Portis NOT overrated!!!

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Irish, I agree totally. Rams and Cards are the worst defenses in the league. I will believe we are this new team committed to running the ball "skins style" when we do it against teams that have something to play for. Like Dallas, NY, and even Philly, though philly is playing for nothing, they have alot of heart and dont quit, like the rams and cards. I do think there will be more plays of CP geared to running outside, but you cant run outside if you dont make teams respect your inside running game. Like the play action pass, teams have to respect different parts of you offensive attack for other parts to work. I read that Portis actually likes running inside alot. With that said, he needs to do better at letting holes develop rather than running over top of the blockers. By the way, were was Rock yesterday? Betts is healthy so Rock is relegated back to #3. The guy ran like a mad man last week and we cant atleast give him a few touches? HMMMM... thats questionable. I was looking forward to seeing him run again.

When you say you agree with Irish, I assume you mean that Portis' performance against the Rams is mitigated by the fact that the Rams defense is awful (you didn't quote, so it's hard to tell). If so, why does Portis' performance get an asterisk, yet Rock deserves to get more touches as a result of his performance against a bad team? Is it just because we played another bad defense in Arizona?

I do agree that the running attack needs internal balance, though. We have to shake it up a bit and make opposing defenses respect the edges to give up the inside and vice versa. Otherwise there is nothing to exploit.

[#56fanatic]

You would expect Portis to dominate a defense like the Rams or Cards. On the other hand it was nice to see Rock get some PT and produce. I am not saying Portis is a good back against bad teams and so so against good teams, let me get that out of the way. He did what he should have done. That being said, I would like to see the team as dedicated to the run vs. teams like Dallas and NY and see what type of game he has. All too often we drop the running game and Portis isn't much of a factor later in games, like the Raiders and San Diego. Didn't you think that Rocks performance against the Rams should have earned some carrys here and there against the Cards?

[onlydarksets]

#56fanatic: Fair enough about Portis.

I don't think Rock's performance was sufficient to get him carries against the Cards, because we need a #2 back, not RB by committee. Betts is (IMO) our best #2 back option. I agree, Rock did well against the Rams, but I think Betts would have broken 100 yards as well. I don't think Rock is the answer for our last three games, so I agree with Gibbs putting him back in reserve. Betts needed the carries to get back in the flow of the game after missing the week before.

[skins052bgr8]

Portis ran it up on one of the best run D's in the league Tampa bay. Since that game they have had there way if they wanted to against opposing D's whether it be a a mediocre Defense. All backs throughout the NFL play weak defenses, but no one questions there ability and that it was against a weak Defense. The only thing I think we need to figure out is who to have in the backfield with that bunch formation and diving into the line for a max two yard gain, but mainly 1 or less. We have been successful with pulling and hitting the corners, but when we bunch and go straight up blocking either Portis is not the guy for that or the O line is not capable of getting the push. I think that may have worked in the 80's and 90's, but the D line's are huge as well as the LB's and defenses in general. Very difficult to get that push with straight up blocking, because most Defenses hit low and bunch it up no movement. It is awesome watching Jansen, Sellers, Randy Thomas, and Cooley leading around the edge on a pull pancaking bitches. The problem it probably wears the line down with the extra running if you continue to do it. Like last year we saw improvements and change in our game, which is a good thing. Penalties have been down, but turnovers/4th quarter let downs have haunted us. The past two weeks we have come out in the second half and scored the bulk of our points and kept drives alive. Nothing stellar just better football for a team that seemed to give these games away even to mediocre teams.
Dallas and Giants are not playing much better than us, so please stop the comparison and say we can't beat a team like Dallas or the Giants that are quality teams.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I would like to see the team as dedicated to the run vs. teams like Dallas and NY and see what type of game he has. All too often we drop the running game and Portis isn't much of a factor later in games, like the Raiders and San Diego. Didn't you think that Rocks performance against the Rams should have earned some carrys here and there against the Cards?

i would like to see that too, but how much of that is playcalling? Gibbs admits himself he got discouraged too quick (probably too encouraged by the success of Moss and Cooley) and gave up on the run early in those games just like you said. he himself acknowledged that against good defenses, you have to stay dedicated to the running game as was reflected by San Diego themselves.

we had everyone's favorite back LT pretty much bottled up early on in that game, but you'd expect that from a good defense. only after repeated attempts softening up the defense did LT start getting those big runs, and that's exactly what we have to do.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

#56fanatic: Fair enough about Portis.

I don't think Rock's performance was sufficient to get him carries against the Cards, because we need a #2 back, not RB by committee. Betts is (IMO) our best #2 back option. I agree, Rock did well against the Rams, but I think Betts would have broken 100 yards as well. I don't think Rock is the answer for our last three games, so I agree with Gibbs putting him back in reserve. Betts needed the carries to get back in the flow of the game after missing the week before.

In no way am I suggesting Rock should be placed infront of Betts as the #2 guy. I am just saying as a change of pace to bring him in. Betts is definately the #2 guy. But I guess it is probably a good problem to have with 3 guys capable of making good runs. Rock has worked so hard for this staff. If you remember he was listed as one of the guys that was going to be cut because the team didn't carry a true fullback, which is what he was listed as before. And with all the H-back Gibbs is carrying is was very difficult for them to carry him. Rock has dropped weight, worked like hell on special teams. He is just one of those guys every team has that you just find yourself rooting for. He may not be a great player, but just a fan favorite in terms of his work ethic and passion.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

When you say you agree with Irish, I assume you mean that Portis' performance against the Rams is mitigated by the fact that the Rams defense is awful (you didn't quote, so it's hard to tell). If so, why does Portis' performance get an asterisk, yet Rock deserves to get more touches as a result of his performance against a bad team? Is it just because we played another bad defense in Arizona?

Great point.

Rock is a hero for running it up against a bad defense, yet Portis can't seem to earn any respect with some folks.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

In no way am I suggesting Rock should be placed infront of Betts as the #2 guy. I am just saying as a change of pace to bring him in. Betts is definately the #2 guy. But I guess it is probably a good problem to have with 3 guys capable of making good runs. Rock has worked so hard for this staff. If you remember he was listed as one of the guys that was going to be cut because the team didn't carry a true fullback, which is what he was listed as before. And with all the H-back Gibbs is carrying is was very difficult for them to carry him. Rock has dropped weight, worked like hell on special teams. He is just one of those guys every team has that you just find yourself rooting for. He may not be a great player, but just a fan favorite in terms of his work ethic and passion.

Trying to get significant touches for 3 RB's is awfully tough in this league.

Between CP and Betts they accounted for 31 carries. It's tough to squeeze Rock in there when your big two have that many.

[skindogger47]

Rock had over 100 on NINE carries. I doubt Betts would have produced like that.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by skindogger47

Rock had over 100 on NINE carries. I doubt Betts would have produced like that.

Rock did well, but the stats you just quoted should tell you his performance was an aberration. Nobody consistently gains that kind of YPC.

[skindogger47]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Rock did well, but the stats you just quoted should tell you his performance was an aberration. Nobody consistently gains that kind of YPC.

Betts, on the other hand, had 6 carries for 5 yards yesterday. It would have been an abberation if Rock had gained 80 of those yards on one play, but he consistently ripped off chunks of yardage on plays we have been running all year with minimal success, and with Betts not playing the past few weeks, I feel he warrented some PT.

[onlydarksets]

You misunderstand me. It was an aberration because he is not a 13 YPC running back. Do you really think, given the plays they put Betts in on yesterday, that Rock would have had 78 yards against the Cards?

Betts is back, and he is our #2 RB. He has to play - it's that simple. If Rock becomes our #2 RB, then I will argue just as strongly that he has to get the touches, regardless of how his substitute plays. As I (and others) have pointed out, there simply are not enough plays to get the ball to 3 running backs.