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

[MTK]

Yeah it was all defense, CP's 5 game streak of 100+ yards or more had nothing to do with the playoff run.

[Daseal]

That was a lowsey post, Smootsmack.

Often times I understand where Offiss is coming from, and agree with him on a regular basis. But I can't do it for Portis. I agree he's a system back, but many backs in this league are. You build the offense to his strengths and he's a definite stud in this league. Worth the trade we gave, probably not, but champ didn't want to be here and Portis is awesome!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Daseal

That was a lowsey post, Smootsmack.

Often times I understand where Offiss is coming from, and agree with him on a regular basis. But I can't do it for Portis. I agree he's a system back, but many backs in this league are. You build the offense to his strengths and he's a definite stud in this league. Worth the trade we gave, probably not, but champ didn't want to be here and Portis is awesome!

If most RBs are system backs, then what does the term system back really mean?

I don't think "system back" has any meaning whatsoever.

I think that there are systems that are more RB friendly than others. Denver is the most obvious example. RB friendly sytems such as Denver will inflate a RB's raw numbers the same way a QB friendly system, such as the west coast, would inflate a QB's raw numbers. But this is a universial effect. If Portis is a better back than Betts here, he's a better back than Betts in ANY system. Every one of the 32 teams. Some systems are better for RBs than others. That means they are better for ALL RBs, not just a select few.

If a guy was a "system back", most certainly he would have weaknesses as a runner that a certain system would hide. But what weaknesses does a runner have? Take TJ Duckett for example. He tends to tiptoe into contact, and doesn't always drive his legs once he makes contact. Can someone give me an example of a running system that would hide this weakness?

System backs, as we believe them to be, simply do not exist.

[SmootSmack]

It seems like Portis is going to be "punished" for the rest of his career for having played in Denver. That's a real shame.

[dmek25]

the colts only got a 2nd and a 5th for marshall faulk

[MTK]

I guess I don't get what a system back is, at least not the way some people use the term around here.

Portis has proven he is still a top back outside of Denver... so how does that make him a system back??

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I guess I don't get what a system back is, at least not the way some people use the term around here.

Portis has proven he is still a top back outside of Denver... so how does that make him a system back??

Additionally, I don't understand how people throw around the term "north-south runner". Seems that every back that's ever had success in this league knew that to gain yards, he'd have to get up the field. Seems to me that that would make him, by definition, a "north-south" runner.

Doesn't south imply running backwards?

The ultimate conclusion: Watching football discussion shows is bad for the american public.

[GTripp0012]

Portis should actually be the poster child for calling bs on the system back theory.

His raw numbers fell slightly from Denver because his current system isn't as friendly to RBs. That's to be expected.

But anyone expecting him to fall off the face of the earth once he left Denver now has to explain why he performed so well in 2005 and the first half of 2006. I'd be willing to bet that no one here can come up with a response that can just write off a year and a half of accomplishments.

2004 was a horrible year for Portis. But can anyone really explain why, and give a reason to expect 2004 to repeat itself? I doubt it.

[SmootSmack]

Well, if he's a "system back" he's in the right system. Joe Gibbs did win Super Bowls with three different lead running backs after all

[MTK]

Portis has topped 1500 yards 3 times in his career, Jackson just did it for the first time last year. I think Jackson has a little catching up to do. Just for kicks let's see who Scouts Inc. thinks is the better player:

Steven Jackson
2006 Scouting Report - Scouts Inc. Grade: 76 | Key
Alert: None

Comment:
Jackson has a very good combination of size, strength and foot quickness. He is a workhorse back who can wear down a defense over four quarters. He needs touches to get into the flow. He is powerful and elusive for his size. He can lower his pads and run defenders over or jump-cut and make someone miss. He runs with excellent balance and body control, rarely going down on first contact. He flashes a good stiff-arm and regularly falls forward after contact. He has excellent vision and flashes the speed to get the corner. He can drag defensive backs for extra yards when he gets outside. He has very good hands and is an above-average route runner. He is a load to bring down after the catch. But Jackson isn't very sudden or quick. He isn't very shifty and lacks a second gear to run away from a defense in the open field. He isn't quite quick enough to consistently separate in his routes. He could show more patience as a runner. He sometimes runs up the back of his linemen. He had some ball-security issues in 2005. He gets dinged up and misses time.

Clinton Portis
2006 Scouting Report - Scouts Inc. Grade: 89 | Key
Alert: None

Comment:
Portis has excellent foot quickness, change-of-direction skills and elusiveness. He shows excellent initial quickness in getting to and through the hole. He consistently makes a defender miss with his lateral quickness and jump-cut once he hits the hole. He is a very good zone runner. He has excellent vision, patience and great anticipation for where the hole will develop. He shows excellent start-stop quickness. He stays in balance when he cuts, has some wiggle and will bounce off tacklers. He flashes the ability to push the pile and make yards after contact. He has good receiving skills: decent hands and dangerous after-the-catch ability on screens and check-downs. He knows his blocking responsibilities and is at his best chipping and releasing into an underneath route. But Portis is undersized and tends to get a little nicked up. He doesn't have outstanding power or elite speed, though he sometimes can find an extra gear. He doesn't run a lot of routes or adjust especially well to bad passes. He is just an average blocker. He won't consistently pick up a blitzing linebacker.

[holcknowsbest]

this is where the comparisons stop...CLINTON PORTIS IS WAY BETTER THAN BETTS.....BETTS IS NOT MORE OF A JOE GIBBS BACK THAN PORTIS....GIVE CLINTON PORTIS THOSE HOLES BETTS GOT AND HE RUNS FOR 2000 YARDS..BY THE WAY DO YOU THINK THAT IN THE RAMS GAME, CLINTON GETS RUN DOWN AND STRIPPED???? NOPE HE DOESNT!.....with all that said i love betts because of his skills as a reciever and runner. but hes not clinton portis. if we could ever get an extra first round pick for betts i think its a must do....the reasoning is that running backs like betts are a dime a dozen man, they can be had in almost any round of the draft....guys like clinton are not, he is one of the fastest running backs in the nfl and his production matches or is better than most hall of famers through his first 5 years...you dont compare a guy like betts to portis, it just doesnt make sense.

[GTripp0012]

Conventional logic also says that when a guy like Brunell gets to the age of 35, he's just too old to play, but thats simply just not reality. Campbell was a clearly undervalued prospect in NFL circles, and we took advantage of that. Conventional logic will be wrong more often then not, so I see no reason to trust anything it says. I can draw my own conclusions with varying degrees of effort.

[MTK]

Just for the record:

Steven Jackson's career YPC = 4.4

Clinton Portis YPC = 4.7

I guess the numbers don't lie

[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.

[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.