If Chargers can get a 1st & 3rd for Turner, don't we have to shop Betts?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

You both get to wrapped up in numbers, well here's a number for you, Clinton went from 5.5 yards per carry in denver, to 3.8 with us, he had the lowest yards per carry out of any legitamate starter in 2004, which means any back in the league would have posted better numbers if he was force fed the ball enough times.

And don't forget he ran up huge numbers with the Broncos in 2003 against a horrible defense in the Chiefs, close to 400 yards I believe against 1 team and something like 6 or 7 rushing TD'S. he had 5 for us the whole year in 2004.

I will say it again CLINTON IS NOT A GREAT BACK! Just like I said Arrington was not a great LB. As time goes on it WILL become more and more apparent that he is what he is a change of pace back. He's still young and yet still he can't keep himself on the field, the guy isn't built for the pounding an everydown back get's unless he's running in space like he did in Denver, hence system back!

If you are trying to make an Anti-Clinton Portis argument, I'd leave Denver out of this.

As far as the 2004 argument goes, Offiss is correct. Despite the raw yardage totals being heavily in Portis' favor, Betts accrued more total value in 90 carries than Portis did in 350. Betts was more successful in crucial situations than Portis was that year, and ran up a higher YPC average. For whatever reason, Portis was an ineffective runner in 2004, racking up 1300 yards pretty much entirely due to the sheer number of carries he got that year. Bottom line is that if this was April 2005, Offiss would have a very convincing argument.

Well, I just checked my calender and it turns out that it is NOT April 2005. It is in fact April 2007. You know what this means, Offiss? It means we have two more years of data to analyze to see if this was a fluky year, or the start of a trend.

In 2005, Clinton Portis was unquestionably a top 10 runner in the NFL. Ladell Betts' year was pretty below average. Portis added 200 more yards to his season total in a nearly identical amount of carries. This blew up his yards per carry. It's actually very defenseable to say that Portis was better in 2005 than LaDainian Tomlinson. He was unbelieveable. Betts fell off the map.

In 2006, Portis put togehter a solid first half of the season at less than 100 percent. Betts rebounded from a bad 2005 to be one of the better RBs in the league. Had Portis stayed healthy, their numbers for the season likely would have been reversed.

Because of Portis' consistency these last two years, it makes no sense to dwell on the 2004 season. You can point to the 2004 season as a reason for concern, but to use it as the basis for prediction is--well, you'll see soon enough when your prediction misses by a hilarious amount.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you are trying to make an Anti-Clinton Portis argument, I'd leave Denver out of this.

As far as the 2004 argument goes, Offiss is correct. Despite the raw yardage totals being heavily in Portis' favor, Betts accrued more total value in 90 carries than Portis did in 350. Betts was more successful in crucial situations than Portis was that year, and ran up a higher YPC average. For whatever reason, Portis was an ineffective runner in 2004, racking up 1300 yards pretty much entirely due to the sheer number of carries he got that year. Bottom line is that if this was April 2005, Offiss would have a very convincing argument.

Well, I just checked my calender and it turns out that it is NOT April 2005. It is in fact April 2007. You know what this means, Offiss? It means we have two more years of data to analyze to see if this was a fluky year, or the start of a trend.

In 2005, Clinton Portis was unquestionably a top 10 runner in the NFL. Ladell Betts' year was pretty below average. Portis added 200 more yards to his season total in a nearly identical amount of carries. This blew up his yards per carry. It's actually very defenseable to say that Portis was better in 2005 than LaDainian Tomlinson. He was unbelieveable. Betts fell off the map.

In 2006, Portis put togehter a solid first half of the season at less than 100 percent. Betts rebounded from a bad 2005 to be one of the better RBs in the league. Had Portis stayed healthy, their numbers for the season likely would have been reversed.

Because of Portis' consistency these last two years, it makes no sense to dwell on the 2004 season. You can point to the 2004 season as a reason for concern, but to use it as the basis for prediction is--well, you'll see soon enough when your prediction misses by a hilarious amount.

What it comes down to is this, you either have the eye to see what this guy really is, or you don't. I recieved the same nonesense about Lavar when I said he wasen't that good, as well as Brunell, so we will just take the wait and see aproach.

And if you think the 2004 season is meaningless think again, there is a reason Portis bulked up, he didn't want to be battered like he was in 2004 where Gibbs ran him into the ground as if he were Riggins trying to justify the trade for him. Bottom line regardless it was and will always be a lowsey trade for us. Portis is under the gun this season because he will be compared to Betts under the same conditions so he better outplay him.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by offiss

What it comes down to is this, you either have the eye to see what this guy really is, or you don't. I recieved the same nonesense about Lavar when I said he wasen't that good, as well as Brunell, so we will just take the wait and see aproach.

And if you think the 2004 season is meaningless think again, there is a reason Portis bulked up, he didn't want to be battered like he was in 2004 where Gibbs ran him into the ground as if he were Riggins trying to justify the trade for him. Bottom line regardless it was and will always be a lowsey trade for us. Portis is under the gun this season because he will be compared to Betts under the same conditions so he better outplay him.

"Lousy" "Lousy" "Lousy" "Lousy"

Learn how to ****ing spell Lousy. This is my new pet peeve

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

What it comes down to is this, you either have the eye to see what this guy really is, or you don't. I recieved the same nonesense about Lavar when I said he wasen't that good, as well as Brunell, so we will just take the wait and see aproach.

And if you think the 2004 season is meaningless think again, there is a reason Portis bulked up, he didn't want to be battered like he was in 2004 where Gibbs ran him into the ground as if he were Riggins trying to justify the trade for him. Bottom line regardless it was and will always be a lowsey trade for us. Portis is under the gun this season because he will be compared to Betts under the same conditions so he better outplay him.

I'm guessing you don't have the mystical eye of running back evaluation then.

Explain why I should put more stock into 2004 when two more recent seasons argue that it was a fluke.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm guessing you don't have the mystical eye of running back evaluation then.

Explain why I should put more stock into 2004 when two more recent seasons argue that it was a fluke.

I do, becuase if it were my call Stephen Jackson would be a Skin, and SJ is a much better back then Portis.

Funny all I here is how great Portis was last season, who was better him or Betts? You know Betts the RB I have been saying is better suited for Gibbs style of offense for 3 years now, almost everyone on this site was calling him a waste and a lowsy RB before Portis went down, and now he's so valuable he's untradable.

One more for the mystical eye, Adrian Peterson will be a better back than Portis!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by offiss

I do, becuase if it were my call Stephen Jackson would be a Skin, and SJ is a much better back then Portis.

Funny all I here is how great Portis was last season, who was better him or Betts? You know Betts the RB I have been saying is better suited for Gibbs style of offense for 3 years now, almost everyone on this site was calling him a waste and a lowsy RB before Portis went down, and now he's so valuable he's untradable.

One more for the mystical eye, Adrian Peterson will be a better back than Portis!

You also said Kevin Jones and Julius Jones would be better than CP, yet at the same time you said CP could be just what the Gibbs' offense needs-his best running back ever.

Betts is a fine RB, but he has to take care of his fumbling problem. And he needs to show that he can stay healthy...not only in a contract year for him.

I should just give up any hope that you'll ever learn how to spell "lousy" correctly shouldn't I?

[offiss]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You also said Kevin Jones and Julius Jones would be better than CP, yet at the same time you said CP could be just what the Gibbs' offense needs-his best running back ever.

Betts is a fine RB, but he has to take care of his fumbling problem. And he needs to show that he can stay healthy...not only in a contract year for him.

I should just give up any hope that you'll ever learn how to spell "lousy" correctly shouldn't I?

Yes you should.

And please try to stop harping on one post after I screamed and yelled about how bad that deal for Portis was before we made it, you know just like I did with Brunell. Trying to find a silver lining in a black cloud to try and not believe that Gibbs is off his rocker is allowed once in a while. You might remember that I said Gibbs would have to change the style of his running game to do it in one of those posts as well, funny after a year and half why was Gibbs changing the line blocking for Portis if it is to be believed he was so great? Why has Portis constantly complained about how he is and has been used?

I still like Julies Jones he runs behind a worse line than Portis and still gets his yards, they infact remind me of each other, Portis a little faster, Jones runs a little harder.

As for Kevin Jones I really think he needs to get with a real team, I will judge no player with his kind of potential until he leaves detroit, kind of how tampa bay was for years back in the day.

The fact is I would take either one of those backs over Portis if I am allowed to take back the Bailey trade and trade Bailey off for what I believe we could have recieved was a couple of #1 picks, or at the very least a 1,2,and a 3, that trade would have given us 3 extra picks plus our #2 back, as well we wouldn't have 52 mil invested in one player who is now splitting time with his backup. And yes under those circumstances Stephen Jackson would be a Skin. Along with a lot of other talent to say the least!

As I have stated other times I wanted us to draft Portis with the 2nd round pick when he came out, I thought he would be a great change of pace back who could get you 15 quality carries per game, but he was over blown in that denver style of zone blocking which is perfect for him, he can't handle the work load of an everydown back in a coventional running attack he gets to beat up. Giving up all we gave up and could of had for Portis will never make sense, my biggest problem with Portis has alway's been what he cost us, I would be signing his praises as a player if he were our second rd choice and his contract was reasonable for his abilities, but thats obviously not the case.

Anyway have a blessed Easter SS, and you to matty!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

I still like Julies Jones he runs behind a worse line than Portis and still gets his yards, they infact remind me of each other, Portis a little faster, Jones runs a little harder.

As for Kevin Jones I really think he needs to get with a real team, I will judge no player with his kind of potential until he leaves detroit, kind of how tampa bay was for years back in the day.

The fact is I would take either one of those backs over Portis if I am allowed to take back the Bailey trade and trade Bailey off for what I believe we could have recieved was a couple of #1 picks, or at the very least a 1,2,and a 3, that trade would have given us 3 extra picks plus our #2 back, as well we wouldn't have 52 mil invested in one player who is now splitting time with his backup. And yes under those circumstances Stephen Jackson would be a Skin. Along with a lot of other talent to say the least!

However if we had Jones and Jones running the ball, we would be much worse off.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

I do, becuase if it were my call Stephen Jackson would be a Skin, and SJ is a much better back then Portis.

Funny all I here is how great Portis was last season, who was better him or Betts? You know Betts the RB I have been saying is better suited for Gibbs style of offense for 3 years now, almost everyone on this site was calling him a waste and a lowsy RB before Portis went down, and now he's so valuable he's untradable.

One more for the mystical eye, Adrian Peterson will be a better back than Portis!

Both Stephen Jackson and Adrian Peterson were higher rated than Portis was coming out of college. So if you think it takes some mystical eye to agree with the majority opinion, I really don't know what to tell you.

Portis and Betts are close in talent. Not so close that we can't see that Portis is better, but close.

I personally don't think Adrian Peterson will be as good at Portis. Adrian Peterson has a very undisciplined running style. At his prime, he probably won't be as good as Portis is now. I think it's going to take a few years for the team that drafts Peterson to see any return on him. He's overrated.

Jackson is probably a better back than Portis, but you're splitting hairs. It's really close and even though Denver was the one who received all the value, Portis was a much smarter pick than Jackson. Had we traded Champ and a 2nd rounder to move up and take Jackson, I really don't think our team would be too much different right now at all.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Both Stephen Jackson and Adrian Peterson were higher rated than Portis was coming out of college. So if you think it takes some mystical eye to agree with the majority opinion, I really don't know what to tell you.

Portis and Betts are close in talent. Not so close that we can't see that Portis is better, but close.

I personally don't think Adrian Peterson will be as good at Portis. Adrian Peterson has a very undisciplined running style. At his prime, he probably won't be as good as Portis is now. I think it's going to take a few years for the team that drafts Peterson to see any return on him. He's overrated.

Jackson is probably a better back than Portis, but you're splitting hairs. It's really close and even though Denver was the one who received all the value, Portis was a much smarter pick than Jackson. Had we traded Champ and a 2nd rounder to move up and take Jackson, I really don't think our team would be too much different right now at all.

QUOTE=GTripp0012;295389]Both Stephen Jackson and Adrian Peterson were higher rated than Portis was coming out of college. So if you think it takes some mystical eye to agree with the majority opinion, I really don't know what to tell you.

I do know what to tell you though, if that is the case why not pick the higher rated back late in the first round in Jackson with one of the picks we would have recieved for Bailey? It would make sense to take the higher rated back wouldn't it? If he's higher rated in college it would make sense that he would be a better back in the pro's which it has. Further more he was more of the type of back to handle what Gibbs wanted to do in the running game and that's pound the ball. But apperantly Gibbs doesn't have the mystical eye because he didn't agree with majority opinion, like most of his personel moves. Kind of like when the majority said Brunell is washed up, or Campbell is a mid second round pick.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

I do know what to tell you though, if that is the case why not pick the higher rated back late in the first round in Jackson with one of the picks we would have recieved for Bailey? It would make sense to take the higher rated back wouldn't it? If he's higher rated in college it would make sense that he would be a better back in the pro's which it has. Further more he was more of the type of back to handle what Gibbs wanted to do in the running game and that's pound the ball. But apperantly Gibbs doesn't have the mystical eye because he didn't agree with majority opinion, like most of his personel moves. Kind of like when the majority said Brunell is washed up, or Campbell is a mid second round pick.

Well, we very well could have traded up back into the first round to get Jackson. Would we be much different as a team now? Not really. Would we be better off in the distant future? Perhaps. Portis had more mileage on him than Jackson in 2004, but then again a lot can happen between now and the end of their respective careers. I wouldn't worry too much about a hypothetical situation of two years ago, especially one that would have changed our current situation as little as that one did.

One thing that had to factor into such a decision had it even been considered is the very real possibility that Stephen Jackson doesn't live up to his first round draft status. Anybody who compared Portis' production to Olandis Gary's or Quentin Griffin's could have seen that he was much more than a "system back" (a term with no real meaning). So he was not really a question mark at all, whereas Jackson was potentially following in the footsteps as guys like Trung Candidate and Curtis Enis.

We know now that the scouting projection to the NFL for Stephen Jackson was spot on. We didn't know that at the time. Considering the similarity in the production of the two backs over the last 3 years, I'd say we made the right decision at the time, and if we had honestly (hypothetically) considered both those options, we really didn't have a wrong move.

My previous post was not really enforcing the notion that it's always (or ever) smarter to pick the player who the scouting agencies love, just pointing out that its not really an outlandish statement to say the higher rated prospect will have a better career. As people around here have certainly realized by now, no one on this fourm thinks less of conventional football logic and player evaluation than me. I don't think of the Portis trade as an especially good nor bad move. I don't necessarily think that a trade up in the 2004 draft for Stephen Jackson would have been better, nor worse. I think it (should, at least) be obvious now that both backs would be playing the exact same role in the offense equally well.