Updated Title: Will Portis Shine Again in a West Coast Offense?

[irish]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

More impressionistic generalizations that are the constant bane of fan conversation. Last year Addai had 261 carries and Marion Barber (who I am assuming you were referring to with your Barber comment earlier) ahd 204. Meanwhile Portis had 325 carries. Kenton Keith, Addai's primary backup, had 121 carries while Ladell Betts had 93. Even ignoring the fact that a two-back rotation isn't such a bad thing, I'd say that your commentary about Portis continually returning to the sideline to "suck wind" is just inaccurate.

Numbers are nice but they dont tell the whole story. Maybe you can find a time spent sucking wind stat to verify your numerical analysis that my views are inaccurate.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Portis is right now in the prime age for a running back, 27, but very rarely do players at age 27 have quite as many carries as Portis had in the past.

Look, if you are saying that you are 100% not concerned that we've already guaranteed Portis' 2009 salary to him, you are simply fooling yourself here.

Nobody in this thread yet believes that Portis won't be productive this season. But, again, it's hard to get a gauge on exactly why he was so unproductive (3.9 YPC, career ave. 4.5) last season. There are a bunch of possible reasons and it was probably a combination of all of them:

1) The offensive line was decimated.

2) He's been worked too hard too often. (343 carries in 2004, 352 in 2005, 325 in 2006)

3) He's been around for awhile, and it's possible his actual age is hiding the age of his body. (Broke into the NFL at age 21--7 years ago)

4) He could have been hiding an injury.

Again, probably was a combination of the first three factors there, but facts are facts, and reasons two and three are only going to get worse with time.

Of course, reason one is already fixed. So he could be in line for a career year. And one of his closest similarity scores is Emmitt Smith. He should be better than last year pretty easily. I'm just wondering how long before a 2007-type year becomes the norm for CP.

That's the point I don't get. We've had Betts the entire time Portis has been there. We gave Betts $11M in the offseason last year, and he barely saw the ball. In the meantime, our franchise back is getting more carries than any back in the league. Seems to me the smart move would have been to give Betts 50-75 of the carries Portis has had each season. If you do that every season that Portis has been here, you add an extra year or so worth of carries to his career.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

Numbers are nice but they dont tell the whole story. Maybe you can find a time spent sucking wind stat to verify your numerical analysis that my views are inaccurate.

LOL this is comical.

He gives you some solid analysis and all you can come back with is a totally subjective and weak take that you saw him sucking wind.

Brilliant.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by irish

Numbers are nice but they dont tell the whole story. Maybe you can find a time spent sucking wind stat to verify your numerical analysis that my views are inaccurate.

I'd say that leading the league in rushing attempts is a pretty good start and would actually place the burden on you to demonstrate that your point is valid. Leading all rushers in attempts strikes me as a priori evidence that you are wrong. I don't have the desire to go through every play-by-play or comb through every game tape to make the point that you are wrong. The onus is on you to prove your point because the "nice numbers" suggest otherwise.

You can't even get that info from the play-by-play since that does not show who is on the field on passing downs. So after you cull through the game films why don't you let me know what you find. Good luck.

[KLHJ2]

Can somebody please correct the thread title? I have avoided this eyesore all day until now. It pains me to read it.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Angry

Can somebody please correct the thread title? I have avoided this eyesore all day until now. It pains me to read it.

Yeah, good point. I've been meaning to add that "h" all day but every time I click on this thread I get sucked into actually reading certain posts here (certain mind-boggling posts)

I'll change it now

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

That's the point I don't get. We've had Betts the entire time Portis has been there. We gave Betts $11M in the offseason last year, and he barely saw the ball. In the meantime, our franchise back is getting more carries than any back in the league. Seems to me the smart move would have been to give Betts 50-75 of the carries Portis has had each season. If you do that every season that Portis has been here, you add an extra year or so worth of carries to his career.

It would have made great sense in October and November when Portis really wasn't doing anything. Save the guy's legs for December. Luckily, Portis still performed well in December, and didn't see a significant amount of carries in the playoff game. Very easily, Portis could have been brutalized in the playoffs, simply because Betts wasn't used properly in the regular season.

We dodged a bullet on that one.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It would have made great sense in October and November when Portis really wasn't doing anything. Save the guy's legs for December. Luckily, Portis still performed well in December, and didn't see a significant amount of carries in the playoff game. Very easily, Portis could have been brutalized in the playoffs, simply because Betts wasn't used properly in the regular season.

We dodged a bullet on that one.

Good point. Also, didn't Al Saunders consistently rave about Betts? Further proof that Gibbs curbed much of his play calling?

[GTripp0012]

Saunders raved about a lot of players who:

1) Weren't very good.

2) For whatever other reason, couldn't get on the field.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It would have made great sense in October and November when Portis really wasn't doing anything. Save the guy's legs for December. Luckily, Portis still performed well in December, and didn't see a significant amount of carries in the playoff game. Very easily, Portis could have been brutalized in the playoffs, simply because Betts wasn't used properly in the regular season.

We dodged a bullet on that one.

He actually had his 2 biggest games in Nov when he rushed for 196 and 137 yards in back to back weeks.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

I think this season we will give Betts more carries this year like around 100-125 and Portis will have 250-275

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Saunders raved about a lot of players who:

1) Weren't very good.

2) For whatever other reason, couldn't get on the field.

True, but when Portis got hurt in '06, Betts proved he is a damn good back, we gave him a nice extension, and follow it up by giving him less than 6 carries a game on average in 2007. Doesn't make much sense to me.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

He actually had his 2 biggest games in Nov when he rushed for 196 and 137 yards in back to back weeks.

He did have a really good game against the Jets. Also carried the ball 36 times in the game, if memory serves.

I'm not pissed that the guy ran up 196 yards, but I am peeved that he carried the ball so many times. Would we have lost that one if Betts carried ten of those times? I doubt it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

True, but when Portis got hurt in '06, Betts proved he is a damn good back, we gave him a nice extension, and follow it up by giving him less than 6 carries a game on average in 2007. Doesn't make much sense to me.

No, I'm with you on this one. Could have certainly saved the money on him if we weren't going to lose him.

There's absolutely no reason to think Rock couldn't carry the ball 5 times a game. Then again, I'm thinking Betts is only here as an insurance policy for Portis, rather than a legitimate 2nd RB.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by irish

Numbers are nice but they dont tell the whole story. Maybe you can find a time spent sucking wind stat to verify your numerical analysis that my views are inaccurate.

Numbers may not show the whole picture but they don't lie either. Handling over 77% over the RB rushes on a team that was 5th in Total Rush Attempts for the NFL is the closest to a NON-"sucking wind" stat as you're gonna find.