Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

We live and die by Portis, the ability of the O-line to run block, and the design of the running plays.

If the O-line does not create holes for Portis when facing just 4 rushing D-linemen, we can't run, and more importantly, we won't be able to pass against tough division opponents.

Bring in Molinaro. He's got to be better than Samuels at blocking bull-rushers (maybe that's wishful thinking). Dockery is a back-up at best. Jansen's play has dropped off too, but I attribute that to his being thumbless.

Portis is due for a monster game. If he puts up a few more sub 50yds per game performances, he will get frustrated and implode on the team. We have to emulate the Denver/Pitt type of O-line. In free agency or through the draft.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Yep. The line got pushed around yesterday.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

CP is just not getting the job done. He better start focusing on scoring TD against the better teams in the league instaed of his rock-star persona he adopted sice signing the big contract with the skins.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Im sorry guys, but you need to give Portis more than 4 carries if you expect him to make any contribution. Its absolutely insane to criticize the guy when he didnt even have a chance to run the ball.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

The O-line has been inconsistent all year. Some games good. Other games Brunell gets chased all over the field. Toooo many penalties for seasoned guys! Something that definately needs to be addressed in the off season. Portis has had some real good games. Not enough. I would like to see him, at least, get to the line backers before getting his first hit. His speed is not being used enough. JOE BUGEL...........you gettin' all this?

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

The O-line was brutal so it's hard to put too much blame on Portis.

But - I wish he'd spend less time working on his costumes and more time practicing making SHARP cuts like Tiki does. Maybe he'd break a long run once in a while too. And I didn't see Tiki trip over his own feet once out there.

"I'm Jerome from SE DC, and I headed out to NY this weekend, and I rushed for 6 yards."

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

I question how bad Portis' injury really is.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]The O-line was brutal so it's hard to put too much blame on Portis.

But - I wish he'd spend less time working on his costumes and more time practicing making SHARP cuts like Tiki does. Maybe he'd break a long run once in a while too. And I didn't see Tiki trip over his own feet once out there.

"I'm Jerome from SE DC, and I headed out to NY this weekend, and I rushed for 6 yards."[/QUOTE]

Good Call Crazy, Watching Tiki, I thought I was watching the second coming of Barry Sanders. The cuts he made left our guys literally falling down. They looked like High School. I was, and still am shell shocked!

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

It's already been stated several times, but what do you guys expect him to do with [b]FOUR[/b] carries?

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

I agree that it's hard to put much blame on CP when you only give him the ball 4 times. We bailed on the run really quick, probably too quick.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

O-line all the way--they couldn't run block; they couldn't pass block. Nothing in Gibbs offense is going to work if that's the case.

We got manhandled on both sides of the line of scrimmage. You can't win games when that happens.

So, if Portis was so bad, how did Betts do? Not so great either. Suggests to me that its the o-line and not Portis.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Yea, I want to say we only had the ball for 6 plays during the 1st quarter. I think we managed to eek out about 15-20 net yards during the first half. I don't think LT

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Yea, I want to say we only had the ball for 6 plays during the 1st quarter. I think we managed to eek out about 15-20 net yards during the first half. I don't think Barry Sanders could have gained 5 yards w/ our blocking yesterday. CP did the best one could expect from anyone yesterday. He got popped pretty good yesterday. I was kindof surprised he got back in the game.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

tiki always seems to trash us, but yesterday was insanity. Looking back he's always been a much better RB then i've given him credit for (due to fumbling issues, being on the giants, etc).

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

i just notice portis run downhill so much (when he does have a hole) that he falls on his own. he's just not the player we were hoping him to be. if we start betts i bet he gets more 100 yard games with this team than portis. Does anyone else see that?... Portis always falls on his own face first when he could have gotten serveral more yards. Its like he runs completely downhill to where it benefits the other teams.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]i just notice portis run downhill so much (when he does have a hole) that he falls on his own. he's just not the player we were hoping him to be. if we start betts i bet he gets more 100 yard games with this team than portis. Does anyone else see that?... Portis always falls on his own face first when he could have gotten serveral more yards. Its like he runs completely downhill to where it benefits the other teams.[/QUOTE]

betts doesn't break as many tackles, he's not as fast and he fumbles more. Its not like betts is 260lbs or anything.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]i just notice portis run downhill so much (when he does have a hole) that he falls on his own. he's just not the player we were hoping him to be. if we start betts i bet he gets more 100 yard games with this team than portis. Does anyone else see that?... Portis always falls on his own face first when he could have gotten serveral more yards. Its like he runs completely downhill to where it benefits the other teams.[/QUOTE]


Palease! I saw it before we traded for him, I alway's maintained if Betts was in Denver he would have put up the same numbers as Portis, and he runs much harder, his one draw back is his ability to stay healthy.

Bottom line we gave up a ton for a third down change of pace type back, when the holes get big enough for Clinton to run through they will be big enough for just about any other back as well.

Our talent is so overvalued and overpaid it's ridiculous, Lavar, Samuels, Portis, Brunell, any idea what a real GM could do with the money from those salaries? We could have monster players where we need them, offensive, and defensive linemen, instead our top 2 picks spend most of their time on the bench, and as for the rest of the big time surprises Gibbs said where coming out of this draft? Yea right! And that's why Gibbs likes to overpay for established talent no eye for unestablished talent, Taylor was a no brainer, Cooley was a very good job on his part, and that's about it in 2 drafts, Rogers is a quality pick, but we could have done a whole lot to help the overall team by dealing down, instead we gave away next years draft for a QB. I love to hear gibbs justify his signing of estabished talent with the old the draft is a crap shoot, and then give up next years draft for a position which is the biggest crap shoot of all QB! Yes the draft is a crap shoot for those who don't know what they are doing.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

sounds like you should get a job a GM, since everyone else (besides you) is obviously an idiot.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]i just notice portis run downhill so much (when he does have a hole) that he falls on his own. he's just not the player we were hoping him to be. if we start betts i bet he gets more 100 yard games with this team than portis. Does anyone else see that?... Portis always falls on his own face first when he could have gotten serveral more yards. Its like he runs completely downhill to where it benefits the other teams.[/QUOTE]


L. Betts wears girls p@6%!#$. Every nick, every hit, he gets hurt.

Anyone else notice we lost the second half kick-off because of L. Betts?



:dallas: :dallas:

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]sounds like you should get a job a GM, since everyone else (besides you) is obviously an idiot.[/QUOTE]

While he may not have any business being a GM, his post was exactly right. We overpay, give up draft picks, have no depth on the D-line, and if one player goes down, there's no one who can adequately replace him -- see Boschetti, Killings, and Aki Jones. Gibbs, Snyder, and Cerrato cannot escape blame for that.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]While he may not have any business being a GM, his post was exactly right. We overpay, give up draft picks, have no depth on the D-line, and if one player goes down, there's no one who can adequately replace him -- see Boschetti, Killings, and Aki Jones. Gibbs, Snyder, and Cerrato cannot escape blame for that.[/QUOTE]

I get your point..................but, If [b]he[/b] doesn't have any business being GM, it would tend to discount the accuracy of [b]his[/b] argument.
In a perfect world some of these things may be true. However, when Gibbs and his team took the skins, as we all know, the team had been in COMPLETE disarray for some time. When you [b]must[/b] make radical player changes immediately, and the timing is not of your choosing, you make the best deal you can. It may not be the deal you want. Being in a weak bargaining position, makes it impossible to drive a really good deal, so you do the best you can.
Additionally, it is real easy to blow up a speculative, foundationless commentary when the author has [b]no skin on the table[/b].

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

i dont think CP has had one game that's wowed me since he became a redskin. it not like he sucks or anything; it's just a matter of the money we gave up. i doubt teams are gonna pick up rbs from denver anymore thinking that they're heroes. tatum bell is lighting it up. seems like any back can light it up there.

i don't know if betts would run better than CP; but at a lower price it might have been the way to go. too late now though; hopefully CP will start breaking out and playing like we need him to.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=VTSkins897]i dont think CP has had one game that's wowed me since he became a redskin. it not like he sucks or anything; it's just a matter of the money we gave up. i doubt teams are gonna pick up rbs from denver anymore thinking that they're heroes. tatum bell is lighting it up. seems like any back can light it up there.

i don't know if betts would run better than CP; but at a lower price it might have been the way to go. too late now though; hopefully CP will start breaking out and playing like we need him to.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with you. All because of that opening run against Tampa last year a lot of people have thought he is our savior at rb. I've always liked Betts from day 1. Only problem is he gets hurt to often. I definetly think we need a stronger more power back in our backfield. But we are stuck with CP. It's just weird seeing a guy trip over his feet more than he gets tackled.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]if we start betts i bet he gets more 100 yard games with this team than portis.[/QUOTE]

Betts is a change of pace back. Nothing more. He's a poor mans Steven Davis. And by that I mean he has a similar running style, but Davis could hold onto the ball a lot better, and he could actually run people over. Whenever someone takes Betts head on, it looks like they're tackling a pillow. He actually got tackled one time Sunday by his friggin shirt-tail. It irritates me when people try to claim that he's a "power back". If he was a starter in the NFL, his career would be very similar to Troy Hambrick's.

Not to say that he doesn't have success in his current role, but that's because he's such a different runner than Portis. Teams gameplan for Portis, and when Betts comes in, he's able to take advantage because he runs completely different. But to claim that Betts is a better back than Portis, in any offense, is ridiculous.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

If Ladell Betts carried the load the Skins could easily be the Miami Dolphins from last season. Betts comes in and has maybe 2 good runs a game and you think he should start? He had that one game against the Vikes though. Okay, so that effectively makes him Ki Jana Carter. Betts can't carry the load. And there's no real point in arguing about it because he never will. Unless Portis goes down.

As for everyone being overrated on Washington...I wish we would cut them then. So all of you could see how a great a team full of Lemar Marshalls is.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Regardless, Clinton Portis definately doesn't have very good balance. At least Betts keeps his feet moving and can get the extra few yards after contact. It seems to me like Clinton hasn't been the same back since the Meadowlands game last year when he fumbled. Now he seems to just not want to turn it over and grind out the yards, which sucks. He is a bad ass blocker though, though you wouldn't know it watching Sunday's game. Betts sucks at blocking and is a pretty bad receiver as well. He is a better between the tackles runner, though, which seems to be the only way Gibbs will run it.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=skindogger47]Regardless, Clinton Portis definately doesn't have very good balance. At least Betts keeps his feet moving and can get the extra few yards after contact. [/QUOTE]

Are we talking about [b]Ladell[/b] Betts? The Ladell Betts that I watch on Sundays has good vision, but he is definitely not the hard runner everyone claims he is. Stephen Davis, LaDanian Tomlinson, Ricky Willaims, Steven Jackson, they are hard runners. Backs that can run guys over, drag defenders with them, and move piles. Anyone that is dragged down from behind, by a safety with one hand on his shirt-tail is automatically disqualified. I swear, if Betts ever had a decent amount of carries at Soldier Field in November or December, the wind would tackle him more times than the Bears would.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

I don't know man, I've seen Betts drag people with him many times.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]I don't know man, I've seen Betts drag people with him many times.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it's never happened, but I've seen far more instances of him being knocked backwards or just plain dropped by a cornerback.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Four carriers yes he didn't get a chance. Seriously though how many times have you seen him break out in a run then trip over his own feet. He does all the time. It is like he is speed wobbling, going to fast to keep his balance.

It was just one bad game. If we beat the Eagles Sunday night we will all be on cloud nine again. Plus I would not be surprised if the Giants lose in San Fran.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]sounds like you should get a job a GM, since everyone else (besides you) is obviously an idiot.[/QUOTE]


It's not like I would expect you to understand what I am talking about, there is a difference between a football man, and a football fan, I never called anyone an idiot, but if lack of understanding and insight on the breakdown of the game makes you feel like one, that's something you will have to deal with.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]I get your point..................but, If [b]he[/b] doesn't have any business being GM, it would tend to discount the accuracy of [b]his[/b] argument.
In a perfect world some of these things may be true. However, when Gibbs and his team took the skins, as we all know, the team had been in COMPLETE disarray for some time. When you [b]must[/b] make radical player changes immediately, and the timing is not of your choosing, you make the best deal you can. It may not be the deal you want. Being in a weak bargaining position, makes it impossible to drive a really good deal, so you do the best you can.
Additionally, it is real easy to blow up a speculative, foundationless commentary when the author has [b]no skin on the table[/b].[/QUOTE]


Relying on another posters ignorant comment as the basis to discredit a post you don't agree with is as baseless as it gets, why don't you go ahead and explain how we are better off for having all 4 of those players, all 4 of which I said we shouldn't either extend their contracts, or trade for, before their signings became reality, now my evaluation of these players are starting to become more and more apparent, and yet so long as they play for the skins they are somehow better than what they really are because their redskins.


You make it sound as if we were pigeonholed into the Portis trade, or the Brunell trade, or resigning Samuels, what about Lavar?

Portis- 50.mil
Lavar- 68mil
Samuels- 47mil
Brunell- 43mil

Thats 208 million dollar's between 4 players, I want to hear which individual believes that these are deal's that are, decent, or even liveable, those salaries are disgusting for what they bring to the table, DISGUSTING!

No 208 million minus those 4 wouldn't go towards vastly improving our team? NOOOOOOOOO?

Further more if you can't get the deal you want don't go out and break the bank to do so.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Were not the only team making mistakes. Here's a list of the top 25 player salaries in 2004.

[url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=1448"]Manning, Peyton[/url] $ 35,037,700 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=14"]Indianapolis Colts[/url]
2 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=1796"]Pennington, Chad[/url] $ 19,004,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=22"]New York Jets[/url]
3 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=1277"]Kearse, Jevon[/url] $ 16,536,500 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=24"]Philadelphia Eagles[/url]
4 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=2317"]Tomlinson, LaDainian[/url] $ 16,000,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=26"]San Diego Chargers[/url]
5 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=2546"]Wistrom, Grant[/url] $ 15,503,200 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=29"]Seattle Seahawks[/url]
6 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=1849"]Portis, Clinton[/url] $ 13,380,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=32"]Washington Redskins[/url]
7 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=2240"]Tait, John[/url] $ 13,085,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=5"]Chicago Bears[/url]
8 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=2367"]Vick, Michael[/url] $ 12,502,400 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=2"]Atlanta Falcons[/url]
9 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=2541"]Winfield, Antoine[/url] $ 12,500,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=18"]Minnesota Vikings[/url]
10 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=64"]Arrington, LaVar[/url] $ 11,835,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=32"]Washington Redskins[/url]
11 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=2681"]Walker, Gary[/url] $ 11,804,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=13"]Houston Texans[/url]
12 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=415"]Clifton, Chad[/url] $ 11,536,500 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=12"]Green Bay Packers[/url]
13 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=2565"]Woody, Damien[/url] $ 11,504,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=11"]Detroit Lions[/url]
14 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=1553"]McNabb, Donovan[/url] $ 11,002,300 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=24"]Philadelphia Eagles[/url]
15 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=2161"]Springs, Shawn[/url] $ 10,910,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=32"]Washington Redskins[/url]
16 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=1730"]Ogden, Jonathan[/url] $ 10,660,299 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=4"]Baltimore Ravens[/url]
17 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=979"]Harrison, Marvin[/url] $ 10,560,165 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=14"]Indianapolis Colts[/url]
18 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=2379"]Wade, Todd[/url] $ 10,539,800 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=13"]Houston Texans[/url]
19 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=1484"]McAlister, Chris[/url] $ 10,534,906 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=4"]Baltimore Ravens[/url]
20 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=3035"]Robertson, Dewayne[/url] $ 10,516,250 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=22"]New York Jets[/url]
21 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=1732"]Ogunleye, Adewale[/url] $ 10,455,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=5"]Chicago Bears[/url]
22 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=1949"]Rogers, Shaun[/url] $ 9,480,000 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=11"]Detroit Lions[/url]
23 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=302"]Bulger, Marc[/url] $ 9,459,200 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=28"]St. Louis Rams[/url]
24 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=287"]Brunell, Mark[/url] $ 9,364,300 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=32"]Washington Redskins[/url]
25 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=3346"]Gallery, Robert[/url] $ 9,300,016 [url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2004&team=23"]Oakland Raiders[/url] [img]http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif[/img]

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=offiss]
Portis- 50.mil
Lavar- 68mil
Samuels- 47mil
Brunell- 43mil

Thats 208 million dollar's between 4 players, I want to hear which individual believes that these are deal's that are, decent, or even liveable, those salaries are disgusting for what they bring to the table, DISGUSTING!

No 208 million minus those 4 wouldn't go towards vastly improving our team? NOOOOOOOOO?[/QUOTE]

So you're suggesting we could've taken all that money and done what with it? If Snyder had not spent the money on those players, he would've done the exact same thing, but with different players. So instead of paying our current stars, three of which are in the prime of their careers, we'd have 100 million plus locked up in the 2005 versions of Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith, and Jeff George.

Every team in the league pays big bucks to it's stars. If you want a team with a bunch of low payed nobodies, become an Arizona Cardinals fan.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Whats baffling about that list is that NE does not have one player in the top 25. Simply amazing how they handle there money and win superbowls.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

I was just wondering if anyone else thinks this happens in other cities. Do you think San Diego fans go around and tear down Antonio Gates and LT? Do they scream for Rivers despite making the playoffs last year? Do you think Bears fan bitch about Urlacher? Cause I sure as hell don't. We're over .500 for the first time in a long time and we wanna cut everybody...pure genius. I have a question...was Portis overrated when we were 3 and 0? Did we waste money then?

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]We're over .500 for the first time in a long time and we wanna cut everybody...pure genius. I have a question...was Portis overrated when we were 3 and 0? Did we waste money then?[/QUOTE]

Nobody's talking about CUTTING Clinton Portis. Some have simply observed the he has not exactly had the game-changing impact that many expected when we gave up Champ Bailey and a second round pick to get him. Outside of that one run against the Buccaneers on opening day last year, he's accomplished about as much as any other running back could have done for far less.

It's just another cog in the wheel of recklessly charging after high priced free agents at a time when most of us thought that strategy would cease with the cool-headed nature of Joe Gibbs calling the shots. Instead, we pay for moves like this without any depth at critical spots along both lines, while bargaining away draft picks year after year.

When the Skins were 3-0, Clinton Portis had 4.17 yards per carry and zero touchdowns. In eight games against NFC East opponents as a Redskin, he's been good for 3.6 yards per carry. [B]That's an average performance, jdlea.[/B] That's not calling for him to be cut, that's calling it like it is.

Maybe it's just me, but considering what we parted with to get him, I guess I just expected more at this point.

Apparently, I was asking WAY too much.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Relying on another posters ignorant comment as the basis to discredit a post you don't agree with is as baseless as it gets, why don't you go ahead and explain how we are better off for having all 4 of those players, all 4 of which I said we shouldn't either extend their contracts, or trade for, before their signings became reality, now my evaluation of these players are starting to become more and more apparent, and yet so long as they play for the skins they are somehow better than what they really are because their redskins.


You make it sound as if we were pigeonholed into the Portis trade, or the Brunell trade, or resigning Samuels, what about Lavar?

Portis- 50.mil
Lavar- 68mil
Samuels- 47mil
Brunell- 43mil

Thats 208 million dollar's between 4 players, I want to hear which individual believes that these are deal's that are, decent, or even liveable, those salaries are disgusting for what they bring to the table, DISGUSTING!

No 208 million minus those 4 wouldn't go towards vastly improving our team? NOOOOOOOOO?

Further more if you can't get the deal you want don't go out and break the bank to do so.[/QUOTE]

What you are trying to pass as an arguement is ABSURD! What NFL contract goes to completion without restructure? Who would you have replace Brunell, and for what price? Do you suggest he is not doing the job? What do you envision as a legitimate, realistic salary for a starting NFL QB? More importantly, WHAT could POSSIBLY make you BELIEVE YOUR opinion is anything more than that????? I ask this question because I CANNOT POSSIBLY imagine!

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=skin4Life28]Whats baffling about that list is that NE does not have one player in the top 25. Simply amazing how they handle there money and win superbowls.[/QUOTE]

They have done what Joe is attempting to do.......build a winner for some time to come. Obviously, Belichick knows his stuff

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

CP needs to be in a scheme that is like denvers. Stretch plays which let him make one big cut and pick his holes. He is still running this way now after 2 years. CP doesn't get alot of yards after contact which Gibbs backs need to be able to do.