Portis v. Betts: The Grass is Always Greener

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I have read an awful lot of posts recently calling for the coaches to re-evaluate Portis, play Betts more, or even start Betts in place of Portis. Although I agree that Betts needs to get more carries, I cannot understand why anyone would want to start Betts in lieu of Portis.

Argument #1: Betts Hits the Holes with More Power
I don't really agree that Betts hits the holes with more power. Portis is about as physical a back as you can ask for. Moreover, even if Betts is more physical than Portis, who cares? Right now Portis is averaging a full yard more per carry than Betts (3.9 ypc to 2.9 ypc).

Argument #2: Portis is Injury Prone
Portis has been hit by the injury bug over the past 12 months, but people who think Betts never hits the training room, think again. Betts and Portis have missed a combined total of 28 games over the course of their careers. Guess who has been more injury prone? Betts. Betts has missed 16 games over the course of his career due to injury, whereas Portis has missed 12 games.

Argument #3: Portis Has Not Been Productive in Washington
I cannot believe that I actually need to refute the claim that Portis has not been productive in Washington. Over his first two years in Washington,
Portis rushed for 2,831 yards and caught passes for 451 yards. Portis also caught or ran for 18 touchdowns. Finally, Portis has been incredibly good in pass protection. Now, Portis did have a "down year" in 2006, but what Redskin didn't.

So, are the Portis haters bitching fo bitching's sake, or is it just that the grass is always greener on the other side?

[MTK]

I'm not sure it even matters at this point who is in there. There simply aren't many holes to hit.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm not sure it even matters at this point who is in there. There simply aren't many holes to hit.

I definitely agree that the O-line isn't opening many holes. But, I still think Portis is the better back and can't understand the Portis-hating posters.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I definitely agree that the O-line isn't opening many holes. But, I still think Portis is the better back and can't understand the Portis-hating posters.

People like to hate. It makes them feel good

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm not sure it even matters at this point who is in there. There simply aren't many holes to hit.

Pretty much says it all. I'm not sure Ladainian Tomlison would find much running room behind this patchwork offensive line.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Pretty much says it all. I'm not sure Ladainian Tomlison would find much running room behind this patchwork offensive line.

He wouldn't be putting up the same numbers he is now, but there's still been no good explanation for why Portis' effectiveness seems to have decreased every year since he got here, other than the one I proposed.

I mean, you guys can say "Portis is the best back we have" all day long, but it still won't change the fact that he's losing his effectiveness every week and hasn't looked like the guy we traded for in almost 2 years.

The bigger question is can he turn it around. In my view, I don't think so. We squandered his golden years and ran him into the ground.

[SmootSmack]

During his "down year" he was on pace for 1,000 yards (granted, just barely) and he did have 7 TDs in 8 games which would have put him on pace for just one fewer than his career high for a season

The grass is always greener on the other side

[MTK]

For the record I'd stick with Portis.

[skinsguy]

When the OL is opening holes for the backs, then both are effective. However, Portis is a much better blocker than Betts, and I believe that is where he gets the edge.

[Schneed10]

Portis is better. He's FAR superior in pass protection.

I also like him a bit better as a runner. He can make people miss to pick up an extra yard or two when there's absolutely nothing there. Portis doesn't take hard shots, he twists and turns and always manages to fall forward. Meanwhile, all Betts really does is hit the hole with extreme authority and slash forward with power; the only time he falls forward is if he gets up a head of steam and gets through the first level of defenders. That's great when you have a good offensive line opening holes, but right now, we need Portis in there. Betts can't create, he just runs into the defensive wall and bounces back or gets knocked down.

I think they're equal receivers.

They're both fantastic when we have Randy Thomas healthy. He's the true star on our offense, and he has never gotten the credit. He's a friggin bulldozer, and we miss him terribly.

[SouperMeister]

Ladanian Tomlinson would have difficulty running here with our current run blocking. That said, Portis is averaging around 4 YPC while Betts might be around 3. Add in Portis's nose for the endzone, and it's no argument this season - Portis should be the starter.

[NYCSkin]

I think Portis is better as well--but I think he's done. He doesn't want to be here and he thinks he is gone after this year. With that in mind, I would rather give the ball to Betts...

[dgack]

I've been a staunch CP defender for a long time, and I don't think that the argument is "Ladell is better than Clinton", but more like "something is wrong with Clinton and Ladell might be on par with him". Or, put a different way, "for a guy with supposedly so much more talent, CP surely isn't producing that much more than Betts".

Such arguments only make sense in the context of "well, if we traded Portis for..." type scenarios.

For the record, I think something is DEFINITELY wrong with Portis, just as I think something is wrong with Santana. And both of their issues go beyond the O-line.

Also, though you're correct about their respective yd/carry stats, I think that's a pretty weak argument given that Betts has had roughly a third of the touches that Portis has. More carries equal more opportunities to establish a rhythm and break off longer runs, which increase your average. And, Portis himself loves to claim that he "gets stronger as the game goes on" (though that's total horseshit).

Frankly, the most damning stat in the run game is that even though he's had 3X the number of carries, CP's long run of the season is a tepid 19 yard jog, while Betts' long is 13.

Want to see a disturbing trend? Look at Portis' career rushing longs since he entered the league. They go down every year after his second year in Denver.

59, 65, 64, 47, 38, 19

Those are not the be all, end all of stats, and doesn't mean he's totally washed up, but those "big plays" are a hallmark of a "game changing" back, and the rapid disappearance of those big plays from Portis' stat sheets, IMHO, points to a simple fact that some here need to come to grips with:

Simply put, CP is not the guy we acquired from Denver for Champ. He's not even the same guy who fought through injuries in '05 to set the franchise rushing record. Right now, as far as a pure rusher, he's below NFL average.

Doesn't mean he doesn't "fight his guts out", or that he isn't a great blocker, locker room leader, etc. But I think it means that he is not really likely to be a major element in winning games for this team, at least not this year. And time is against him, as it is against all NFL RB's.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dgack

I've been a staunch CP defender for a long time, and I don't think that the argument is "Ladell is better than Clinton", but more like "something is wrong with Clinton and Ladell might be on par with him". Or, put a different way, "for a guy with supposedly so much more talent, CP surely isn't producing that much more than Betts".

Such arguments only make sense in the context of "well, if we traded Portis for..." type scenarios.

For the record, I think something is DEFINITELY wrong with Portis, just as I think something is wrong with Santana. And both of their issues go beyond the O-line.

Also, though you're correct about their respective yd/carry stats, I think that's a pretty weak argument given that Betts has had roughly a third of the touches that Portis has. More carries equal more opportunities to establish a rhythm and break off longer runs, which increase your average. And, Portis himself loves to claim that he "gets stronger as the game goes on" (though that's total horseshit).

Frankly, the most damning stat in the run game is that even though he's had 3X the number of carries, CP's long run of the season is a tepid 19 yard jog, while Betts' long is 13.

Want to see a disturbing trend? Look at Portis' career rushing longs since he entered the league. They go down every year after his second year in Denver.

59, 65, 64, 47, 38, 19

Those are not the be all, end all of stats, and doesn't mean he's totally washed up, but those "big plays" are a hallmark of a "game changing" back, and the rapid disappearance of those big plays from Portis' stat sheets, IMHO, points to a simple fact that some here need to come to grips with:

Simply put, CP is not the guy we acquired from Denver for Champ. He's not even the same guy who fought through injuries in '05 to set the franchise rushing record. Right now, as far as a pure rusher, he's below NFL average.

Doesn't mean he doesn't "fight his guts out", or that he isn't a great blocker, locker room leader, etc. But I think it means that he is not really likely to be a major element in winning games for this team, at least not this year. And time is against him, as it is against all NFL RB's.

Solid post. However, the numbers show that Portis gets more yards per carry in the 2nd half versus the 1st half and more ypc during carries 11-20 versus carries 1-10.

Clinton Portis: Situational Stats

So he does get "better" with more carries. I think most starting backs do.

[dgack]

It should also be noted that Portis had *exceptionally* high carries his first two years here, well over 300 in back to back years. Not a surprise to this squad given what happened last year, but it's also a pretty well known stats that RB's who see a excessive touches (carries + receptions) are almost universally due for injury problems and only a very minute fraction of those RB's ever return to the elite ranks again after such problems.

This effect is well documented among fantasy football circles, but it's worth mentioning here because it really does look like we're starting to see a downward slide in CP's game. If anybody's interested I can dig up one of the articles on the subject, it's an eye-opening (and, for Redskins fans, probably somewhat depressing) read.