|
Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-24-2006, 11:50 PM | #1 |
Impact Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Altavista Virginia
Age: 35
Posts: 712
|
Clinton Portis over Ladell Betts is a no brainer
I agree Betts is doing a very good job handling the job and running well but fumbling like that is pretty ridiculous and I'm sorry to say but its not really all Betts it is the O-Line that is creating monster holes for him to run his down hill running game for 100 yards a game. I am a Portis supporter i love his game and how he blocks and doesn't fumble. And his moves, some of Betts runs for 10 yards would be T.Ds with Portis. Thats my opinion and some will probably think differently. Yea Portis did not play well this season when he did but I mean he was hurt who would. I really hate the talk of starting Betts over Portis, or getting rid of Portis. I would just throw up if they even thought about getting rid of Portis.
__________________
#21 Never Forget HOKIES! |
Advertisements |
12-25-2006, 12:00 AM | #2 |
Camp Scrub
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Arrington, Va.
Posts: 99
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
I love what Betts is doing, and there may be case to be made that his style is more north-south and fits the current playbook/blocking scheme better. However, there's simply not enough evidence that he's a 325-plus carries-epr-year back.
To this day I still can't quite shake the feeling that Portis is a round peg in a square hole in this system, but in terms of raw talent there's also no question in my mind that Portis is the superior back. Betts is nice to have but no way should be starting over Portis despite his excellent play as of late. |
12-25-2006, 12:09 AM | #3 |
MVP
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 63
Posts: 10,672
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
betts is a quality back up that has some fumbling issues
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan |
12-25-2006, 12:26 AM | #4 |
The Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The ATX (formerly Balmer)
Posts: 1,125
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
Man, you guys kill me. I was watching the game and this is horrible, but when that happened, all I could think was "well, guaranteed the Warpath guys will be screaming about how Betts sucks and should be traded / cut now".
Betts has fumbled two times more than CP did last year (5), and has lost exactly as many as CP did (2). BFD. The replay was fairly clear, and I don't know how you defend against that, a guy had one half of his body wrapped and punched the ball out with the other hand, away from anyone on our team who could have fallen on it. It happens. SJax coughed up on a far less defensible carry and I doubt guys in St. Louis were calling for his head. The fact is, had the defense been able to stop them ONCE out of like 5 or 6 crucial spots, that fumble would have been irrelevant and we would have won. Ladell played great and is not the scapegoat here. For once it wasn't the kicker, either. This one is on Grilliamss and his guys. |
12-25-2006, 12:38 AM | #5 | |
Impact Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: University of South Carolina
Age: 36
Posts: 577
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
Quote:
The fumble blew the game for us there is no question of that. The defense's stop in over tiome was a pretty big stop if you ask me.
__________________
University Of South Carolina '11 Go Cocks and Go Skins #21#RIP Sean Taylor a TRUE Redskin#21# <--Hey wheres my green approval rating? |
|
12-25-2006, 12:50 AM | #6 | |
The Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The ATX (formerly Balmer)
Posts: 1,125
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
Quote:
The big "stop" we had in OT was preceded by a freaking 30 yard pass play, BTW. So, what, preventing a single first down in like a quarter or two is acceptable to you? We allowed 25 fricking first downs, 7 more than our average. That's one less than HOUSTON allows, and only a few less than Chokeland and Arizona. Sorry, there is no way you can claim the defense didn't roll over in this one. |
|
12-25-2006, 12:58 AM | #7 | |
Impact Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: University of South Carolina
Age: 36
Posts: 577
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
Quote:
But becuase you are so quick to flame i expect a full flame on this post too about how the defense blew it for us in the long run well that fumble was a pivital play in the game for us not an ongoing problem like the defense. Dont Bother responding to my post Marry Christmas
__________________
University Of South Carolina '11 Go Cocks and Go Skins #21#RIP Sean Taylor a TRUE Redskin#21# <--Hey wheres my green approval rating? |
|
12-25-2006, 01:15 AM | #8 |
MVP
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 45
Posts: 10,069
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
Man, Skins fans turn on you on a dime. I don't get this whole Betts vs Portis issue. We have two capable backs and the one that gives us the best chance to win will be on the field. Portis is a proven commodity but great players emerge when players ahead of them gets injured. Betts has stepped it up big time and if he gets the nod over Portis I'll be comfortable with that but he will have to live up to what we have come to expect from Portis. Either way just f'ing win baby.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder." -Jenkins |
12-25-2006, 01:19 AM | #9 | |
The Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The ATX (formerly Balmer)
Posts: 1,125
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
Quote:
Call it flaming all you want, but the fact remains we had 28 seperate downs to get a turnover and prevent 17 unanswered St. Louis points, and gave up 12 first downs in that span, that, had we made a stand at any point, would have prevented a St. Louis score. Do you realize we allowed the Rams to score more points today than any other game they played this season except the LIONS? And these guys play Arizona and San Fran twice a year. If pointing this stuff out means I'm "quick to flame" then call my lawyer, because I'm guilty as charged, guv'na... |
|
12-25-2006, 01:21 AM | #10 |
The Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The ATX (formerly Balmer)
Posts: 1,125
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
No kidding Saden. I wasn't even trying to say Betts is better than Portis, just that it isn't Betts' fault, and that coughing up one ball after basically being the entire offense for most of the game does not mean you deserve to be skewered and broiled alive.
Have you guys gotten so used to the defense just not playing football, that you don't even bother holding them responsible anymore? I don't get it at all. |
12-25-2006, 01:58 AM | #11 |
Playmaker
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,836
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
I'm just glad that Portis over Betts isn't a choice that we are required to make.
|
12-25-2006, 02:34 AM | #12 |
Special Teams
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Age: 48
Posts: 226
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
Who cares about the fumble or anything else. I do not think there is a discussion at all when it comes to who our back is. Portis has shown (He does hold our team record for yards) that he can be a back in any system. He was injured this year and will come back next year healthy as ever. I am okay with Betts as a back up, but in no way shape or form would I ever consider getting rid of Portis for Betts. Portis is 25 and just getting into his prime. Betts is 27 and a career back up. Anyone who thinks we should get rid of Portis and rely soley on Betts is just crazy. They probably also think Brunell should be our starter again next year as well.
I am saying all this after Betts hass had 4-5 good games, but have felt this way since he has been on our team. I love what Clinton brings to this team in terms of leadership, heart, work ethic and skill. Portis is the man, and Betts is here to give him a break from time to time. End of discussion.
__________________
HTTR from North of the 49th!!!!! Two things I love.... Canada and the Redskins!!!! |
12-25-2006, 03:04 AM | #13 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Age: 48
Posts: 4,261
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
Quote:
2005 - Betts 3 fumbles 3 lost 89 carries 2005 - Portis 3 fumbles 2 lost 352 carries 2006 - Betts 5 fumbles 2 lost 225 carries 2006 - Portis 0 fumbles 0 lost 127 carries How the hell do you blame Gregg Williams for losing the game when all Betts had to do was hold onto the ball? By the way, who caused the fumble to set up the tying field goal? The D that you have maligned. Don't come in here throwing a couple of ill researched stats around here and expect excuses to prove your point. Bottom line. He holds onto that ball, we win. I am tired of excuses whether it is from fans or players. At least we get a good draft pick next year.... Damn it!!!!! |
|
12-25-2006, 03:40 AM | #14 | |
The Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The ATX (formerly Balmer)
Posts: 1,125
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
Quote:
Let's see... How do I blame Gregg Williams? * 579 yards of offense allowed (Rams season high) * 37 points allowed (2nd highest total Rams season, Detroit allowed 41) * 25 first downs allowed * 17 unanswered points allowed after holding a 14 point lead * Allowed not only a 350 yard passer, but also an 150 yard rusher! Wow! Great defense! * 1 OT period forced on the grace of an unlikely career long 52 yarder made by Suisham and an equally unlikely missed 41yarder by Jeff Wilkins. Really, if you want to try and cast aspersions on my research, you ought to try bolstering your own arguments first. Of course the game would have been over had Betts held onto the ball. That's rather obvious. My point is that had the defense actually played like a pro football team rather than the Pop Warner crew we had out there today, Ladell's fumble would not have even occurred and if it did, it would not have cost us the game. I love when a team plays poorly on one or both sides of the ball for an entire game and one guy takes the blame for making a mistake. How many blown plays did the secondary make today that lead DIRECTLY to points on the board for St. Louis? How many points did St. Louis score off Ladell's fumble, BTW? Oh that's right, zero. Because our defense stopped them, right? Oh no, that's right, because a guy kicking 88% on the year missed a 40 yarder. So, sure, Betts' fumble caused us to not ice the game. But it didn't put points on the board for St. Louis, and not because "that defense I've maligned" stopped them. How close of a game would it have been without 129 yards and 2TD's from Betts today? |
|
12-25-2006, 03:49 AM | #15 |
The Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The ATX (formerly Balmer)
Posts: 1,125
|
Re: Portis over Betts no brainer
And before you accuse me of not addressing your comparisons of Ladell to Clinton, all you've shown me is that Clinton is particularly good at not fumbling, not that Ladell is horrible. Read the other thread where I posted a long ass list of other pretty good NFL RB's who have coughed up the ball as much or more than Betts this season on similar amounts of carries.
You need to actually look at average carry/fumble numbers for the NFL if you think 2 fumbles lost is some amazingly bad stat line for a guy in the 230 carry tier. |
|
|