Portis vs. Betts

[djnemo65]

Why can't they both be great? Seems like a lot of people are attacking Betts in this thread and I don't get that. It's possible to think Portis is probably better without having to diminish what Betts was able to accomplish last year.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by dmek25

I'll make no excuses for Portis. has Betts ever had a 1500 yard season? has Betts ever had a double digit season of touchdowns? Betts is a decent back up. period. has Portis ever had a fumble that has cost us a game? has Betts ever had a run of longer then 20 yards? Portis is by far the quicker of the 2 backs. and Betts isn't the power back that some around here think he is.

Betts has never really had the oppurtunity to have a 1500 yard season so your point makes no sense. And one play never ever cost a team a game. That's ridicules. Portis fumbled at crucial times back in 04 if I remember correctly. I'm not saying Betts is better cause he's not. But if given the chance he could run for 1500 yards. He went over a 1000 in what, 8 starts? That's pretty damn good if you ask me. I dont' see many back-up RB's having the type of season Betts had. He is more than a decent backup. Cartwright is what I would call a decent back-up.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by offiss

I will explain it for you, there is a difference between speed and quickness, Betts gets the ball full speed and drills the hole faster than Portis, making life easier for the guys blocking up front they don't have to hold their blocks as long.

As far as power between the 2, your delusional if you think Portis is as strong as Betts.

I am pretty tired of all these excuses for Portis, like the only reason Betts outperformed him is because he was allowed to run downhill? That is a big joke! We ran downhill with Betts because we could with him, because of the reasons I stated above, we didn't with Portis because he is to slow looking for the hole, and to weak to run people over. The running game didn't change because we called different play's, it changed because we put a back in there that could handle a downhill running game which Portis is not, a downhill runner.

I will say this. For what Gibbs and Bugel like, Betts is more their style of RB.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I will say this. For what Gibbs and Bugel like, Betts is more their style of RB.

this point makes no sense. coach gibbs made the trade that brought portis to washington. and if you are right, why wasnt a trade made after last season?

[holcknowsbest]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I will say this. For what Gibbs and Bugel like, Betts is more their style of RB.

you are crazy, and everyone needs too realize one thing. if betts was joe bugals and joe gibbs style then he would start....they would get rid of portis or at least use him as the back up...ask lavar arrington that one fellas, it doesnt matter how much you pay the guy as a coach you are going to play the better player(the player who is your style). quit making comments about portis v betts in terms of betts is better because he isnt other wise he would play over him. betts is a good back up, a f-ing perfect and awesome back up.

another comment is the ol LJ and Priest comparisons with Betts and Portis.....first off priest was better just look at the numbers, second off betts is not even close to on par with LARRY FREAKING JOHNSON!!! get a clue fellas.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by dmek25

this point makes no sense. coach gibbs made the trade that brought portis to washington. and if you are right, why wasnt a trade made after last season?

When Gibbs got here he said it himself that he thought that Betts was just a 3rd down back. He later admitted that he was wrong. If Gibbs knew what he had in Betts when he first got here, do you think he makes the trade? Probably not.

I think that no trades were made because I think the staff realizes that they have one really good player and one great player. It's called quality depth.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by holcknowsbest

you are crazy, and everyone needs too realize one thing. if betts was joe bugals and joe gibbs style then he would start....they would get rid of portis or at least use him as the back up...ask lavar arrington that one fellas, it doesnt matter how much you pay the guy as a coach you are going to play the better player(the player who is your style). quit making comments about portis v betts in terms of betts is better because he isnt other wise he would play over him. betts is a good back up, a f-ing perfect and awesome back up.

another comment is the ol LJ and Priest comparisons with Betts and Portis.....first off priest was better just look at the numbers, second off betts is not even close to on par with LARRY FREAKING JOHNSON!!! get a clue fellas.

I never said Betts was better. I don't think he is better. But he does seem to run in between the tackles better and that is what Gibbs and Buges like. Portis is more of a slasher. When did a Joe Gibbs offense ever have a primary RB that was a 205lb slasher? Never. Riggins, Rogers, Byner, Riggs and even Ervins were all powerful in between the tackles type of runners. So IMO Betts fits that style better. But if your talking pure talent, Portis is the better back.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Why can't they both be great? Seems like a lot of people are attacking Betts in this thread and I don't get that. It's possible to think Portis is probably better without having to diminish what Betts was able to accomplish last year.

No kidding.

And another thing, why do so many people seem to act like Betts was some sort of walk-on free agent who stumbled onto the field from The Home Depot. Betts was drafted just a few choices after Portis. Based on that (and I understand it's somewhat rudimentary thinking) they shouldn't be too far apart in talent and ability

[Skinsfan1967]

Coach Gibbs had a very similar backfield in the 80's with Riggo and Joe Washington. Joe Washington's lighting to Riggo's thunder, they have been described as. Unstoppable tandum back then.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

No kidding.

And another thing, why do so many people seem to act like Betts was some sort of walk-on free agent who stumbled onto the field from The Home Depot. Betts was drafted just a few choices after Portis. Based on that (and I understand it's somewhat rudimentary thinking) they shouldn't be too far apart in talent and ability

Thank you.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

But if your talking pure talent, Portis is the better back.

I think that this is the only thing that really matters...as long as you are including the mental part of the game in that talent assessment.

It's close though. It's not like Portis is a far better player than Betts. He's a bit better, and hes being paid a lot more. Thus he should see more carries.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think that this is the only thing that really matters...as long as you are including the mental part of the game in that talent assessment.

It's close though. It's not like Portis is a far better player than Betts. He's a bit better, and hes being paid a lot more. Thus he should see more carries.

He is alot better it is not even close in talent.

[KLHJ2]

You guys are right. Betts is a good back. ONLY, if he can stay out of the HOSPITAL!

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Betts will never be better than Portis.

[Pocket$ $traight]

I am going to say it point blank. Anyone who thinks that Betts is a better back than Clinton Portis is a dumbass. No other way to say it.

I don't give a shit what stats you throw out there. I base my conclusion on two things:

One - I watch the game. Anyone who watches the game and is sane will come to the conclusion that Portis is the better back.

Two - A hall of fame coach who has won three Super Bowls has chosen Portis over Betts. What else do you need?

I guess you know more about running the football than Joe Gibbs?