Will Portis be ready to go?

You guys worry more than women... Portis will be FINE! I bet he'll have his best year next year.

CP's health is a concern, IMO, but not because of the surgery -- because he's a small guy who gets far too many touches and takes way too many shots in a power offense he's really not suited for.

Why do these ridiculous comments still come out of peoples mouths? Obviously Gibbs thought Portis was suited for his power offense, considering what he gave up to get him. And he's a much better player that even I assumed if he's able to break the Redskins all time rushing record, running in a system that's not tailored for him.

Portis will be back healthy and productive next year. And people might want to slow down with the Betts lovefest, because there's a good chance he won't be here.

There's plenty of time. Maybe its a blessing, he'll come back hungry & having to earn playing time along w/Betts (I hope!).
I can already feel a good vibe for 07!!!

There is zero chance that Portis will have to "earn" playing time next season, even if Betts is still on the roster.

A shoulder surgery and a knee repair are not even in the zip code. CP's health is a concern, IMO, but not because of the surgery -- because he's a small guy who gets far too many touches and takes way too many shots in a power offense he's really not suited for.

I think we've got another year or two tops of prime Portis and then he starts to decline, although having Ladell find his game and become the knockout punch could lengthen Clinton's golden years.

I think thats why resigning Betts is so important. We need to develop an actual 1-2 punch, with both guys seeing very similar numbers in carries. Portis is the better back, but we can't wear him out. I think if we run the ball about 35 times a game, I'm fine with Betts seeing 13-15 of those touches.

Why do these ridiculous comments still come out of peoples mouths? Obviously Gibbs thought Portis was suited for his power offense, considering what he gave up to get him. And he's a much better player that even I assumed if he's able to break the Redskins all time rushing record, running in a system that's not tailored for him.

Portis will be back healthy and productive next year. And people might want to slow down with the Betts lovefest, because there's a good chance he won't be here.

What's ridiculous about the very provable fact that RB's who take too many carries wear down quicker? Is there really a counter-argument to the notion that smaller backs who take a lot of physical punishment are prone to injury and decline faster?

I *love* CP and don't regret the Champ deal one bit, but it's a pretty well established fact that as seasonal carries exceed 300, RB's start to really do lasting damage to their bodies. Add to that the pretty common-sense idea that taking lots of punishment is more likely to hurt a guy than running out of bounds (what, you thought Emmitt played for 75 years because he ate right in the offseason?), and it's a no-brainer.

Just look at 2005's top RB's by rushes:

1. S Alexander (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/AlexSh00.htm) 370
2. E James (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/JameEd00.htm) 360
3. T Barber (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BarbTi00.htm) 357
4. C Portis (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/PortCl00.htm) 352
5. L Tomlinson (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/TomlLa00.htm) 339

Who's still in great health and running at the top of their game? Just the guy at #5 who makes guys miss and avoids contact.

The NFL stats are littered with backs who were run too hard and simply broke down the next year or two as a result. The most prolific and steady runners are the ones whose rushes stayed around 300 rushes per season, OR in the case of inside, "pound-em" runners like Bettis, a lot fewer carries per season and an extended career. But I can't think of too many backs who survive very long taking 340 - 350 carries a year, year after year, especially in a power running offense.

By the way, the best example of what I'm talking about, is Eddie George. George had seven or eight (mostly) productive years, where he was ridden HARD (only twice in that span did he get LESS than 335 carries) and then just flat out fell apart.

And I dare say that the types of runs Clinton's expected to make in this offense is a lot closer to Eddie George than his Denver days, where he was averaging 1.2 - 1.7 more ypc than he's done here.