Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

Monkeydad · 04-01-2008, 01:06 PM

It's hard to compare the two. They play on two completely different kinds of teams.

Portis is an important player but he's not relied upon to be THE ENTIRE OFFENSE. If we lose Portis, we can still win. If they lose Westbrook, they're toast. This has less to do with the individual players' talents and more to do with the workload they're assigned and how Westbrook can have success with the types of plays they call for him (a lot of passes out of backfield). Portis could probably succeed anywhere because he can take a tough running workload OR a role like Westbrook's because he can run, catch and even pass the ball well. But could Westbrook be as good on a team that would use him as a 30+ carry guy? Probably not, he has an injury history even with his 15-carry workload.

If Portis were in Philly, he could easily match and probably surpass Westbrook's production. If Westbrook had to play for Gibbs and carry more, he'd probably do OK, but not as well.

So, I believe Portis is a better RB because he can be a true RB as well as Westbrook's "Utility" role of RB/WR. I don't believe Westbrook could cut it for an extended period of time outside of Philly.

Yes, he's vitally important to their success, but only because they have the offensive gameplan solely based on his strengths and talents. Not every team can/wants to/needs to do that. Portis could succeed anywhere.

04-01-2008, 01:06 PM	#66
Monkeydad Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: PA Age: 47 Posts: 17,460	Re: Portis or Westbrook? It's hard to compare the two. They play on two completely different kinds of teams. Portis is an important player but he's not relied upon to be THE ENTIRE OFFENSE. If we lose Portis, we can still win. If they lose Westbrook, they're toast. This has less to do with the individual players' talents and more to do with the workload they're assigned and how Westbrook can have success with the types of plays they call for him (a lot of passes out of backfield). Portis could probably succeed anywhere because he can take a tough running workload OR a role like Westbrook's because he can run, catch and even pass the ball well. But could Westbrook be as good on a team that would use him as a 30+ carry guy? Probably not, he has an injury history even with his 15-carry workload. If Portis were in Philly, he could easily match and probably surpass Westbrook's production. If Westbrook had to play for Gibbs and carry more, he'd probably do OK, but not as well. So, I believe Portis is a better RB because he can be a true RB as well as Westbrook's "Utility" role of RB/WR. I don't believe Westbrook could cut it for an extended period of time outside of Philly. Yes, he's vitally important to their success, but only because they have the offensive gameplan solely based on his strengths and talents. Not every team can/wants to/needs to do that. Portis could succeed anywhere.