Betts better than Portis?

[dgack]

Originally Posted by jdlea

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.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. In my own posts I've simply said that I think both of them are good, and that (IMO) I think we've been using Portis inefficiently, when we could be using Betts to do the same thing, freeing Clinton to be a game breaker. Not unlike the way the Saints use Deuce to crush the spirit of opposing teams and then Reggie scampers free for a huge, back-breaking play.

I have never addressed the idea of Betts starting over Portis because that's just stupid, but I do think they should both be used simultaneously. And I do think that though Betts has been banged up off and on over the course of his career, he has also been stuck on some crappy squads, much crappier than any Portis ever had to endure, and he didn't get many carries to work with, either. But this is just as much conjecture as any of the "Portis would have done X against Philly" threads, you can't compare conjecture