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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Just for the record:

Steven Jackson's career YPC = 4.4

Clinton Portis YPC = 4.7

I guess the numbers don't lie

I would say that's too close to have a definative YPC winner.

They are both good backs. The Redskins would be in good shape with either of them. We have one.

We're fine at the RB position.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

I really have to say you must have been watching a different team than I.

How you can knock our defense in 2005 is beyond me, for a defense to just flat out carry that team into the playoffs and win a playoff game for us was above and beyond what we could have hoped for. Couple that with the fact that the offense left them on the field all year makes thier accomplishment even more impresive. The problem last year was the defenses inability to bail out the offense which put a big spot light on our problems offensively and we could no longer hide Brunell, that is why the teachers pet fianlly got the hook, the defense stopped winning games for him, and Brunell wasen't about to start winning games! He's all about not losing them!

Week 6 @ KC: 28 points allowed
Week 8 @ NY: 36 points allowed
Week 10 @ Tampa Bay: 36 points allowed

There were clearly signs of an impending defensive collapse even in the 2005 season. No one could have predicted the sheer magnitude of the turnovers we didn't force this year, but the yardage and point totals were nothing that couldn't have been predicted.

If you believe the offense was so bad, you have a lot of explaining to do to justify how we won 4 more games in 2005 than 2004 with a considerably worse defense.

I think you are assuming the 04 and 05 defenses to be equals in the same manner you assumed all Denver backs to be equals and all of our opponents to be equals. The 2004 defense was as dominant as they come. The 2005 defense was not a dominating defensive team. They were good, but flawed. They did a very nice job against TB in the playoff game, but carried the team is a bit much. They were one Edell Sheppard catch away from being the goats.

The offense improved immensely in 2005 because Brunell, Portis, and the offensive line all improved immensely AND we traded for Moss. That's an very potent team who led us to a lot of victories all year. They were far more consistent than the defense was. It's unfortunate that come playoff time when we had to play the best defenses, our offense was banged up, but injuries determine the team best fit to play for the championship, and we clearly got the shaft in that respect.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Week 6 @ KC: 28 points allowed
Week 8 @ NY: 36 points allowed
Week 10 @ Tampa Bay: 36 points allowed

There were clearly signs of an impending defensive collapse even in the 2005 season. No one could have predicted the sheer magnitude of the turnovers we didn't force this year, but the yardage and point totals were nothing that couldn't have been predicted.

If you believe the offense was so bad, you have a lot of explaining to do to justify how we won 4 more games in 2005 than 2004 with a considerably worse defense.

I think you are assuming the 04 and 05 defenses to be equals in the same manner you assumed all Denver backs to be equals and all of our opponents to be equals. The 2004 defense was as dominant as they come. The 2005 defense was not a dominating defensive team. They were good, but flawed. They did a very nice job against TB in the playoff game, but carried the team is a bit much. They were one Edell Sheppard catch away from being the goats.

The offense improved immensely in 2005 because Brunell, Portis, and the offensive line all improved immensely AND we traded for Moss. That's an very potent team who led us to a lot of victories all year. They were far more consistent than the defense was. It's unfortunate that come playoff time when we had to play the best defenses, our offense was banged up, but injuries determine the team best fit to play for the championship, and we clearly got the shaft in that respect.

The "impending defensive collapse" is dead on. Even when we weren't giving up a whole lot of points to opponents in '05, at times, you could start to see cracks in the run defense. I think we even had a poll about the most surprising things in the first part of that season -- giving up an unusual amount of rushing yards was one of the choices.

It was only a matter of time before that time-bomb on the front four went off. Detonation followed a year later.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Do you really believe that? YPC is the most important stat? Especially in a ball control offense?

As you know I really am not a big stat guy, because circumstances can dictate them. Let's say a RB averages 100 yds per game, and has a 5.0 average well that seems great, but if he's a back who carries the ball 30 times a game and accumulates most of his yards on maybe 2 runs, that's not good, that will leave the defense on the field an awful lot. But a back who never runs over 20 yds on 1 carry but consistantly gets you 4 to 5 yards per carry he's far more valuable, which is what Betts does better than Portis.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Just for the record:

Steven Jackson's career YPC = 4.4

Clinton Portis YPC = 4.7

I guess the numbers don't lie

Your more the welcome to believe, that even for 1 minute Portis is better than Jackson, you probably should be in the front office with that evaluation, you can help push the Briggs trade threw.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Week 6 @ KC: 28 points allowed
Week 8 @ NY: 36 points allowed
Week 10 @ Tampa Bay: 36 points allowed

There were clearly signs of an impending defensive collapse even in the 2005 season. No one could have predicted the sheer magnitude of the turnovers we didn't force this year, but the yardage and point totals were nothing that couldn't have been predicted.

If you believe the offense was so bad, you have a lot of explaining to do to justify how we won 4 more games in 2005 than 2004 with a considerably worse defense.

I think you are assuming the 04 and 05 defenses to be equals in the same manner you assumed all Denver backs to be equals and all of our opponents to be equals. The 2004 defense was as dominant as they come. The 2005 defense was not a dominating defensive team. They were good, but flawed. They did a very nice job against TB in the playoff game, but carried the team is a bit much. They were one Edell Sheppard catch away from being the goats.

The offense improved immensely in 2005 because Brunell, Portis, and the offensive line all improved immensely AND we traded for Moss. That's an very potent team who led us to a lot of victories all year. They were far more consistent than the defense was. It's unfortunate that come playoff time when we had to play the best defenses, our offense was banged up, but injuries determine the team best fit to play for the championship, and we clearly got the shaft in that respect.

Stooooooooooop already, how many points did they score the last 3 games we played? I think our defense almost outscored them. If you think for 1 second that our defense didn't have to carry that team your just simply lost on this subject.

Take a look at who we didn't have against Tampa, Sean Taylor, was KC the most prolific offense in the league? Yes! And we mailed one in against the giants, and how many points did the offense score in that game? 0

And you fail to mention the fact that the offense was constantly 3 and out wearing the defense down all season long, why do you think all the talk was we were out of gas heading into the Seattle game? In the 3 most important games of the year what did the offense do? Nothing! Our defense either scored, or set up a short field for a TD against Philli to get into the playoffs, as well as Tampa in the playoffs, and if Rogers makes an INT against seattle they may have won another, no thanks to the offense!

[MTK]

Originally Posted by offiss

Your more the welcome to believe, that even for 1 minute Portis is better than Jackson, you probably should be in the front office with that evaluation, you can help push the Briggs trade threw.

I guess Scouts Inc. is wrong too?

[SmootSmack]

Not to take anything away from Stephen Jackson because he's a fine back, but my guess is that if we had Jackson, Offiss would be making the case for Portis. For some people the grass is always greener on the other side

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by offiss

That's probably just your inability to comprehend.

And for the record Betts 4.7 avg. is more than any average that Portis has had since he's arrived in DC, 4.3 was the best Portis could deliver. So if you want to cry injury go ahead I am sure there was a span in Portis's tenure here that he was healthy and couldn't touch maybe the most important stat of all for a RB, YARDS PER CARRY!

The only thing I'm unable to comprehend is how one person can keep a thread going four pages longer that it should have, without a legitimate argument or single fact to back up his statements.

Yards per carry is the "most important stat" for a running back, but when Matty points out that Portis' YPC is better that Jackson's, it's not about YPC anymore. Make up your mind. And the only reasons I can see that you've given for Betts being better than Portis is he's cheaper and he hits the hole faster(false). Why no responses to the question of Betts fumblitis or the fact that last season was the first time he's made it through a full season without an injury in his five year career?

[MTK]

Since we're on the topic of YPC it's interesting if you take a closer look at Betts' numbers from last year.

In September he averaged 5.3 ypc, with those numbers inflated quite a bit by a huge day against a weak Houston D.

In October and November he averaged 3.7 and 3.9 respectively.

In December he averaged 5.0. That was around the same time when the offensive line really hit their stride.

So how much of Bett's success was due to him, or the offensive line coming together and really playing well?? Mark me down for the offensive line.

There's a reason why people say it all starts up front.

[dmek25]

it all starts up front? what a grand idea

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

So how much of Bett's success was due to him, or the offensive line coming together and really playing well?? Mark me down for the offensive line.

There's a reason why people say it all starts up front.

So would it stand to reason that Betts is expendable after all?

I mean, if the offensive line truly deserves the credit, then just about any running back will do, right?

Mark me down as getting as much as we can for Betts. Suitable back-up running backs can be found just about anywhere.

[MTK]

As I said in another thread I'm in favor of as little change as possible this offseason.

I wouldn't deal Betts because I like the idea of having a strong 1-2 punch in the backfield, and dealing a guy like Betts who passed up the chance to hit it big in free agency doesn't send a great message to the rest of the team.

It does all start up front, but Betts isn't void of talent either. He's a quality back and a great #2 to have.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

The "impending defensive collapse" is dead on. Even when we weren't giving up a whole lot of points to opponents in '05, at times, you could start to see cracks in the run defense. I think we even had a poll about the most surprising things in the first part of that season -- giving up an unusual amount of rushing yards was one of the choices.

It was only a matter of time before that time-bomb on the front four went off. Detonation followed a year later.

OUr D fell off slightly in 05 from 04, but as was pointed out earlier, the D was carrying the team into the playoffs. The d got better as the year went on in 05. The defensive collapse of 06 seemed to be a combination of several problems all hitting us at once, injuries, coaching disagreements & deflated team chemistry to name a few. That unit looked ill all year long save for a couple of games. The fact that they couldn't buy a turnover only made it worse. I can't see a repeat of that this year.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

As I said in another thread I'm in favor of as little change as possible this offseason.

I wouldn't deal Betts because I like the idea of having a strong 1-2 punch in the backfield, and dealing a guy like Betts who passed up the chance to hit it big in free agency doesn't send a great message to the rest of the team.

It does all start up front, but Betts isn't void of talent either. He's a quality back and a great #2 to have.

I like Betts a lot, thinks Portis-Betts would be a great duo, and I also don't want much change, but I would trade Betts if we got a 1st rounder for him. I just think we can get more value out of trading him and drafting a defensive player than holding on to him.

I know the 2-back system is gaining popularity, but no team with a RB as good as Portis has such a system. Most teams with a 2-back system have 2 mediocre RBs who can't carry the load by themselves. Moreover, the teams that did have two quality backs last season, are turning to a feature back system. The Bears let go of Jones, Rhodes might not return to the Colts, Dillon is done with the Pats, and Barber is done with the Giants. So, I honestly think the 2-back system is a flash in the pan fad that gained popularity with the Bears-Colts SB, but one that will fade in time.