one of the greatest runs in Super Bowl history. But you keep working that.

[skinsfan66]

Riggins 1st ballot hof. Retired 3rd alltime leading rusher in nfl history over 10,000 yards at that time. Set superbowl record 167 yards rushing while running right at them the whole game until he wore the dolphins defense out in the 4th quarter and broke the game winner. Riggins always came through in the big games and he had a lot of them. Larry Brown Left everything he had on the field and helped us get to the our 1st superbowl. Ernest Byner did not have Portis speed but he was a great back for us and help lead us to a superbowl victory.

This is my list.

!. Riggins

2.Larry Brrown

3. Earnest Byner

4. Portis

[Enter Apotheosis]

On a league wide scale, Riggins and Brown were NFL MVP's

I'm not so sure what your point is here but Riggins never actually won league MVP.

And when you win Super Bowls ala Riggins and Brian Mitchell, you have a pass to at least talk a little smack

Mitchell was mostly just along for the ride when he got his ring, so I'm not so sure that excuse holds up so well for him.

Portis and Larry Brown have the same number of years in the NFL to date BTW.

I repeatedly and deliberately used the term effective years. Portis had about 70 good games in him as a Skin and an additional 25 or so as a Bronco. Larry Brown had about 52.

So you can call Riggins flimsy, or whatever, but he was MVP in the league. I don't consider that flimsy. Plus he had one of the greatest runs in Super Bowl history. But you keep working that.

I called Riggins a flimsy inductee. Not all Super Bowl MVPs are automatic Hall of Famers, just look at Desmond Howard and Deion Branch.

[frankez99]

Riggins 1st ballot hof. Retired 3rd alltime leading rusher in nfl history over 10,000 yards at that time. Set superbowl record 167 yards rushing while running right at them the whole game until he wore the dolphins defense out in the 4th quarter and broke the game winner. Riggins always came through in the big games and he had a lot of them. Larry Brown Left everything he had on the field and helped us get to the our 1st superbowl. Ernest Byner did not have Portis speed but he was a great back for us and help lead us to a superbowl victory.

This is my list.

!. Riggins

2.Larry Brrown

3. Earnest Byner

4. Portis

This. And I'm tempted to put an = with CP and Stephen Davis and Touchdown Terry Allen...he's simply "one of those".

CP was a gamer; great games, horrible games....good effort...gave up towards the end... but part of the losing culture. Putting him in Riggins, Brown, and Byner territory is unwarranted; regardless of "stats". Sheesh.

[Guest Spearfeather]

to me the difference is simple....

neither riggo or portis are what you would call a speed back. however.... if i had 3 or 4 yards to go on 3rd or 4th down... i wouldnt think twice about giving the ball to riggo.... something i probably wouldnt do for portis. riggo was a "go to" guy much more than portis was. despite the way people feel about us riding him to the playoffs a few times

Agree 100%. Riggins was just harder to bring down, and had better balance and power.

[chipwhich]

I'm not so sure what your point is here but Riggins never actually won league MVP.

Mitchell was mostly just along for the ride when he got his ring, so I'm not so sure that excuse holds up so well for him.

I repeatedly and deliberately used the term effective years. Portis had about 70 good games in him as a Skin and an additional 25 or so as a Bronco. Larry Brown had about 52.

I called Riggins a flimsy inductee. Not all Super Bowl MVPs are automatic Hall of Famers, just look at Desmond Howard and Deion Branch.

My bad, Super Bowl MVP.

You are 23 I can understand why you pick Portis over Riggins.

I watched both runners. Riggins was good for a first down when necessary. Portis not so much.

Look Portis was a great back, but he was top 3 at best.

People argue Monk's stats over todays receivers. Monk is considered a flimsy HOF'er by most statistics. Proof is in the era. Portis will go down as one of the better backs in an era, but will never make the HOF.

Riggins was considered one of the best of his time.

[wildbill1952]

Unfortunately, history always takes the side of the winner. Portis had the disadvantage of playing for a front office that never seemed to understand the importance of a good offensive line and the depth that helps it to last a season. How many more yards could Portis have had if he wasn't trying to run through defensive tackles and defensive ends and instead was into the defensive backs? How many times would his body have taken less of a beating if the offensive line kept the big guys on the defenisve line off him or made it downfield to block?

It's something to argue about. Too bad we'll never know.

[88Comrade2000]

Hey, in 10 years if we are lucky Portis will be a distant memory.

The next great Skins back will be part of a Superbowl winning team and be the team leader in rushing.

Portis had his day and it isn't his fault he wasn't on a superbowl team.

Riggo still holds the record for rushing and we owe our first superbowl to him.

If Clinton hadn't been injured, then maybe you can argue differently. Plenty of players taken down by injuries.

Hopefully, the younger fans will be able to have a new hereos that match what the older fans hereos did.

[Riggo-toni]

I'll probably go ahead and agree with you that Portis is a tier below Monk, Clark, and Green but I'd contend that Riggins is also on that lower tier. Lots of parallels can be drawn between Riggo and CP if you think about it a little bit, the main difference between the two is that one benefited more from the talent around him.

Since you are too young to have seen him play, you might think that, but Riggins carried the team in 82 and 83 more than even those guys ever did. Riggins WAS the Redskins in the 82 postseason. He was a much faster version of Jerome Bettis and destroyed other teams defenses.

I called Riggins a flimsy inductee. Not all Super Bowl MVPs are automatic Hall of Famers, just look at Desmond Howard and Deion Branch.

You realize Riggins set the postseason rushing record that year, that it wasn't just his record breaking SB performance - he tore it up both NFC postseason games as well. The huge difference between Riggins and Portis is that Riggins consistently moved the chains. Portis is a home run hitter. Portis makes highlights, Riggins won games

[Burgold]

its not Portis' fault he played behind such crappy offensive lines. If Portis ran behind the '91 offensive line, you all would be singing a different tune.

Riggins never ran behind the '91 line either

I think one of the things we also forget is that the Riggins who came to glory was a Riggo several years older than Portis is today. He played a bunch of years with crap teams on the Jets before getting traded to the 'skins. We compare Portis at 25-29 with Riggins at 35. John only played a few years with the Hogs.

---------- Post added March-6th-2011 at 01:19 AM ----------

Portis is a home run hitter. Portis makes highlights, Riggins won games

Except Portis really didn't score that many runs. How many times did Portis take it to the house with runs over 15 yards? Maybe it was the line though the Samuels, Janson, Dockery lines weren't crud, but Portis never lived up to his homerun status. We rarely saw him outrun anyone. Strangely, with as many yards as Portis got there is always a "but" while talking about him...

but Portis played behind bad lines

but Portis didn't have a great receiver or qb to relieve pressure so the defense was stacked against him

but Portis suffered injury and that slowed him down

there's a lot of "buts" in the Portis argument.

Honestly though, I didn't want to make this a thread that puts Portis down. He was a very good back. He just is not at the level of some of our greatest. For that matter neither was Lavar (and that's a shame too)

[36HAMMER]

For me it's two fold. we gave up too much to get him (I know, not his fault). and he ran his mouth far too much (this one was his fault). he was a great all around back that played on crappy teams , but his mouth to me isw what keeps him notches below the others not just victories.right or wrong about what he said has nothing to do with it. Theres just certain things you just don't do. i know that some will bring up Riggins but he didn't do anything like that when he was playin, he waited until after he hung up the cleats.you got a problem with a coach or player then go to them not the media.Arrington lost me as a fan for the same reason.not just that but alot that.

[skinsnshanny]

Man, why does it always have to be like this?

"Oh yes not as good as XYZ"

"Hes not Riggens, so we cant like him" etc etc

You dont have to compare the guys to give Portis his dap.

You dont have to bring Riggins down to elevate Portis or vice versa.

The argument in this thread is something along these lines "Riggins was our best back ever, LB was number 2, so Portis is 3.....meh who needs number 3"

I mean how long has this team been around? How many players have played RB? Why is 3 not good enough to get love and fond memories?

Portis was the best skill position player on the skins in the last 10 years. He was the top blocking back in the league each season he played here. He was the Redskins offense and despite the offense not being much, it was all him.

The man deserves our thanks and a place in our memories and in the skins ring of fame. Think what you want about him off the field, but on the field you wont get much better.

Lavar has had many problems with CP26 in the past, the fact that he is showin him love, tells you something.

[MartinC]

ESPN was quick to call him Clinton "Tortoise" and report when he was released.

They also never mentioned us signing Atogwe and pairing him up with Landry and Hall to make a vicious secondary. It's sad that there is so much bias in the media against the Redskins.

As for Portis, regardless of what ANYONE thinks, Portis is a legend here and he is our #2nd leading rusher in franchise history. This era, Danny's 10 yr. era, is MY era of Redskins football and idc what anyone says...I have great memories of Portis, Cooley, and Moss. Portis deserves much more recognition as the face of this franchise for the past decade.

It's not media bias so much as the end result of being a losing franchise apart from the odd blip for about 20 years. Back in the 80's there was not much national media talk about the Colts from example, unless it was about their QB going to jail or draft busts.

As to CP Lavar is right to an extent (there's something I rarely write) but that's simply because Monk, Riggo and Green played on great teams and won championships something Portis has not. That's not his fault but that's life. I think in time his career here will come into perspective and he will be recognized as a great Redskin who had the misfortune to play on some mediocre at best teams.

[HailToTheRedskins14]

Running backs are pretty much interchangeable nowadays, and Portis is no exception. Had a couple pretty good years.

Today's era in the NFL is just not made for RB's, let alone franchise RB's.

Yawn.

[G1]

CP has been a workhorse and is a great player but Green, Monk and Riggins were hall of famers.

Green and Monk were two of the greatest ever at their positions.

There's no comparison at all.

Monk was the classiest player on and off the pitch and Portis is not the only player in today's NFL who isn't fit to lace up Monk's cleats, let alone be mentioned in the same breath as him.

[Burgold]

Man, why does it always have to be like this?

"Oh yes not as good as XYZ"

"Hes not Riggens, so we cant like him" etc etc.

No, that's not the arguement at all. The argument is about what Lavar said and why Portis hasn't received the type of adulation or extended celebration that others have gotten. Mind you, on ES, he did get extended tribute and consideration. He's worthy of that. He was a very good back, but apparently on talk radio and on the street or at least to the level that Arrington pays attention to, Portis got a day's worth of notice and love and then was forgotten. He then bemoaned the fans and decried how we wouldn't have treated Monk, Riggo, Green like that and how Portis deserves farewell dinners and parades equal to those based on his accomplishments and stats.

I don't disagree he's been an important and good back for this team. I also think that you don't get to be a legend unless you do legendary things and that's why Portis remains below that tier. As I said, he's not an Olympian. He's a demi-god. That's not a small thing. It's not bad to be Perseus. Some would even argue that being Perseus is cooler than being Hephestus.

If we do a list of the greatest Redskins then Portis belongs. If we do a list of the Redskin greats. For me, he falls shy of the cut.

.

[Outlaw Torn]

Because I pay attention to what is said in other threads.

Thats what I figured I just hadn't seen it myself thanks for the info.

[Enter Apotheosis]

You are 23 I can understand why you pick Portis over Riggins.

I never said that. It never ceases to amaze me the frequency with which people assume that just because I express disagreement with them that I must hold a polar opposite viewpoint.

People argue Monk's stats over todays receivers. Monk is considered a flimsy HOF'er by most statistics. Proof is in the era. Portis will go down as one of the better backs in an era, but will never make the HOF.

I would contend that Riggins falls into the same category as Portis in that regard, only he was able to make the HoF strictly because of his playoff credentials.

Riggins was considered one of the best of his time.

That may be true... but if I go back and take a look at who else was playing around the same time I see a number of guys who I'd greatly prefer to Riggins as a runner.

Since you are too young to have seen him play, you might think that, but Riggins carried the team in 82 and 83 more than even those guys ever did. Riggins WAS the Redskins in the 82 postseason. He was a much faster version of Jerome Bettis and destroyed other teams defenses.

I was too young to see him play in person or in a live televised broadcast. That hasn't prevented me from actually watching some of his better games, though. The most striking thing to me was always just how much push and how far downfield the offensive line was able to get on many of those rushing plays. Had I not gone back and watched some of those games, I probably would buy in to the full Riggins mythos that so many Skins fans profess.

If there's a generational difference as far as how I view those games it's probably just because those early 80s teams represented an entirely different brand of football than what emerged later in the decade and throughout my childhood.

You realize Riggins set the postseason rushing record that year, that it wasn't just his record breaking SB performance - he tore it up both NFC postseason games as well. The huge difference between Riggins and Portis is that Riggins consistently moved the chains. Portis is a home run hitter. Portis makes highlights, Riggins won games

Portis was hardly a highlight machine as a Skin and he did win us some games.

[Chachie]

There have been a ton of sundays over the last 5-6 seasons where I was tuning in only because I knew that no matter how bad we were across the board, we at least had Clinton Portis. As he went, so went the Washington Redskins. Just imagine if he'd ever had a real o-line here.

[putartmonkinthehall]

Because I pay attention to what is said in other threads.

Is he the final say on the team's personnel moves? Nothing against the man, but I hope not. I have no doubt that the organization talks to the guys that run this website and makes them feel apart of the organization in order to buy their loyalty. This site gets a ton of views so it makes sense from a business perspective for the organization to try and control information in that way. But if it really is a situation where a fan with a website is enabled to definitively post the teams personnel plans a few days into the off-season, then we need to seriously question the judgment of those running the team. (Not that I don't question their judgment already)

Back to the issue of Portis. When the head coach says "If we're not going to sign Clinton to that high salary, I'll let him test the market out," Shanahan explained. "Not to say we don't want him, but for a lower price, and obviously we'll try to find the best deal." (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/) that gives the public the perception that there is at least a decent chance that Portis will be back with the team at a lower price. Thus the public celebration of his career in Washington is muted.

I for one think it is more likely that CP will be with another team as Shanahan can hopefully find someone younger and better. But there is at least a chance that both sides test the market, find there is not much there they like and Portis comes back to Washington at a cheap price to get the 600 or 700 yards he needs to eclipse Riggins as the franchise's all time leading rusher. And I agree with the OP's point that he is not on the same level as Monk or Green. As others have pointed out in this thread, those guy are hall of famer's. Up to this point, CP has not had a hall of fame career.

[prufRock]

I have to chime in along with the other fans who actually saw the Redskins' remarkable run in the 80's. You have to remember that up until that 82-85 time period, the Redskins were an also-ran in terms of playoff success. They were the ugly stepsister to the Cowboys year in and year out and were never relevant deep into the playoffs. Consider the transformative effect of a player hoisting the team on his shoulders not just to make the playoffs (as Portis certainly did in the 2005 season) but to be the single most dominant factor throughout the playoff run.

You have to remember that every team knew the Redskins were going to run Riggins up the middle. Every team. He not only succeeded, he dominated. With record-setting performances against playoff teams. I think it's incorrect to claim that his success was due to his supporting cast. If anything, during that 1982 playoff run, it was the opposite. That team found its identity because of Riggins.

Keep in mind also that when he made his now-famous touchdown run in Super Bowl XVII, the Redskins were LOSING THE GAME and he broke the run on 4th and 1. That ranks as one of the most clutch plays in Super Bowl history and the thing about it was, on 3rd or 4th and 1, you KNEW, you just KNEW the Redskins were going to convert. Riggins was that automatic and his performance in the 1982 playoffs changed the trajectory of the franchise.

.

Now, consider that he followed up that playoff run with the two most productive years of his career, including a record-setting 24-touchdown season in 1983. This was after racking up 1700 career carries. That's unheard of.

Portis was the Redskins' best player from 2005-2009, no doubt. He was an absolute warrior during the 2005 season, and his career stats look comparable to Riggins'. But Riggins' career simply ranks above Portis' when you consider the role each played on their respective teams and when you evaluate Riggins' career in the context of that era.