Portis v. Betts: The Grass is Always Greener

[VTSkins897]

i was going to comment on the backs, but i think that it's an o-line issue. we went from having one of the top o-lines to one of the worst in 2 games. thomas and jansen aren't just bodies in there, they're all-pro linemen.

i think we forget too fast the game is won in the trenches. part of reason our D has been playing so well, yesterday aside, is that we've been getting pressure from our front four. heck we even sacked brady yesterday.

while unforunate, i wouldn't expect either betts or portis to do significantly better than the other. remember this was supposed to be the year of the two back league; we've just been fucked royally with injuries.

[Big C]

i prefer betts but im content with portis starting as well. id atleast like to see betts get more carries, around 10 a game would be fine rather than 2 or 3 a game

[dgack]

Hey, look, in my mind, it speaks volumes to look at Denver and what they are able to do with RB's because the way they focus on running the ball is precisely what we want and need to be doing. They may seem bad now, but they are running the kind of offense that's going to allow Cutler to be a successful QB.

So if Denver's system is what made Portis great (and I don't think that's entirely true; he's been far more successful than any other back to leave Denver, probably in history) -- I think we should be asking ourselves how we can get closer to that kind of system where a guy like Ladell Betts can look "great" and we aren't just rolling the dice on franchise RB's, because it's increasingly clear that the LT's and Larry Johnsons of the world are rarities.

Selvin Young is a nobody, and he looked pretty good tonight out there for Denver. In his first NFL start he peeled off an 18-yard rush, which is only a yard longer than CP's long on the season. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I know our line is shredded, but I'm having a hard time believing that we couldn't find a guy on this team who has a good chance of breaking one every now and then.

Maybe it isn't Ladell, maybe it's Rock. I have no idea. All I know is the current run game approach (i.e., run Portis 20 times and average about 3 yards a carry) isn't really working.

[SmootSmack]

What's really impressive about Shanahan is how he's won three Super Bowls with three different running backs....oh wait

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

True enough that Selvin Young had a nice run, but he also averaged 3.8 yards per carry last night. Moreover, since Portis left Denver, exactly how many 1,500 yard rushers has Denver had? Zero. Since Portis left Denver, exactly how many Pro Bowlers has Denver had? Zero. Denver has gone through a whole host of backs in an attempt to find a feature back and guess what? Denver hasn't found a feature back. They had to sign a big name free agent in his late twenties with a drug problem to a big deal. So the idea that Denver can plug anyone into their system and he will become some huge stud is simply a myth.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I posted this in another thread, but I am also posting it here because it is appropriate.

Offensive lines in Seattle, St. Louis, KC and NYJ are having an awful time opening running lanes for their backs. And, to no surprise, Shawn Alexander, Steven Jackson, Larry Johnson, and Thomas Jones are having a really hard time running the ball. Did all of those guys suddenly lose their talent or desire to win? No and the same is true of Portis.

If Portis had not been injured in 2006 making an all-out effort to tackle a guy, we wouldn't be talking about Portis having lost it. We would simply be saying that Portis, like Jackson, Alexander, Johnson, and Jones is a victim of circumstance. To be honest, it kind of makes me nauseous to trash a guy like Portis who goes all out on every play (and is worse for the wear for it).

I do appreciate the stats and thought that you have put into this thread dgack. Your posts have been among the most coherent and best-supported on this site in the past week or so. But, putting the stats aside, are you honestly seeing the O-line doing a good job opening lanes? If so, why is Betts rushing for under 3 yards per carry? I realize that Betts needs to find a rhythm, but less than 3 yards per carry (the worst of his career)? So Portis is having the worst year (ypc-wise) and it is because he is washed up, meanwhile Betts is averaging a full ypc less than Portis and he is a victim of circumstance (i.e., not getting the ball enough and playing behind a poor o-line)?

Seriously, Washington fans are almost never pleased with who is playing. They almost always want the "other" guy, even if the current starter guy holds the franchise record for most rushing yards in a season. And the worst of it all is those same people are the ones who complain about the lack of stability, the player turnover, and "little Danny's free agent spending sprees." Give me a -------- break.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

What exactly is making people say that Portis is wearing down? In 2004 and 2005 he was a stud (unless you don't consider 1,300+ and 1,500+ rushing seasons beastly), even if his ypc was not great in 2003. In 2006 the guy had a freak injury making a the kind of balls-out play that we expect of our players. In 2007, again the guy is getting hit in the backfield and people wonder about his production? PLEASE.

Is it possible that Portis is wearing down? Yes. Have we seen enough of Portis to make that conclusion? No. But, perhaps the 2.9 per carry guy will be better.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What exactly is making people say that Portis is wearing down? In 2004 and 2005 he was a stud (unless you don't consider 1,300+ and 1,500+ rushing seasons beastly), even if his ypc was not great in 2003. In 2006 the guy had a freak injury making a the kind of balls-out play that we expect of our players. In 2007, again the guy is getting hit in the backfield and people wonder about his production? PLEASE.

Is it possible that Portis is wearing down? Yes. Have we seen enough of Portis to make that conclusion? No. But, perhaps the 2.9 per carry guy will be better.

What's wearing him down is the fact that he carried the ball almost 350 times a season for back-to-back seasons. As I've said a number of times, his ypc is way, way, WAY down since leaving Denver, in part because we're trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole by forcing him into an offense that isn't well-designed for his body or talents. He's making it work by compensating with quantity, and that is taking its toll on his body.

Again, this effect is well known in fantasy football circles, but this is a case where the fantasy impact does correlate back to the real game because it directly speaks to a RB's durability and career longevity.

Here's are some of the articles on the topic:

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2007 (this one isn't bad)
David Yudkin - RB Production After Seasons With 400+ Touches (Including Regular & Postseason) (more FF oriented than "real" NFL based)
Pro-football-reference.com blog » Running Back Overuse and Injuries, Part One
Pro-football-reference.com blog » Running Back Overuse and Injuries, Part Two (Playoff Edition) (by far the best articles I've read on the phenomenon)
FootballDocs Fantasy Football - Effect of Running Back Carries on Future Production (this one is old but it's interesting to see how their predictions panned out)

[offiss]

Originally Posted by dgack

What's wearing him down is the fact that he carried the ball almost 350 times a season for back-to-back seasons. As I've said a number of times, his ypc is way, way, WAY down since leaving Denver, in part because we're trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole by forcing him into an offense that isn't well-designed for his body or talents. He's making it work by compensating with quantity, and that is taking its toll on his body.

Again, this effect is well known in fantasy football circles, but this is a case where the fantasy impact does correlate back to the real game because it directly speaks to a RB's durability and career longevity.

Here's are some of the articles on the topic:

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2007 (this one isn't bad)
David Yudkin - RB Production After Seasons With 400+ Touches (Including Regular & Postseason) (more FF oriented than "real" NFL based)
Pro-football-reference.com blog » Running Back Overuse and Injuries, Part One
Pro-football-reference.com blog » Running Back Overuse and Injuries, Part Two (Playoff Edition) (by far the best articles I've read on the phenomenon)
FootballDocs Fantasy Football - Effect of Running Back Carries on Future Production (this one is old but it's interesting to see how their predictions panned out)

Excellent post!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Yup Portis is washed up. He's just got more rushing yards than every back besides Adrian Peterson and Willie Parker.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Yup Portis is washed up. He's just got more rushing yards than every back besides Adrian Peterson and Willie Parker.

Wow. He sure does. That's awesome. Imagine if he wasn't banged up all offseason/preseason. With Peterson getting dinged today he has a chance for the rushing title if he stays healthy. (A loud, resounding knock on wood).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Yup Portis is washed up. He's just got more rushing yards than every back besides Adrian Peterson and Willie Parker.

He's also one of 5 backs to be averaging more than 20 carries a game.

His now 4.2 yards a carry is more than acceptable to run with every game. If he can keep up this pace, we should keep feeding him.

If it falls off, we should go back to emphasizing the pass.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Yup Portis is washed up. He's just got more rushing yards than every back besides Adrian Peterson and Willie Parker.

He had a good game. That's two in a row now. But those were way overdue.

For some reason I didn't think it would take until Week 9 to see it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What exactly is making people say that Portis is wearing down? In 2004 and 2005 he was a stud (unless you don't consider 1,300+ and 1,500+ rushing seasons beastly), even if his ypc was not great in 2003. In 2006 the guy had a freak injury making a the kind of balls-out play that we expect of our players. In 2007, again the guy is getting hit in the backfield and people wonder about his production? PLEASE.

Is it possible that Portis is wearing down? Yes. Have we seen enough of Portis to make that conclusion? No. But, perhaps the 2.9 per carry guy will be better.

The sheer number of carries in 2005. He always seemed to fall on his shoulders after contact and I thought that it might save his legs a bit.

Well, what happens in the first preseason game he plays following a long offseason following an abusive year? Shoulder subluxation. Is that freak injury? If your shoulders get abused and then you hurt your shoulder?

Then this year with the nagging knee tendonitis and then a sprained knee, and virtually zero effectiveness.

Can a healthy Portis still provide a burst? Maybe, but 6 years into his career, healthy is relative, and that's just not good enough.

He is a high effort guy who can still contibute to this team in so many ways, but I just can't defend him as a running threat any more. I'm almost thinking his best use is short yardage at this point because he always delivers a blow.

Of course, we don't run in short yardage, so I guess the point is moot.

[over the mountain]

MTReskinsfan - yeah i agree with ya, our coaching approach to the game is messed up.

For gibbs smashmouth, protect the ball, control the clock football to work we need a strong O-line and solid runningbacks . . . unfortunately our O-line got the injury-bug and our starter portis is playing slow and our #2 guy needs carries to get in rythm but he doesnt get the ball enough to get it started.

I VOTED PORTIS b/c he is the better all-around back but i think betts is a better fit for gibbs offense scheme = cluster f*$k