Portis v. Betts: The Grass is Always Greener

I have read an awful lot of posts recently calling for the coaches to re-evaluate Portis, play Betts more, or even start Betts in place of Portis. Although I agree that Betts needs to get more carries, I cannot understand why anyone would want to start Betts in lieu of Portis.

Argument #1: Betts Hits the Holes with More Power
I don't really agree that Betts hits the holes with more power. Portis is about as physical a back as you can ask for. Moreover, even if Betts is more physical than Portis, who cares? Right now Portis is averaging a full yard more per carry than Betts (3.9 ypc to 2.9 ypc).

Argument #2: Portis is Injury Prone
Portis has been hit by the injury bug over the past 12 months, but people who think Betts never hits the training room, think again. Betts and Portis have missed a combined total of 28 games over the course of their careers. Guess who has been more injury prone? Betts. Betts has missed 16 games over the course of his career due to injury, whereas Portis has missed 12 games.

Argument #3: Portis Has Not Been Productive in Washington
I cannot believe that I actually need to refute the claim that Portis has not been productive in Washington. Over his first two years in Washington,
Portis rushed for 2,831 yards and caught passes for 451 yards. Portis also caught or ran for 18 touchdowns. Finally, Portis has been incredibly good in pass protection. Now, Portis did have a "down year" in 2006, but what Redskin didn't.

So, are the Portis haters bitching fo bitching's sake, or is it just that the grass is always greener on the other side?

I'm not sure it even matters at this point who is in there. There simply aren't many holes to hit.

I'm not sure it even matters at this point who is in there. There simply aren't many holes to hit.

I definitely agree that the O-line isn't opening many holes. But, I still think Portis is the better back and can't understand the Portis-hating posters.

During his "down year" he was on pace for 1,000 yards (granted, just barely) and he did have 7 TDs in 8 games which would have put him on pace for just one fewer than his career high for a season

The grass is always greener on the other side

I definitely agree that the O-line isn't opening many holes. But, I still think Portis is the better back and can't understand the Portis-hating posters.

People like to hate. It makes them feel good

For the record I'd stick with Portis.

When the OL is opening holes for the backs, then both are effective. However, Portis is a much better blocker than Betts, and I believe that is where he gets the edge.

Portis is better. He's FAR superior in pass protection.

I also like him a bit better as a runner. He can make people miss to pick up an extra yard or two when there's absolutely nothing there. Portis doesn't take hard shots, he twists and turns and always manages to fall forward. Meanwhile, all Betts really does is hit the hole with extreme authority and slash forward with power; the only time he falls forward is if he gets up a head of steam and gets through the first level of defenders. That's great when you have a good offensive line opening holes, but right now, we need Portis in there. Betts can't create, he just runs into the defensive wall and bounces back or gets knocked down.

I think they're equal receivers.

They're both fantastic when we have Randy Thomas healthy. He's the true star on our offense, and he has never gotten the credit. He's a friggin bulldozer, and we miss him terribly.

Ladanian Tomlinson would have difficulty running here with our current run blocking. That said, Portis is averaging around 4 YPC while Betts might be around 3. Add in Portis's nose for the endzone, and it's no argument this season - Portis should be the starter.

I think Portis is better as well--but I think he's done. He doesn't want to be here and he thinks he is gone after this year. With that in mind, I would rather give the ball to Betts...