Quote:
Originally Posted by dgack
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. In my own posts I've simply said that I think both of them are good, and that (IMO) I think we've been using Portis inefficiently, when we could be using Betts to do the same thing, freeing Clinton to be a game breaker. Not unlike the way the Saints use Deuce to crush the spirit of opposing teams and then Reggie scampers free for a huge, back-breaking play.
I have never addressed the idea of Betts starting over Portis because that's just stupid, but I do think they should both be used simultaneously. And I do think that though Betts has been banged up off and on over the course of his career, he has also been stuck on some crappy squads, much crappier than any Portis ever had to endure, and he didn't get many carries to work with, either. But this is just as much conjecture as any of the "Portis would have done X against Philly" threads, you can't compare conjecture  |
My problem is the thread title is "Betts better than Portis?" I would have to say no. Based on their careers Clinton is far better. I think Clinton has made himself into a back that will fit into this system and is still a better back than Betts. However, I think they can both play. I just hate when people try to act like Betts is better than Portis.