Portis vs. Betts

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

A lot of the points being made in this thread are frusterating me. And its not because this topic isn't worth discussing. It's that people are taking sides, and saying very biased things for no good reason.

The thread should be a non-issue. Joe Gibbs' toenail knows more about football than anyone in the Warpath and he has chosen Portis to be the starter.

Why is there even a debate?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

The thread should be a non-issue. Joe Gibbs' toenail knows more about football than anyone in the Warpath and he has chosen Portis to be the starter.

Why is there even a debate?

Well that's fine then why do we even have this site?

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well that's fine then why do we even have this site?

Is the Warpath's fate hanging in the balance because of Betts vs. Portis?

That softball just went 350....

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Is the Warpath's fate hanging in the balance because of Betts vs. Portis?

That softball just went 350....

I think you missed the point

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

The thread should be a non-issue. Joe Gibbs' toenail knows more about football than anyone in the Warpath and he has chosen Portis to be the starter.

Why is there even a debate?

Of course if we all thought that Gibbs knew more than all of us on every issue, there wouldn't even be dissenting opinion, so this is not necessarily true.

Joe Gibbs is a great football coach. That doesn't make him right 100% of the time. It just makes him good at what he does (coaching).


Now, whats frusterating me is that we are debating the past. Theres no debate. Portis, excluding this season, has been better every year than Betts both in total and broken down per play.

However, if we debate what the future holds, then you could make a case that Betts will be better going foward. I tend to feel they will both be pretty good, and somewhat interchangable. If I had to pick one, I'll assume Portis will still be above league average coming back from injury, and Betts will regress towards the average after last year. Means I'm taking Portis. But its still a good debate...as long as we debate 2007, and not 2002-2006.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Of course if we all thought that Gibbs knew more than all of us on every issue, there wouldn't even be dissenting opinion, so this is not necessarily true.

Joe Gibbs is a great football coach. That doesn't make him right 100% of the time. It just makes him good at what he does (coaching).


Now, whats frusterating me is that we are debating the past. Theres no debate. Portis, excluding this season, has been better every year than Betts both in total and broken down per play.

However, if we debate what the future holds, then you could make a case that Betts will be better going foward. I tend to feel they will both be pretty good, and somewhat interchangable. If I had to pick one, I'll assume Portis will still be above league average coming back from injury, and Betts will regress towards the average after last year. Means I'm taking Portis. But its still a good debate...as long as we debate 2007, and not 2002-2006.

I do not want to build my running game on a guy who is just as likely to fumble as he is to get you in the endzone.

Betts has been a fumbler since we drafted him. No one can argue that. I just don't think that a team that wants to go for it all can trust him as a feature back.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

I do not want to build my running game on a guy who is just as likely to fumble as he is to get you in the endzone.

Betts has been a fumbler since we drafted him. No one can argue that. I just don't think that a team that wants to go for it all can trust him as a feature back.

People who are chronic fumblers tend not to stay that way. If they have desirable carrying skills, they get it corrected. See: Barber, Tiki.

Betts isn't half as bad as Barber was and he turned out alright.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

People who are chronic fumblers tend not to stay that way. If they have desirable carrying skills, they get it corrected. See: Barber, Tiki.

Betts isn't half as bad as Barber was and he turned out alright.

To compare Tiki Barber and Ladell Betts is insane. Come on. Is Betts your brother in law?

He had a single good half season where he still fumbled away more than one victory. If you look at the body of work, Betts cannot be trusted. Last year was an exception for him. If you were realistic you would expect him to be hurt often even as a 3rd down back.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

To compare Tiki Barber and Ladell Betts is insane. Come on. Is Betts your brother in law?

He had a single good half season where he still fumbled away more than one victory. If you look at the body of work, Betts cannot be trusted. Last year was an exception for him. If you were realistic you would expect him to be hurt often even as a 3rd down back.

Don't be stupid when it can be avoided. I'm using Barber to make a point about the nature of "fumble prone" backs. It's quite simple.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Don't be stupid when it can be avoided. I'm using Barber to make a point about the nature of "fumble prone" backs. It's quite simple.

And putting them in the same sentence is simply wrong.

Smarten' up.