Aikmans Killer No.56 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Yeah, cut his ass. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Betts is having his first start of the year. He currently has 253 yards on 64 attempts with an average of 4.0, longest run of 26 yards,14 catches for 103 yards & ZERO TD's. I guess it's to far fetched for you understand that Gibbs is building Betts confidence by standing behind him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halter91 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Gibbs also doesn't want us to be fans either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Originally posted by spjunkies It's New Years guys, I bet the dude had a little too much to drink. Hey man, I'm sittin' here RIPPED and I completely closed my eyes when I read his post. Dude, do you realize that Walter Peyton couldn't run through the wall of offensive lineman that Clinton runs in to? Yes, offensive linemen. There is no such thing as a "hole" unless our opponent either plays zone pass coverage or they SUCK in general. What we need to do is keep one of the most young & dynamic running backs in league HISTORY and start worrying about the offensive line. Period. Bottom line. I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins26 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Gbiss doesnt want Portis our. I may be drunk as **** but I know that Gibss realizes Portis is awesome. Oh damn, who am i kidding, i dont wannt be kicked off board for posting drunk but Portis is awesome and Betts couldnt carrh his jock. He seemed excited b/c he has to act excited, what do you expect him to be, depressed? Should he belike "damn Bettes is starting, he sucks, we're screwed" nah man he haw to act excited Portis rules, but Brunell does suck i'm out later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Fletch Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 I think a more reasonable scenerio is this..... 1. Gibbs makes changes to improve the line 2. Portis gets a lighter load...20-25 carries 3. Betts gets 10-15 carries a game....short yardage and goal line and acts as a 3rd down back. Conclusion: 35 carries a game should be a reasonable goal for a team. Of course it won't work out that way every time, but this way Portis stays and Betts stays...no cap hell by trading Portis and you have a very very salty backfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Could'a, Would'a, Should'a Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 this thread is a waste of a post but like it or not portis isnt the type of back that gibbs has been using him as. i dont think i ever saw portis hammered up the gut in denver, i remember one of the reasons denver didnt want to give portis big money was they didnt know if he could take the physical pounding of being an inside 'ground it out' short yardage back. ive got no idea what Gibbs is thinking, obviously i'll admit he knows a hell of alot more than i ever will on this subject but i think the average fan can see right now that... portis isnt 'best suited' to this type of offense. before anybody starts complaining, im NOT saying portis isnt a great player, i think hes 'THE' best speed-finesse type back in the league, so why is Gibbs using him as a 250 pound hammer? even the most stubborn of ppl here should be able to see a RB like Stephen Davis would suit this offense better, running portis up the middle 30 times a game is a waste of talent and a 15mil SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERIC THE REDskinsfan Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Originally posted by Aikmans Killer No.56 :sucks: YEAH IT DOES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrowhead Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 The question I field from most folks in North Carolina who approach me as I'm wearing a Redskins cap, sweatshirt, or bumper sticker is, "what's up with Joe Gibbs and the Redskins?" And my patented (and now knee-jerk) response is, "Rome wasn't built in a day." In this case, the misdoings of a terminally-confused front office won't be reversed in a season. Regardless of the salary cap, what's put on the field will ultimately bear the brunt of the devoted fan's ire, or the parody of media miscreants who love nothing more than to see Gibbs fail. I don't view this season as a failure at all. It's more a failure of faith on the part of fans (both diehard and casual) who expect miracles from a cupboard that was largely bare. Ask yourselves before you post such drivel as the topic of this thread, "do I have faith that the man responsible for much of this franchise's legacy and pride will turn it around?" If not, then you know less about pro football than you do about being a loyal fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 Gibbs doesn't want to get rid of Portis because Joe Gibbs isn't a stupid man. The salary cap hit from getting rid of him would cripple your franchise monetarily and mentally. He's going to have to grow into what Joe Gibbs wants or Joe is going to have to cater to what makes him successful. They are married to each other, like it or not. I'm sure Gibbs will do what he's been doing his entire coaching life......get the most he can out of his players. Well said WB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNatsFan Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Originally posted by I.M. Fletch I think a more reasonable scenerio is this..... 1. Gibbs makes changes to improve the line. 2. Bugel makes changes to improve the line. 3. Gibbs and Bugel make changes to improve the line. By the way, if you haven't noticed, NEEDA has been a troll right from the start. He had so much fun and so much of a response trashing Ramsey he seemed to think this one would fly also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Originally posted by Warhead36 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidsuck Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Originally posted by Johnny Punani HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! nothing like an Estrada-Banderas homo fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Can't cut a FA like Portis cause it costs too much. The FA spree was fine as long as the players panned out. If the FA players do well the team prospers and is set for a few years. If the FA players fail, the team suffers because it would be financial suicide to cut them before their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aikmans Killer No.56 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 I'm just waiting for Needaqb to come back and defend himself on his retarded post now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matador36 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 No no no... Fix the O line and draft a big short yardage FB to compliment CP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiNT0N P0RTiS Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Originally posted by Aikmans Killer No.56 Thats right...nobody F^cks with the Jesus. You want to get rid of a running back who gained almost 1,300 yards? Also you act like the salary cap hit wouldn't be an issue at all. I agree. Portis has been struggling with his ypc but he still manage to get over 1300. Why would you want to cut a guy like that? I admit, this year wasn't his best year but he still manage to be one of the top NFL runningbacks. There is no way we're releasing this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjbrown Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Gibbs had success with Joe Washington and Kelvin Bryant. I do not think you can say that Joe cannot make this work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuji869 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 I don't think that Coach Gibbs wants to get rid of Portis, the guy traded for him, Clinton is having growing pains in this new offense, just like Champ is in Denver. But I am kind of surprised that Joe went after Clinton because of the history of big RB like Riggins, Rogers, Riggs etc. But he did win his last Super Bowl w/ Byner who is not your big smash mouth run it up the middel RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaadin123 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 I still like CP but we should have also kept Sultan Mcullough, he is big and fairly good and inexpensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYSkins1 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 I've seen Gibbs bench Portis very few times this season. I'm sure your statements are based upon the Dallas game, in which Portis did not play the second half. That's because PORTIS WAS INJURED! I cam only think of two, maybe three occasions in which Portis has been benched for the majority of a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 I'm not hating on this topic because it's not out the realm of possibility that something happens with Portis. I'm not the biggest fan of small RBs. I wish we could model our team more after the bruising running game Pittsburgh employs, and I know Gibbs does too. But most likely Gibbs will improve the offensive line and start splitting his carries with a bigger back (Betts or someone else). But I'm in no rush to buy a Portis jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 :doh: :doh: :doh: We've got a 23 year old superstar running back and you want to get rid of him?!?!?! I think he answered the questions of durability this year as he had almost 350 carries which 90% of them got him crushed by an unblocked LB. Our line is pretty terrible right now which I think will be answered this offseason with Jansen back, the draft, and perhaps a veteran C or G. Also the onus is on Joe Gibbs to make the "stretch" running plays the base of his offense. Portis is a very explosive back but just needs a lil space to burst. Our offensive line isn't giving him that and our formations are putting him too close to the QB. Given all thats against him he could have easily gained 1400 yards rushing this year. I wouldn't worry about how hes gonna be used next year, Joe and our staff are gonna look long and hard and change quite a bit of the gameplan for next year I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Originally posted by TMat184 :doh: :doh: :doh: We've got a 23 year old superstar running back and you want to get rid of him?!?!?! I think he answered the questions of durability this year as he had almost 350 carries which 90% of them got him crushed by an unblocked LB. Our line is pretty terrible right now which I think will be answered this offseason with Jansen back, the draft, and perhaps a veteran C or G. Also the onus is on Joe Gibbs to make the "stretch" running plays the base of his offense. Portis is a very explosive back but just needs a lil space to burst. Our offensive line isn't giving him that and our formations are putting him too close to the QB. Given all thats against him he could have easily gained 1400 yards rushing this year. I wouldn't worry about how hes gonna be used next year, Joe and our staff are gonna look long and hard and change quite a bit of the gameplan for next year I'm sure. Nice post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.