If Chargers can get a 1st & 3rd for Turner, don't we have to shop Betts?

Portis has topped 1500 yards 3 times in his career, Jackson just did it for the first time last year. I think Jackson has a little catching up to do. Just for kicks let's see who Scouts Inc. thinks is the better player:

Steven Jackson
2006 Scouting Report - Scouts Inc. Grade: 76 | Key (http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/features/scouting#key)
Alert: None

Comment:
Jackson has a very good combination of size, strength and foot quickness. He is a workhorse back who can wear down a defense over four quarters. He needs touches to get into the flow. He is powerful and elusive for his size. He can lower his pads and run defenders over or jump-cut and make someone miss. He runs with excellent balance and body control, rarely going down on first contact. He flashes a good stiff-arm and regularly falls forward after contact. He has excellent vision and flashes the speed to get the corner. He can drag defensive backs for extra yards when he gets outside. He has very good hands and is an above-average route runner. He is a load to bring down after the catch. But Jackson isn't very sudden or quick. He isn't very shifty and lacks a second gear to run away from a defense in the open field. He isn't quite quick enough to consistently separate in his routes. He could show more patience as a runner. He sometimes runs up the back of his linemen. He had some ball-security issues in 2005. He gets dinged up and misses time.

Clinton Portis
2006 Scouting Report - Scouts Inc. Grade: 89 | Key (http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/features/scouting#key)
Alert: None

Comment:
Portis has excellent foot quickness, change-of-direction skills and elusiveness. He shows excellent initial quickness in getting to and through the hole. He consistently makes a defender miss with his lateral quickness and jump-cut once he hits the hole. He is a very good zone runner. He has excellent vision, patience and great anticipation for where the hole will develop. He shows excellent start-stop quickness. He stays in balance when he cuts, has some wiggle and will bounce off tacklers. He flashes the ability to push the pile and make yards after contact. He has good receiving skills: decent hands and dangerous after-the-catch ability on screens and check-downs. He knows his blocking responsibilities and is at his best chipping and releasing into an underneath route. But Portis is undersized and tends to get a little nicked up. He doesn't have outstanding power or elite speed, though he sometimes can find an extra gear. He doesn't run a lot of routes or adjust especially well to bad passes. He is just an average blocker. He won't consistently pick up a blitzing linebacker.

I do, becuase if it were my call Stephen Jackson would be a Skin, and SJ is a much better back then Portis.

Funny all I here is how great Portis was last season, who was better him or Betts? You know Betts the RB I have been saying is better suited for Gibbs style of offense for 3 years now, almost everyone on this site was calling him a waste and a lowsy RB before Portis went down, and now he's so valuable he's untradable.

One more for the mystical eye, Adrian Peterson will be a better back than Portis!


You also said Kevin Jones and Julius Jones would be better than CP, yet at the same time you said CP could be just what the Gibbs' offense needs-his best running back ever.

Betts is a fine RB, but he has to take care of his fumbling problem. And he needs to show that he can stay healthy...not only in a contract year for him.

I should just give up any hope that you'll ever learn how to spell "lousy" correctly shouldn't I?

You also said Kevin Jones and Julius Jones would be better than CP, yet at the same time you said CP could be just what the Gibbs' offense needs-his best running back ever.

Betts is a fine RB, but he has to take care of his fumbling problem. And he needs to show that he can stay healthy...not only in a contract year for him.

I should just give up any hope that you'll ever learn how to spell "lousy" correctly shouldn't I?

Yes you should.:)

And please try to stop harping on one post after I screamed and yelled about how bad that deal for Portis was before we made it, you know just like I did with Brunell. Trying to find a silver lining in a black cloud to try and not believe that Gibbs is off his rocker is allowed once in a while. You might remember that I said Gibbs would have to change the style of his running game to do it in one of those posts as well, funny after a year and half why was Gibbs changing the line blocking for Portis if it is to be believed he was so great? Why has Portis constantly complained about how he is and has been used?

I still like Julies Jones he runs behind a worse line than Portis and still gets his yards, they infact remind me of each other, Portis a little faster, Jones runs a little harder.

As for Kevin Jones I really think he needs to get with a real team, I will judge no player with his kind of potential until he leaves detroit, kind of how tampa bay was for years back in the day.

The fact is I would take either one of those backs over Portis if I am allowed to take back the Bailey trade and trade Bailey off for what I believe we could have recieved was a couple of #1 picks, or at the very least a 1,2,and a 3, that trade would have given us 3 extra picks plus our #2 back, as well we wouldn't have 52 mil invested in one player who is now splitting time with his backup. And yes under those circumstances Stephen Jackson would be a Skin. Along with a lot of other talent to say the least!

As I have stated other times I wanted us to draft Portis with the 2nd round pick when he came out, I thought he would be a great change of pace back who could get you 15 quality carries per game, but he was over blown in that denver style of zone blocking which is perfect for him, he can't handle the work load of an everydown back in a coventional running attack he gets to beat up. Giving up all we gave up and could of had for Portis will never make sense, my biggest problem with Portis has alway's been what he cost us, I would be signing his praises as a player if he were our second rd choice and his contract was reasonable for his abilities, but thats obviously not the case.

Anyway have a blessed Easter SS, and you to matty!

this is where the comparisons stop...CLINTON PORTIS IS WAY BETTER THAN BETTS.....BETTS IS NOT MORE OF A JOE GIBBS BACK THAN PORTIS....GIVE CLINTON PORTIS THOSE HOLES BETTS GOT AND HE RUNS FOR 2000 YARDS..BY THE WAY DO YOU THINK THAT IN THE RAMS GAME, CLINTON GETS RUN DOWN AND STRIPPED???? NOPE HE DOESNT!.....with all that said i love betts because of his skills as a reciever and runner. but hes not clinton portis. if we could ever get an extra first round pick for betts i think its a must do....the reasoning is that running backs like betts are a dime a dozen man, they can be had in almost any round of the draft....guys like clinton are not, he is one of the fastest running backs in the nfl and his production matches or is better than most hall of famers through his first 5 years...you dont compare a guy like betts to portis, it just doesnt make sense.

I do, becuase if it were my call Stephen Jackson would be a Skin, and SJ is a much better back then Portis.

Funny all I here is how great Portis was last season, who was better him or Betts? You know Betts the RB I have been saying is better suited for Gibbs style of offense for 3 years now, almost everyone on this site was calling him a waste and a lowsy RB before Portis went down, and now he's so valuable he's untradable.

One more for the mystical eye, Adrian Peterson will be a better back than Portis!Both Stephen Jackson and Adrian Peterson were higher rated than Portis was coming out of college. So if you think it takes some mystical eye to agree with the majority opinion, I really don't know what to tell you.

Portis and Betts are close in talent. Not so close that we can't see that Portis is better, but close.

I personally don't think Adrian Peterson will be as good at Portis. Adrian Peterson has a very undisciplined running style. At his prime, he probably won't be as good as Portis is now. I think it's going to take a few years for the team that drafts Peterson to see any return on him. He's overrated.

Jackson is probably a better back than Portis, but you're splitting hairs. It's really close and even though Denver was the one who received all the value, Portis was a much smarter pick than Jackson. Had we traded Champ and a 2nd rounder to move up and take Jackson, I really don't think our team would be too much different right now at all.

I still like Julies Jones he runs behind a worse line than Portis and still gets his yards, they infact remind me of each other, Portis a little faster, Jones runs a little harder.

As for Kevin Jones I really think he needs to get with a real team, I will judge no player with his kind of potential until he leaves detroit, kind of how tampa bay was for years back in the day.

The fact is I would take either one of those backs over Portis if I am allowed to take back the Bailey trade and trade Bailey off for what I believe we could have recieved was a couple of #1 picks, or at the very least a 1,2,and a 3, that trade would have given us 3 extra picks plus our #2 back, as well we wouldn't have 52 mil invested in one player who is now splitting time with his backup. And yes under those circumstances Stephen Jackson would be a Skin. Along with a lot of other talent to say the least!
However if we had Jones and Jones running the ball, we would be much worse off.

Both Stephen Jackson and Adrian Peterson were higher rated than Portis was coming out of college. So if you think it takes some mystical eye to agree with the majority opinion, I really don't know what to tell you.

Portis and Betts are close in talent. Not so close that we can't see that Portis is better, but close.

I personally don't think Adrian Peterson will be as good at Portis. Adrian Peterson has a very undisciplined running style. At his prime, he probably won't be as good as Portis is now. I think it's going to take a few years for the team that drafts Peterson to see any return on him. He's overrated.

Jackson is probably a better back than Portis, but you're splitting hairs. It's really close and even though Denver was the one who received all the value, Portis was a much smarter pick than Jackson. Had we traded Champ and a 2nd rounder to move up and take Jackson, I really don't think our team would be too much different right now at all.



QUOTE=GTripp0012;295389]Both Stephen Jackson and Adrian Peterson were higher rated than Portis was coming out of college. So if you think it takes some mystical eye to agree with the majority opinion, I really don't know what to tell you.


I do know what to tell you though, if that is the case why not pick the higher rated back late in the first round in Jackson with one of the picks we would have recieved for Bailey? It would make sense to take the higher rated back wouldn't it? If he's higher rated in college it would make sense that he would be a better back in the pro's which it has. Further more he was more of the type of back to handle what Gibbs wanted to do in the running game and that's pound the ball. But apperantly Gibbs doesn't have the mystical eye because he didn't agree with majority opinion, like most of his personel moves. Kind of like when the majority said Brunell is washed up, or Campbell is a mid second round pick.

However if we had Jones and Jones running the ball, we would be much worse off.

Worse than 5-11? Then if we had Jones and Jones Calvin Johnson would be a Skin. To bad.

I guess I don't know what we would do without Portis? Perhaps finish 4-12, or make the playoffs like J Jones did? What a coin flip.

I do know what to tell you though, if that is the case why not pick the higher rated back late in the first round in Jackson with one of the picks we would have recieved for Bailey? It would make sense to take the higher rated back wouldn't it? If he's higher rated in college it would make sense that he would be a better back in the pro's which it has. Further more he was more of the type of back to handle what Gibbs wanted to do in the running game and that's pound the ball. But apperantly Gibbs doesn't have the mystical eye because he didn't agree with majority opinion, like most of his personel moves. Kind of like when the majority said Brunell is washed up, or Campbell is a mid second round pick.Well, we very well could have traded up back into the first round to get Jackson. Would we be much different as a team now? Not really. Would we be better off in the distant future? Perhaps. Portis had more mileage on him than Jackson in 2004, but then again a lot can happen between now and the end of their respective careers. I wouldn't worry too much about a hypothetical situation of two years ago, especially one that would have changed our current situation as little as that one did.

One thing that had to factor into such a decision had it even been considered is the very real possibility that Stephen Jackson doesn't live up to his first round draft status. Anybody who compared Portis' production to Olandis Gary's or Quentin Griffin's could have seen that he was much more than a "system back" (a term with no real meaning). So he was not really a question mark at all, whereas Jackson was potentially following in the footsteps as guys like Trung Candidate and Curtis Enis.

We know now that the scouting projection to the NFL for Stephen Jackson was spot on. We didn't know that at the time. Considering the similarity in the production of the two backs over the last 3 years, I'd say we made the right decision at the time, and if we had honestly (hypothetically) considered both those options, we really didn't have a wrong move.

My previous post was not really enforcing the notion that it's always (or ever) smarter to pick the player who the scouting agencies love, just pointing out that its not really an outlandish statement to say the higher rated prospect will have a better career. As people around here have certainly realized by now, no one on this fourm thinks less of conventional football logic and player evaluation than me. I don't think of the Portis trade as an especially good nor bad move. I don't necessarily think that a trade up in the 2004 draft for Stephen Jackson would have been better, nor worse. I think it (should, at least) be obvious now that both backs would be playing the exact same role in the offense equally well.

Conventional logic also says that when a guy like Brunell gets to the age of 35, he's just too old to play, but thats simply just not reality. Campbell was a clearly undervalued prospect in NFL circles, and we took advantage of that. Conventional logic will be wrong more often then not, so I see no reason to trust anything it says. I can draw my own conclusions with varying degrees of effort.