mcfara Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 During the Rams game I heard an interesting remark: that Clinton Portis is more of Mike Martz's style back (quick, can catch the ball, etc) and Steven Jackson is more of Joe Gibbs' style back (runs downhill and runs over people). would skins fans rather have Jackson for their future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin101 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 No. simple as that. I heard the comment also stated, that Jackson is the big Gibbs type back and CP is the fast runner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Jackson may fit the traditional mold of a Gibbs back, but lets see what Portis can actually do in this offense before we proclaim Jackson as being a better fit. Portis didn't accidentally gain all of those yards in Denver, the guy is pretty damn good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stone Cold Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 and how many 1500 yard seasons does jackson have again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Um, yea.........good question...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sir Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 You always have to go with the proven back. But I definitely feel that Steven Jackson is going to be amazing, so ask again in a few years and I may say different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Gibbs is smart enough to create a gameplan around who he has on his team. I don't think you want to take an unproven back over a Clinton Portis just because he runs more like RBs on Gibbs' previous teams. I think we want to trust that Gibbs can create successful matchups with the considerable talent he has. I'd keep Portis, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Sassy Molassy Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 I'd have to keep Portis. Gibbs has said himself, people always categorize him as wanting the shashmouth back because of John Riggins. But the always seem to forget that he also has made good use of more "finesse" backs such as Byner, Washington etc., so I believe that he can create a gameplan for any type of back, not just the "monster truck" guys. The other things we also have to consider is what intangibles does each person bring to the table. For instance, Portis has gotten a lot of respect from the Redskins coaching staff for his blocking skills, his tough running style, and his receiving skills. He also seems to have all of the makings of being a great locker room/field leader. Do you think the rookie Jackson will bring this to the table? These are things that you can't always coach, Gibbs and Co. know this and that's why we have Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
typhoon55 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 im going with protis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Not a bad question. Seriously. But given all we needed and the fact that gambling a first rounder on a rookie back was not something the Org wanted to do, you gotta love where we are at. We could have wound up with a few old washed up vets to carry the load, or a big $ older vet like Staley. I am extremely happy the way things went down. Furthermore, not having any options except a trade as far as Champ was concerned, why the hell not get a premeire back? Last, consider this- Gibbs is a flexible coach. He inherited an offense built around speed (minus Gardner and Dockery :laugh: ) with no reliable TE's, no h-backs for his scheme, a battered young QB, no proven RB's, WR's up the yin yang, a humiliated o-line and what does he do to implement his offensive philosophies? He grabs a few players to build on that strength instead of overhauling the whole thing. Marty and Spurrier just gutted the team in order to force their schemes and philosophies. They would accept a losing year and chalk it up to rebuilding. Gibbs respects the fans and doesn't even want to let that happen. He's already done everything in his power to ensure that won't happen. Sure you can argue that bringing in Brunell is an example of forcing a scheme or philosophy, but it shows that he will not accept mistakes. Taking hits and being a fan favorite doesn't grant you a free pass. As much as I think it shold have, that shows you how little we as fans know what it takes to get the job done as a HC in this league. That is coaching. That is knowing how to run a football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiNT0N P0RTiS Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Portis all the way man. He's quick and fast! That's what we need here in Washington! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsbosoxheels Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 You guys have alot of knowledge and information...but please check your spelling before posting threads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Originally posted by skinsbosoxheels You guys have alot of knowledge and information...but please check your spelling before posting threads... You just nominated yourself as official extremeskins spellchecker. Thanks! NOW GET TO WORK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 trade a proven back for an unknown rookie? um.. no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 He'll be a "proven veteran" when he is successful in another system other than Shannahan's. So far this preseason I'm not impressed. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigSkins Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 I hear all over that Portis is not big enough to be an every down back. That GIbbs perferrs the big back like Stephen Davis or Steven Jackson. Bull Spit! Portis is 5'11", 205 lbs. Earnest Byner in 1991 when he was our every down back was 5'11", 210lbs. Byner did just fine. Gibbs used Byner in every situation. Gibbs can make use of talent, regardless what shape or size it comes in. :soapbox: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Sweet Sassy nailed this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmoreravens4life Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Portis or Jackson...mmm? Well thats a tough one, cause it depends on when you skins want to win. If you want to be respectable this year i guess its Portis, if you wanna win a SB in a few years its Jackson. Portis, for all hes worth, was a system RB in Denver. He hasnt shown much this preseason, but its just preseason, so you never know. Jackson was the best RB in the draft. Hes strong, he has good speed, and he is built well. If i were a skins fan, I would want Champ Bailey and Stephen Jackson, not Clinton Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 I am not that impressed with Jackson, the big back theory for Gibb's is not etched in stone, I alway's felt Gibb's offense was better suited for a back like a Portis, it will be tougher to key on this offense with him in there, he can catch the ball out of the backfield, in fact Portis has enough speed to split the safties on a deep route, the defense can't key on a back as to what's coming any longer, to many times in Gibb's first tenure we had riggo, or roger's, or Rigg's, getting caught from behind, or not being able to beat the last defender, now we do, the blocking up front produced big time holes, you don't need power to get threw them, Portis can turn an 8yd. gain by a big back, into a 20yd gain, or a TD, Gibb's has his home run hitter at RB, I like the unpredictability that Portis bring's to this offense, and there is no way I would take Jackson over Portis. I believe Gibb's is very aware of how much more of a benefactor he will be, having a real speed back, compared to a big back, case and point, in the SB against denver, Gibb's decieded to go with Timmy Smith, over George Roger's, his explanation to George was this, he felt they needed to go with more speed at the RB position, which Smith provided, the rest is SB history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Joe Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Originally posted by Bmoreravens4lifePortis or Jackson...mmm? Well thats a tough one, cause it depends on when you skins want to win. If you want to be respectable this year i guess its Portis, if you wanna win a SB in a few years its Jackson. Portis, for all hes worth, was a system RB in Denver. He hasnt shown much this preseason, but its just preseason, so you never know. Jackson was the best RB in the draft. Hes strong, he has good speed, and he is built well. If i were a skins fan, I would want Champ Bailey and Stephen Jackson, not Clinton Portis. What kind of comment is that? So Portis isn't a Superbowl-caliber back, yet Stephen Jackson, despite not playing a single down yet in the NFL, is a Superbowl-caliber back? You said you would rather have Champ Bailey and Stephen Jackson as opposed to just Clinton Portis. I agree with that completely, but you have to understand that Champ was not going to return to the Redskins this season because his contract was up. It was a great move by the Redskins just to get something in return for Champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.