Hate to say this, but Dallas'.........

[Dirk Diggler]

Good Post Flow

Though only a moron would consider Portis's durability questionable based on the fact that he's missed 3 games in 2 years. Missing 1.5 games per year is actually considered durable for a back.

If Portis plays in 14.5 games per season for the Skins I will be perfectly happy.

[Art]

Flow,

The problem I have with what you wrote is you seem to mistake durability with injury. Freak injury could happen to anyone. Could have happened to Emmitt, but it didn't. Just as it didn't to many of the game's best historical runners. James is a running back who's likely to have another three or four 1,000 yard seasons in him before he's done and he'll have more than 10,000 yards in his career very likely and he'll always be something less than he was before a terrible injury sapped some of his possible greatness.

But, he's been pretty durable coming back. If Portis plays 13 or 14 games a season and averages 1,500 yards the next six years, he'll be an all time great back with durability who also avoided injury. It is possible he could snap his knee tomorrow.

But you don't make worst-case scenario contingencies when making a move like this. You make best-case plans.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Art

Flow,

The problem I have with what you wrote is you seem to mistake durability with injury. Freak injury could happen to anyone. Could have happened to Emmitt, but it didn't. Just as it didn't to many of the game's best historical runners. James is a running back who's likely to have another three or four 1,000 yard seasons in him before he's done and he'll have more than 10,000 yards in his career very likely and he'll always be something less than he was before a terrible injury sapped some of his possible greatness.

But, he's been pretty durable coming back. If Portis plays 13 or 14 games a season and averages 1,500 yards the next six years, he'll be an all time great back with durability who also avoided injury. It is possible he could snap his knee tomorrow.

But you don't make worst-case scenario contingencies when making a move like this. You make best-case plans.

James missed most of 2001 with a knee, was a big disappointment in 2002 in a comeback attempt slowed by rib/ankle injuries, and though he played well for most of last season, he did miss another 3 games with a back injury. Injuries are a part of durability, freak or not. Some RBs have a low impact style, some are fast healers, some are lucky.

But we can debate the semantics of injury vs. durability vs. longevity vs. consistency all we want. It doesn't change the thrust of my point which is that CBs are able to avoid those hazards much more easily than RBs due to the low-impact nature of the position. You made the point that freak injuries can happen to anyone. This is true. But they're much more likely to happen to a RB. Portis makes a living in a high risk group, which is one of the many reasons that RBs make comparatively less money.

So in a player-for-player trade, and one in which large potentially cap-threatening signing bonuses are at stake, this is a factor that can't be ignored. For all of the previously mentioned reasons, Portis' durability is of greater concern than Bailey. Is it a reason not to do the deal? In my mind, no. But of all the counterveiling reasons that would give me pause before pulling the trigger, this is the one that would weigh most heavily on my mind.

[McNabbOwnsFedEx]

Originally posted by Art

Right.

So, as I said, the individual importance of McNabb was greatly diminished in the stretch of games he missed and your team did well. You're right as to why it did well. And that's why McNabb's individual importance is no longer quite the same as it was before he missed games.

I disagree, strongly. Just because the team plays well against scrub teams when the leader is out doesn't mean that players value or importance diminishes. The Titans dominated with McNair out of the lineup(against two top 5 defense none the less), however, he's still the single most important player to their team. Same with the Eagles.

[RW31]

Originally posted by Art

Trades aren't judged in hindsight, RW. Your own knowledge of the history of the game does matter, however. And, as you admit here, you'd never have traded Emmitt for Sanders because you now know they are both the best at their positions (to many) and you know the value of that runner. That knowledge matters.

We don't have to wait 10 years to see if Portis is an all-time great to know you are wildly for the deal. You remember Smith. You know what having a dominating runner who wound up an all-time great was worth. And you know if you could right now, you'd do anything to find a guy who is that again. We just so happened to have found a guy who has had the third best start to his career in the history of the NFL. Not yet an all-time great. But a guy on the path toward that.

Better even than Emmitt after two years. And we know how valuable Emmitt was to you, don't we?

I think you misunderstand me(or i misunderstand you). What I mean is I would of certainly traded the players for eachother in their prime, during their prime. Even if emitt was elite (like portis), I could have gotten a RB to give me nearly the amount of production easily. Corners however,are hard to come by. Outside of the 5 or 6 elite corners, there are few left that aren't seen as a liability. Now if Portis goes down as one of the alltime great backs, then the trade is great for you. But if Portis only has a succesful NFL career along with champ, it is a horrible decision. JMO