Betts better than Portis?

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by dgack

I don't need to address anything else in your post, because none of it applies to MY posts, all of which were very specifically backed up with stats.



I said "Stop talking" because you whined about how you were "so sick of talking about this". I mean, seriously, if people want to have the discussion, and you don't, then don't. I don't understand the problem.

Furthermore, this post is pretty well-argued throughout, backed up with stats, and people making generally good points, as opposed to some typical "OMG PORTIS SUX0RZ" thread, so I really can't understand the bitterness.

This is probably the third thread that's turned into a Betts vs. Portis thread since Friday. Every time Betts has a good game people say he's more fit for the system than Clinton. It's pretty much been the same thing. The stats change some, but really the agruments stay the same. I think Betts is a good runner and may have better vision than Clinton. Basically, he can find a hole, but he is usually relatively easy to bring down.

What I don't understand is how come it's not insane to question Gibbs when he sticks with Clinton, but let me question Brunell and somehow I become not a real fan. Then it's all, "trust Gibbs or you should be a Cowboys fan or something."

And I'm not really "bitter," I'm just getting sick of the discussion. The same people make the same arguments for and against each guy. The problem with arguing Betts should start is that he hasn't been healthy enough to prove anything at all in his career. That's something no one ever addresses that I always say. That's another reason I get sick of talking about it.