Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal:

[IMG]http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/PT-AA854A_rushi_20051125201211.gif[/IMG]

We've played seven of those teams and from that:

Only Julius Jones (93 yards in week one) has run for more than the 87 Portis ran for against San Diego

No one has run for more than the 103 yards Portis ran for against Denver

No one has run for more than the 121 yards Portis ran for against Chicago

No one has run for more than the 144 yards Portis ran for against Tampa

But I guess the problem is when he got those runs.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Saw this in the Wall Street Journal:

[IMG]http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/PT-AA854A_rushi_20051125201211.gif[/IMG]

We've played seven of those teams and from that:

Only Julius Jones (93 yards in week one) has run for more than the 87 Portis ran for against San Diego

No one has run for more than the 103 yards Portis ran for against Denver

No one has run for more than the 121 yards Portis ran for against Chicago

No one has run for more than the 144 yards Portis ran for against Tampa

But I guess the problem is when he got those runs.[/QUOTE]

Portis' 87 yards against San Diego = LOSS

Portis' 103 yards against Denver = LOSS

Portis' 121 yards against Chicago = WIN (just barely a win, and look at the respective teams now)

Portis' 144 yards against Tampa Bay = LOSS

Ask yourself this: Knowing what you know now, would you have continued with the trade for Clinton Portis?

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

very interesting stat...it shows there are parts of this team that are solid even if the games are losses.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Portis' 87 yards against San Diego = LOSS

Portis' 103 yards against Denver = LOSS

Portis' 121 yards against Chicago = WIN (just barely a win, and look at the respective teams now)

Portis' 144 yards against Tampa Bay = LOSS

Ask yourself this: Knowing what you know now, would you have continued with the trade for Clinton Portis?[/QUOTE]

Well like I said, the problem seems to be that we're not getting the runs at the right time. Yeah I would have continued with it. I don't know what other options we had really. I know that Shaun Alexander had been mentioned at the time, but I think that would have meant giving up a first.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

Personally, I would have never given up Stephen Davis. I know alot of guys here don't like him now, but I had always said that Stephen Davis would have fit into Gibbs' offense perfectly. Which, of course, means that we would have needed Gibbs back at the helm earlier than last year, but in doing so, we probably would have kept Bailey and maybe even Smoot.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Personally, I would have never given up Stephen Davis. I know alot of guys here don't like him now, but I had always said that Stephen Davis would have fit into Gibbs' offense perfectly. Which, of course, means that we would have needed Gibbs back at the helm earlier than last year, but in doing so, we probably would have kept Bailey and maybe even Smoot.[/QUOTE]

Had Gibbs comes back 5 years ago, Davis would have been perfect. Now, he's too old and injured way too often.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Ask yourself this: Knowing what you know now, would you have continued with the trade for Clinton Portis?[/QUOTE]

If the other option is Ladell Betts as the starting tailback, I'd do that trade 100 out of 100 times.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

I posted this in another thread with regard to Portis:

Portis will likely have 2,600 to 2,700 yards in his first two years as a Redskin. That is pretty damn impressive; regardless of what he racked up in Denver. While he's not the 2nd best running back in the league, he's probably the 2nd back I'd take in the league (Tomlinson being the 1st). People think of his contract in today's NFL dollars. That's the wrong approach.

First, Portis, unlike James or other great backs in the NFL today, is 24. 24 years old is damn young, in fact there are a lot of rookie running backs who are 24.

Second, there are a lot of great backs in the NFL who aren't as versatile as Portis. I bet you will be very hard pressed to find a running back that can pick up blocks, catch passes out of the backfield or from the line, or make plays like Portis can. Either they are great runners (i.e. Larry Johnson) or they are great receivers (i.e. Westbrook) or they are great blockers, but rarely do you find a back that can do all of the above.

Third, if you look at guys like Alexander, Johnson, or James, Portis isn't running behind the kind of offensive lines or offenses that they are. You'll be hard pressed to find a back that is posting the kind of numbers that Portis is in an offense that is as inconsistent as ours. The only ones who comes close are Willis McGahee and Reuben Droughns and I'd take Portis over either of those two in a heartbeat.

Fourth, Portis has a great attitude; he's a "team" guy despite his antics. Shaun Alexander threw a hissy fit because he was one yard behind Curtis Martin for the rushing title last year.

You find me a 24 year old back, who can catch, run, block, and even pass who can run behind a mediocre offense without griping and then I'll consider the trade to be a bad one. Until then, Portis is a stud in my book.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Well like I said, the problem seems to be that we're not getting the runs at the right time. Yeah I would have continued with it. I don't know what other options we had really. I know that Shaun Alexander had been mentioned at the time, but I think that would have meant giving up a first.[/QUOTE]





Really? You mean like late in the game when a defense knows we are running the ball? Kind of like the Tampa, and Oakland games, where a simple first down will due. You know running the ball when it counts? From what Iv'e heard Portis is amoung the best in that department, so that can't be the problem.
:insane:

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Really? You mean like late in the game when a defense knows we are running the ball? Kind of like the Tampa, and Oakland games, where a simple first down will due. You know running the ball when it counts? From what Iv'e heard Portis is amoung the best in that department, so that can't be the problem.
:insane:[/QUOTE]

Do you see Portis fighting for extra yardage? I do. Do you see gaping holes for him? I haven't in a while. If you think Portis isn't a good back, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Personally, I would have never given up Stephen Davis. I know alot of guys here don't like him now, but I had always said that Stephen Davis would have fit into Gibbs' offense perfectly. Which, of course, means that we would have needed Gibbs back at the helm earlier than last year, but in doing so, we probably would have kept Bailey and maybe even Smoot.[/QUOTE]

The problem with Stephen Davis is and has always been his tendency for fumbling. Gibbs would never put up with that.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw]If the other option is Ladell Betts as the starting tailback, I'd do that trade 100 out of 100 times.[/QUOTE]

If the only alternative is Ladell Betts, then I might agree. That said, I still believe we've gotten about as much production out of Portis as we would from just about any other running back, without the stupendous price tag.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]I posted this in another thread with regard to Portis:

Portis will likely have 2,600 to 2,700 yards in his first two years as a Redskin. That is pretty damn impressive; regardless of what he racked up in Denver. While he's not the 2nd best running back in the league, he's probably the 2nd back I'd take in the league (Tomlinson being the 1st). People think of his contract in today's NFL dollars. That's the wrong approach.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, but what's his average getting those 2600 to 2700 yards? More importantly, what's his average against NFC East opponents, in the games that matter most? Right now, it's not even 4 yards a carry.

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]First, Portis, unlike James or other great backs in the NFL today, is 24. 24 years old is damn young, in fact there are a lot of rookie running backs who are 24.[/QUOTE]


For running backs, the life-span in the NFL can be shorter than you think. Sure, he could be in prime condition for another five years, but I doubt it.

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Second, there are a lot of great backs in the NFL who aren't as versatile as Portis. I bet you will be very hard pressed to find a running back that can pick up blocks, catch passes out of the backfield or from the line, or make plays like Portis can. Either they are great runners (i.e. Larry Johnson) or they are great receivers (i.e. Westbrook) or they are great blockers, but rarely do you find a back that can do all of the above.[/QUOTE]



Versatility is great, as long as you do the things you were brought in to do first. Right now, even with an improved offensive line, Portis has yet to be a game-changer, he has yet to be the threat to totally take over the game like he was in Denver. I don't think any rational person will try to argue that we are seeing everything we hoped for from Clinton Portis.


[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Third, if you look at guys like Alexander, Johnson, or James, Portis isn't running behind the kind of offensive lines or offenses that they are. You'll be hard pressed to find a back that is posting the kind of numbers that Portis is in an offense that is as inconsistent as ours. The only ones who comes close are Willis McGahee and Reuben Droughns and I'd take Portis over either of those two in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE]


My argument to this is that Portis was supposed to be the running back that transformed our offense into levels like those of the Colts or Seahawks. He was supposed to get past 7 and 8 man fronts, and make defenses pay by opening up the passing game. Right now, our opponents have no reason to respect the threat Portis poses.


[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Fourth, Portis has a great attitude; he's a "team" guy despite his antics. Shaun Alexander threw a hissy fit because he was one yard behind Curtis Martin for the rushing title last year.[/QUOTE]


Hmmm, Clinton Portis with the transgender dress-ups on Thursdays versus Shaun Alexander's hissy fits? With 1339 yards and 20 touchdowns so far, I'll take Mr. Hissy Fit, thank you very much.

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]You find me a 24 year old back, who can catch, run, block, and even pass who can run behind a mediocre offense without griping and then I'll consider the trade to be a bad one. Until then, Portis is a stud in my book.[/QUOTE]

I firmly believe that when the history books are written, the Portis trade will rank just below the Herschel Walker and Scott Mitchell moves in terms of one team getting a raw deal.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

I remember I said on this board that Julius Jones was better than Portis. I was wrong. I think it's sad that you are giving up on this guy.

Portis is a complete back, AND he plays with intensity AND he is a great team guy AND he is 24!! Whenever you guys want so get rid of him, PLEASE CALL RICHARD BURTON I mean CALL JERRY JONES!!!

There isn't a Running Back that ever existed who can create his own holes. I haven't seen gaping holes for Portis to scat through. I haven't seen sealed off corners for him to turn. When the DLine is in the backfield all day, and run blitzes are pretty much guarenteed, there isn't a back in existance who will thrive in the NFL. The yards he is getting are all hard won.

Alexander has some big holes to run through. And he has a Top tier Fullback. LTomlinson has a great line and the other great blocking fullback in the league. What does Portis have??

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

Portis is not the problem, he is getting his yardage and moving the chains for the style back he is. He is not a bruiser up the middle 3rd and 2 type guy. That falls on Gibbs and the coaching staff.

Let me see

Tampa uses Alstott on short yardage not Cadillac or Pittman
Falcons use Duckett not Dunn
Giants use Short not Tiki

The list goes on, where teams use a big back for short yardage. Give me a break everyone said it themselves. Portis is a big play back not one who is going to turn the oh great 50 Gut into 60 yard TD's every game. That is Gibbs style offense adjust to Portis strengths. Example the Tampa game the most I seen stretch plays and outside off tackle stuff all year example Portis big game. I see Broughton on Special Teams, put him in on short yardage to move the pile where Portis is largely outweighed verse 300 pound lineman. Just does not make since. The problem may not be the playcalling, but the personnel the coaches choose to use in those situations. Don't give me he fumbled in Pre-Season. Many of our players are fumbling bumbling fools in some games.
I have not seen Portis get many opportunities where he is left one on one in open field, I have seen him lately bouncing off keeping his feet better and getting extra yardage when he is swarmed by two, three and four people. He is following his blocks better as well and getting some tough yardage.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=5RINGS]I remember I said on this board that Julius Jones was better than Portis. I was wrong. I think it's sad that you are giving up on this guy.

Portis is a complete back, AND he plays with intensity AND he is a great team guy AND he is 24!! Whenever you guys want so get rid of him, PLEASE CALL RICHARD BURTON I mean CALL JERRY JONES!!!

There isn't a Running Back that ever existed who can create his own holes. I haven't seen gaping holes for Portis to scat through. I haven't seen sealed off corners for him to turn. When the DLine is in the backfield all day, and run blitzes are pretty much guarenteed, there isn't a back in existance who will thrive in the NFL. The yards he is getting are all hard won.

Alexander has some big holes to run through. And he has a Top tier Fullback. LTomlinson has a great line and the other great blocking fullback in the league. What does Portis have??[/QUOTE]

Great Points 5 Rings, I could not agree more. The full back put into a situation where he is used as a Power back against some of the top run D's in the league this year. He is seperated himself from personal success for the good of the team, and damn does he have heart. No back would have stats much better than Portis.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

I'm really tired of talking about Portis and "the trade".

What's done is done, Portis is our RB and we need to make the best of things.

Personally I like CP and what he brings to the table. I think as the offense continues to evolve the coaches will find ways to use him best and CP will continue to adjust to the system. He's taken some steps forward this year in running the counter and has shown much more patience over last year. He plays through injuries, he blocks and he can catch out of the backfield. I think in a lot of ways he's really underappreciated around here.

We can't go back and change the trade, what's done is done.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]I don't think any rational person will try to argue that we are seeing everything we hoped for from Clinton Portis. My argument to this is that Portis was supposed to be the running back that transformed our offense into levels like those of the Colts or Seahawks. He was supposed to get past 7 and 8 man fronts, and make defenses pay by opening up the passing game. Right now, our opponents have no reason to respect the threat Portis poses.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, no rational person should have expected Portis to turn our offense into the Colts or Seahawks. That is unless you expected Portis to use his magic wand to turn Chris Samuels into Walter Jones, Mark Brunell into Peyton Manning, etc.

Not to sound like a real jerk, but apparently you haven't been paying attention to what guys like Antonio Pierce are saying or where opposing defenses are lining up. Pierce said after the Giants' blowout, "We knew that if we stopped Portis, we would stop their offense. So we did everything to shut him down." Moreover, opposing defenses are stacking the box with more than 7 guys on 90% of downs.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

I said a few weeks ago that CP was not what the team was looking for in a RB (due to his lack of explosiveness) and was ripped by almost everyone on this site because as I was told, CP is a great team player and blocker (he is but thats not why the skins got him). Yesterday's game proves again CP is a decent back but not the explosive threat the skins hoped he'd be when they acquired him. On top of that CP is not a money back and will not get that 1 or 2 yards when the chips are down. I dont think the skins would take CP if they had to do it all over again but like Matty said, its too late now.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

It's hard to prove a whole lot against the NFL's #1 run defense.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]With all due respect, no rational person should have expected Portis to turn our offense into the Colts or Seahawks. That is unless you expected Portis to use his magic wand to turn Chris Samuels into Walter Jones, Mark Brunell into Peyton Manning, etc.

Not to sound like a real jerk, but apparently you haven't been paying attention to what guys like Antonio Pierce are saying or where opposing defenses are lining up. Pierce said after the Giants' blowout, "We knew that if we stopped Portis, we would stop their offense. So we did everything to shut him down." Moreover, opposing defenses are stacking the box with more than 7 guys on 90% of downs.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you're right, I never should have expected Clinton Portis to take us to the next level. What was I thinking?

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Yeah, you're right, I never should have expected Clinton Portis to take us to the next level. What was I thinking?[/QUOTE]

Portis was supposed to boost our offense. It is impossible to know what our current offense would look like without Portis (as he's in it).

All I was saying that it is unrealistic to expect Portis to take this team from what it was like in 2003 to a stellar Indy or Seattle-type offense. But, I guess unrealistic expectations are to be expected here in D.C.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Yeah, you're right, I never should have expected Clinton Portis to take us to the next level. What was I thinking?[/QUOTE]

Talk about misplaced expectations. Here I thought the missing piece for the past several years has been a decent quarterback, or even a steady and reliable coaching staff, but apparently Clinton Portis was supposed to strap the entire team on his back and carry them to the promised land.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Portis was supposed to boost our offense. It is impossible to know what our current offense would look like without Portis (as he's in it).

All I was saying that it is unrealistic to expect Portis to take this team from what it was like in 2003 to a stellar Indy or Seattle-type offense. But, I guess unrealistic expectations are to be expected here in D.C.[/QUOTE]

Unrealistic expectations? By the latter half of his second season, this should be about the time that this offense takes its shape and starts guiding this team to wins. By this time, I don’t think it’s unrealistic with an improved offensive line for Portis to gouge out the tough yardage, to pound teams into submission, to protect fourth quarter leads, and put teams away.

But if you never expected that Ramseyfan, or thought that such scenarios were unrealistic, it follows that everything’s just peachy with your analysis of Portis. After a 6-10 season, and now, losers of 3 straight and falling in 6 of their last 8 performances, sorry if I don’t share your optimism.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Unrealistic expectations? By the latter half of his second season, this should be about the time that this offense takes its shape and starts guiding this team to wins. By this time, I don’t think it’s unrealistic with an improved offensive line for Portis to gouge out the tough yardage, to pound teams into submission, to protect fourth quarter leads, and put teams away.

But if you never expected that Ramseyfan, or thought that such scenarios were unrealistic, it follows that everything’s just peachy with your analysis of Portis. After a 6-10 season, and now, losers of 3 straight and falling in 6 of their last 8 performances, sorry if I don’t share your optimism.[/QUOTE]

I think we did have a right to expect an improved offense. And, our our offense has improved over the last few years (as hard as that might be to believe), just not to the extent that we would like. Do you disagree?

My point was that you can't place all the blame for our offensive woes on Portis. I interpreted your previous posts as saying that Portis was supposed to revolutionize the offense and turn it into a Indy or Seattle type offense. I just don't believe that was a realistic expectation. There are 11 guys on the field on offense and Portis is just one of them.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw]Talk about misplaced expectations. Here I thought the missing piece for the past several years has been a decent quarterback, or even a steady and reliable coaching staff, but apparently Clinton Portis was supposed to strap the entire team on his back and carry them to the promised land.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that Portis was supposed to do everything all by himself. I'm saying I've been less than impressed with his performance so far. But since you mentioned it, up until the last couple of weeks, we have had decent quarterback play, an experienced coaching staff that appears to be firmly entrenched, and we're now below the .500 mark, staring from the outside looking in yet again. Portis was supposed to [I]help us [/I] get to the Promised Land. From what I've seen, he hasn't.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven] My argument to this is that Portis was supposed to be the running back that transformed our offense into levels like those of the Colts or Seahawks.

I firmly believe that when the history books are written, the Portis trade will rank just below the Herschel Walker and Scott Mitchell moves in terms of one team getting a raw deal.[/QUOTE]

I think these are the two statements that I have the biggest problem with Beems. Portis was supposed to transform our offense into the Colts of Seahawks. Not to be a smart ass (sorry), but Portis can't wave a wand and turn Brunell into Manning or Samuels into Jones etc.

You actually believe the Portis-Bailey (2nd pick) deal is going to go down like the Walker-Mitchell trade. I think that's just a little bit of an overstatement and that is precisely the problem that I am having lately. I think people are overreacting to our recent losses (as disastrous as they are) and using hyperbole and exaggeration at every turn.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Portis' 87 yards against San Diego = LOSS

Portis' 103 yards against Denver = LOSS

Portis' 121 yards against Chicago = WIN (just barely a win, and look at the respective teams now)

Portis' 144 yards against Tampa Bay = LOSS

Ask yourself this: Knowing what you know now, would you have continued with the trade for Clinton Portis?[/QUOTE]I really hope you dont think Champ Bailey is worth a damn. Denver got a better deal b/c of tatum bell. Champ isnt even top ten cb in the league. His ints this year was only because the qb threw it right to him.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]I think we did have a right to expect an improved offense. And, our our offense has improved over the last few years (as hard as that might be to believe), just not to the extent that we would like. Do you disagree?[/QUOTE]

No, certainly the offense has improved, at least in the passing aspects. But now, we’re getting back to our 2004 ways. Teams are doubling Santana Moss, and the running game is not picking up the slack. In fact, it hasn’t even accomplished basic tasks that every quality team should expect – running out the clock, getting first downs near the end of the game to protect leads, giving your defense a chance to rest. None of this has happened when we needed it most. I just don’t think it’s too much to ask someone of his notoriety, considering what we parted with to bring him in here to accomplish those objectives. And I think it’s perfectly fair to criticize both he and the offensive line when they fail to do the things that could have prevented this current three-game slide.

No, it’s not all Clinton Portis’ fault. But judging from what I’ve seen so far, I think the trade was a raw deal, I think he was not worth the money, the cap implications, the excitement, and the second round pick to get him. I’m just not impressed.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=RedskinNation21]I really hope you dont think Champ Bailey is worth a damn. Denver got a better deal b/c of tatum bell. Champ isnt even top ten cb in the league. His ints this year was only because the qb threw it right to him.[/QUOTE]

The real killer on this deal is the draft pick. Denver has the skins 1st rounder this year. That would have been nice to have that pick and maybe boost the D line. The skins will never be able to build for the future giving away draft picks like they do.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]I think these are the two statements that I have the biggest problem with Beems. Portis was supposed to transform our offense into the Colts of Seahawks. Not to be a smart ass (sorry), but Portis can't wave a wand and turn Brunell into Manning or Samuels into Jones etc.[/QUOTE]

If I implied that Clinton Portis is capable of genetic cloning, or applying a little “hocus-pocus” to give us Walter Jones and Peyton Manning, then I apologize for the confusion. I expected Portis to help lead this offense to levels among the Colts and Seahawks. If I’m guilty of great expectations, so be it. Ask the players if they expect to be the best every week. According to what I’ve read from your posts, you’d be surprised at their own expectations. Yes, I expect our team to be the best, and I want this team to win. I’m a fan! What do you expect of me? To be happy at 6-10 or 5-6? I don’t expect to blow fourth quarter leads for three games in a row with the personnel and the coaching staff this team has acquired. Clinton Portis is a part of this team that for three games in a row has not been able to secure the win when called upon to do it.

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]You actually believe the Portis-Bailey (2nd pick) deal is going to go down like the Walker-Mitchell trade. I think that's just a little bit of an overstatement and that is precisely the problem that I am having lately. I think people are overreacting to our recent losses (as disastrous as they are) and using hyperbole and exaggeration at every turn.[/QUOTE]

I’ve been saying that the Skins got a raw deal from the beginning, not just since this slump. Since there aren’t big trades in the NFL anymore, deductive reasoning tells me that this one, as of right now, could stand right with them.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

say what you want to about Portis, but the real problem, like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, is the lack of an 2nd WR. Yeah Cooley does well but once Moss is doubled and Cooley is taken away who is our next option?

Remember back when we made the playoffs in '99? We did have 2 downfield threats in Westbrook and Connell. Say what you will about them but they did keep opposing D's honest.

This year all we have for a downfield threat is Moss, take that away and stack the box and we are done.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Saw this in the Wall Street Journal:

[img]http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/PT-AA854A_rushi_20051125201211.gif[/img]

We've played seven of those teams and from that:

Only Julius Jones (93 yards in week one) has run for more than the 87 Portis ran for against San Diego

No one has run for more than the 103 yards Portis ran for against Denver

No one has run for more than the 121 yards Portis ran for against Chicago

No one has run for more than the 144 yards Portis ran for against Tampa

But I guess the problem is when he got those runs.[/QUOTE]The problem is that we do not turn yards into scores.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]No, certainly the offense has improved, at least in the passing aspects. But now, we’re getting back to our 2004 ways. Teams are doubling Santana Moss, and the running game is not picking up the slack. In fact, it hasn’t even accomplished basic tasks that every quality team should expect – running out the clock, getting first downs near the end of the game to protect leads, giving your defense a chance to rest. None of this has happened when we needed it most. I just don’t think it’s too much to ask someone of his notoriety, considering what we parted with to bring him in here to accomplish those objectives. And I think it’s perfectly fair to criticize both he and the offensive line when they fail to do the things that could have prevented this current three-game slide.

No, it’s not all Clinton Portis’ fault. But judging from what I’ve seen so far, I think the trade was a raw deal, I think he was not worth the money, the cap implications, the excitement, and the second round pick to get him. I’m just not impressed.[/QUOTE]The problem with Portis is not with the trade but what we gave up to complete the deal. The same goes with the Brunell deal. It seems that our front ofice has zero skills in negotiating a deal. Denver wanted Bailey pretty bad and we still gave up some draft picks. Brunell which has done a great job this year was an over paid agging QB. We could have picked up both without giving up so much. Its like they go after players with an attitude of just get them no matter what it cost instead of thinking how can we get this player at the best price. We need a tough lawyer who can work these deals.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

Yeah, Portis needs to get into the end zone more. Look at LT to see how much of an impact TDs make.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

As i have said from day 1...the Portis trade was a disaster. I don't care about Bailey and i don't even care about the wasted 2nd round pick that we threw in for some reason. What i do care about is that Portis is a BAD FIT for Joe Gibbs offense. Putting a back like Portis in Joe Gibbs offense is like putting a square peg in a round hole...it's not working. If you think it is working then why do we line up in shot gun formation on 3rd and 2 at crucuial points in a game? Gibbs built a hall of fame coaching carreer with a power running game as the basis for everything. Portis is a pretty good player...he is just not the player the redskins needed. I have alwasy felt that the skins made that trade out of convenience...denver had a player who didn't want to be there and we had a player who didn't want to be here so lets get together and trade our headaches. And now the skins have 50 million invested in a running back who can not move the pile and play the smash mouth between the tackles football that Gibbs built his reputation playing. Is Gibbs play calling at the end of a game any different now than it was 15 years ago? The answer is no...15 years ago in the 4th quarter with a lead Gibbs called running plays and ran out the clock becasue he had the personel to get it done. This is not Portis's fault it's the redskins fault for bringing him here.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

I would like to know why Portis not really being an ideal fit for Joe Gibbs' offense is Portis's fault. First of all, if he didn't fit, Joe shouldn't have gotten him.

However, as it stands, he's the league's 9th leading rusher and he's averaging 4.2 ypc. That's more than Willis McGahee and Rudi Johnson, numbers 6 and 8 on the list. The problem is the system he's running in. Joe Gibbs' unwillingness to adapt to the strengths of his players is the damn problem.

I'd also like to know why Portis's running is always a problem when we lose games? The only time you all didn't want to bench him after a loss was the game against the Bucs.

Another big problem is what Southpaw mentioned, as it stands we have the #9 back in the league and the #15 quarterback according to yards.

Other good teams:

Seahawks: Alexander #1, Hasselbeck #8
Colts: Edge #3, Peyton #10
Cincy: Johnson #6, Palmer #2
Chargers: LT #5, Brees #7
Giants: Tiki #2, Eli #6

Are you noticing some sort of trend here? Those are all teams who rely on their offense. All of the other good teams rely on D. Since the Skins have shown they really can't rely on defense too much, they need a more balanced attack.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

Thanks for that stat. I'm listening to more Clinton bashing on the John Thompson show -- Clinton has supporters on the show, too -- and your comparison helps put things in perspective.

It takes ten other guys to deliver the ball to the back (or receiver) to make a play, and evey one of them has to perform for the play to work. If it isn't working, it doesn't just fall on the ball carrier. Sure, I would like to have Tomlinson or Alexander on the team, but they weren't available. Any thought that the Skins would have landed them is wishful thinking. Any thought that Tomlinson or Alexander would perform here as they do on their current team is [b]Snyderitis.[/b] Haven't we had enough of that?

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]I would like to know why Portis not really being an ideal fit for Joe Gibbs' offense is Portis's fault. First of all, if he didn't fit, Joe shouldn't have gotten him.

However, as it stands, he's the league's 9th leading rusher and he's averaging 4.2 ypc. That's more than Willis McGahee and Rudi Johnson, numbers 6 and 8 on the list. The problem is the system he's running in. Joe Gibbs' unwillingness to adapt to the strengths of his players is the damn problem.

I'd also like to know why Portis's running is always a problem when we lose games? The only time you all didn't want to bench him after a loss was the game against the Bucs.

Another big problem is what Southpaw mentioned, as it stands we have the #9 back in the league and the #15 quarterback according to yards.

Other good teams:

Seahawks: Alexander #1, Hasselbeck #8
Colts: Edge #3, Peyton #10
Cincy: Johnson #6, Palmer #2
Chargers: LT #5, Brees #7
Giants: Tiki #2, Eli #6

Are you noticing some sort of trend here? Those are all teams who rely on their offense. All of the other good teams rely on D. Since the Skins have shown they really can't rely on defense too much, they need a more balanced attack.[/QUOTE]The defense still only allowed 17 points to a very good offensive team. I would not say the skins cannot rely on our d. The o does have to score some points.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

I just meant that the Skins can't just trot out a good defense and try to control the ball all day in the hopes that that will be enough to win the game. The defense hasn't been great at holding the lead especially when we don't control the ball late in games. Denver and Chicago stop the run and run the football. We haven't really shut down a running back in a few weeks. The ones we have stopped, we've let the team throw on us. The defense is too inconsistent right now to just try to rely on that to win games.

We need a balanced offensive attack to go along with a pretty good d in order to win.