Trade Clinton Portis

Big C · 01-02-2005, 04:45 PM

i was thinking the same way bozzy, portis just doesnt seem to fit this system right now, and ive always been high on betts. i dont know though, portis does have a huge contract and i doubt it would happen

saden1 · 01-02-2005, 05:18 PM

This is just crazy talk, CRAZY!!!!

Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor · 01-02-2005, 05:30 PM

i think that you all must be smokin' we cant trade cp he's so explosive if only we had a line like denver than he would break those long runs , betts is not a homerun hitter. do you know hoe dangerous we would be if we had a o-line like denver with his long runs and our d with betts pounding away at the end of the game. we would be unstoppable so please stop this crazy talk you all just look silly making those statements.

skinsguy · 01-02-2005, 05:36 PM

I think Betts is a better fit for the system, but it's not going to help us finanically by getting rid of Clinton Portis. I think Betts should get more playing time next season, but Portis has helped us out quite a bit (1,300 + yards) and still gives us that added deminsion in our running game. It is good to know that at least for the next season or two, we should have a more than capable guy to step up should Portis get injured.

skins009 · 01-02-2005, 05:39 PM

Might i remind everyone that Betts run on minnosota, and everybody runs on vikings.

wolfeskins · 01-02-2005, 05:42 PM

1300+ yards on a offense that sucked this year, thats damn good , don't be fooled by 1 good game against a defense that sucks. portis is the man, he aint going nowere. i bet he runs for over 1500 yeards next season

skinsguy · 01-02-2005, 05:43 PM

Betts has been running pretty good, not just only against Minnesota. I will say he probably had his best game today.

wolfeskins · 01-02-2005, 05:51 PM

but to talk about trading a guy they just got and who ran for over 1300 yards and wasn't even utilized the right way is rediculous

wolfeskins · 01-02-2005, 05:57 PM

if portis would have played today he might have past 1500 yards on the season . he would have been the only player in the history of the nfl to run for 1500 three years in a row. would you all still be talking about trading him? ........ didn't think so.

offiss · 01-02-2005, 06:06 PM

If Portis started this game he would have found his way to the bench, Bett's was hitting the holes hard not stopping and starting waiting for the red sea to part, as I said when we traded for Portis it was a bad trade because he is a system back, and if Bett's played in that denver system he would have 1500 yards every year, everything I said about this trade when it was happening about Bett's and Portis has come true, Bett's is a far better back for Gibb's system and Portis is exactly the opposite of what Gibb's need's in a back, Portis does not have the toughness or the body to run inside, a 50 million dollar waste, whatever Portis can do Bett's can do better, if they only listened to me, we would have traded Champ for pick's, we would have never traded for Brunell, and we would have a serious defensive line, and offensive line help as well, and I would have never given an outside LB unless he can rush the passer like LT a major contract like we gave Arrington, as we have seen give William's a LB with speed and he will make a football player out of him, those 3 player's are going to cripple our ability to strengthen the rest of our football team for year's to come!

wolfeskins · 01-02-2005, 06:28 PM

i'll just have to respectfully disagree with you on the portis , betts issue. as far as lavar's contract, i don't think, at the time it was done, was a bad move. he had been selected to the probowl a few times and was clearly the best player we had on d. the skins wanted to make him a redskin for the rest of his career or at least close to it. if not for him getting injured this season who knows what kind of year he would have had.in closing i don't think the contracts of brunnel , portis and arrington cripple the skins ability to improve , i feel getting arrington back healthy, adjusting the offense a little bit to better suit portis and having brunnel as the backup qb strengthens the team

GoSkins! · 01-02-2005, 07:05 PM

Good news! We have Portis AND Betts AND Gibbs! That means that next year the backs will have to push each other for the starting job. Gibbs will play the best player no matter what they are getting paid. Portis is a great runner and an outstanding blocker. Did you see the block that Betts missed at the end of the game and Ramsey got sacked? These guys are both good for the Redskins. The way Gibbs runs the ball, I'm sure any running back on our team is going to get banged up and need back up. We now have depth!

Add Jansen, a center, and give Bugle and Gibbs another year and I bet the running game will be the envy of the league. :thumb:

Dirtbag · 01-02-2005, 07:18 PM

Our Offensive line is the problem, people. It sucks. We need to overhaul it big-time, but if we do, we have the rest of the puzzle pieces to be great next year.

Daseal · 01-02-2005, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Might i remind everyone that Betts run on minnosota, and everybody runs on vikings.

AMEN!

Portis is great, we just need to adapt a bit!

Drift Reality · 01-02-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

Good news! We have Portis AND Betts AND Gibbs! :

That's exactly the way I would look at it - it is great to have two solid running backs, so lets just end talks about cutting or trading Portis now.

01-02-2005, 04:45 PM	#16
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 40 Posts: 4,453	i was thinking the same way bozzy, portis just doesnt seem to fit this system right now, and ive always been high on betts. i dont know though, portis does have a huge contract and i doubt it would happen __________________ "I don't care what nobody say I'm a be me, stay hood stay real, cause I'm out here grindin'" -Joe Gibbs

01-02-2005, 07:05 PM	#27
GoSkins! The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Yorktown, Va Age: 57 Posts: 1,587	Good news! We have Portis AND Betts AND Gibbs! That means that next year the backs will have to push each other for the starting job. Gibbs will play the best player no matter what they are getting paid. Portis is a great runner and an outstanding blocker. Did you see the block that Betts missed at the end of the game and Ramsey got sacked? These guys are both good for the Redskins. The way Gibbs runs the ball, I'm sure any running back on our team is going to get banged up and need back up. We now have depth! Add Jansen, a center, and give Bugle and Gibbs another year and I bet the running game will be the envy of the league. :thumb: __________________ Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. A. Einstien

01-02-2005, 05:18 PM	#17
saden1 MVP Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Seattle Age: 46 Posts: 10,069	This is just crazy talk, CRAZY!!!!

01-02-2005, 05:30 PM	#18
Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor Special Teams Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Queens Village, NY Age: 46 Posts: 349	i think that you all must be smokin' we cant trade cp he's so explosive if only we had a line like denver than he would break those long runs , betts is not a homerun hitter. do you know hoe dangerous we would be if we had a o-line like denver with his long runs and our d with betts pounding away at the end of the game. we would be unstoppable so please stop this crazy talk you all just look silly making those statements.

01-02-2005, 05:36 PM	#19
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,766	I think Betts is a better fit for the system, but it's not going to help us finanically by getting rid of Clinton Portis. I think Betts should get more playing time next season, but Portis has helped us out quite a bit (1,300 + yards) and still gives us that added deminsion in our running game. It is good to know that at least for the next season or two, we should have a more than capable guy to step up should Portis get injured.

01-02-2005, 05:39 PM	#20
skins009 Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 528	Might i remind everyone that Betts run on minnosota, and everybody runs on vikings.

01-02-2005, 05:42 PM	#21
wolfeskins The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: chesapeake,va. Posts: 2,160	1300+ yards on a offense that sucked this year, thats damn good , don't be fooled by 1 good game against a defense that sucks. portis is the man, he aint going nowere. i bet he runs for over 1500 yeards next season

01-02-2005, 05:43 PM	#22
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,766	Betts has been running pretty good, not just only against Minnesota. I will say he probably had his best game today.

01-02-2005, 05:51 PM	#23
wolfeskins The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: chesapeake,va. Posts: 2,160	but to talk about trading a guy they just got and who ran for over 1300 yards and wasn't even utilized the right way is rediculous

01-02-2005, 05:57 PM	#24
wolfeskins The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: chesapeake,va. Posts: 2,160	if portis would have played today he might have past 1500 yards on the season . he would have been the only player in the history of the nfl to run for 1500 three years in a row. would you all still be talking about trading him? ........ didn't think so.

01-02-2005, 06:06 PM	#25
offiss Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ] Age: 62 Posts: 3,097	If Portis started this game he would have found his way to the bench, Bett's was hitting the holes hard not stopping and starting waiting for the red sea to part, as I said when we traded for Portis it was a bad trade because he is a system back, and if Bett's played in that denver system he would have 1500 yards every year, everything I said about this trade when it was happening about Bett's and Portis has come true, Bett's is a far better back for Gibb's system and Portis is exactly the opposite of what Gibb's need's in a back, Portis does not have the toughness or the body to run inside, a 50 million dollar waste, whatever Portis can do Bett's can do better, if they only listened to me, we would have traded Champ for pick's, we would have never traded for Brunell, and we would have a serious defensive line, and offensive line help as well, and I would have never given an outside LB unless he can rush the passer like LT a major contract like we gave Arrington, as we have seen give William's a LB with speed and he will make a football player out of him, those 3 player's are going to cripple our ability to strengthen the rest of our football team for year's to come!

01-02-2005, 06:28 PM	#26
wolfeskins The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: chesapeake,va. Posts: 2,160	i'll just have to respectfully disagree with you on the portis , betts issue. as far as lavar's contract, i don't think, at the time it was done, was a bad move. he had been selected to the probowl a few times and was clearly the best player we had on d. the skins wanted to make him a redskin for the rest of his career or at least close to it. if not for him getting injured this season who knows what kind of year he would have had.in closing i don't think the contracts of brunnel , portis and arrington cripple the skins ability to improve , i feel getting arrington back healthy, adjusting the offense a little bit to better suit portis and having brunnel as the backup qb strengthens the team

01-02-2005, 07:18 PM	#28
Dirtbag Special Teams Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 142	Our Offensive line is the problem, people. It sucks. We need to overhaul it big-time, but if we do, we have the rest of the puzzle pieces to be great next year.

Trade Clinton Portis

Locker Room Main Forum