TheSteve Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by alaadin123 Whooooooa, lets not go gettin rid of Portis based off 1 game from Betts, Portis works but you have to use him correctly to maximize his talents, surely the Redskins must have known this in the offseason, Portis is not a "punisher", hes a finesse runner Tampa Bay: 29 carries Chicago: 36 carries Detroit:34 carries New York: 31 carries San Francisco: 35 carries 1/3 of Portis's games he went at or over the 30 carry threshold. If that is a weak finesse runner then you could have fooled me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozman777 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by bwall-2 The Skins have invested a lot of $$$ in Portis,so it would be wise of Gibbs and company to change whatever is needed to suite Portis. No doubt we have alot invested in Portis. If you have watched ALL the games year we have experimented with blocking schemes to fit Portis. I dont think our offensive line likes blocking for Portis. We went through a grueling training camp and preseason and now you want us to change? Look at it from their side. Is it easier to change a blocking scheme or is it easier to replace the running back. I honestly dont know but i have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Bozman777 No doubt we have alot invested in Portis. If you have watched ALL the games year we have experimented with blocking schemes to fit Portis. I dont think our offensive line likes blocking for Portis. We went through a grueling training camp and preseason and now you want us to change? Look at it from their side. Is it easier to change a blocking scheme or is it easier to replace the running back. I honestly dont know but i have a clue. :laugh: This is what is so funny! Betts had one good game. One! And we are acting like the OL doesn't like blocking for Portis. Portis has not had a great year but 7 of his 15 games he went over 4YPC. You are acting like Portis has not cracked 100 once nad has been AWFUL and then Betts was put in and he went for 175. Get real folks. This was Minnesota, Minnesota! Not Baltimore, or Pittsburgh, get real! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzlightbeer81 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 We need to adopt the fullback offense, have a "thunder and lightning" type of running attack, I think that would work well with these two guys. Theres no doubt Portis is a great runner, the line and offense on a whole is just comming togeather here, the Vickings suck out doors, and at the end of the season. Stop making sweeping observations based on one game. Betts had a good day, everyone has good days, look at it as OMG we have two great runners, lets see what kinda damage we can do with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Wait a minute, I'm seeing people saying Betts is unecessary more than I'm seeing Portis needs ran out of town. Yes, Portis is our #1 back, but if someone thinks Betts is expendable then you're fooling yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozman777 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by steveskins Tampa Bay: 29 carries Chicago: 36 carries Detroit:34 carries New York: 31 carries San Francisco: 35 carries 1/3 of Portis's games he went at or over the 30 carry threshold. If that is a weak finesse runner then you could have fooled me. 30 carries has nothing to do with it. Are you saying that 30 carries with Portis is the same as 30 with Betts? You are dreaming. Yes Portis could go all the way at anytime but it says something to give a lick rather than receive one. Some of you dont understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozman777 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by steveskins :laugh: This is what is so funny! Betts had one good game. One! And we are acting like the OL doesn't like blocking for Portis. Portis has not had a great year but 7 of his 15 games he went over 4YPC. You are acting like Portis has not cracked 100 once nad has been AWFUL and then Betts was put in and he went for 175. Get real folks. This was Minnesota, Minnesota! Not Baltimore, or Pittsburgh, get real! I have been saying this for a while. They don't even help Portis up. I am not saying run Portis out of town. I have never said that. I simply said Betts is a better fit in this offense. His physical style tires defences out more than Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwall-2 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Bozman777 No doubt we have alot invested in Portis. If you have watched ALL the games year we have experimented with blocking schemes to fit Portis. I dont think our offensive line likes blocking for Portis. We went through a grueling training camp and preseason and now you want us to change? Look at it from their side. Is it easier to change a blocking scheme or is it easier to replace the running back. I honestly dont know but i have a clue. Portis has back to back 1500 yd seasons and a 1300 yd season for us and you want to get rid of him based on one 100 yd game by Betts.Real smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxdavious Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 If the Skins had WR's that opposing teams would almost have to double cover, then there would be less defensive players playing the run like they have all season against the Skins. If Portis could get 1300 + yards with the whole world knowing he's got the ball, what would happen if defenses were forced to spread out? Portis could be a 2000 yard + RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Bozman777 30 carries has nothing to do with it. Are you saying that 30 carries with Portis is the same as 30 with Betts? You are dreaming. Yes Portis could go all the way at anytime but it says something to give a lick rather than receive one. Some of you dont understand that. I'm still not understanding here. What are you basing your sweeping generalizations on? A few plays? A few misconceptions? Your own personal bias? What? I've seen numerous times Portis has went forward after the initial contact and hit. Numerous times. I'm just not understanding your logic here bozman. I'm not understanding how one above average(but not great) game by Betts all of a sudden means he is a better running back than Clinton Portis. Portis has had better games against better defenses, and done just as good against defenses just as bad. I'm not saying Betts is not a good backup, I'm not saying he couldn't ever start in this league, I'm just saying he isn't as good as Portis. Somehow I don't get the feeling you agree Bozman. Please explain, because as of now all you've done is make me shake my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aikmans Killer No.56 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 This post is freaking rediculous. And I wonder why I keep coming back :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozman777 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by bwall-2 Portis has back to back 1500 yd seasons and a 1300 yd season for us and you want to get rid of him based on one 100 yd game by Betts.Real smart. [/quote Show me in my post where I said get rid of him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwall-2 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Bozman777 Is it easier to change a blocking scheme or is it easier to replace the running back. I honestly dont know but i have a clue. In so many words,you're saying replace Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Well, now I'm simply just trying to defend Betts' credibility and still get accused of wanting to rid Portis. I think I've said for several posts now that Portis is our #1 back, but people pick and choose what they want to read. People, understand what I'm saying. We would benefit from increased playing time for Betts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozman777 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by steveskins I'm still not understanding here. What are you basing your sweeping generalizations on? A few plays? A few misconceptions? Your own personal bias? What? I've seen numerous times Portis has went forward after the initial contact and hit. Numerous times. I'm just not understanding your logic here bozman. I'm not understanding how one above average(but not great) game by Betts all of a sudden means he is a better running back than Clinton Portis. Portis has had better games against better defenses, and done just as good against defenses just as bad. I'm not saying Betts is not a good backup, I'm not saying he couldn't ever start in this league, I'm just saying he isn't as good as Portis. Somehow I don't get the feeling you agree Bozman. Please explain, because as of now all you've done is make me shake my head. I am trying to get you to understand that a physical runner takes it's toll on a defense. Everybody is gettin the idea I want to get rid of Portis. That is far from the truth. Think back to the Pittsburgh game. We held Jerome for three quarters. But he is so physical we were tired in the 4th and could not stop him. Thats all I am saying. That's the way we won superbowls. Look at who is in the playoffs now. Physical teams consistently win. I just know if Portis can give us that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozman777 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by SlinginSammy HOF '63 Well, now I'm simply just trying to defend Betts' credibility and still get accused of wanting to rid Portis. I think I've said for several posts now that Portis is our #1 back, but people pick and choose what they want to read. People, understand what I'm saying. We would benefit from increased playing time for Betts. Slingin Sammy, I think we are on the same page. I never said get rid of Portis. It is physical football we are after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaadin123 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by steveskins Tampa Bay: 29 carries Chicago: 36 carries Detroit:34 carries New York: 31 carries San Francisco: 35 carries 1/3 of Portis's games he went at or over the 30 carry threshold. If that is a weak finesse runner then you could have fooled me. ok exactly where in my post did I say that Portis was a "weak" finesse runner??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Bozman777 I am trying to get you to understand that a physical runner takes it's toll on a defense. Everybody is gettin the idea I want to get rid of Portis. That is far from the truth. Think back to the Pittsburgh game. We held Jerome for three quarters. But he is so physical we were tired in the 4th and could not stop him. Thats all I am saying. That's the way we won superbowls. Look at who is in the playoffs now. Physical teams consistently win. I just know if Portis can give us that. The Rams, Patriots, and Buccaneers have won the last 4 Superbowls without a super powerful in your face physical running back. That's how we won superbowls in the past yes, but you do not NEED a Stephen Davis, or such. What you need is an effective, tough running back. We have that in Clinton Portis, we have a backup who seems to be one as well. I think with increased offensive line production Portis would have easily topped 1500 yards. Easily. I don't think Betts would have gotten 1300+ behind this line either. It took him until late in the game to get over 100. I still saw the same problems. An offensive line that can't get a push, can't block properly, gets overpowered at the point of attack,etc. On Betts goal line touchdown an OLineman fell down before he could even block somebody. It looked like Dockery. Our passing game and running game has been subpar, even though we have skill positions at RB and WR who can get the job done. That tells me to look at the OL, which I think is our biggest need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Betts ran for 118 yards against the #29 rush defense in the NFL and it was tough going for most of the first 3 quarters So, let's not get ahead of ourselves in saying we 'wasted' money on Portis. Clearly, with the proper blocking scheme Portis can be a feature back. What I still don't understand is how Gibbs could look at the film on Portis and then deduce he could drop him into another scheme and expect a seamless transition. But evidently the team did. What is ironic is that John Riggins intimated a few weeks ago that the one back offense was developed because it suited HIS style of play and ability at a veteran age to be patient and wait for his blocks to be set up. Riggins said he was surprised that Gibbs would continue to use the same scheme for a back as different as Portis. When the issue of Gerard Riggs, George Rogers and Earnest Byner in the one-back offense came up, Riggins responded that those players were not as talented as Portis and didn't have the ability to hit the second level quickly, so the offense didn't limit their potential as it does Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Bozman777 Slingin Sammy, I think we are on the same page. I never said get rid of Portis. It is physical football we are after. I think it's just big Portis fans defending Portis. Several time I saw people say "Betts had a nice day against a sucky defense", but had Portis gotten the 130 yards people would be poppin' woodies all over this board about his greatness. I am not trying to bash Portis, but rather at this point I feel like I have to defend Betts from lack of respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozman777 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by steveskins It took him until late in the game to get over 100. Hello? Exactly, they were tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzlightbeer81 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by SlinginSammy HOF '63 Wait a minute, I'm seeing people saying Betts is unecessary more than I'm seeing Portis needs ran out of town. Yes, Portis is our #1 back, but if someone thinks Betts is expendable then you're fooling yourself. Who said Betts was expendable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwall-2 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by SlinginSammy HOF '63 I think it's just big Portis fans defending Portis. Several time I saw people say "Betts had a nice day against a sucky defense", but had Portis gotten the 130 yards people would be poppin' woodies all over this board about his greatness. I am not trying to bash Portis, but rather at this point I feel like I have to defend Betts from lack of respect. It's not a lack of respect,fact of the matter is that Betts has had a couple of good games and Portis has had a ton of good games in his career.Portis is obviously more proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novascotiadiesel Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 I think one thing that is happening in this thread is that people are voicing their "feel" on the whole situation. i think it is fair for people to do that. we are all aware of the mitigating circumstances in this game ie. opponents run d is poor and that betts really only had about 75 yards till late in the game, and that we all know that portis is a supeior back, that is blatent, but what people are trying to express is that the intuitive "feel" of the whole thing is just plain better with betts in there. not jsut in this game but in other situations where betts has carried the load. and it just seems to me that the line likes him more (i don't have evidence to sight but i have seen alot of games and that is just the way it appears to me) the line is more willing to give their all for him because of the difference in attitude he has to portis, imagine if you were in the trenches like they are, and you had to put it on the line for someone? who would you be more likely to do it for? an egomaniacal me first type guy or a pounder nose to the grindstone overachiever type? that is all they are saying i think the way this team's offense could go is to take on an identity of sort of noname winners, and portis will have a harder time fitting that sort of role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.