The Portis move in hindsight

There were a lot of more personal issues behind Champ's leaving that had little, if nothing, to do with how the organization was run. I know because I was dealing with the Redskins on a near daily basis back in those days.

like what? tell me tell me tell me.

Watch the Redskins with Clinton Portis on the feild....watch the Redskins without Clinton Portis....they are two completley different teams, period.

The sad part is, this argument really should have nothing to do with Ladell Betts, because it dosent. Ladell Betts is a very nice running back.

However, Clinton Portis is a game changing, franchise changing running back. Since he's been here, here are my list of games we would have not won if we didnt have Clinton Portis in our backfeild....

2004....(6-10)
We dont win...vs Tampa Bay 148 yds TD, @ Chicago 176 yards, @ Detroit 147 yds, TD Pass. without Portis.

In 2005 (10-6)
We were a much better team overall, but
H vs Chicago 141 yds (That 41 blast from our own 4 basically won the game).
What should have been @ Tampa Bay but we lost that one, @ Arizona, vs NYG, @ Philadlephia

This year, I dont think we win the Jaguars, or Dallas II this year without Portis.

He's just a differnet type of back. Ladell Betts is not as good as Clinton Portis, there is no other way to explain it.

I hate that everytime Betts has a good game, we want to trade Clinton Porits. Its freaking ludacris. I have news for everyone....I could have ran through those holes last week in Atlanta...in fact, I almost question Betts on a couple of those runs for NOT gaining more yards.

Heres the other big thing....has anyone seen Betts block? Watch him and watch Portis...its night and day. Clinton Portis is a complete package.

Again, I hate that I have to "Blast" Betts so to speak for this, because I absolutley love Ladell Betts and I couldnt be more excited that he is coming back to Washington. But this get rid of Portis, should we have gotten Portis stuff is just crazy to me. Even if we didnt get Portis in 04' we would have gotten someone else, or would still be looking for someone else.

Denver is desparate for a quaility back right now like portis. If they had portis I think they would have at least 1 or 2 more wins. I really would like to hold on to both portis and betts considering how much of a "running team" the redskins are supposed to be. Running the ball 30+ times a game is gonna require more than one QUALITY back.I think you've hit on something really big here. The "success" of the Denver running scheme may be the biggest crock in professional sports. Basically, the theroy is that you can put anyone in there and get production from him.

But how is this production being measured? If the metric is 1000 yard seasons, that's 62.5 yards per game, not anything special. Originally, the system started getting recognition when Terrell Davis, Olandis Gary, and Mike Anderson posted 1000 yard seasons in 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively. Then in 2001, they didn't even get a 1000 yard back. Terrell Davis is a HOF talent, Olandis Gary was never ever good (including his 1999 season--Denver went from the league's top rushing attack in 98 to below average YPC in 99), and Mike Anderson was and is a good player.

The talk of the almighty system died down after that 2001 flop, only to reemerge when Clinton Portis went for 1500+ in two consecutive seasons. Since the Portis trade, the Denver rushing attack has been rather mediocre, exception to last year when Mike Anderson was back at tailback, and all of a sudden, it was really good again.

Olandis Gary, Reuben Droughns, Tatum Bell, Ron Dayne, Mike Bell. If anyone tries to tell you that the Denver running scheme is great because it made players out of these guys, turn around and punch them in the nose. Denver found sucess with good players like Terrell Davis, Mike Anderson, and Clinton Portis, and the numbers show a significant drop in production in the last 10 years when one of these guys isn't running the football.

Is Shanahan a good talent evalutator of RBs? Yeah, I'd say he's done a great job at finding guys who can play. But this great "running scheme" was and is nothing more than an above average offensive line who has been together for years playing with very good running backs. Now as the line starts to age and they start to replace their players on it, it's going to become increasingly obvious that neither Bell is any Clinton Portis.

In the near future, Portis and Betts will be churning out yards for us, and the Broncos running game will be getting stuffed by the defenses that they play 2 times a year in the AFC West, Oakland, KC, and San Diego.

Then it will be obvious that the loss of Portis hurt the Broncos.

Did The Ego really start this thread???? Well since it's out there...

I have no problem with the Bailey-Portis trade. We got a great RB and team leader. Did we need to throw in the 2nd rounder? That's a fair debate.

But I disagree with the "2 starters for 1" logic. Bailey wanted a lot of money and he got it in Denver. Bailey makes more than Portis plus they have to pay that 2nd rounder. So they got 2 starters, but we got 1 starter and cap space. And that cap space enabled us to get another starter.

And I don't think we'd do anything differently today. I think we need both these guys. Signing Betts will give us depth and take some of the load off Portis. We're no good with Portis out with injury every 2nd game. This should help.

I hate that everytime Betts has a good game, we want to trade Clinton Porits. Its freaking ludacris. I have news for everyone....I could have ran through those holes last week in Atlanta...in fact, I almost question Betts on a couple of those runs for NOT gaining more yards.


I don't know who specifically this was aimed at, but let me say for the 9th time that I'm a huge CP fan, in no way think that Betts is a better back than CP, or that we'd be better off with Betts than CP. There's no doubt Clinton's presence makes a huge difference -- some in measurable ways, others intangible.

I don't, however, think that this team is doomed without CP, and there's a difference. Betts is better than "just average", I think, but he's never been healthy and the undisputed starter on a decent enough Redskins squad to show it.

We should be thrilled to have a guy like Ladell as a #2 -- much like when the Ravens had Chester Taylor to back up Jamal. What's wrong with that?

I don't know who specifically this was aimed at, but let me say for the 9th time that I'm a huge CP fan, in no way think that Betts is a better back than CP, or that we'd be better off with Betts than CP. There's no doubt Clinton's presence makes a huge difference -- some in measurable ways, others intangible.

I don't, however, think that this team is doomed without CP, and there's a difference. Betts is better than "just average", I think, but he's never been healthy and the undisputed starter on a decent enough Redskins squad to show it.

We should be thrilled to have a guy like Ladell as a #2 -- much like when the Ravens had Chester Taylor to back up Jamal. What's wrong with that?


Its not aimed at anyone in-perticular. It just seems to happen alot, on a lot of skins' forums. I remember after Betts had a big day against the Vikings in 2004, there was alot of "Trade Portis" type threads. It isnt aimed towards anyone....except maybe Matty, and thats just because ;)

The fact that he's open to staying and negotiations have already started are good signs.

That happened with Ryan Clark last year as well.

The reason Bailey didnt want to be a redskins was because the skins never ever pay their own players. (BETTS) about time. Should have kept Bailey and our second rounder to boot. We could have drafted Portis the same year we picked Betts but pased him over. So to make up for it we give up the best CB and a second rounder great move as usual. Throwing away picks like they dont matter.That why we stink now.

Just to be clear I'm not trying to suggest I think we would be better off without Portis, that wasn't my point of this thread at all, though it seems to have gone that route.

I was simply wondering what Gibbs would have done if he had known what he had in Betts prior to making the move. Would he had still made the move?

Did The Ego really start this thread???? Well since it's out there...

I have no problem with the Bailey-Portis trade. We got a great RB and team leader. Did we need to throw in the 2nd rounder? That's a fair debate.

But I disagree with the "2 starters for 1" logic. Bailey wanted a lot of money and he got it in Denver. Bailey makes more than Portis plus they have to pay that 2nd rounder. So they got 2 starters, but we got 1 starter and cap space. And that cap space enabled us to get another starter.

And I don't think we'd do anything differently today. I think we need both these guys. Signing Betts will give us depth and take some of the load off Portis. We're no good with Portis out with injury every 2nd game. This should help.


Not to blow smoke up your ass, but I'v never heard the Portis v. Bailey deal put quite this way. Most people tend to focus on the two players for one part of it...but you really put the cost on Denver's end into perspective. Very good post, man.

Thanks.