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

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow - a 1,500 yard back is just a "change of pace" back. Check back whenever you stop smoking whatever it is you're on.

yeah and pass that pipe over my way

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by offiss

I wouldn't be so sure of that, one of the reasons for Betts success last season with the same line is the fact that he hit's the hole much faster than Portis, and he hit's it with more power and drive. Yes Portis is faster over all but that only helps after you have reached the secondary, it is better to be faster to the hole than in the secondary. Portis is exactly what I thought he was when we traded for him, he's a 3rd down change of pace type back who was made to look better than he really is in that denver system as were many backs. My biggest problem with Portis as a player is not the fact that he can't be a good back if used the way he's supposed to, the problem is we gave up a ton to get a guy who really isn't an everydown type back. So now he has added to much weight to try and handle the beating an every down back takes and it has taken away from his biggest attribute and that is his explosion.

Umm, 1500+ yds and 11 TDs when healthy in '05, he led the NFC in rushing TDs when he went down last year... He's a top 5 back when healthy, and I don't think he gets enough credit for what he does without the ball. He is a devastating blocker. Does anyone remember when he put Shelton Quarles to sleep in that Bucs game in '05? The Redskins' all time single season rushing leader is a "3rd down change of pace back?" Sure.

[MTK]

3rd down back?



The guy has put up big time numbers in this league, you've really gotta be joking.

[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!

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by offiss

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!

You know, if you take out the bolded part of your last paragraph, any right thinking fan, with a football IQ above retarded would think you were talking about Betts.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

You know, if you take out the bolded part of your last paragraph, any right thinking fan, with a football IQ above retarded would think you were talking about Betts.

????????????

And if we lets say decieded to remove everything but the bolded part of your statement would we be talking about you?


And if my aunt had balls she be my uncle.

[GMScud]

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!

Denver also had more outside runs designed for Clinton's breakaway speed. We tried to pound him between the tackles too much in '04. His yds/carry were up from 3.8 in '04 to 4.3 in '05 when we started to use more sweeps and other outside runs. He's a great blocker with good hands, blazing speed, and has over 1500 yds in 3 of his 5 season (over 1300 in 4 outta 5). He's way better than a change of pace back.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Denver also had more outside runs designed for Clinton's breakaway speed. We tried to pound him between the tackles too much in '04. His yds/carry were up from 3.8 in '04 to 4.3 in '05 when we started to use more sweeps and other outside runs. He's a great blocker with good hands, blazing speed, and has over 1500 yds in 3 of his 5 season (over 1300 in 4 outta 5). He's way better than a change of pace back.

shhh - Don't talk about 05, when he put the team on his back and carried it into the playoffs. That would screw up Offiss' logic of "looking beyond the numbers". Oh wait, that assumes that Offiss uses [I]actual /I]logic and not drug induced fantasy logic. That's a pretty big assumption.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

shhh - Don't talk about 05, when he put the team on his back and carried it into the playoffs. That would screw up Offiss' logic of "looking beyond the numbers". Oh wait, that assumes that Offiss uses [I]actual /I]logic and not drug induced fantasy logic. That's a pretty big assumption.

Just another idiotic post by big time Joe Redskin, as if our offense had anything to do with our making the playoffs let alone Portis becoming a one man show. It was all defense. But I guess your acid flashbacks have yet to cease.

[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.

[MTK]

whatever

[SmootSmack]

Y'all remember when Offiss said Portis would probably be the best running back Gibbs had ever coached? My how times have changed